B
B

April 24th, 2013, 4:29 am #21

this won't become another cuckoo's nest thread. There is too much work to do.
If there is "too much [doctrinal] work to do," then why are you here in the non-doctrinal thread? Please confine your comments to DOCTRINAL threads. You moderators created this thread for issues other than doctrinal. Now either let this thread be for those other issues or close it.
Quote
Share

B
B

April 24th, 2013, 4:33 am #22

this won't become another cuckoo's nest thread. There is too much work to do.
Ken, I surely wouldn't mention anything about "cuckoo" if I were you.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 24th, 2013, 6:23 am #23

In order to be a responder/poster, you have to be a reader first.

Posters are always readers, but not all readers are posters.

There were no international posters at FaithSite that I know of.

There are no international posters at CM that I know of.

BUT, compared to CM now, there were far more posters as such at FaithSite back then.

I don't care where the posters come from. The fact remains that the number of posters at CM has been abysmal for quite some time.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Thanks for your words of wisdom and very revealing statistics.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 24th, 2013, 3:16 pm #24

This is a private pulpit with no collection plate. Posts are passages of Scripture, word definitions or the ancient texts which is the only way to define words. All forums have viewpoints and none would tolerate more than one personal attack.

I am here on this thread to tell crump and his multi-personalities that this thread will NOT be his so he can collect hits. You can go to network54.com and get your own forum.

If B did this in a congregation the Deacons would expel him or call the cops. It is not his concern how many readers or how many "dialog." Almost all of the old dialogers were HIT MEN like B. E-mail proves that many have chosen to be readers.

Donnie and I plant and water and leave the effect up to God.

So, please don't respond to this with "father, son and spirit" or "you are losers." It's simply not your concern. I have turned all four cheeks.
Quote
Like
Share

Fish
Fish

April 30th, 2013, 9:18 pm #25

DELETE......DELETE........DELETE.........DELETE!!!

The "Four Cheeks Turn" is a variation of the Harlem Shake...Hohenwald Style.

Delete*********Delete*************Delete**************Delete!!!
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 3rd, 2013, 2:55 am #26

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]In an effort to continue the discussion of serious doctrinal topics without interruption, this thread has been initiated. Feel free to express your views as to why you are in adamant opposition to this doctrinal discussion board and wish for its existence to cease. Your message may be a reflection of your own "attitude" problem and may not be aware of it. That's at your own risk.

Some of those "views" are being transferred here now from [an]other thread(s).[/color]
From: Current Topic - The Spirit of Christ the Lord Is the Holy Spirit

B (no login) 74.179.247.201
Re: The Spirit of Christ the Lord Is the Holy Spirit
May 2 2013, 9:52 PM


--------------------------------------

I submitted a similar message a day or so ago, but it was never published. I think Ken rejected it. Anyway, thanks for publishing this second version. We could have done without your added, irate editorial comments, though.

On this board, I've noticed that people are labeled as "antichrist" with "attitude problems" if they disagree with Donnie and Ken. Of course, since it's their blog, they evidently feel compelled to belittle and rant at all dissenters, but it only suggests that THEY are the ones with attitude problems.

Approve Message Edit Message Delete Message
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

May 3rd, 2013, 3:13 am #27

Since Donnie chose to label the above post as "On this board...it's their blog," then he as much as acknowledges that he and Ken run THEIR blog by belittling and ranting at dissenters who disagree with them. Just so readers understand how this blog really operates. No wonder that despite a large readership, so few people post anything.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 3rd, 2013, 3:42 am #28

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Bill,

That was the focus of your message: "On this board ... it's their blog...." And you're even continuing it here.

"So few people post" -- the number of times you've said that, I've lost track. Are you that forgetful? Really? The subject of "the Holy Spirit" is a very difficult one. You wouldn't even give a straight answer to a straightforward question just so the discussion could continue. And expect a Muslim or an atheist to post.

OK, let's let "so few people post" be the last "words of wisdom" come from a smart fellow ... as we will not be wasting any more time composing and publishing such. Why not post a passage from the Scripture and enlighten the reader?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

May 3rd, 2013, 3:47 am #29

Donnie, if you and Ken have "so much work to do," as Ken stated elsewhere, then what are you doing fooling around in this non-doctrinal thread, responding to a post by someone you've branded as having a "bad attitude" (meaning someone who does not always agree with your point of view)? You're spinning your wheels here.


======================
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]
1. You said: "it's their blog." Just practicing how to respond.
2. Work has already been interrupted, so why not fool around?
3. There are many who disagree and do not have a bad attitude.
4. I spin my wheels when posts have no scriptural content.
5. This non-doctrinal thread was initiated by CM -- it is subject to deletion.
6. I expect you now to respond to your own post.[/color]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on May 3rd, 2013, 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

May 3rd, 2013, 2:10 pm #30

There are several good reasons to filter.

Profanity, slander (even if true, since managers of blogs don't have ways of testing that).

Disagreeable posts are in a gray area. Some considerations here might include "does it discourage others from posting", especially since some readers and posters run from trouble. Disagreement does not have to be "disagreeable" but can be an "agreeable disagreement". Extreme "disagreeable disagreement" can chase even the readers away.

Posts that are "off the subject" can conceivably be moved to another topic, but the reasons for doing so must be organizational and not purposive [such as manipulative].

Readers can also get bored if the discussions go on and on, and continue to repeat the same old themes. Better to state disagreements or agreements and then to move on.

I saw the other day an account holder who complained about the bank. After bouncing 10 checks, he complained about the order of bounding, in that the smaller checks should have been accepted first and the larger ones next, or at least in the date of check order [there is no assurance that they will come into the bank if date of check order]. So he was complaining about the bank getting as much money as they could from the bounces.

So is the life of the blog moderator.

Quote
Share