# wow, what a difference a few months make!



## dixiegal62

I've been away awhile but my how things have changed! I had to go back and re-read the rules to see if the changes where noted in there. I see personal attacks are allowed now or at least tolerated. Can anyone play or only a select few? :banana:

Before anyone says I'm complaining they haven't been directed at me. I'm just seeing a lot of attacking going on and I'm curious.


----------



## Tiempo

Moderation has been relaxed some, but personal attacks are still not allowed.


----------



## Tiempo

And welcome back


----------



## dixiegal62

Thank you it's good to be back


----------



## gibbsgirl

dixiegal62 said:


> I've been away awhile but my how things have changed! I had to go back and re-read the rules to see if the changes where noted in there. I see personal attacks are allowed now or at least tolerated. Can anyone play or only a select few? :banana:
> 
> Before anyone says I'm complaining they haven't been directed at me. I'm just seeing a lot of attacking going on and I'm curious.


Its not just you being a little confused. I left after Xmas and came back and saw what seemed like those kinds of changes too. I haven't been here for it all, and I don't read everything, so my barometer isn't comparing everything now or in the past. But, I see it too.

Personally, I don't really care what people want to say. But, I can understand the owners might want to maintain some type of house rules at least in areas where the public's c can access instead of just members as part of their mission to present a certain type of forum to improve their business success.

But, I see a lot of inconsistencies in what I think are the application form f the house rules. At least it may be inconsistent since its possible I just haven't found where the house rules were clearly laid out.

I think I actually got my first post deletion today. At least the first I know about. I guess my post was completely removed because I was quoting another person's post that was deleted. But, I don't know cause I see other posts that are just edited to remove quotes if other posts that are deleted.

So, yeah, I don't even know why the other person's post was deleted. I think they might have been trying to insult me, but it was harmless at best, and may not have really even been intended to resemble s mn an insult for all I know. I didn't care what they said one way or another, and was oerfectly fine with it staying, so I don't even know how it got picked it if someone reported it or what.

Hard to tell around here lately.

I had another thread that a moderator locked to be edited u guess? That was almost a month ago. They haven't reopened it or edited it or put it back up as locked for people to see. And, I've heard nothing further about it, so u don't know if anyone will get to see what they were going to change in it or not. Would be nice to see how it was moderated to see what they wanted to remove though. But, if they remove a bunch of stuff and then repost the thread after too long, it will be hard for anyone interested I think to remember what was said, so we could what exactly they're expecting people to stop saying.

Personally, I think it would be easier if they just noted posts they don't like to say what is a problem and let us see while leaving the post there. It would make. Sense at least to keep reading through the thread and then you'd also actually see what words were breakimg house rules.

It's not all bad here. No one would hang around I think if it was, lol.

But, I feel you on your thread topic for sure.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Well, most all can see that there is a group, seems to be able to mock Christians w/no repercussions, can whine & twist scripture that they don't believe in, can claim to quote others but use all different words, and there IS a common denominator amongst them. Most can figure it out.

Oh, and be sure to be careful about saying you'll pray for someone. That's now offensive.

Some whine 'personal attack' over 'bout anything & you can be sure they either just laid one or will in a few posts.

But let one of us get exasperated from explaining something "HUNDREDS" of times, beg off b/c we're 'bout out of crayons & puppets & well, ya know how that will go.


----------



## Jolly

Oh, we've got one person who wants you to do the work of the Yale Law Library whenever you try to talk about anything- a real "what is the meaning of is" person - that can turn almost any thread into a snarling mosh pit.

Thrown out before, they're back. Hopefully, they'll ameliorate such behavior after awhile and engage in fruitful discussion.


----------



## painterswife

The only real difference is that now both sides can whine right here on the forum and no one gets banned for it.


----------



## arabian knight

Tiempo said:


> Moderation has been relaxed some


 And I wish they would be tougher. These attacks on religion have gotten WAY way overboard imo. Thats it. All done.


----------



## arabian knight

Jolly said:


> Oh, we've got one person who wants you to do the work of the Yale Law Library whenever you try to talk about anything- a real "what is the meaning of is" person - that can turn almost any thread into a snarling mosh pit.


 And banning in some cases was needed and was praised by many. Now it all out war on certain things and it is getting mighty sicken this fight on religion and other things. As well As some think they are the all knowing all read up on everything and has the highest IQ on everything and every subject person around. And it stinks~!


----------



## dixiegal62

Emotions seem to run a lot higher but then they do in real life too. Things are tough and people are stressed and tired.


----------



## gibbsgirl

What's the point of locking threads? One of the abortion ones just got locked.

Does that actually stop a problem?


----------



## dixiegal62

Jolly said:


> Oh, we've got one person who wants you to do the work of the Yale Law Library whenever you try to talk about anything- a real "what is the meaning of is" person - that can turn almost any thread into a snarling mosh pit.
> 
> Thrown out before, they're back. Hopefully, they'll ameliorate such behavior after awhile and engage in fruitful discussion.


Ha ha I'll admit that certain people on here get on my last nerve but these are the same people I enjoy sparing with. One favorite technique seems to be to twist words and keep asking the same silly question. I think the hope is you'll trip up trying to make them understand what you meant.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I must be in the wrong threads......


----------



## Irish Pixie

Everyone gets an opinion now. Ain't it great? No more infractions or banning if the mod/admin doesn't agree with your politics or opinion. 

Fair and impartial moderation is the rule here now.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> What's the point of locking threads? One of the abortion ones just got locked.
> 
> Does that actually stop a problem?


You didn't notice that most of one member's posts on the last few pages were deleted because they were personal attacks? That could be a real indication of why a thread is locked.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Everyone gets an opinion now. Ain't it great? No more infractions or banning if the mod/admin doesn't agree with your politics or opinion.
> 
> Fair and impartial moderation is the rule here now.


Unfortunately, some take it as a license to be as rude and snarky as they want to be.
Nobody here would do that I'm sure, but it could happen


----------



## Bret

It continues to be my easel here for shallow class-interrupting childish smart mouthed thinking out loud expressions of nonsense. I cannot seem to change my spots.

I am promoting a homecoming where all previous posters will be welcomed back with open arms and a huge pan of peanut butter rice krispie squares. For that, I am willing to put down my fiddle...for a few minutes.


----------



## arabian knight

Cornhusker said:


> Unfortunately, some take it as a license to be as rude and snarky as they want to be.
> Nobody here would do that I'm sure, but it could happen


 And there is no reason what so ever that some thread should go on and on and on and on with just the same FEW going over the same thing on and on and on. Things HAVE to come to a stop a lot quicker if NOTHING is being accomplished but going back and forth back and forth back and forth. Some of these threads are starting to be on the edge of Ridiculous.


----------



## Evons hubby

I have noticed a lot more hateful posts being allowed, what I don't understand is why some folks want to push the limits no matter where they are set? why not just be polite? :shrug:


----------



## Sumatra

Even here, you'll see one side complaining about hateful posts, and the other side happy about how moderation has apparently gotten "fairer". It's pretty obvious what's what. Politeness seems to have decreased since the rules were started. After all, aren't rules made to be bent? Use the ignore feature and you should be fine.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't notice that most of one member's posts on the last few pages were deleted because they were personal attacks? That could be a real indication of why a thread is locked.


I didn't get to see what the deleted posts said before they were deleted, so I can't tell what was said that th mods felt was a personal attack.

If they'd leave the post, but note it as being considered a personal attack under house rules, that would give members a chance to actually see examples of what they see as personal attacking.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Everyone gets an opinion now. Ain't it great? No more infractions or banning if the mod/admin doesn't agree with your politics or opinion.
> 
> Fair and impartial moderation is the rule here now.


I've been here awhile, as far as i can tell everyone got an opinion before


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> I didn't get to see what the deleted posts said before they were deleted, so I can't tell what was said that th mods felt was a personal attack.
> 
> If they'd leave the post, but note it as being considered a personal attack under house rules, that would give members a chance to actually see examples of what they see as personal attacking.


This is true, Girl but prolly both of us & some others could figure it out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I've been here awhile, as far as i can tell everyone got an opinion before


I've been here since before it was HT and this is the first time that everyone can post their opinion without the threat of deletion or banning as long as they stay within the (now impartial) rules.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Impartial, unbiased, entirely objective human judgment is a myth and an oxymoron.


----------



## where I want to

It went through a period where some exceptionally rude people flourished without deletion, although I suspect behind the scenes exchanges, but others with opposing opinions were cut off at the knees. Now there has been a new accommodation where a few rejoice in their new freedom to snark from the cover of moderation while others have at least regained the ability retaliate. 
The result seems to be multiple arguments between opponents in each thread.
Good or bad depends on your personal take.


----------



## painterswife

It was asked if those that were rude and called names wanted to change that dynamic. They overwhelmingly responded that they liked calling names and being not nice. Should be no surprise that being rude and calling names is the norm now.


----------



## arabian knight

And THAT is why closed threads and not let them get 50 pages long and BANNING STILL should take place ~ The End


----------



## Fennick

painterswife said:


> It was asked if those that were rude and called names wanted to change that dynamic. They overwhelmingly responded that they liked calling names and being not nice. Should be no surprise that being rude and calling names is the norm now.


This is true. There was a topic and discussion about it that went on for 2 or 3 pages. The people who had always been favoured with the least amount of moderation with regard to their insults and rudeness all agreed that they wanted to retain the right to continue with their name calling and being rude. Citing "free speech" and all that kind of stuff. 

So they got to continue to be insulting and the people who used to be most heavily moderated and censored for retaliating to the name calling can now also freely respond tit-for-tat to the rude people without fear of punishment.

It's just not as one-sided any more the way it used to be.


----------



## painterswife

Fennick said:


> This is true. There was a topic and discussion about it that went on for 2 or 3 pages. The people who had always been favoured with the least amount of moderation with regard to their insults and rudeness all agreed that they wanted to retain the right to continue with their name calling and being rude. Citing "free speech" and all that kind of stuff.
> 
> So they got to continue to be insulting and the people who used to be most heavily moderated and censored for retaliating to the name calling can now also freely respond tit-for-tat to the rude people without fear of punishment.
> 
> It's just not as one-sided any more the way it used to be.


Again, the perfect explanation. Thank-you


----------



## Fennick

arabian knight said:


> And THAT is why closed threads and not let them get 50 pages long and BANNING STILL should take place ~ The End


AK, if you don't like threads that are 50 pages long nobody is twisting your arm to read them or participate in them. Pass over them.

If you don't like it that some people disagree with you that doesn't mean they should be banned. Just don't argue with them or you can ignore them.

~ The End ~


----------



## painterswife

We just got told that Jesus mocked so it is expected and acceptable from Christians. Don't expect things to change around here one iota.


----------



## Nimrod

There used to be an administrator that more or less ran this forum. It did seem like posters with views opposed to hers were more like likely to have them deleted or the poster banned. That administrator has moved on. Different views are now tolerated. 

The thing is, opinions are like navels, everyone has one and everyone thinks theirs are important. I try to remember that my opinions are not worth more than anyone else's (nor is my vote, more's the pity). I think I even agreed with Nevada once. We can now have discussions where your views are heard. Doesn't mean you are likely to change anyone's mind.

I won't argue religion. It's based on faith which is hard to argue rationally. I can't think of anyone on here that has been converted. I don't like arguments that boil down to, "It's Gods will".

I try not to attack another poster. They are entitled to their opinion. Personally attacking the opponent is what someone does that has run out of arguments. Attacks are not productive. The worst I can think of that I did recently is I told a poster to chill. I do make fun of the government by calling it the gooberment. 

It does seem to be a more even handed forum since the big shake up.


----------



## emdeengee

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, most all can see that there is a group, seems to be able to mock Christians w/no repercussions, can whine & twist scripture that they don't believe in, can claim to quote others but use all different words, and there IS a common denominator amongst them. Most can figure it out.
> 
> Oh, and be sure to be careful about saying you'll pray for someone. That's now offensive.
> 
> Some whine 'personal attack' over 'bout anything & you can be sure they either just laid one or will in a few posts.
> 
> But let one of us get exasperated from explaining something "HUNDREDS" of times, beg off b/c we're 'bout out of crayons & puppets & well, ya know how that will go.


So much exaggeration. Right now there are three threads on Countryside Families requesting prayers. 

Because the Bible is written by man it is open to editing and interpretation by man. So many changes over the millennium. Just because one Christian sect interprets something differently or places one scripture above another does not mean that it is mocking you. It is really just what you chose to believe and it is very difficult to agree especially when you are trying to mesh the old testament with the new.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> The only real difference is that now both sides can whine right here on the forum and no one gets banned for it.


nope. allowing almost all political views is a good thing. but there is lots more just down right mean being allowed for no good purpose that I can see except that it probably generates click counts to the benefit of CMG.


----------



## DEKE01

arabian knight said:


> And there is no reason what so ever that some thread should go on and on and on and on with just the same FEW going over the same thing on and on and on. Things HAVE to come to a stop a lot quicker if NOTHING is being accomplished but going back and forth back and forth back and forth. Some of these threads are starting to be on the edge of Ridiculous.


why should no thread be allowed to go on and on with a FEW going back and forth repeatedly saying the same thing? You can quit reading it if you are bored with it. It isn't going to use up the last few spare inches of available internet and it hurts no one except for perhaps the few who choose to keep writing and reading. So what if it is ridiculous? There are a couple of people around here who post almost 100% ridiculous comments, IMO, but so what? It's all part of the soup.


----------



## cast iron

Jolly said:


> Oh, we've got one person who wants you to do the work of the Yale Law Library whenever you try to talk about anything- a real "what is the meaning of is" person - that can turn almost any thread into a snarling mosh pit.


Ok, that was good. Now I need to clean off my keyboard!


----------



## MDKatie

This thread is funny. Usually it's the same people hiding behind the bible to hurl insults at people, or using someone's non-belief as a reason to "scold" them. I was recently called a baby killer...but hey, it's cool. I have killed no babies, so it just made that person look like a whackadoodle. :thumb:


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I've been here since before it was HT and this is the first time that everyone can post their opinion without the threat of deletion or banning as long as they stay within the (now impartial) rules.


What changed?


----------



## gibbsgirl

I don't really have a problem with what others want to say. I just don't care for things being deleted or edited. If a mod wants to add a note saying a post is a problem so posters and readers can see and figure out what they don't like, so it can make more sense if someone is banned, I think that's pretty productive. But, just deleting stuff makes threads confusing to follow and doesn't actually show everyone where the lines are for breaking house rules.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't really have a problem with what others want to say. I just don't care for things being deleted or edited. If a mod wants to add a note saying a post is a problem so posters and readers can see and figure out what they don't like, so it can make more sense if someone is banned, I think that's pretty productive. But, just deleting stuff makes threads confusing to follow and doesn't actually show everyone where the lines are for breaking house rules.


Mods do add a note when a comment is deleted.


----------



## kasilofhome

Cornhusker said:


> What changed?


Names used


----------



## Cornhusker

I think people tend to get too involved in these virtual worlds
It's a free message board, someone put it here for us to use, free of charge.
Why get so wound up about it?
I don't care if I get a post deleted, usually, I know why it got deleted.
I don't live here, I just visit.


----------



## Cornhusker

kasilofhome said:


> Names used


:rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> Mods do add a note when a comment is deleted.


Yes, I know. But, if you can't see what the post said, you can't actually tell what was a problem.

To me that's like telling someone to be the driver but supplying no map or destination.


----------



## painterswife

I understand the problems the moderators have. If you leave an ugly posts and just tell people it is not acceptable, everyone will post ugly things knowing they will stay.

If it is not acceptable to post, it is not acceptable to stay on the board. Do you leave your dogs poop in the middle of the floor? Probably not.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If it continues, people can be banned and others will see why from knowing what was said.

The threads will also make more sense.

It's also a better way to kill the doubt in others minds that the mods make the right call about identifying people who consistently break the rules.

If course, the flip side is, if a mod is not in fact being impartial, etc others are gonna see that too. So, I understand why that's a tough sell. Transparency is well, rather transparent.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> What changed?


The mod/admin that was blatantly partial was removed.


----------



## painterswife

I am pretty sure there would be complaints from those right in the threads when they think the mods are being unfair. Oh right that all ready happens. The difference is now you don't get your questions deleted and get infractions when you ask.

Six months ago this thread was not even possible.

There are enough people reading these threads to know when a post crosses the line and will be deleted. Ask someone or the poster themselves what got deleted.

No good reason for leaving poop on the floor.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Yes, I know. But, if you can't see what the post said, you can't actually tell what was a problem.
> 
> To me that's like telling someone to be the driver but supplying no map or destination.


Do you also feel you personally need to know what members receive infractions, warning infractions and pm's of explanations as well?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Did I say it was a personal request? I said public, transparent.

When a referee stands on the field, everybody gets to see the call they're making, and some people see the play live and some people review it on the replay.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Did I say it was a personal request? I said public, transparent.
> 
> When a referee stands on the field, everybody gets to see the call they're making, and some people see the play live and some people review it on the replay.



If you miss part of the game do you expect everyone to wait for you to catch up?

Ask for the instant replay from the person who had the post removed.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If threads were meant to only be useful and accessible in real time, they wouldn't exist indefinitely as an archive to be searched or returned to at the leisure of the members and the public.

You can try and make it stick, your insinuations that i'm making some kind of personal request, but y'all are only reinforcing that idea to yourselves and others who are already convinced of it.

I've said its not a personal request for access for myself. 

These are just best practices that many people and places use. Not everyone. And, its not on me to force anyone hear to do them. But, I certainly don't have any notion that I'm not free to add them to this discussion.

And, if I didn't feel it was worth bringing up i wouldn't. So the powers that be here are free to take it or leave it. But, I'm not interested in wasting time with others trying to bait me into defending myself by implying that my suggestions were some narcissistic power play, because obviously they weren't.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> If threads were meant to only be useful and accessible in real time, they wouldn't exist indefinitely as an archive to be searched or returned to at the leisure of the members and the public.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try and make it stick, your insinuations that i'm making some kind of personal request, but y'all are only reinforcing that idea to yourselves and others who are already convinced of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said its not a personal request for access for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> These are just best practices that many people and places use. Not everyone. And, its not on me to force anyone hear to do them. But, I certainly don't have any notion that I'm not free to add them to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> And, if I didn't feel it was worth bringing up i wouldn't. So the powers that be here are free to take it or leave it. But, I'm not interested in wasting time with others trying to bait me into defending myself by implying that my suggestions were some narcissistic power play, because obviously they weren't.



Mod position is, and always has been that the person who's comment was deleted is made aware of the reason. If they want to make that public, that's their business but nobody else's. 

It's interesting to me that you've been a member for quite some time and never indicated any concerns about posts being locked or deleted.


----------



## painterswife

wr said:


> Mod position is, and always has been that the person who's comment was deleted is made aware of the reason. If they want to make that public, that's their business but nobody else's.
> 
> It's interesting to me that you've been a member for quite some time and never indicated any concerns about posts being locked or deleted.


Until she had one deleted.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> Do you also feel you personally need to know what members receive infractions, warning infractions and pm's of explanations as well?


Posters posting on the web.... is publicized with the posters consent.
Infraction are private...
Apple vs Microsoft


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> Mod position is, and always has been that the person who's comment was deleted is made aware of the reason. If they want to make that public, that's their business but nobody else's.
> 
> It's interesting to me that you've been a member for quite some time and never indicated any concerns about posts being locked or deleted.


I'm shocked. Here we go again with you pointing out that you find fault in my posts and thoughts because it has something to do with how long I've been a member. Is there a particular reason you're fixated on that with me, cause I feel like you're trying to play Sherlock with me when there isn't even a mystery to solve.

You and I had a brief exchange pming yesterday. You gave my blessing to copy and paste that right in here for God and everybody to see.


----------



## kasilofhome

Every time wr deals with Gibbs. The addage of the length of time she's been here comes up ..... very odd.. are we equal or are some members with longer time more or less equal.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Every time wr deals with Gibbs. The addage of the length of time she's been here comes up ..... very odd.. are we equal or are some members with longer time more or less equal.


Is that like you always mention the people that have come back from being banned?


----------



## kasilofhome

Posted one minute apart.... great minds think alike....Why does it matter? what is the meaning of the Newspeak...


----------



## kasilofhome

sock puppets, are persons who are above others.
That was the a choice to circumvent banning.
What respect earn it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> sock puppets, are persons who are above others.
> That was the a choice to circumvent banning.
> What respect earn it.


Were you under the misimpression that anyone needed your respect ?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Were you under the misimpression that anyone needed your respect ?



were you?

[response to a nasty post]


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> were you?
> 
> [response to a nasty post]


Hint, read what you quoted. It was pretty clear.


----------



## Roadking

Okay... GC... is not my circus, not my monkeys...but gee willikers (instead of Dear Lord or something that may be offensive )... this thread is very telling ...........and sad.

Kinda like a train wreck...can't help but look... 

Matt


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Hint, read what you quoted. It was pretty clear.


Yes, my dear, it is indeed clear and I see what you did there and are doing here.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> We just got told that Jesus mocked so it is expected and acceptable from Christians. Don't expect things to change around here one iota.


hahahaha........

oh, boy....


----------



## sisterpine

I like everyone getting to shout out their personal opinion. As long as the statement is labeled personal opinion of the writer there is nothing for anyone to get upset about. You will not find a place on the planet where everyone thinks the same all the time but you will find many places where you will be imprisoned for stating your personal opinion... thankfully we don't live in that place.


----------



## where I want to

Well, 'people who think that way are nasty ' is an opinion too but an opinion about another poster, not an opinion about a subject. Unfortunately 'be nice' has come to mean something similar to Marquess of Queensberry rules is to boxing. You can flail at each other at will, relentlessly, as long as you don't hit below the belt. And the belt hangs lower for some people than others.
But I have found at least some peace by ignoring some people and then ignoring those who can't seem to not respond to trolling. Unfortunately it really limits new information and hearing different perspectives but that ship had pretty much sailed anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I said public, transparent.


It is public and transparent...............now.


----------



## Jolly

Mr. Bearfoot, would you care to divulge what was asked, multiple times, in the locked thread?

You have my permission.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Every time wr deals with Gibbs. The addage of the length of time she's been here comes up ..... very odd.. are we equal or are some members with longer time more or less equal.


After a couple of years you'd expect people to have some things figured out


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Is that like you always mention the people that have come back from being banned?


Not sure length of time equates to banned. By all definitions, 'banned' is for having done something to warrant that.


----------



## Tricky Grama

emdeengee said:


> So much exaggeration. Right now there are three threads on Countryside Families requesting prayers.
> 
> Because the Bible is written by man it is open to editing and interpretation by man. So many changes over the millennium. Just because one Christian sect interprets something differently or places one scripture above another does not mean that it is mocking you. It is really just what you chose to believe and it is very difficult to agree especially when you are trying to mesh the old testament with the new.


No one is speaking of the prayer threads.
In another thread a poster was chastised for saying they'd say a prayer for someone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> By all definitions, 'banned' is for having done *something to warrant* that.


That's what it *should* mean

It used to mean you dared to disagree with the wrong people, even if you could back it up with evidence


----------



## gapeach

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is speaking of the prayer threads.
> In another thread a poster was chastised for saying they'd say a prayer for someone.


Oh my, no way....emdeengee, I really don't think you would agree with this as I don't either.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Until she had one deleted.


So, was that nice? Really?
Gibbs had a deletion b/c she quoted a deleted post.
Proving some points...


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So, was that nice? Really?
> Gibbs had a deletion b/c she quoted a deleted post.
> Proving some points...


You might want to research that answer a bit more.


----------



## MichaelZ

I guess in this forum of general chat there may be more attacking since the issues are volatile. But I am not seeing it at all elsewhere, except that "Civil War" thread I guess. That thread was interesting for me to read as it gave me insight on the issue that I do not normally get.


----------



## Tiempo

Sometimes a post is deleted along with a deleted quote because without the quote the post makes no sense so is pointless to leave up.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> You might want to research that answer a bit more.


That might be easier is threads weren't taken down.

That might be easier if posts were flagged with a note saying it crossed the linr, instead of just being deleted and left with a note from a mod so people could see what was said.

I had a post deleted because it contained a quote from pixie that was dekeyed.

Then I had a post deleted because I was told i attacked bearfootfarm by calling him the name Yoda, when I said that he should teach me about something that he'd declared I obviously had no understanding of. I found that hilarious that Yoda was beyond the fray according to wr. Especially after I'd read a bit earlier when painter implied that jolly was Hitler and it stayed.

Anyone see why it's a bit confusing?

Honestly I didn't think any of it needed deleting on any side.

Don't know if mine was taken down because someone reported it or because wr took the initiative. I wasn't told either way.

Don't know if we is off right now, or if it's just cricket chiros cause she isn't going to put up thevpms she and I sent last night. But it's all in there and some more stuff I wrote. But we'll see if she does.

Shoot for all I know, she'll delete this post and send me another warning.

Eta. Check post 1052 on the baby body parts thread for reference.

Eta. And post 1055.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> Mod position is, and always has been that the person who's comment was deleted is made aware of the reason. If they want to make that public, that's their business but nobody else's.
> 
> It's interesting to me that you've been a member for quite some time and never indicated any concerns about posts being locked or deleted.


Maybe it won't get deleted based on this. I guess I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## FeralFemale

My only question is, when the next vid comes out with Planned Parenthood representatives even more obviously trafficking in baby parts â and we know it's going to come out - are we allowed to start a thread on it or is it verboten?


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Maybe it won't get deleted based on this. I guess I'll have to wait and see.


Maybe you should try www. Hearth and garden .com. You'd probably like it a lot...no deletions. (With no spaces of course)


----------



## wr

FeralFemale said:


> My only question is, when the next vid comes out with Planned Parenthood representatives even more obviously trafficking in baby parts â and we know it's going to come out - are we allowed to start a thread on it or is it verboten?


You can certainly start a new thread when another video comes out and if you were inclined to start another thread today, mods have no problem with that either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Maybe you should try www. Hearth and garden .com. You'd probably like it a lot...no deletions. (With no spaces of course)


That's where all those scary mean people hang out isn't it?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's where all those scary mean people hang out isn't it?


No moderation, so I doubt most here would venture over.:sing:


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Maybe it won't get deleted based on this. I guess I'll have to wait and see.


It is my understanding that when one disclosed or publishes pm's, one needs to have the senders consent.


----------



## Tiempo

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is speaking of the prayer threads.
> In another thread a poster was chastised for saying they'd say a prayer for someone.


There is nothing wrong with offering to pray for someone in a kind, supportive manner and no one is deleted for that.

It's not ok when it's directed at a specific person who has stated they are non believers and stated they prefer people don't.


----------



## Tiempo

gibbsgirl said:


> That might be easier is threads weren't taken down.
> 
> That might be easier if posts were flagged with a note saying it crossed the linr, instead of just being deleted and left with a note from a mod so people could see what was said.
> 
> I had a post deleted because it contained a quote from pixie that was dekeyed.
> 
> Then I had a post deleted because I was told i attacked bearfootfarm by calling him the name Yoda, when I said that he should teach me about something that he'd declared I obviously had no understanding of. I found that hilarious that Yoda was beyond the fray according to wr. Especially after I'd read a bit earlier when painter implied that jolly was Hitler and it stayed.
> 
> Anyone see why it's a bit confusing?
> 
> Honestly I didn't think any of it needed deleting on any side.
> 
> Don't know if mine was taken down because someone reported it or because wr took the initiative. I wasn't told either way.
> 
> Don't know if we is off right now, or if it's just cricket chiros cause she isn't going to put up thevpms she and I sent last night. But it's all in there and some more stuff I wrote. But we'll see if she does.
> 
> Shoot for all I know, she'll delete this post and send me another warning.
> 
> Eta. Check post 1052 on the baby body parts thread for reference.
> 
> Eta. And post 1055.


I took out your response to the deleted quote because without the context of the quoted deleted comment it had no meaning anymore.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> It is my understanding that when one disclosed or publishes pm's, one needs to have the senders consent.


What are you saying? Are you cryptically saying I've broken a rule with my posts here?

I put in p the request you publish it here and heard nothing back. There's been at least three mods on here. No one pm'd me so I wrote it myself since I have no knowledge of how to copy the messages in my mailbox to here on my phone. The only thing I disclosed that you even said privately was it was because I said Yoda. So how am I selling state secrets here?

Eta. If the posts weren't deleted and were only modified by mods to say what part is crossing the line that would be helpful in this specific instance to avoid the issue of me saying the word Yoda broke the rules according to the pm.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tiempo said:


> I took out your response to the deleted quote because without the context of the quoted deleted comment it had no meaning anymore.


Yeah, I get the logic there. Wasn't trying to say you did that without logic.

IMO, pixie said what she wanted in her post and I responded and i think folks words should not be deleted in almost all cases. But, I've already given those thoughts in here so I won't restate my reasons I think that again.

I wasn't trying to criticize you to day you didn',t have a reason even if I disagreed. I was trying to clarify for tricky grama that there was other stuff going on besides just the one I think she saw were pixie then I was deleted.


----------



## Woolieface

Shine said:


> Yes, my dear, it is indeed clear and I see what you did there and are doing here.


You are a poet as well, I see....


----------



## Woolieface

gibbsgirl said:


> Then I had a post deleted because I was told i attacked bearfootfarm by calling him the name Yoda...


"Yoda"...otherwise known as the "Y" bomb


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> "Yoda"...otherwise known as the "Y" bomb


Better than being compared to a pig.


----------



## Woolieface

dlmcafee said:


> Better than being compared to a pig.


lol...I reckon it is


----------



## gibbsgirl

Woolieface said:


> "Yoda"...otherwise known as the "Y" bomb


Yeah, who knew that being cheeky with a little sarcasm by referencing one of the legendary heroes of star wars was going to be considered such a vile lashing out, lol.

My family cracks me up, cause when they saw the what's worse joking about Yoda vs making parallels to Hitler comparison their response was hysterical. They like star wars. So, they said, Yoda? Sheesh, he's not even a sith (the villains in star wars). You named a Jedi and that was bad?!?!


----------



## kasilofhome

And I first saw it a Yogi.....but that would need a Boo Boo.


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> And I wish they would be tougher. These attacks on religion have gotten WAY way overboard imo. Thats it. All done.


I believe you meant attacks on Christians? Because there are whole threads here dedicated to attacking other religions and you have had no problem joining in on those.


----------



## Patchouli

I have to say I am genuinely surprised calling someone Yoda is offensive. I would take it as a compliment.  

I can see GG's idea about posting what was wrong with a post instead of deleting it. Sometimes it is pretty obvious and other times not so much. The rules have definitely changed for the better in my opinion. Very little does get deleted or locked. Generally deletes are for slapfests and locks are for when we have beaten a subject to death. I don't have a problem with either of those.

I do have to say kudos to anyone having to moderate GC. I can't keep up with all of the posts in the few threads I choose to post in. I can't imagine having to read all of them. I have taken to skimming whole pages at a shot. I would say if you see something you feel was genuinely rude and offensive report it. It's quite likely it just got missed.


----------



## Shrek

We are moving back towards the type of environment we were in when we began with adjustments to satisfy participants and the current host owners also.

Yes after the major rift we relaxed our moderation intensity a bit as we reviewed site demographic representation, host site owner requirements and negotiated as fair a compromise as we all felt was as palatable to all as we could achieve.

As with any site recovery, redirection and compromise not everyone is satisfied with all elements agreed on but we all must strive to understand those elements and continue to participate within the content and civility limits of the site.

Now that we have the host site recovered and most are aware of the changes that came with the recovery, our moderation intensity has be returned to normal levels.

Some posters may find their posts deleted or edited with posted reason. some posters may receive warnings or infractions accompanying the editing or deletions.

Some poster may also find themselves with so many infractions that they find themselves in moderated user or banned status.

After almost five months of recovery, moderation of HT is simply returned to the use of all options at our disposal to keep order as discussions and debates progress.


----------



## fordy

................Well , IF we are going back to our original Modus Operandi , someone should send Angie a "Come On Back" PM and let the games begin ! , fordy:facepalm:


----------



## Sumatra

Shrek said:


> After almost five months of recovery, moderation of HT is simply returned to the use of all options at our disposal to keep order as discussions and debates progress.


Thank goodness for that. It seems like one person was blamed for all the moderating troubles that have ever occurred on the forum, even though that wasn't completely the case. It may take 5 more months for things to re-balance themselves, but at least things are looking good by turning back to the normal moderation intensity.


----------



## Jolly

Shrek said:


> We are moving back towards the type of environment we were in when we began with adjustments to satisfy participants and the current host owners also.
> 
> Yes after the major rift we relaxed our moderation intensity a bit as we reviewed site demographic representation, host site owner requirements and negotiated as fair a compromise as we all felt was as palatable to all as we could achieve.
> 
> As with any site recovery, redirection and compromise not everyone is satisfied with all elements agreed on but we all must strive to understand those elements and continue to participate within the content and civility limits of the site.
> 
> Now that we have the host site recovered and most are aware of the changes that came with the recovery, our moderation intensity has be returned to normal levels.
> 
> Some posters may find their posts deleted or edited with posted reason. some posters may receive warnings or infractions accompanying the editing or deletions.
> 
> Some poster may also find themselves with so many infractions that they find themselves in moderated user or banned status.
> 
> After almost five months of recovery, moderation of HT is simply returned to the use of all options at our disposal to keep order as discussions and debates progress.


Just be fair and apply the lash equally.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Just be fair and apply the lash equally.


Wouldn't it be grand if we all just played by the basic "be nice" rule like grown ups and no lash would be needed.


----------



## where I want to

Tiempo said:


> There is nothing wrong with offering to pray for someone in a kind, supportive manner and no one is deleted for that.
> 
> It's not ok when it's directed at a specific person who has stated they are non believers and stated they prefer people don't.


Because that irritates someone, including moderators, does not mean it is any different than any other form of expression. People who do not believe in prayer but demand it not be allowed if they are the subject of it are only trying to bully others into conforming to their non-belief.
If you don't believe in prayer, then it's existence or not effects you not one iota. It is dog in the manger behavior to try and prevent someone from saying they will pray for you, even if it is interpreted or even meant to be a protests of your posts.
There are certainly much more offensive ways of denigrating people done on this site constantly that are more than permitted. To single out religious expression of that same thing is bigotry.


----------



## Woolieface

kasilofhome said:


> And I first saw it a Yogi.....but that would need a Boo Boo.


That can be arranged, probably


----------



## fordy

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wouldn't it be grand if we all just played by the basic "be nice" rule like grown ups and no lash would be needed.


 
..........."Be Nice" , is really an absurd concept when applying it to adults engaging in adult debates about any subject which they feel motivated to participate in ! Be nice is practiced by most folks when they have a face to face dialogue with another person , because polite society demands such . 
............"Be Nice" within the context of a debate on a computer thread is not very practical because we become UNencumbered when arguing with our computers . That is what makes insulting each other so much fun because we don't have to worry about body language , voice tone , etc . Posting one's thoughts over a computer is so much easier when we don't have to formulate our response based upon our interpretation of both verbal and non verbal communication from the other party . , fordy:gaptooth:


----------



## Jolly

> ..........."Be Nice" , is really an absurd concept when applying it to adults engaging in adult debates about any subject which they feel motivated to participate in ! Be nice is practiced by most folks when they have a face to face dialogue with another person , because polite society demands such .


Well, that and the fact that somewhere in a heated discussion, if you cross the line, the opposite party may want to use your head for a mop and your butt for a broom...


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Because that irritates someone, including moderators, does not mean it is any different than any other form of expression. People who do not believe in prayer but demand it not be allowed if they are the subject of it are only trying to bully others into conforming to their non-belief.
> If you don't believe in prayer, then it's existence or not effects you not one iota. It is dog in the manger behavior to try and prevent someone from saying they will pray for you, even if it is interpreted or even meant to be a protests of your posts.
> There are certainly much more offensive ways of denigrating people done on this site constantly that are more than permitted. To single out religious expression of that same thing is bigotry.


So if some want to use religion to mock and irritate those that don't believe there should be no problem with those that don't believe saying whatever they want about religion.


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> I believe you meant attacks on Christians? Because there are whole threads here dedicated to attacking other religions and you have had no problem joining in on those.


Lotsa muslims on this forum is there?


----------



## where I want to

The rules about nice were always -hmm.....- unclear. Nice tends to be interpreted as agreeable. In all directions. And that is like being stuck in a in a meeting of Southern women where everything is expressed pleasantly but those pleasant words are certainly capable of much damage.
Maybe the proper expression should is better expressed as "be civil." Then it's about conforming to common standards of talking, even if the issue is divisive. 
But any rule needs to be applied equally. And that seems a real problem.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> So if some want to use religion to mock and irritate those that don't believe there should be no problem with those that don't believe saying whatever they want about religion.


Seems like they do anyway
The level of snark has really gone up on this board, but heck, if I don't like it, I don't have to read it, or I can argue about it, i'm not chained here, I'm just a visitor.
Seems like a real effort by some to take over and turn this place into a pig pen


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> So if some want to use religion to mock and irritate those that don't believe there should be no problem with those that don't believe saying whatever they want about religion.


I was the one that made the Prayer comment. I am sorry that I did so. Why am I sorry? Because people can now play the victim card regarding how hurtful my comment was.

When I made it - I was at the end of my rope with the person that I made it to. Actually it was an incomplete statement because I had already been praying for her and others here, including myself. I wanted to lash out and say hurtful things, instead I sought God's solace, I was pointed in the direction of Love and Kindness - I responded in the written prose, but I see now that people are using my attempt at reconciliation with this person to stand on their chair and yell "Help me, I am being abused!!!" 

You are one such person. 

...and yes, you have been on my list when I speak to Him...


----------



## Tricky Grama

FeralFemale said:


> My only question is, when the next vid comes out with Planned Parenthood representatives even more obviously trafficking in baby parts &#8211; and we know it's going to come out - are we allowed to start a thread on it or is it verboten?


Great question.
However, ya know the vid will all be taken out of context. It will all be lies by those asking the butchers questions.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> I was the one that made the Prayer comment. I am sorry that I did so. Why am I sorry? Because people can now play the victim card regarding how hurtful my comment was.
> 
> When I made it - I was at the end of my rope with the person that I made it to. Actually it was an incomplete statement because I had already been praying for her and others here, including myself. I wanted to lash out and say hurtful things, instead I sought God's solace, I was pointed in the direction of Love and Kindness - I responded in the written prose, but I see now that people are using my attempt at reconciliation with this person to stand on their chair and yell "Help me, I am being abused!!!"
> 
> You are one such person.
> 
> ...and yes, you have been on my list when I speak to Him...


Again making a prayer or a blessing a dig at someone who does not believe. I can not understand how you would take something you hold so sacred and dear to your beliefs and use it to try to hurt others.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tiempo said:


> There is nothing wrong with offering to pray for someone in a kind, supportive manner and no one is deleted for that.
> 
> It's not ok when it's directed at a specific person who has stated they are non believers and stated they prefer people don't.


I'm sorry. I thought the request for no prayer was AFTER the prayer, a bit different.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Again making a prayer or a blessing a dig at someone who does not believe. I can not understand how you would take something you hold so sacred and dear to your beliefs and use it to try to hurt others.


Anybody can be offended by anything, or they can just say thanks and move on.
But people love to be offended these days


----------



## no really

I am not Christian and am never offended by someone praying for me, wishing me a merry Christmas or even discussing their religion with me


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I believe you meant attacks on Christians? Because there are whole threads here dedicated to attacking other religions and you have had no problem joining in on those.


I'm gonna ask for links b/c I'm pretty sure you're speaking of Islam which is a radical theocratic political movement bent on destroying the West & setting up a worldwide caliphate.
Totally NOT compatible w/Constitution or our way of life. 
Otherwise, if any here have attacked Buddhism, etc, I'd like to see that.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Anybody can be offended by anything, or they can just say thanks and move on.
> But people love to be offended these days


Why would someone say thanks for something that is obviously meant as a dig. I would think they need to pray for themselves.


----------



## no really

Have to add not offended by the blessing sent my way by the Muslim members of my family either.


----------



## Guest

Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wouldn't it be grand if we all just played by the basic "be nice" rule like grown ups and no lash would be needed.


Can I still yell at you?


----------



## Tricky Grama

where I want to said:


> Because that irritates someone, including moderators, does not mean it is any different than any other form of expression. People who do not believe in prayer but demand it not be allowed if they are the subject of it are only trying to bully others into conforming to their non-belief.
> If you don't believe in prayer, then it's existence or not effects you not one iota. It is dog in the manger behavior to try and prevent someone from saying they will pray for you, even if it is interpreted or even meant to be a protests of your posts.
> There are certainly much more offensive ways of denigrating people done on this site constantly that are more than permitted. To single out religious expression of that same thing is bigotry.


Post of the year award.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought.


Who is protected and who is the side kick? Is it me, is it me? Have any proof you wish to share?


----------



## Tricky Grama

no really said:


> I am not Christian and am never offended by someone praying for me, wishing me a merry Christmas or even discussing their religion with me


As most decent folks.
Ever known a Jewish person to be offended by the celebration of Christmas by the majority of the country? By anyone saying Merry Christmas or happy new year?
Many could take lessons from Jewish folks acting more "Christian" than a lot of people.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought.


A threat for people to agree with your opinion or just to shut up? If it makes you feel better go for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought.


Why don't you inform them that the moderators are protecting them (and show your evidence, and explain exactly how three people can control a site with over 50,000 registered members?


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Who is protected and who is the side kick? Is it me, is it me? Have any proof you wish to share?


Just an observation, I need no proof, I bow not to you, and so far proof is not a requirement of this site. If proof was required all would be silenced, you also.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why don't you inform them that the moderators are protecting them (and show your evidence, and explain exactly how three people can control a site with over 50,000 registered members?


Usually the posts is " if you don't like it here leave". They tell us that quite often. Now we are getting threats because they want to stifle free speech. Of course it is free speech they don't like, it would be different if it was their free speech.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> People who do not believe in prayer but demand it not be allowed if they are the subject of it are only *trying to bully others into conforming* to their non-belief.


Much like a pharmacist that refuses to sell certain products?

No one "demanded it not be allowed"

Only that it not be used as a means of insult, which clearly has been the case sometimes


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> A threat for people to agree with your opinion? If it makes you feel better go for it.


Not at all, I just do not get hurt feelings over over one opinion or the other, but some most certainly do.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Not at all, I just do not get hurt feelings over over one opinion or the other, but some most certainly do.


Then why the threat?


----------



## where I want to

I once gave Muslim a "Christmas" gift and he thanked me for 'remembering' him at this time of year. And that's what it was to me- a time to remember the kindnesses I received from others and he was certainly one for whom I was grateful. It wasn't a weapon of religious aggression and he was gracious enough to respond to the intent.

There are religions that are inclusive, where anyone can participate in public celebrations, and ones that are more private who frankly do not welcome outsiders. Knowing the difference and accepting it should be considered a social skill.


----------



## partndn

You people crack me up with the quick draw "threat!" squeel.
:hysterical:


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why don't you inform them that the moderators are protecting them (and show your evidence, and explain exactly how three people can control a site with over 50,000 registered members?


Question. How many out of the 50,00 members are we considering? Cause its been posited by some folks that length of membership and number of posts is an important factor when judging a member and their posts.


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> You people crack me up with the quick draw "threat!" squeel.
> :hysterical:


That is good because we are highly entertained that someone has to squeal threats about running to their parents.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Just an observation,* I need no proof*, *I bow not to you*, and so far proof is not a requirement of this site. If proof was required all would be silenced, you also.


Just an observation, you have no proof.

You just keep making vague accusations about persecution and unfair moderation, and act indignant when asked to back them up.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Then why the threat?


Already said it was not a threat it was an OBSERVATION. You lack of comprehension is very selective it appears to me.


----------



## arabian knight

partndn said:


> You people crack me up with the quick draw "threat!" squeel.
> :hysterical:


SO may seem to have such a thin skin and just MUST talk about how they are getting hit on. Move on the time on this earth is SHORT and worth worth getting undies all tied up in a knot if someone does some kind of religious GREETING OR WISHING WELL.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Question. How many out of the 50,00 members are we considering? Cause its been *posited by some* folks that length of membership and number of posts is an important factor when judging a member and their posts.


Nope, that was your misinterpretation of a comment I made concerning a single specific post, and a false assumption that it meant more than what I said at the time.

It's been explained several times how you need to stop looking for hidden meanings in my posts, and yet you continue to spin them into what you want them to be.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Already said it was not a threat it was an OBSERVATION. You lack of comprehension is very selective it appears to me.


Okay, lets discuss that observation.

Advertisers want clicks. We had a few hundred members leave for another site a few months ago. Most of them likely in the demographic you are talking about. I have been watching this sites stats. Posts are down. Clicks not so much. There is a bit of a dip but it has only equated to about 4000.00 in total worth to the site and 5.00 a day in income.

Maybe that means that that demographic is not paying the majority of the bills.


----------



## Irish Pixie

partndn said:


> You people crack me up with the quick draw "threat!" squeel.
> :hysterical:


I find it funny that you don't think "Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought." isn't a threat to tattle. I guess it could be a suggestion to others. Either way he is trying to shut up a group that doesn't have the same opinion that he does. 

It's probably funny to you because you agree with him, huh?  C'mon he posted it for a reason, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> *Might be interesting to the advertisers *on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought.





> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> Already said it was not a threat it was an OBSERVATION. *You lack of comprehension* is very selective it appears to me.


Where in there is an "observation"?

All I'm seeing is an implied threat, and then another insult when questioned about it

One other "observation" along with a question:
If you're truly so concerned about the site's revenue, shouldn't you be a "supporting member"?


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where in there is an "observation"?
> 
> All I'm seeing is an implied threat, and then another insult when questioned about it
> 
> One other "observation" along with a question:
> If you're truly so concerned about the site's revenue, shouldn't you be a "supporting member"?


Nope did not imply that, you interpret as you consistently do, your way.


----------



## partndn

Irish Pixie said:


> I find it funny that you don't think "Might be interesting to the advertisers on this site, that 1 apparently protected poster and her 2 side kicks could damage participation numbers, by their constant attacks on a demographic group that is quite large. Just a thought." isn't a threat to tattle. I guess it could be a suggestion to others. Either way he is trying to shut up a group that doesn't have the same opinion that he does.
> 
> It's probably funny to you because you agree with him, huh?  C'mon he posted it for a reason, right?


It IS funny! LOL

For one, I think yall feel you really HAVE behaved poorly, or you would say what is there to threaten with??

For another, you've spent many posts saying how great it is that we can express our thoughts here! How come now that is not cool?



Bearfootfarm said:


> Where in there is an "observation"?
> All I'm seeing is an implied threat


I feel like saying "don't be skeered lil fella, it's okay. <pat pat pat> nothing has happened here that will keep you from continuing to pester folks who had no interest in your arguin'."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Nope did not imply that, you interpret as you consistently do, your way.


If that's now your story, stick to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I feel like saying "don't be skeered lil fella, it's okay. <pat pat pat> nothing has happened here that will keep you from continuing to pester folks who had no interest in your arguin'."


I expected no less from you, and you didn't disappoint


----------



## DEKE01

I've been reading along and it suddenly occurred to me that this thread has become less valuable than a steaming pile. At least with real BS, I can fertilize my fields.


----------



## where I want to

DEKE01 said:


> I've been reading along and it suddenly occurred to me that this thread has become less valuable than a steaming pile. At least with real BS, I can fertilize my fields.


Many of us are hoping that composting will take care of this issue too. A little age, a little turning-


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Again making a prayer or a blessing a dig at someone who does not believe. I can not understand how you would take something you hold so sacred and dear to your beliefs and use it to try to hurt others.


You are on top of your game here if it is a game you are playing, if not: then I'm really going to pass on this response as it is to far out there to even try to help you on it...

Please re-read the post you are referring to in a monotone voice and see if that helps.

You have severely misunderstood.


----------



## Woolieface

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry. I thought the request for no prayer was AFTER the prayer, a bit different.


You can't stop prayer, you can only stop being informed of it.


----------



## Jolly

partndn said:


> You people crack me up with the quick draw "threat!" squeel.
> :hysterical:


Everybody has a religion. Maybe Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. Even a practicing atheist is a type of religion.

And some folks belong to The Church of the Perpetually Offended.

Ready. Shoot! Aim....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> You can't stop prayer, you can only stop being informed of it.


I'd be very happy with that. Thank you.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Okay, lets discuss that observation.
> 
> Advertisers want clicks. We had a few hundred members leave for another site a few months ago. Most of them likely in the demographic you are talking about. I have been watching this sites stats. Posts are down. Clicks not so much. There is a bit of a dip but it has only equated to about 4000.00 in total worth to the site and 5.00 a day in income.
> 
> Maybe that means that that demographic is not paying the majority of the bills.


Bots trip clicks, too. Most of the time, a large portion of the clicks are nothing but bots.


----------



## Irish Pixie

partndn said:


> It IS funny! LOL
> 
> *For one, I think yall feel you really HAVE behaved poorly, or you would say what is there to threaten with??*
> 
> For another, you've spent many posts saying how great it is that we can express our thoughts here! How come now that is not cool?
> 
> I feel like saying "don't be skeered lil fella, it's okay. <pat pat pat> nothing has happened here that will keep you from continuing to pester folks who had no interest in your arguin'."


Thank you. You have admitted that there was a threat. 

If he wasn't trying to shut people up why did he post it? Even if it was an observation rather than the threat of tattling that I think it is? C'mon admit he posted it for a reason.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Bots trip clicks, too. Most of the time, a large portion of the clicks are nothing but bots.


True, the bots have been consistent as well.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. You have admitted that there was a threat.



"*For one, I think yall feel you really HAVE behaved poorly, or you would say what is there to threaten with??"

*lol... she's doing it again...I give up on explaining things - even when someone shouts out "Watch out!!! You're about to step in a hole!!! she flips us off and blindly falls right into that hole. 

I just don't get it...

"If he wasn't trying to shut people up why did he post it? Even if it was an observation rather than the threat of tattling that I think it is? C'mon admit he posted it for a reason. "

Can't people type what they think is true and maybe have you say... OK - that's what they think... 

scheesh


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Why would someone say thanks for something that is obviously meant as a dig. I would think they need to pray for themselves.


I'm not sure how it could be a dig, but if you are offended, then I guess you are offended


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not sure how it could be a dig, but if you are offended, then I guess you are offended


It's a dig because I don't believe in god or the religion they're "blessing" me with. It's mocking my absolutely known to them non belief. This ain't the first go round.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a dig because I don't believe in god or the religion they're "blessing" me with. It's mocking my absolutely known to them non belief. This ain't the first go round.


Just curious... what happens when people bless and pray for you? Does it burn? What hurts?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a dig because I don't believe in god or the religion they're "blessing" me with. It's mocking my absolutely known to them non belief. This ain't the first go round.


You know, even the folks down here that don't believe, never turn down a prayer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Woolieface said:


> *Just curious.*.. what happens when people bless and pray for you? Does it burn? What hurts?


Yeah, you're "just curious" and some just make "observations"


----------



## where I want to

Woolieface said:


> Just curious... what happens when people bless and pray for you? Does it burn? What hurts?


Burst into flames??????

(Explanation for those with zero sense of humor- that a person reacts with flaming. Clever, huh?.)


----------



## Cornhusker

*HELP! HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!!*:catfight:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Just curious... what happens when people bless and pray for you? Does it burn? What hurts?


It's annoying and gives me acid reflux. You have no right to push your "magical" belief on me. None. I have said repeatedly I don't like it and have asked you (and others) to please stop.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> You know, even the folks down here that don't believe, never turn down a prayer.


Good for them?


----------



## TripleD

Jolly said:


> You know, even the folks down here that don't believe, never turn down a prayer.


Even the some on here that don't believe were resurrected back into a new life on HT .......:banana:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> *HELP! HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!!*:catfight:



Yup, with magic, sparkle dust, a fictional book, and imaginary people. Weird, huh?


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> Even the some on here that don't believe were resurrected back into a new life on HT .......:banana:


I've never said I wasn't brought back from the... banned.  It's never been a secret.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> It's annoying and gives me acid reflux. You have no right to push your "magical" belief on me. None. I have said repeatedly I don't like it and have asked you (and others) to please stop.


Oh, so it does burn. Alrighty.

http://www.amazon.com/Pepcid-Comple...ie=UTF8&qid=1437758023&sr=1-1&keywords=pepcid

it's $15:47

blessings are free


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> You know, even the folks down here that don't believe, never turn down a prayer.


A prayer not given with an honest Christian heart is not really a prayer. That is what my Christian grandmother use to say.

The need to tell someone that you are praying for them when they have told you they don't believe shows that the act is for you and not the person you say you are praying for.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, with magic, sparkle dust, a fictional book, and imaginary people. Weird, huh?


That beats being persecuted by three people under the protection of the moderators


----------



## where I want to

Oh, dear- drying the tears of laughter.......


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> A prayer not given with an honest Christian heart is not really a prayer. That is what my Christian grandmother use to say.
> 
> The need to tell someone that you are praying for them when they have told you they don't believe shows that the act is for you and not the person you say you are praying for.


You'd think they'd want to give the magical sparkly blessings to people that actually wanted them, huh? Instead they use them to annoy (and cause heartburn) to non believers. I have real doubt that that is what jesus would do...


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> You'd think they'd want to give the magical sparkly blessings to people that actually wanted them, huh? Instead they use them to annoy (and cause heartburn) to non believers. I have real doubt that that is what jesus would do...


WWJD?

not cause heartburn...

Sorry, I'm dyin here. Can't see the screen no more.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Oh, dear- drying the tears of laughter.......


So I guess I'm off ignore again? :happy:


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> You'd think they'd want to give the magical sparkly blessings to people that actually wanted them, huh? Instead they use them to annoy (and cause heartburn) to non believers. I have real doubt that that is what jesus would do...


Have you tried not drinking milk ? It's worked for me on the acid reflux for 5yrs and no more meds.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> It's annoying and gives me acid reflux. You have no right to push your "magical" belief on me. None. I have said repeatedly I don't like it and have asked you (and others) to please stop.


would you find it less annoying if I offered to pray for you but said I didn't think it would help?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> WWJD?
> 
> not cause heartburn...
> 
> Sorry, I'm dyin here. Can't see the screen no more.



You're welcome. I'm glad I could bring laughter into your life. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, with magic, sparkle dust, a fictional book, and imaginary people. Weird, huh?


Kinda hypocritical of you isn't it?
Just sayin'


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> You're welcome. I'm glad I could bring laughter into your life. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


I'm sure you will feel better.

God heals.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Kinda hypocritical of you isn't it?
> Just sayin'


In what way?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I'm sure you will feel better.
> 
> God heals.


The same goes for you. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> In what way?


You carrying on about people not respecting your belief or the lack of belief, then turn around and mock them
Seems a tad hypocritical


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> The same goes for you. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


And there it was again


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> You carrying on about people not respecting your belief or the lack of belief, then turn around and mock them
> Seems a tad hypocritical


You don't think it's just a tad hypocritical for them to force their religion on me? I've asked them nicely many times, I even said please. How come the respect is only supposed to go one way?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Kinda hypocritical of you isn't it?
> Just sayin'


How are her posts hypocritical, but the "Christian's" doing all the deliberate taunting are not?


----------



## partndn

Irish Pixie said:


> The same goes for you. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


What are you doing?

Imaginary friends who tell people what to do? 

You're mocking. You're name calling. Why? One page it's "ain't it great!" and at some point, it just becomes nasty. 

Then next week (or tomorrow) ....... or in a few minutes maybe, you will probably post how someone was name calling, offending, and mocking..


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't think it's just a tad hypocritical for them to force their religion on me? I've asked them nicely many times, I even said please. How come the respect is only supposed to go one way?


So it's ok for you to do it?
If you expect others to rise above it, maybe you should too?


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is her post hypocritical, but the "Christians" doing all the deliberate taunting are not?


Well for starters, she's the one raising the fuss
But hey, you guys want to carry on being jerks for your own amusement, then by all means, carry on :thumb:


----------



## oneraddad

Tit & Tat are both idiots


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> So it's ok for you to do it?
> If you expect others to rise above it, maybe you should too?


I told you before this ain't the first go round. I asked them nicely not to "bless" me _this morning_. Why should I respect them when they won't me?


----------



## Irish Pixie

partndn said:


> What are you doing?
> 
> Imaginary friends who tell people what to do?
> 
> You're mocking. You're name calling. Why? One page it's "ain't it great!" and at some point, it just becomes nasty.
> 
> Then next week (or tomorrow) ....... or in a few minutes maybe, you will probably post how someone was name calling, offending, and mocking..


Ya think? :hysterical:


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I told you before this ain't the first go round. I asked them nicely not to "bless" me _this morning_. Why should I respect them when they won't me?


Your choice
Don't expect anyone to treat you better if you are unwilling to return the gesture


----------



## partndn

Irish Pixie said:


> It's annoying and gives me acid reflux. You have no right to *push* your "magical" belief on me. None. I have said repeatedly I don't like it and have asked you (and others) to please stop.





Irish Pixie said:


> You don't think it's just a tad hypocritical for them to *force* their religion on me? I've asked them nicely many times, I even said please. How come the respect is only supposed to go one way?


???

There is something really wrong with the reader if anyone reads words on a forum, and feels forced or pushed in some kind of abusive way.

You have said that this is not reality, it's not life, it's just the internet. Why the dramatic reaction to words in a format you view to be outside of reality?


----------



## Cornhusker

partndn said:


> ???
> 
> There is something really wrong with the reader if anyone reads words on a forum, and feels forced or pushed in some kind of abusive way.
> 
> You have said that this is not reality, it's not life, it's just the internet. Why the dramatic reaction to words in a format you view to be outside of reality?


Like I said, people like to be offended, it's the in thing now days


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Your choice
> Don't expect anyone to treat you better if you are unwilling to return the gesture


What makes you think I haven't?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Like I said, people like to be offended, it's the in thing now days


Does that mean that it does not matter what someone says about a religion, the people of the religion like to be offended?


----------



## Irish Pixie

partndn said:


> ???
> 
> There is something really wrong with the reader if anyone reads words on a forum, and feels forced or pushed in some kind of abusive way.
> 
> You have said that this is not reality, it's not life, it's just the internet. Why the dramatic reaction to words in a format you view to be outside of reality?


Then there shouldn't be an issue when I discuss fictional books, sparkle dust, magic and imaginary friends, right? I'm not forcing my view on them. 

It's about respect. I'm more than happy to ignore christianity as long as it's not shoved in my face. I don't know how to put it more simply.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> What makes you think I haven't?


I don't know that you haven't
Let's just say I haven't seen it lately
If I missed it, I'm sorry


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Well for starters, she's the one raising the fuss
> But hey, you guys want to carry on* being jerks* for your own amusement, then by all means, carry on :thumb:


She asked politely for it to stop before, and that only made it intensify.

The request was even made by the moderators

The "jerks" I'm seeing are the ones claiming to be Christians, but not *acting* like real Christians would.

It's more like a flash mob, and it's easy to see which ones are really "being jerks", and who is attempting to be honest.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Then there shouldn't be an issue when I discuss fictional books, sparkle dust, magic and imaginary friends, right? I'm not forcing my view on them.
> 
> It's about respect.* I'm more than happy to ignore christianity as long as it's not shoved in my face*. I don't know how to put if more simply.


I feel the same way about homosexuality
I accept it, but I don't need to hear about it every time I turn the TV on


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> You're welcome. I'm glad I could bring laughter into your life. You seem sad. Is it because the imaginary friends have stopped telling you what to do? And how to think and act? It's the only thing I can think of that explains the actions of self professed pious christian.


I don't seem sad to you... lol


----------



## TripleD

Bearfootfarm said:


> She asked politely for it to stop before, and that only made it intensify.
> 
> The request was even made by the moderators
> 
> The "jerks" I'm seeing are the ones claiming to be Christians, but not *acting* like real Christians would.
> 
> It's more like a flash mob, and it's easy to see which ones are really "being jerks", and who is attempting to be honest.


Just start pointing out those jerks for us. {The collective you}


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> She asked politely for it to stop before, and that only made it intensify.
> 
> The request was even made by the moderators
> 
> The "jerks" I'm seeing are the ones claiming to be Christians, but not *acting* like real Christians would.
> 
> It's more like a flash mob, and it's easy to see which ones are really "being jerks", and who is attempting to be honest.


I believe you'll find "jerks" on both sides of most issues


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I don't know that you haven't
> Let's just say I haven't seen it lately
> If I missed it, I'm sorry


You did. Read my posts from this morning, I simply (and nicely) asked them to stop. They didn't. It escalated.


----------



## Cornhusker

Woolieface said:


> I don't seem sad to you... lol


I'm sad...no wait....I'm tired and hungry.....maybe bored


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I don't seem sad to you... lol


Oh but you do. I could tell you why but you'd get all upset and *someone* would report it to the mods and they'd tell me I have to find different language in which to explain my displeasure with all things magical and those that believe in it.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh but you do. I could you why but you'd get all upset and someone would report it to the mods and they'd tell me I have to find different language in which to explain my displeasure with all things magical and those that believe in it.


I've never reported anything to anyone. Do your worst. It's alright...it's words. I don't get heartburn or anything.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I feel the same way about homosexuality
> I accept it, but I don't need to hear about it every time I turn the TV on


Exactly. Would you like some random gay guy to tell you about his bedroom activities? Or would you rather he kept it to himself?


----------



## TripleD

Woolieface said:


> I've never reported anything to anyone. Do your worst. It's alright...it's words. I don't get heartburn or anything.


I was being serious about the milk thing....:buds:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I believe you'll find "jerks" on both sides of most issues


Usually they aren't quoting Bible verses and telling others how "morally superior" they are.

Actions speak much louder than words, and I'm not seeing much here that's 
"Christ like".

It looks more like deliberate trolling to get the thread locked, or to bait someone into saying something they will regret just because you don't like them

Why not just be honest about it instead of playing the silly games?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I've never reported anything to anyone. Do your worst. It's alright...it's words. I don't get heartburn or anything.


I don't get heartburn either, I was being facetious.


----------



## kasilofhome

Freedom of religion... not from religion.... That is what we should expect.

This false idea of a separation of church and state crowd..fails to connect,

Think about the role in government

Rev. Martin Luther king
Rev. Jessie Jackson
Rev. Al Sharpton.

If it was freedom from religion in government..... do you see the conflict.

Current school book have far more detail about faiths today. In the I know we learns the basic belief, ways of celebration, sacrifices, and sacraments of
The top ten faith in the world when I was educated.... it included atheist.

Now...there is this false idea that people can shut down faith due to not agreeing with it......wrong.


----------



## gibbsgirl

It such nonsense to me that people even want to debate so hotly whether a person is being a good or true Christian. First of all, if you've read the bible, some of the best and truest followers of the faith did all kinds of sinful things.

Second, I don't know think people will ever do a very good job if the goal is to sort out who's a real Catholics, Jew, buhhdist, Muslim, Baptist, pagan, atheist, agnostic, mormon, etc. Inside every one of those faiths there is great contention amongst their own peers about that samee question. And, sometimes within a faith those debates lead to positive changes.

But, when outsiders of a faith want to judge whether a persperson is truly who they say they believe they are, I really don't see any upside. It's just to rail against them and accuse them of being a hypocrit and a faker because the accuser is angry about something they did.

Being upset and offended that someone is praying for you when you don't like it is petty. And, it doesn't mean the person praying is a faka or failed Christian. Honestly, it has nothing to do with picking on a pagan, and everything to do with the culture if Christianity teaching that when you don't know what else to say or do, you better pray to god about it. And, sometimes Christians declare it out loud. So what.

If it makes someone medically Ill they really should see a doctor about it. They'd probably get help to get it straightened around. And, I doubt the rx note would prescribe, tell those people to shut up or else this is incurable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

TripleD said:


> Just start pointing out those jerks for us. {The collective you}


So you're going to pretend you can't see?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> It such nonsense to me that people even want to debate so hotly whether a person is being a good or true Christian. First of all, if you've read the bible, some of the best and truest followers of the faith did all kinds of sinful things.


That is pretty funny. The Christians here on HT are always telling other Christians here on HT that they are not good Christians and that what they believe the bible says is wrong.

Now the non-believers are getting told not to judge but Christians do it every day and tell us that is what a good Christian does.


----------



## TripleD

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're going to pretend you can't see?


I shouldn't be on the list..... Thats all I wanted to say..... Feel free to add me if you see fit.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It such nonsense to me that people even want to *debate* so hotly whether a person is being a good or true Christian. First of all, if you've read the bible, some of the best and truest followers of the faith did all kinds of sinful things.


I wasn't "debating", and the "others did it too" seems a lot like making excuses for what you know is poor behavior



> *Honestly*, it has nothing to do with picking on a pagan


Honestly, actions speak louder than words, and you "liked" most of the actions


----------



## Tricky Grama

Woolieface said:


> Just curious... what happens when people bless and pray for you? Does it burn? What hurts?


Well b/4 it was said it made them nauseous. I agreed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

TripleD said:


> I shouldn't be on the list..... *Thats all I wanted to say...*.. Feel free to add me if you see fit.....


I would have simply said that then.

I'm not making the list.

It's making itself


----------



## Tricky Grama

TripleD said:


> Have you tried not drinking milk ? It's worked for me on the acid reflux for 5yrs and no more meds.


Triple, you don't understand. Word used was nauseous.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Question for Irish pixie.

I have no idea what happened this morning. But, your request/demand reads to me that you want people to stop praying for you regardless of the reason right? Cause its upsetting you and offensive and anyone who does is personally attacking you right?

Have you read the thread I've had going for a month called request for all you prayer warriors in countryside families?

I've asked for prayers in it repeatedly. I've said I've prayed for people who I was upset with in it, even though I may or may not have known if they were Christian. It says its been viewed over 3000 times. And, I have no idea who all has viewed it.

But, i've also said in it repeatedly that I've been praying to God consistently for the people on HT who have read it and/or been joining me in prayer for my son and the people he's been with all month.

So, if I'm following you're logic and request, it sounds like you're saying I'm knowingly trying to wrong you or upset you because my prayers have been to include everyone who's read it, even you.

And, that was not at all said by me because I meant anything related to attacking or upsetting you or anyone else. But, being a Christian here, my understanding of what you're writing on this thread is saying i fit the description of what you're upset about.

Am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Cornhusker said:


> You carrying on about people not respecting your belief or the lack of belief, then turn around and mock them
> Seems a tad hypocritical


And soon their thesaurus will run out of mocking, derisive, childish terms for Christians & the bible.
Wonder if poopooheads is coming next?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Am I misunderstanding you?


I'm predicting she will answer yes to that question, because it's not nearly as complicated as you seem to think


----------



## Tricky Grama

partndn said:


> What are you doing?
> 
> Imaginary friends who tell people what to do?
> 
> You're mocking. You're name calling. Why? One page it's "ain't it great!" and at some point, it just becomes nasty.
> 
> Then next week (or tomorrow) ....... or in a few minutes maybe, you will probably post how someone was name calling, offending, and mocking..


Yup, & all w/o quotes or w/o quotes of the actual name calling or the alleged words.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm predicting she will answer yes to that question, because it's not nearly as complicated as you seem to think


Well then my suggestion is to simplify the problem by calling out individuals if people want to cry foul rather than making blanket statements that lump together entire groups of people as wrong or a problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Question for Irish pixie.
> 
> I have no idea what happened this morning. But, your request/demand reads to me that you want people to stop praying for you regardless of the reason right? Cause its upsetting you and offensive and anyone who does is personally attacking you right?
> 
> Have you read the thread I've had going for a month called request for all you prayer warriors in countryside families?
> 
> I've asked for prayers in it repeatedly. I've said I've prayed for people who I was upset with in it, even though I may or may not have known if they were Christian. It says its been viewed over 3000 times. And, I have no idea who all has viewed it.
> 
> But, i've also said in it repeatedly that I've been praying to God consistently for the people on HT who have read it and/or been joining me in prayer for my son and the people he's been with all month.
> 
> So, if I'm following you're logic and request, it sounds like you're saying I'm knowingly trying to wrong you or upset you because my prayers have been to include everyone who's read it, even you.
> 
> And, that was not at all said by me because I meant anything related to attacking or upsetting you or anyone else. But, being a Christian here, my understanding of what you're writing on this thread is saying i fit the description of what you're upset about.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding you?


I don't read prayer threads unless it's someone I'm familiar with and care about. I haven't read yours. That's not being snarky. You can ask for prayers to rain down on you for 40 days and 40 nights, I don't care. Whatever floats your boat (pun kinda intended). I've asked repeatedly, and nicely, to not pray for me, bless me, whatever because I don't believe in the faith behind it, it's insulting. The posters involved know this, it's nothing new. 

If you haven't posted that you'll pray for me, bless me, whatever personally there isn't an issue. I don't understand why you'd think there was- I'm not trying to stop all prayer on HT (that's just ridiculous) I just don't want it directed at me.


----------



## arabian knight

What happens when someone comes on here that has not been on for a spell and says good bless you to certain ones. WOW are they then going to get both barrels pointed at them. Turn the other cheek and let it roll off life is not worth all this time on something that is soooooo minor in the whole picture. Just let it go~! Enough is enough so what if a person does a personal blessing, one will not run into a pillar of salt because they don't believe. But to rack someone over and over for doing something so natural in there REAL world. Let it blow in one ear and out the other . No Big deal... Wow life most be tough as this happens all the time in the country. You are NOT going to run from it accept it and move on~!


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> What happens when someone comes on here that has not been on for a spell and says good bless you to certain ones. WOW are they then going to get both barrels pointed at them. Turn the other cheek and let it roll off life is not worth all this time on something that is soooooo minor in the whole picture. Just let it go~! Enough is enough so what if a person does a personal blessing, one will not run into a pillar of salt because they don't believe. But to rack someone over and over for doing something so natural in there REAL world. Let it blow in one ear and out the other . No Big deal... Wow life most be tough as this happens all the time in the country. You are NOT going to run from it accept it and move on~!


Not to mention when someone sneezes...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Well then my suggestion is to* simplify the problem* by calling out individuals if people want to cry foul rather than making blanket statements that lump together entire groups of people as wrong or a problem.


There's no need to simplify things if you don't overly complicate them to begin with.

It just requires honesty instead of mind games


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need to simplify things if you don't overly complicate them to begin with.
> 
> It just requires honesty instead of mind games


Lol, just cause you and I see things differently doesn't mean you're anymore right or I am.

I wasn't lying or playing mind games. I was using a best practice I learned years ago about trying to successfully communicate with others by restating things to see if both people are understanding what they were intending to say.

You can tell to others anytime you please that you think I'm being a snarky shark whenever I jump in the water here. Doesn't make those implications true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I was using a best practice I learned years ago about trying to successfully communicate with others by restating things to see if both people are understanding what they were intending to say.


I've said before your Psychology teachers would be proud.

I understood perfectly what most were intending to say with their taunting, and I think you know also

Overthinking often creates more problems than it solves



> You can tell to others anytime you please that you think I'm being a snarky shark whenever I jump in the water here. Doesn't make those *implications* true.


See, you're doing it again, since there were no implications.

I said exactly what I meant, and anything I "tell to others" is all right here in these posts. 

I'm not big on the PM gossip thing


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wouldn't it be grand if we all just played by the basic "be nice" rule like grown ups and no lash would be needed.


Sure would. And it would be grand if people didn't try to make being obtuse into a fine art or claim that every political link/story was a lie and the authors all liars. Just sayin'............


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> See, you're doing it again, since there were no implications.
> 
> I said exactly what I meant, and anything I "tell to others" is all right here in these posts.
> 
> I'm not big on the PM gossip thing


Kalisoffhome would say she is being a victim, seeing things that are not there.


----------



## where I want to

Let the deletions begin. But not all all posts of course.
It is hard to respect the complaints of someone who runs in front of the arrows to berate the shooting of the archer.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've said before your Psychology teachers would be proud.
> 
> I understood perfectly what most were intending to say with their taunting, and I think you know also
> 
> Overthinking often creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> See, you're doing it again, since there were no implications.
> 
> I said exactly what I meant, and anything I "tell to others" is all right here in these posts.
> 
> I'm not big on the PM gossip thing


What psychology teachers?

And which is it I think too much now? Or I'm incapable or unwilling to engage in even simple thinking, from what you said some days ago? Shucks there's just no pleasing some folks I guess.

And what pm gossiping?


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Overthinking often creates more problems than it solves


I can understand why you might say that. 

But it depends on who is doing the thinking.


----------



## kasilofhome

Jolly said:


> Everybody has a religion. Maybe Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. Even a practicing atheist is a type of religion.
> 
> And some folks belong to The Church of the Perpetually Offended.
> 
> Ready. Shoot! Aim....





painterswife said:


> Kalisoffhome would say she is being a victim, seeing things that are not there.



Wlover has acquired no authority to speak for me. I own no victim cards. Post what you like and learn to accept rejection for your views it happens to all...that's life.

I hope your post does not get vaped as it is transparent.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Usually they aren't quoting Bible verses and telling others how "morally superior" they are.
> 
> Actions speak much louder than words, and I'm not seeing much here that's
> "Christ like".
> 
> It looks more like deliberate trolling to get the thread locked, or to bait someone into saying something they will regret just because you don't like them
> 
> Why not just be honest about it instead of playing the silly games?


Can't you just let it go? My goodness, you are starting to resemble a person who is paid to generate clicks for a webmaster.

Waving the victim flag is about as old as waving the racism flag...


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> That is pretty funny. The Christians here on HT are always telling other Christians here on HT that they are not good Christians and that what they believe the bible says is wrong.
> 
> Now the non-believers are getting told not to judge but Christians do it every day and tell us that is what a good Christian does.


If you are seeking clarity regarding what you spoke of in the quote above, Thessalonians, both books should give you an understanding about that aspect of Christianity. They are probably two of the shortest letters in the Bible but quite important.

If not, go on wit yer bad self....[note: this is a slang saying where "bad" denotes "capable" and is not intended to offend]

[I guess we need to start adding delimiters so that people can't say that - Oh - You really meant this...]


----------



## no really

Guess I'm just surprised by what seem to be intelligent people so effected by posts in a forum, especially this mild mannered forum. Makes me wonder how they would handle real life adversity? So much ego, vitriol and illogical behaviour!


----------



## wiscto

no really said:


> Guess I'm just surprised by what seem to be intelligent people so effected by posts in a forum, especially this mild mannered forum. Makes me wonder how they would handle real life adversity? So much ego, vitriol and illogical behaviour!


Should my ears be burning?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> I can understand why you might say that.
> 
> But it depends on who is doing the thinking.


It makes no difference at all when you take a simple statement and twist it into some elaborate fantasy.


----------



## no really

wiscto said:


> Should my ears be burning?


OK spill what did you do now?:gaptooth:


----------



## wiscto

no really said:


> OK spill what did you do now?:gaptooth:


Nothing to see here, don't mind me.


----------



## no really

wiscto said:


> Nothing to see here, don't mind me.


Ummhmm, that's what they all say :buds:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Can't you just let it go? My goodness, you are starting to resemble a person who is paid to generate clicks for a webmaster.
> 
> *Waving the victim flag *is about as old as waving the racism flag...


I didn't say I was a victim
You have me confused with someone else


----------



## Woolieface

TripleD said:


> I was being serious about the milk thing....:buds:


And it was excellent advice


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't get heartburn either, I was being facetious.


:shocked:

noooo............


----------



## Woolieface

Tricky Grama said:


> Well b/4 it was said it made them nauseous. I agreed.


To be fair, I guess nausea and heartburn both involve indigestion...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say I was a victim
> You have me confused with someone else


Well let's not play games here. Who's the victim or claiming to be a victim?


----------



## Woolieface

Shine said:


> [I guess we need to start adding delimiters so that people can't say that - Oh - You really meant this...]


Phew....there are gonna be some long posts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> *Well let's not play games here*.
> 
> Who's the victim or claiming to be a victim?


Yes, let's not


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, let's not


Then by all means who were you being mistaken for as a victim?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Then by all means who were you being mistaken for as a victim?


You'd need to ask the one who made the "victim card" claims.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd need to ask the one who made the "victim card" claims.


OK it's cool, I get it, you're unwilling to just answer the question directly for whatever reason you have decided. I'll qui wasting everyone's time with you about it.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm predicting she will answer yes to that question, because it's not nearly as complicated as you seem to think


I dunno.

I've had trouble before, getting a yes or no answer around here, when asking an uncomplicated question.

All in who you're asking, I guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> OK it's cool, I get it, you're *unwilling to just answer the question directly *for whatever reason you have decided. I'll qui wasting everyone's time with you about it.


I didn't make any claims about being a victim, and the answer to your question can be found by reading the posts and being honest with yourself

The question was answered before you ever asked, but it will require you to scroll back and read if you missed it all before


----------



## Fennick

Irish Pixie said:


> ........I've asked repeatedly, and nicely, to not pray for me, bless me, whatever because I don't believe in the faith behind it, it's insulting. The posters involved know this, it's nothing new.
> 
> - I'm not trying to stop all prayer on HT ....... I just don't want it directed at me.


If I may offer my philosophy on this matter I think you're looking at the situation the wrong way. You shouldn't be feeling insulted, you should be feeling sorry for them. Note I didn't say to feel compassion or sympathy, just have some understanding of what motivates certain people who are in a more sorry state than you.

If you've asked people nicely to not pray for you or bless you and they demonstrate point blank they're doing it anyway whether you like it or not then what they've done is they've publically exposed themselves as spiteful weaklings who have no faith or control in themselves and nothing of value to say. They're simply demonstrating that they feel powerless next to you and they despite you for that. Because you reject the thing they believe empowers them, you don't need what they need to make themselves feel stronger or worthy in the regard of whatever extraneous force it is they worship and put their faith in because they have no faith in themselves.

Prayer or blessing out of spite is like when little children in a school ground try to out-do each other by sticking their tongues out at each other and say "So there!" because they have nothing else more impressive to offer.

The problem for people who do praying or blessing out of spite is that what goes around comes around to those people who believe in it and so they subconsciously know that the spite they send to you will eventually rebound back at them in some form. Usually a rebound of their own making and that they don't see coming. But they do it anyway because they can't stop themselves, they have no power over themselves so they _"cut off their own nose to spite their face". _

I'm not saying all religious people are like that, most aren't. It's just the ones who have no power and know it, and probably hate themselves for it, and all they have is prayer and their feeble attempts to kick others in the teeth out of spite.

I feel sorry for people like that and don't see any point in kicking them back in the teeth when they're already down just because that "kicking in the teeth" is their own modus operandi.

People like that are not worth feeling insulted over and it's not possible to demand or expect respect from them. Do you get it?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't make any claims about being a victim, and the answer to your question can be found by reading the posts and being honest with yourself
> 
> The question was answered before you ever asked, but it will require you to scroll back and read if you missed it all before


So, instead of all the lace, why didn't you just write, "I am not claiming to be a victim"? Or something that actually addresses what the other person wants to know.

I suspect most of us don't live or die, hanging on every word written in these general forum threads. Lots of times, people will preface their post by writing, "I haven't read the rest of the thread, but...".

Simple answers are good, if in response to a simple question.


----------



## Sumatra

It's nice how the tables are turned here. Usually it only takes one out of the three to dominate a thread beyond all repair.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> So if some want to use religion to mock and irritate those that don't believe there should be no problem with those that don't believe saying whatever they want about religion.


The Bible tells us that is what we should do. I know some Atheists quite well and they do appreciate prayers. not because they are believers in the Infinity but because they know that you are trying to help them in your way that works the best. Hey, I think they seriously are grateful too for the prayers because they just might be wrong.:thumb:

My father in law was an Atheist but when his 39 year old daughter was dying of cancer, he got to his knees in prayer. He tried everything but she still died and he died being an Atheist. However, he did let a preacher come to see him when he was so sick and wanted him to come back every day so I am not 100% that he did not believe towards the end. I like to think that he did.


----------



## Woolieface

_"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"_

Matthew 5:44


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> The Bible tells us that is what we should do. I know some Atheists quite well and they do appreciate prayers. not because they are believers in the Infinity but because they know that you are trying to help them in your way that works the best. Hey, I think they seriously are grateful too for the prayers because they just might be wrong.:thumb:
> 
> My father in law was an Atheist but when his 39 year old daughter was dying of cancer, he got to his knees in prayer. He tried everything but she still died and he died being an Atheist. However, he did let a preacher come to see him when he was so sick and wanted him to come back every day so I am not 100% that he did not believe towards the end. I like to think that he did.


I have no problem with my Christian friends saying prayers for me. We discuss it and I tell them what I believe and if they then feel the need to pray for me they do it privately.

Those who make a point of doing it here and know that someone does not wish for their prayers use it like a stick to poke people as if to prove they are better for some reason. It is obvious. It defeats the purpose of a prayer.

If I was going through a bad time and one of you offered a prayer for that I would thank-you. I don't think a prayer in a heated discussion to someone that does not believe is sincere and honest.

Yes, that is my opinion.


----------



## Fennick

Woolieface said:


> _"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"_
> 
> Matthew 5:44


That could be worded a little differently, take out the words bless and pray and replace them with some other benign words and it would impart basically the same message as mine above.



painterswife said:


> I have no problem with my Christian friends saying prayers for me. We discuss it and I tell them what I believe and if they then feel the need to pray for me they do it privately.
> 
> Those who make a point of doing it here and know that someone does not wish for their prayers use it like a stick to poke people as if to prove they are better for some reason. It is obvious. It defeats the purpose of a prayer.
> 
> If I was going through a bad time and one of you offered a prayer for that I would thank-you. I don't think a prayer in a heated discussion to someone that does not believe is sincere and honest.
> 
> Yes, that is my opinion.


If I recall correctly somewhere in Matthew it also says something or other to the effect of "W_hen you pray you must go into your private room and shut your door to pray to your lord in secret. Your lord who looks on in secret will repay you.&#8221;_ 

As I understand it the admonition to pray secretly in a private place was meant to discourage public prayer that was offered to call public attention to the one praying in an effort to gain praise and approval from other people rather than from their lord. 

You can't get much more public attention than on a public forum on the world wide web.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sumatra said:


> It's nice how the tables are turned here. Usually it only takes one out of the three to dominate a thread beyond all repair.


It's amazing how so few can totally control the actions of so many.


----------



## painterswife

Fennick said:


> That could be worded a little differently, take out the words bless and pray and replace them with some other benign words and it would impart basically the same message as mine above.
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall correctly somewhere in Matthew it also says something or other to the effect of "W_hen you pray you must go into your private room and shut your door to pray to your lord in secret. Your lord who looks on in secret will repay you.&#8221;_
> 
> As I understand it the admonition to pray secretly in a private place was meant to discourage public prayer that was offered to call public attention to the one praying in an effort to gain praise and approval from other people rather than from their lord.
> 
> You can't get much more public attention than on a public forum on the world wide web.


I did not mean to pray privately. Sorry if It came across that way. I have nothing against someone praying . I just don't like it used as a weapon or as a statement of superiority.


----------



## Fennick

painterswife said:


> I did not mean to pray privately. Sorry if It came across that way. I have nothing against someone praying . I just don't like it used as a weapon or as a statement of superiority.


You misunderstand me. I like what you said, especially that you said if your friends pray for you they do so in private. They are private about it. They aren't announcing to you and to the world at large that they're praying for you. That is the way prayer is supposed to be. A private thing between only the person praying and their lord. Nobody else is supposed to know about it. Nobody is supposed to be asking for prayers. Nobody is supposed to respond to requests for prayers by publically saying "I am praying for you". 

But people do it all the time not knowing that they aren't supposed to do that. Their intent is good though, most of the time, so I can't really fault them for their mistake.

However, I do think that too many people abuse prayer and the power of prayer by either offering or requesting prayers from other people over selfish and/or inconsequential things. I don't believe those kinds of prayers get answered though.


----------



## painterswife

Fennick said:


> You misunderstand me. I like what you said, especially that you said if your friends pray for you they do so in private. They are private about it. They aren't announcing to you and to the world at large that they're praying for you. That is the way prayer is supposed to be. A private thing between only the person praying and their lord. Nobody else is supposed to know about it. Nobody is supposed to be asking for prayers. Nobody is supposed to respond to requests for prayers by publically saying "I am praying for you".
> 
> But people do it all the time not knowing that they aren't supposed to do that. Their intent is good most of the time so I can't really fault them for their mistake.
> 
> However, I do think that too many people abuse prayer and the power of prayer by requesting prayers from other people over inconsequential things. I don't believe those kinds of prayers get answered though.


I did at first misunderstand but posted because I don't want anyone to think I have a problem with public prayer.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wow fennick. You know I don't see where either public or private prayer has been proclaimed as being more correct or wrong. They are both fine and acceptable practices, in many faiths not just Christianity.

Your post, if I understand it is point blank declaring Christians who pray together are in the wrong. I guess you better pm the mods so they can delete all of that type stuff on here.

And, sounds like there's a lot of churches, etc that are clearly off the rails with all that corporate worship and prayer.

I thought you were making decent points for how you see things and why, too. Right up until you said the stuff about no one should let anyone be aware of their prayers.


----------



## Sumatra

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's amazing how so few can totally control the actions of so many.


Agreed. It's fantastic really, how they go into so many threads and have perfected the art of arguing so well for the side 90% of members are opposed to, chronically causing discord even though it's obvious most of the people will never accept the opinions presented.


----------



## Jolly

Fennick said:


> You misunderstand me. I like what you said, especially that you said if your friends pray for you they do so in private. They are private about it. They aren't announcing to you and to the world at large that they're praying for you. That is the way prayer is supposed to be. A private thing between only the person praying and their lord. Nobody else is supposed to know about it. Nobody is supposed to be asking for prayers. Nobody is supposed to respond to requests for prayers by publically saying "I am praying for you".
> 
> But people do it all the time not knowing that they aren't supposed to do that. Their intent is good though, most of the time, so I can't really fault them for their mistake.
> 
> However, I do think that too many people abuse prayer and the power of prayer by either offering or requesting prayers from other people over selfish and/or inconsequential things. I don't believe those kinds of prayers get answered though.


I think you are wrong. I think God chooses to answer most prayers, although we may not like the answer.

If God knows when a sparrow falls, surely he is concerned with the mundane and the everyday? Is not God present in all things, even the small ones?

And if so, do you think that He wishes not to hear prayers about those things, that he wants prayer reserved for only the big things in our lives? Or in other's lives?

Besides, is all prayer about just "things"? I hope not. Prayer should be about the immediate, and about the future. It should be about things, about people, about ideas, about changing the lives of the individual, the community and the world.


----------



## Harry Chickpea




----------



## arabian knight

Jolly said:


> I think you are wrong. I think God chooses to answer most prayers, although we may not like the answer.
> 
> If God knows when a sparrow falls, surely he is concerned with the mundane and the everyday? Is not God present in all things, even the small ones?
> 
> And if so, do you think that He wishes not to hear prayers about those things, that he wants prayer reserved for only the big things in our lives? Or in other's lives?
> 
> Besides, is all prayer about just "things"? I hope not. Prayer should be about the immediate, and about the future. It should be about things, about people, about ideas, about changing the lives of the individual, the community and the world.


 It is horrible how this was started by one that just wondered what happened and one or two just have to come on here and argue over and over again about Freedom From Religion, instead of what this country is about which is Freedom OF religion.
And because of THAT is whole thread has gone right to hell.


----------



## Jolly

Harry Chickpea said:


>


Mixing Scruggs and clawhammer techniques?


----------



## Fennick

gibbsgirl said:


> Wow fennick. You know I don't see where either public or private prayer has been proclaimed as being more correct or wrong. They are both fine and acceptable practices, in many faiths not just Christianity.
> 
> Your post, if I understand it is point blank declaring Christians who pray together are in the wrong. I guess you better pm the mods so they can delete all of that type stuff on here.
> 
> And, sounds like there's a lot of churches, etc that are clearly off the rails with all that corporate worship and prayer.
> 
> I thought you were making decent points for how you see things and why, too. Right up until you said the stuff about no one should let anyone be aware of their prayers.


You sound piqued now. You really need to stop taking other people's posts so personally. The world is not all about you. :hrm:

But yes, I do believe that public prayers _en masse_ is wrong and that publically requesting or offering prayers is wrong.

I don't care if it's Christians or any other religious groups that do it.

That's my opinion. I don't care about other people's opinions about my opinion.


----------



## Woolieface

Fennick said:


> That could be worded a little differently, take out the words bless and pray and replace them with some other benign words and it would impart basically the same message as mine above.
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall correctly somewhere in Matthew it also says something or other to the effect of "W_hen you pray you must go into your private room and shut your door to pray to your lord in secret. Your lord who looks on in secret will repay you.â_
> 
> As I understand it the admonition to pray secretly in a private place was meant to discourage public prayer that was offered to call public attention to the one praying in an effort to gain praise and approval from other people rather than from their lord.
> 
> You can't get much more public attention than on a public forum on the world wide web.


But, it isn't worded differently in the bible. Pray and bless are those things which are synonymous with love.

There are a lot of accusations of intent about those who say they will pray or who bless. No one knows the heart of any individual but God alone and anyone else claiming to know them is assuming quite a position for themselves.

If I pray for someone, I do it with the intent He commanded me to but that pleases those who would be my enemy less than if I were of a mind to be mocking, so it becomes inevitable that this accusation will persist. That's ok, so will my prayers.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Fennick said:


> You sound piqued now. You really need to stop taking other people's posts so personally. The world is not all about you. :hrm:
> 
> But yes, I do believe that public prayers _en masse_ is wrong and that publically requesting or offering prayers is wrong.
> 
> I don't care if it's Christians or any other religious groups that do it.
> 
> That's my opinion. I don't care about other people's opinions about my opinion.


Well thanks for clarifying. I agreed and disagreed with some of what you were writing. But it came across to me as it was your opinion.

But that last part read to me like it wasn't so much opinion, more like a declaration of facts everyone else should agree with and dissidents were just dumb if they disagreed.

That's why I wrote wow. I'm happy for you to gave your opinions, even if mine disagree some. And am glad you're at least interested in throwing your thoughts out there,.


----------



## Fennick

arabian knight said:


> It is horrible how this was started by one that just wondered what happened and one or two just have to come on here and argue over and over again about Freedom From Religion, instead of what this country is about which is Freedom OF religion.
> And because of THAT is whole thread has gone right to hell.


I betcha the person who started this thread is now either:

- kicking herself in the butt for innocently but imprudently starting something that blew up into a controversial thread with people all venting their spleen at each other when that wasn't her intention for it to go that way.....

or

- she imprudently but deliberately did it because she was bored and had a pretty good idea of the direction it would go in and is now gleefully rubbing her hands and grinning over the trouble she started with everyone venting their spleen at each other.

Take your pick. Either way it was imprudent of the OP to start the topic and hopefully everyone's learning some valuable lessons from it now, the OP included.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fennick said:


> If I may offer my philosophy on this matter I think you're looking at the situation the wrong way. You shouldn't be feeling insulted, you should be feeling sorry for them. Note I didn't say to feel compassion or sympathy, just have some understanding of what motivates certain people who are in a more sorry state than you.
> 
> If you've asked people nicely to not pray for you or bless you and they demonstrate point blank they're doing it anyway whether you like it or not then what they've done is they've publically exposed themselves as spiteful weaklings who have no faith or control in themselves and nothing of value to say. They're simply demonstrating that they feel powerless next to you and they despite you for that. Because you reject the thing they believe empowers them, you don't need what they need to make themselves feel stronger or worthy in the regard of whatever extraneous force it is they worship and put their faith in because they have no faith in themselves.
> 
> Prayer or blessing out of spite is like when little children in a school ground try to out-do each other by sticking their tongues out at each other and say "So there!" because they have nothing else more impressive to offer.
> 
> The problem for people who do praying or blessing out of spite is that what goes around comes around to those people who believe in it and so they subconsciously know that the spite they send to you will eventually rebound back at them in some form. Usually a rebound of their own making and that they don't see coming. But they do it anyway because they can't stop themselves, they have no power over themselves so they _"cut off their own nose to spite their face". _
> 
> I'm not saying all religious people are like that, most aren't. It's just the ones who have no power and know it, and probably hate themselves for it, and all they have is prayer and their feeble attempts to kick others in the teeth out of spite.
> 
> I feel sorry for people like that and don't see any point in kicking them back in the teeth when they're already down just because that "kicking in the teeth" is their own modus operandi.
> 
> People like that are not worth feeling insulted over and it's not possible to demand or expect respect from them. Do you get it?


Yes, I do. Thank you so much for explaining it that way. It makes sense that they'd be so spiteful and nasty when they have nothing, not even the real faith they want. 

I know not all the religious are like that, most of my family believes, and both grand kids have been christened, as will the one to be born in September. I've never pushed my non belief on anyone. 

Thank you again, I truly appreciate it.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference at all when you take a simple statement and twist it into some elaborate fantasy.



LOL You must have ducked because something just went over your head. 

:banana:


----------



## Jolly

Fennick said:


> You sound piqued now. You really need to stop taking other people's posts so personally. The world is not all about you. :hrm:
> 
> But yes, I do believe that public prayers _en masse_ is wrong and that publically requesting or offering prayers is wrong.
> 
> I don't care if it's Christians or any other religious groups that do it.
> 
> That's my opinion. I don't care about other people's opinions about my opinion.


So, it is your opinion that a prayer said in unison by a congregation is wrong?

Care to flesh out that idea why that is sinful?

And while we're discussing, what about an individual praying before a congregation?


----------



## MDKatie

where I want to said:


> Because that irritates someone, including moderators, does not mean it is any different than any other form of expression. People who do not believe in prayer but demand it not be allowed if they are the subject of it are only trying to bully others into conforming to their non-belief.


This is hilarious. I had to skip reading the last 7 pages of this thread just so I could respond. People hell-bent on praying for someone who clearly says they do not believe (and asks specifically for no prayers), is just a way for Christian's for force their religion on others. Hypocrites!


----------



## Jolly

MDKatie said:


> This is hilarious. I had to skip reading the last 7 pages of this thread just so I could respond. People hell-bent on praying for someone who clearly says they do not believe (and asks specifically for no prayers), is just a way for Christian's for force their religion on others. Hypocrites!


Your opinion is your own, of course.

I can't recall of a time, though, when opinions stopped prayer.


----------



## MDKatie

Fennick said:


> If I may offer my philosophy on this matter I think you're looking at the situation the wrong way. You shouldn't be feeling insulted, you should be feeling sorry for them. Note I didn't say to feel compassion or sympathy, just have some understanding of what motivates certain people who are in a more sorry state than you.
> 
> If you've asked people nicely to not pray for you or bless you and they demonstrate point blank they're doing it anyway whether you like it or not then what they've done is they've publically exposed themselves as spiteful weaklings who have no faith or control in themselves and nothing of value to say. They're simply demonstrating that they feel powerless next to you and they despite you for that. Because you reject the thing they believe empowers them, you don't need what they need to make themselves feel stronger or worthy in the regard of whatever extraneous force it is they worship and put their faith in because they have no faith in themselves.
> 
> Prayer or blessing out of spite is like when little children in a school ground try to out-do each other by sticking their tongues out at each other and say "So there!" because they have nothing else more impressive to offer.
> 
> The problem for people who do praying or blessing out of spite is that what goes around comes around to those people who believe in it and so they subconsciously know that the spite they send to you will eventually rebound back at them in some form. Usually a rebound of their own making and that they don't see coming. But they do it anyway because they can't stop themselves, they have no power over themselves so they _"cut off their own nose to spite their face". _
> 
> I'm not saying all religious people are like that, most aren't. It's just the ones who have no power and know it, and probably hate themselves for it, and all they have is prayer and their feeble attempts to kick others in the teeth out of spite.
> 
> I feel sorry for people like that and don't see any point in kicking them back in the teeth when they're already down just because that "kicking in the teeth" is their own modus operandi.
> 
> People like that are not worth feeling insulted over and it's not possible to demand or expect respect from them. Do you get it?


Post of the millennium award!!!! :thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> LOL You must have ducked because something just went over your head.
> 
> :banana:


I'm sure you think that
I just didn't take the bait


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say I was a victim
> You have me confused with someone else


When a person acts like a child you normally call them childish. In my opinion you are and have been acting like a victim. To both of those people I would suggest that they try to grow up.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Does that mean that it does not matter what someone says about a religion, the people of the religion like to be offended?


I think they should consider the source


----------



## Shine

Fennick said:


> If I may offer my philosophy on this matter I think you're looking at the situation the wrong way. You shouldn't be feeling insulted, you should be feeling sorry for them. Note I didn't say to feel compassion or sympathy, just have some understanding of what motivates certain people who are in a more sorry state than you.
> 
> If you've asked people nicely to not pray for you or bless you and they demonstrate point blank they're doing it anyway whether you like it or not then what they've done is they've publically exposed themselves as spiteful weaklings who have no faith or control in themselves and nothing of value to say. They're simply demonstrating that they feel powerless next to you and they despite you for that. Because you reject the thing they believe empowers them, you don't need what they need to make themselves feel stronger or worthy in the regard of whatever extraneous force it is they worship and put their faith in because they have no faith in themselves.
> 
> Prayer or blessing out of spite is like when little children in a school ground try to out-do each other by sticking their tongues out at each other and say "So there!" because they have nothing else more impressive to offer.
> 
> The problem for people who do praying or blessing out of spite is that what goes around comes around to those people who believe in it and so they subconsciously know that the spite they send to you will eventually rebound back at them in some form. Usually a rebound of their own making and that they don't see coming. But they do it anyway because they can't stop themselves, they have no power over themselves so they _"cut off their own nose to spite their face". _
> 
> I'm not saying all religious people are like that, most aren't. It's just the ones who have no power and know it, and probably hate themselves for it, and all they have is prayer and their feeble attempts to kick others in the teeth out of spite.
> 
> I feel sorry for people like that and don't see any point in kicking them back in the teeth when they're already down just because that "kicking in the teeth" is their own modus operandi.
> 
> People like that are not worth feeling insulted over and it's not possible to demand or expect respect from them. Do you get it?


Straight up... --> Are you saying that this is what happened?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> When a person acts like a child you normally call them childish. In my opinion you are and have been acting like a victim. To both of those people I would suggest that they try to grow up.


You're entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be.
I would suggest you take your own advice before giving it to others


----------



## Cornhusker

DEKE01 said:


> I can understand why you might say that.
> 
> But it depends on who is doing the thinking.


If you don't think too good, you shouldn't think too much:buds:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Straight up... --> Are you saying that this is what happened?


They described it perfectly


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be.
> I would suggest you take your own advice before giving it to others



...as are you.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They described it perfectly


I am surprised that the Mods allow your spiteful and vindictive behavior to continue. I thought that I was doing a kind thing in your name and you just cannot stop spewing your hatred all over the boards. I am truly sorry I said something about it - if I would have known you would use it for such evil then I would have held my tongue.

Many are right on here that it should not be said but I would submit that their reasoning that there can be only one reason why they would do it is all messed up in this particular case. I wish you were capable of handling things a little better.

To those that say that I did it for this reason or that reason, remember, others can take your intentions and twist them against you. 

se la vie


----------



## gibbsgirl

Shine said:


> ...as are you.


Amen!

Oops, do I have your consent to use that four ltr word in regards to ya shine? Just checking....


----------



## Shine

gibbsgirl said:


> Amen!
> 
> Oops, do I have your consent to use that four ltr word in regards to ya shine? Just checking....


Yes ma'am, you do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I am surprised that the Mods allow your spiteful and vindictive behavior to continue. *I thought that I was doing a kind thing in your name* and you just cannot stop spewing your hatred all over the boards. I am truly sorry I said something about it - if I would have known you would use it for such evil then I would have held my tongue.
> 
> Many are right on here that it should not be said but I would submit that their reasoning that there can be only one reason why they would do it is all messed up in this particular case. I wish you were capable of handling things a little better.
> 
> To those that say that I did it for this reason or that reason, remember, others can take your intentions and twist them against you.
> 
> se la vie


I think you should put me on ignore, and not PM me again.


----------



## Lisa in WA

****************


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> I am surprised that the Mods allow your spiteful and vindictive behavior to continue. I thought that I was doing a kind thing in your name and you just cannot stop spewing your hatred all over the boards. I am truly sorry I said something about it - if I would have known you would use it for such evil then I would have held my tongue.
> 
> Many are right on here that it should not be said but I would submit that their reasoning that there can be only one reason why they would do it is all messed up in this particular case. I wish you were capable of handling things a little better.
> 
> To those that say that I did it for this reason or that reason, remember, others can take your intentions and twist them against you.
> 
> se la vie


BFF isn't "spewing" anything, let alone hatred. He calmly and intelligently posts thoughtful responses and those with opposing viewpoints flip out because their responses are emotionally charged and usually not terribly well thought out. If thought out at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> BFF isn't "spewing" anything, let alone hatred. He calmly and intelligently posts thoughtful responses and those with opposing viewpoints flip out because their responses are emotionally charged and usually not terribly well thought out. If thought out at all.


I bet you never thought you'd say something like that, did you?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bet you never thought you'd say something like that, did you?


Never, ever.


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> BFF isn't "spewing" anything, let alone hatred. He calmly and intelligently posts thoughtful responses and those with opposing viewpoints flip out because their responses are emotionally charged and usually not terribly well thought out. If thought out at all.


We must be reading different boards, well thought out and intelligent responses are not to be found. Emotional and irrational responses are from your group, go back and read what your ilk post, their very clear, albeit disjointed.

Weren't most of you banned at one time?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Life is full of surprises!


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> We must be reading different boards, well thought out and intelligent responses are not to be found. Emotional and irrational responses are from your group, go back and read what your ilk post, their very clear, albeit disjointed.


The flattery is too much. It will go to our heads. :banana:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I am surprised that the Mods allow your spiteful and vindictive behavior to continue. I thought that I was doing a kind thing in your name and you just cannot stop spewing your hatred all over the boards. I am truly sorry I said something about it - if I would have known you would use it for such evil then I would have held my tongue.
> 
> Many are right on here that it should not be said but I would submit that their reasoning that there can be only one reason why they would do it is all messed up in this particular case. I wish you were capable of handling things a little better.
> 
> To those that say that I did it for this reason or that reason, remember, others can take your intentions and twist them against you.
> 
> se la vie


BFF is not a spiteful and vindictive person, in fact he's a nice laid back guy. He's very bright and won't back down when he thinks he's right. 

Bottom line is that he can as little or as much as he wants. Just like any other member.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think you should put me on ignore, and not PM me again.


I shall do as I see fit within the rules of this forum. You want to dictate the rules - buy the forum.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> BFF isn't "spewing" anything, let alone hatred. He calmly and intelligently posts thoughtful responses and those with opposing viewpoints flip out because their responses are emotionally charged and usually not terribly well thought out. If thought out at all.


That would be one person's opinion - noted.


----------



## dixiegal62

Fennick said:


> I betcha the person who started this thread is now either:
> 
> - kicking herself in the butt for innocently but imprudently starting something that blew up into a controversial thread with people all venting their spleen at each other when that wasn't her intention for it to go that way.....
> 
> or
> 
> - she imprudently but deliberately did it because she was bored and had a pretty good idea of the direction it would go in and is now gleefully rubbing her hands and grinning over the trouble she started with everyone venting their spleen at each other.
> 
> Take your pick. Either way it was imprudent of the OP to start the topic and hopefully everyone's learning some valuable lessons from it now, the OP included.


It would be #1 as I said I've been away awhile. I didn't realize just how much of a sore spot this has become. My first post was half in jest I had no intention of starting an all out war. You're right though I should have thought more before I posted and read more hot topics I had missed while gone and maybe I would have realized how far the resentment went.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> We must be reading different boards, well thought out and intelligent responses are not to be found. *Emotional and irrational responses are from your group, go back and read what your ilk post, their very clear, albeit disjointed.*
> 
> Weren't most of you banned at one time?


I was banned 4 times, and the first 3 of them were over ridden because they were so ridiculous.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the posts though.
I very often see well thought out and intelligent posts.

Which is your "ilk" and don't you think they have intelligent posts?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think you should put me on ignore, and not PM me again.


Well, I've never PM'd you, but you're gonna have to tell me where the _Ignore_ function is at.

I've found you do not like to answer direct questions, will ask for proof far in excess of what you are willing to provide, want people to scour through entire threads for minutiae and do not like to let things rest until you have the last word.

It makes any type of conversation pointless and unproductive, IMO. It's just not worth the effort, even on an internet board. The only curiosity I have is if you have the same personna in public, but I'm willing to let that lie.

Now, where is that ignore function, please?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I was banned 4 times, and the first 3 of them were over ridden because they were so ridiculous.
> 
> I have to disagree with your assessment of the posts though.
> I very often see well thought out and intelligent posts.
> 
> Which is your "ilk" and don't you think they have intelligent posts?


I expect that you would disagree, that's what you do! I see some well reasoned posts too, just not from your ilk, you know who I mean. I see emotional responses that aways end up attacking someone for their opinion, just like you do! Want me to prove it to you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I shall do as I see fit within the rules of this forum. You want to dictate the rules - buy the forum.


Why are you so upset when all I did was repeat what you said to me?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I expect that you would disagree, that's what you do! I see some well reasoned posts too, just not from your ilk, you know who I mean. I see emotional responses that aways end up attacking someone for their opinion, just like you do! *Want me to prove it to you?*


You do whatever *you* think is "well reasoned and intelligent" rather than "disjointed and emotional".


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You do whatever *you* think is "well reasoned and intelligent" rather than "disjointed and emotional".


I will, but it was a yes or no question, I gave YOU the choice to make. :facepalm:


----------



## Jolly

Jolly said:


> Well, I've never PM'd you, but you're gonna have to tell me where the _Ignore_ function is at.
> 
> I've found you do not like to answer direct questions, will ask for proof far in excess of what you are willing to provide, want people to scour through entire threads for minutiae and do not like to let things rest until you have the last word.
> 
> It makes any type of conversation pointless and unproductive, IMO. It's just not worth the effort, even on an internet board. The only curiosity I have is if you have the same personna in public, but I'm willing to let that lie.
> 
> Now, where is that ignore function, please?


Well, I wish the man would have told me, as it would have been simpler, but I did manage to go back and chase it down.

I am now a BFF Free Zone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I will, but it was a yes or no question, *I gave YOU the choice* to make. :facepalm:


It's your choice. You can't give it to me.
I only have control over what I say, contrary to what some seem to think


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am now a BFF Free Zone.


Congratulations on finally finding a function that's been in the same place for the entire decade you've been here.

You'll change it back though


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your choice. You can't give it to me.
> I only have control over what I say, contrary to what some seem to think


Sure i can, and I did. Not sure why you can't comprehend that?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why are you so upset when all I did was repeat what you said to me?


yeah... Right... all innocent now - awwww


Why am I upset? You change the meanings of my posts, you ride me with your interpretations of what I mean when I type things - you twist just about everything. You take good efforts and drag them through the dirt and then call them dirty. To me, it does not seem that you want to debate things on their value. You drag everything down into the mud.

You asked so I will answer truthfully, you do not seem to be honest.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Congratulations on finally finding a function that's been in the same place for the entire decade you've been here.
> 
> You'll change it back though


They always do.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Congratulations on finally finding a function that's been in the same place for the entire decade you've been here.
> 
> You'll change it back though


To funny! How conceited can one be???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *Sure i can, and I did*. Not sure why you can't comprehend that?


You can and did what?
You said you were going to "prove" something or other


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> To funny! How conceited can one be???


He writes the truth. I have been put on ignore many time or so they say. They always end up turning it off. It is just reality. Like it or not.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> He writes the truth. I have been put on ignore many time or so they say. They always end up turning it off. It is just reality. Like it or not.


Ma'am, I ain't they.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, I ain't they.


TIME will tell.


----------



## Shine

such venom, such spite, such vindictiveness, such pettyness... I sure don't get it. I hope you guys act better in your face to face dealings or I would imagine that you have lots of marks on yous...


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can and did what?
> You said you were going to "prove" something or other


Why I gave YOU the choice of corse, don't be obtuse. (Unless you have a medical issue that prevents you from cognitive reasoning, which i suspect, then I apologize )


----------



## JeffreyD

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, I ain't they.


She's the only one I've ever put on ignore. Yup, still there! I think her reality is not based on truth.


----------



## JeffreyD

Shine said:


> such venom, such spite, such vindictiveness, such pettyness... I sure don't get it. I hope you guys act better in your face to face dealings or I would imagine that you have lots of marks on yous...


Their typically the ones who fling poo and run away!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> yeah... Right... all innocent now - awwww
> 
> 
> Why am I upset? You change the meanings of my posts, you ride me with your interpretations of what I mean when I type things - you twist just about everything. You take good efforts and drag them through the dirt and then call them dirty. To me, it does not seem that you want to debate things on their value. You drag everything down into the mud.
> 
> You asked so I will answer truthfully, you do not seem to be honest.


I'm still not sure why those things upset you now when it doesn't bother you if you or your buddies do all those same things too. 

The "like" button doesn't lie


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Why I gave YOU the choice of corse, don't be obtuse. (Unless you have a medical issue that prevents you from cognitive reasoning, which i suspect, then I apologize )


Have we reached the "reasonable and intelligent" parts yet?

And I must have missed that "proof"

Explain one more time about my "choice" please.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Have we reached the "reasonable and intelligent" parts yet?
> 
> And I must have missed that "proof"
> 
> Explain one more time about my "choice" please.


WE have, you, have not. Read post #315. I haven't posted any proof.....yet, i gave you that choice, remember? I guess not, so you have missed nothing.(maybe that cognitive issue IS true, who knew?)


----------



## Lisa in WA

JeffreyD said:


> Their typically the ones who fling poo and run away!


Poor, poor Jeffrey D.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> WE have, you, have not. Read post #315. I haven't posted any proof.....yet, *i gave you that choice*, remember? I guess not, so you have missed nothing.(maybe that cognitive issue IS true, who knew?)


I'm pretty sure I don't get to make the choice and I'm pretty sure I can prove that (since your proof seems to be non-existent)


----------



## Fennick

Jolly said:


> So, it is your opinion that a prayer said in unison by a congregation is wrong?
> 
> Care to flesh out that idea why that is sinful?
> 
> And while we're discussing, what about an individual praying before a congregation?


Yes, it's wrong for prayers to be said in unison by a congregation and for an individual to pray before a congregation.

Sinful is far too strong a word that I don't use. To accuse somebody of sinfulness smacks of religious fanaticism on the part of the accuser. Be careful of the words you use, understand what they mean. 

I already explained why public prayer is wrong but I'll explain again. Prayer to your lord is supposed to be done alone and secretly in a private place. Nobody else is supposed to know anything about it except the lord you pray to. It's a covenant between the praying person and their lord - pray secretly and the lord promises to answer. 

Even your lord Jesus agrees with me on that and Jesus commanded it to be so. 

If people do pray in public and not secretly as commanded it's wrong because they were trained up wrongly by their elders and don't know any better, and their elders were wrong and didn't know better because their elders trained them up wrong too. And on and on, but it's not a sin. It's just the wrong way to pray to the lord and the public prayers won't get answered because it was done in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what the lord wants and commanded. 

Why would any lord reward people for doing the exact opposite of what the lord requested? 



Shine said:


> Straight up... --> Are you saying that this is what happened?


Why are you asking me? I wasn't there. Irish Pixie said that people have told her that they would/did pray for her after she specifically asked them to not do it. I'm taking what she said at face value and have no reason to not believe her. I've seen and heard it happen with other people lots of times so have no reason to think her story is different. There have been times in the past when I've seen posts where snarky people sarcastically say "I'll pray for you" or "you're in my prayers" or "bless you" or "bless your heart" and they are obviously saying it out of spite and meaness to get the last word in with somebody they don't like and disagree with but can't think of anything else meaningful to say to them.

I think that kind of thing is abusive and sacrilegious, that kind of sacrilege might even be something that a lord would actually consider a sinful act against the lord. Because the person who is saying those things out of meaness is using their prayer as a threat or a weapon and that means they believe they're holding their lord as a sword over the head of the person they're threatening.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still not sure why those things upset you now when it doesn't bother you if you or your buddies do all those same things too.
> 
> The "like" button doesn't lie


Please cite any post where I was any of the items that I mentioned, I might be unaware... I am not in charge of my "buddies" - or should I be?


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> Poor, poor Jeffrey D.


Proved me right! Thanks!!!


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure I don't get to make the choice and I'm pretty sure I can prove that (since your proof seems to be non-existent)


Go for it!!! I gave YOU the option. It really is that simple. My proof hasn't been posted...yet. 

Would YOU like me to? (I know it's hard, but it is a yes or no question)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *Proved* me right! Thanks!!!


Of course she did.
We got tired of waiting for you to do it for yourself.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course she did.
> We got tired of waiting for you to do it for yourself.


You mean YOU got tired of not answering the simplest of questions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Go for it!!! I gave YOU the option. It really is that simple. My proof hasn't been posted...yet.
> 
> Would YOU like me to? (I know it's hard, but it is a yes or no question)


Stop pretending you have any interest in what I "like" and just do what ever it is you claim you're going to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> You mean YOU got tired of not answering the simplest of questions.


No, I mean exactly what I said

This is the sort of silly game that got the other thread locked.
It's not that original.

Still waiting for the "reasonable and intelligent"


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still waiting for the "reasonable and intelligent"


Why? :shrug:

Is it important?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Please cite any post where I was any of the items that I mentioned, I might be unaware... I am not in charge of my "buddies" - or should I be?


I didn't say you were in charge of anyone else, but that's an example of you twisting what someone said.

I'm not going back through your posts. You know which ones they are.

Fennick has explained it all* extremely* well more than once now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Fennick said:


> Why? :shrug:
> 
> Is it important?


No, not really

It's more a combination of boredom and minor curiosity

If he doesn't come through pretty soon I'll just stop responding to the baiting


----------



## Shine

Fennick said:


> _Why are you asking me? I wasn't there. (1) _Irish Pixie said that people have told her that they would/did pray for her after she specifically asked them to not do it. I'm taking what she said at face value and have no reason to not believe her._(2)_ I've seen and heard it happen with other people lots of times so have no reason to think her story is different._(3)_ There have been times in the past when I've seen posts where snarky people sarcastically say "I'll pray for you" or "you're in my prayers" or "bless you" or "bless your heart" and they are obviously saying it out of spite and meaness to get the last word in with somebody they don't like and disagree with but can't think of anything else meaningful to say to them._(4)_
> 
> I think that kind of thing is abusive and sacrilegious, that kind of sacrilege might even be something that a lord would actually consider a sinful act against the lord._(5)_ Because the person who is saying those things out of meaness is using their prayer as a threat or a weapon and that means they believe they're holding their lord as a sword over the head of the person they're threatening._(6)_


Your post directly put me in the spot light, I wish to call you to task.

(1) You have spoken an absolute as far as the situation that you did not witness or verify. So I am asking you - Is this what actually happened?
(2) Are you comfortable with taking one side at face value without verifying the other side's story?
(3) This is a very dangerous and possibly hurtful way to manage opinions that might be hurtful.
(4) I would ask you here again, directly - Are you saying that this is what actually happened in the situation where you are addressing a perceived "slight" by me?
(5) If done as you are stating, I am in complete agreement. The Lord teaches me often about Hypocrisy.
(6) What if a person found themselves at the absolute end of the rope with regards to one person's behavior who then went to the Lord in prayer because the feeling of hate and vileness was welling up within themselves and sought His counsel, the direction that was perceived was one of Love and Kindness, I prayed further [are you going to call me out for that too?] and included the person that was vexing me, and then... in a now affirmed stupid effort, I shared that effort with the person to somehow let them know that I cared enough for them to go before Jesus and ask Him to bless her or him, I know not and I asked Him to share His Love and put His arms of protection around them.

From the moment I awaken until my last thought before sleep, I am in conversation with Him, it is my gift of life and I cannot do it without Him.


----------



## DEKE01

this thread has reached a new low in pettiness. I've seen more intelligent discussion by 3rd graders. 

there has been no effort to have a meaningful discussion in several pages. I hope the reasonable people will just walk away and quit feeding the :trollface 

I'll leave it up to each of you to decide who is reasonable.


----------



## arabian knight

I got a big bowl of popcorn and watch this carp continue to fester around into the realm of the ridiculous.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still not sure why those things upset you now when it doesn't bother you if you or your buddies do all those same things too.
> 
> The "like" button doesn't lie


You said: I didn't say you were in charge of anyone else, but that's an example of you twisting what someone said.

Is it difficult for you to remember what you said? Do I have to identify how my suggestion that I am not in charge of my "buddies" as you have suggested and implied in the first quote does quantify an implication that I am some how responsible for them? Here it is - for all to see. Now, 'splain to me who's doing the twisting???

Oh, forgot to ask, you place a personal value on the "like" button?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> this thread has reached a new low in pettiness. I've seen more intelligent discussion by 3rd graders.
> 
> there has been no effort to have a meaningful discussion in several pages. I hope the reasonable people will just walk away and quit feeding the :trollface
> 
> I'll leave it *up to each of you to decide who is reasonable*.


Then you agree with what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say you were in charge of anyone else, but that's an example of you twisting what someone said.
> 
> I'm not going back through your posts. You know which ones they are.
> 
> Fennick has explained it all* extremely* well more than once now.


Nice attempt at an easy out. I see what you are trying to get away with, Hold others to task and try to skate when others ask the same of you.

I have already asked Fennick to account for his observation to determine if he is directly addressing me. [notice how people do that?]

You see, some portions of Fennick's reply I agree with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Oh, forgot to ask, you place a personal value on the "like" button?


I never use it myself, but it's useful for showing what people support as well as who people support



> Do I have to identify how my *suggestion* that I am not in charge of my "buddies" as *you have suggested and implied* in the first quote does quantify an *implication* that I am some how responsible for them?


I can't control what you infer if it's not what I said.

Since it's not possible to control anyone other than yourself, it makes no sense to think I said/implied/suggested that.

It has been said that 3 people have the power to control the traffic on this entire site though. I don't recall if you liked that post or not, but I know you didn't say it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nice attempt at an easy out. *I see what you are trying to get away with*, Hold others to task and try to skate when others ask the same of you.


No, I really don't think you see at all.


----------



## Fennick

Shine said:


> Your post directly put me in the spot light, I wish to call you to task.
> 
> .... < snip > ....
> 
> From the moment I awaken until my last thought before sleep, I am in conversation with Him, it is my gift of life and I cannot do it without Him.


My post did not put you in the spot light since I wasn't referring to any particular person when I offered my philosophy to the lady who was feeling she had been insulted. She didn't mention who had insulted her, I didn't ask and I don't care who it was and don't need to know. If you feel you are in the spot light it's because you have put yourself there now with your above post.

I read the parts of your post that I snipped from your quote but I'm not going to be responding to them. No offense intended and I understand you feel you have problems with somebody else online but I don't rise to the demands of people online telling me they are taking me to task and challenging me to answer them. It's not important to me.

If you are in conversation with your lord from the time you awake until the time you sleep and feel you cannot get through your life without that constant conversation then I think you have a problem. Again, no offense intended but I think you need to get some counselling from a qualified religious counsellor or support group about that because it's really not healthy and you need help that you won't find online to overcome that kind of dependency.

Good luck with that, okay? I wish you well.


----------



## Sumatra

dixiegal62 said:


> It would be #1 as I said I've been away awhile. I didn't realize just how much of a sore spot this has become. My first post was half in jest I had no intention of starting an all out war. You're right though I should have thought more before I posted and read more hot topics I had missed while gone and maybe I would have realized how far the resentment went.


Try not to beat yourself up too much over it. Things that needed to be said are finally being said on this thread, and it's better than letting people stew even further.


----------



## Shrek

Interesting. There are over 350 replies in this this thread and due to the sheer length of the thread most of the individual tangents all seem to get quickly lost where if the posters were to have started a new thread structured around the core concept of the drift tangent they posted they might have created some active and clear discussion and debate instead of just adding to the collection of tangent sound bites that has grown to over 10 pages on a single thread.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never use it myself, but it's useful for showing what people support as well as who people support
> 
> 
> I can't control what you infer if it's not what I said. Oh... so you recognize that what you meant was not what was understood, Correct? Why then is your meanings forced upon others when you understand a meaning that is different than their meaning?
> 
> Since it's not possible to control anyone other than yourself, it makes no sense to think I said/implied/suggested that. You know, words have meaning, so if you imply that I should feel some sort of "shame" at their actions you are implying that their actions affect me, therefore if I am going to keep myself whole - I should police them? Can you find some way of moderating your requests of others and your compliance of requests similar to that which you require of others?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I really don't think you see at all.



I am absolutely CERTAIN that I do see clearly. This is what you have been doing for quite some time. I would love to see the reasons that you have been banned multiple times in the past, I am finding that to be understandable on a number of fronts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *I am absolutely CERTAIN that I do see clearly*. This is what you have been doing for quite some time. I would love to see the reasons that you have been banned multiple times in the past, I am finding that to be understandable on a number of fronts.


Well, if you're absolutely certain, there's no need to ask me anything else, huh?


----------



## Sumatra

painterswife said:


> He writes the truth. I have been put on ignore many time or so they say. They always end up turning it off. It is just reality. Like it or not.


Nice way to flatter yourself. The only time I ever ended up removing you from the ignore list was when you were banned and now you're back on it. The same applies to anyone else on the list, in fact. None of them were ever removed unless they left. It's never worth the aggravation.

And before you mention that I'm responding to you right now- I'm reading through all ignored posts on this thread simply out of curiosity, the rest of the time, I don't bother.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Well, if you're absolutely certain, there's no need to ask me anything else, huh?


Pretty much...


----------



## painterswife

Sumatra said:


> Nice way to flatter yourself. The only time I ever ended up removing you from the ignore list was when you were banned and now you're back on it. The same applies to anyone else on the list, in fact. None of them were ever removed unless they left. It's never worth the aggravation.
> 
> And before you mention that I'm responding to you right now- I'm reading through all ignored posts on this thread simply out of curiosity, the rest of the time, I don't bother.


Don't get the logic of removing someone that left but if it floats your boat then Okay captain. You are reading the ignored posts so you have done what I said.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Sumatra said:


> Try not to beat yourself up too much over it. Things that needed to be said are finally being said on this thread, and it's better than letting people stew even further.


Just as long as they are the right words from the _right_ people, eh? 

My opinion- the OP knew exactly what was going to happen when she posted, the crap storm didn't quite go the way she wanted, but it is what she intended.


----------



## Jolly

> Even your lord Jesus agrees with me on that and Jesus commanded it to be so.


When you cherry-pick the Bible, you lose track sometimes of larger meanings.

There is nothing wrong with praying in public. There is a beautiful prayer in Samuel, where the king fell on his knees in the new temple, and prayed to God before the host of Israel.

And remember the miracle of Jesus feeding the multitude with the loaves and the fishes? Jesus openly prayed to God, thanking him before the meal.

Yes, the pharisees were castigated for hypocritical piety, which included "look at me" prayers in public, but I can find nothing in the Bible that says where Jesus, Samuel or any other earnestly praying person has sinned by praying in public.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Everyone gets an opinion now. Ain't it great? No more infractions or banning if the mod/admin doesn't agree with your politics or opinion.
> 
> Fair and impartial moderation is the rule here now.


Total BS.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Just as long as they are the right words from the _right_ people, eh?
> 
> My opinion- the OP knew exactly what was going to happen when she posted, the crap storm didn't quite go the way she wanted, but it is what she intended.


Well, that's your opinion. That and a buck will buy you a small coffee at MickeyD's, as would mine.

Now, my opinion is that you are projecting your feelings on what the OP wrote. I can see nothing in the initial statement, other than some amazement by a infrequent visitor that things had become so rowdy.

Kissenger said paranoid people have enemies, too. And while that may be true, I don't think the whole world is out to get you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Well, that's your opinion. That and a buck will buy you a small coffee at MickeyD's, as would mine.
> 
> Now, my opinion is that you are projecting your feelings on what the OP wrote. I can see nothing in the initial statement, other than some amazement by a infrequent visitor that things had become so rowdy.
> 
> Kissenger said paranoid people have enemies, too. And while that may be true, I don't think the whole world is out to get you.


What does paranoia, Kissenger, or enemies have to do with my post? Where did I say anyone was out to get me? Can you point that out, please? 

Practice Google psychology on someone else, I don't want or need a wannbe counselor projecting their lack of whatever on me, K?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> What does paranoia, Kissenger, or enemies have to do with my post? Where did I say anyone was out to get me? Can you point that out, please?
> 
> Practice Google psychology on someone else, I don't want or need a wannbe counselor projecting their lack of whatever on me, K?



Run of the mill - continued bantering.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Run of the mill - continued bantering.


Yet you are right there with her.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Yet you are right there with her.


It all depends on _who_ is doing the bantering- notice it's me and not Jolly? I responded to an on topic post, Jolly responded to _me_. 

Just because we don't agree with "90% of the members" we're automatically wrong and don't deserve an opinion. Daft, huh?

ETA: Jolly posted specifically to me rather than on topic again (post 379). This time he upped it to a personal attack, and _I'm_ the one that is a problem here?


----------



## Cornhusker

This one kinda got away from us
Maybe we should have a cage match


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> This one kinda got away from us
> Maybe we should have a cage match


Really? Almost 400 posts and not one deletion. Everyone got to voice thier opinion. I think it went well.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Really? Almost 400 posts and not one deletion. Everyone got to voice thier opinion. I think it went well.


Maybe, but a cage match would be fun anyway


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe, but a cage match would be fun anyway


We have cage matches at another forum. I don't' think most of the people here could handle that kind of honesty from their fellow forum members.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> What does paranoia, Kissenger, or enemies have to do with my post? Where did I say anyone was out to get me? Can you point that out, please?
> 
> Practice Google psychology on someone else, I don't want or need a wannbe counselor projecting their lack of whatever on me, K?


In my professional career, I had the opportunity to be around a lot of mentally ill people, some not so much, some that killed their entire family because of voices in their head. Now, that's not to say I think you're mentally ill or that I am.

But it brings up an observation...all of those people were convinced they were just as sane as anybody else, most of the time whether they took their meds or not.

I guess all of that is just a roundabout way of saying, if a lot of folks think you're being snarky or snippy or whatever, sometimes it does a person good to pull back and see what the rest of the world sees. After a bit of introspection, if it seems like the rest of the world is wrong and you're right, maybe that just may be the case. Or not.

But it never hurts to back up and read what one has written with a fresh set of eyes. It helps me.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> In my professional career, I had the opportunity to be around a lot of mentally ill people, some not so much, some that killed their entire family because of voices in their head. Now, that's not to say I think you're mentally ill or that I am.
> 
> But it brings up an observation...all of those people were convinced they were just as sane as anybody else, most of the time whether they took their meds or not.
> 
> I guess all of that is just a roundabout way of saying, if a lot of folks think you're being snarky or snippy or whatever, sometimes it does a person good to pull back and see what the rest of the world sees. After a bit of introspection, if it seems like the rest of the world is wrong and you're right, maybe that just may be the case. Or not.
> 
> But it never hurts to back up and read what one has written with a fresh set of eyes. It helps me.


Yes, it is good back up and read with a fresh set of eyes what you write. Do you do that as well because it goes both ways? 

There are very few here that participate in GS and Politics that are not guilty
of being snarky and snippy.


----------



## Shine

Been reading since 2008, signed on in 2011. Don't visit the Political page but rarely, matter of fact, somehow I think its been clicked out of my profile. There is a new air to the forum within the GC and S&EP threads but it appears the other threads that I wander among have remained the same. Before it would appear that people would add thoughts and observations to others threads but rarely was it so acrimonious. Sometimes it got heated but that was a rarity. Now it is appearing to be the rule in the two threads mentioned above. It seems that people are responding in such a way so as to turn it into a battle zone. Posts that are all or nothing, no chance for discussion, consideration or wiggle room.

Not sure I am happy with this.


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> Been reading since 2008, signed on in 2011. Don't visit the Political page but rarely, matter of fact, somehow I think its been clicked out of my profile. There is a new air to the forum within the GC and S&EP threads but it appears the other threads that I wander among have remained the same. Before it would appear that people would add thoughts and observations to others threads but rarely was it so acrimonious. Sometimes it got heated but that was a rarity. Now it is appearing to be the rule in the two threads mentioned above. It seems that people are responding in such a way so as to turn it into a battle zone. Posts that are all or nothing, no chance for discussion, consideration or wiggle room.
> 
> Not sure I am happy with this.


 Ya really. The give in take is, I know what things are, you don't, and that is it~! No compromise no saying well just maybe this liberal stuff isn't working, ideas just may get better results. But Nope it is right down the liberal agenda of shutting out ANY other thoughts and ideas.
And then it goes into what this thread has gotten into One or two on here are right and that is it I don't care what the majority wants I want it my way and my way only. And keep going gone and on and on until it is right in the toilet~! Many posts should not have gotten the light of day on here imo.
Too much picking at nits, and get nothing accomplished AT All but a few back and forth little children bickering and that is it.~! 
Too many of this I want it my way and nothing else will DO~! And can't even stop posting but will have to try and have the last word No Matter What~! This sure has gone way out of touch what this forum was want upon a time. And that is a family friendly give and take and SHARING ideas~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine:


> It seems that people are responding in such a way so as to turn it into a battle zone. Posts that are all or nothing, *no chance for discussion*, consideration or wiggle room.
> 
> Not sure I am happy with this.


Arabian Knight


> But Nope it is right down the *liberal agenda of shutting out ANY other thoughts* and ideas.


Aren't both of you here and saying everything you want to say?

Who is "shutting you out" when it's obvious you're posting any time you want?

How can anyone say there is "no discussion" on a thread with nearly 400 posts?

People need to start being *honest with themselves* once in a while, and stop pretending one side is any better than the other

Arabian knight:


> Many posts should not have gotten the light of day on here imo.


Someone once told me, "You want to dictate the rules - buy the forum"

I thought it was the "liberal agenda" that wanted to "shut out any other thoughts".

It's so confusing as to which side is which


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> It all depends on _who_ is doing the bantering- notice it's me and not Jolly? I responded to an on topic post, Jolly responded to _me_.
> 
> Just because we don't agree with "90% of the members" we're automatically wrong and don't deserve an opinion. Daft, huh?
> 
> ETA: Jolly posted specifically to me rather than on topic again (post 379). This time he upped it to a personal attack, and _I'm_ the one that is a problem here?


There is nothing in #379 that can be considered a personal attack.

I think thou dost protest too much...


----------



## partndn

Shine said:


> Been reading since 2008, signed on in 2011. Don't visit the Political page but rarely, matter of fact, somehow I think its been clicked out of my profile. There is a new air to the forum within the GC and S&EP threads but it appears the other threads that I wander among have remained the same. Before it would appear that people would add thoughts and observations to others threads but rarely was it so acrimonious. Sometimes it got heated but that was a rarity. Now it is appearing to be the rule in the two threads mentioned above. It seems that people are responding in such a way so as to turn it into a battle zone. Posts that are all or nothing, no chance for discussion, consideration or wiggle room.
> 
> Not sure I am happy with this.





arabian knight said:


> Ya really. The give in take is, I know what things are, you don't, and that is it~! No compromise no saying well just maybe this liberal stuff isn't working, ideas just may get better results. But Nope it is right down the liberal agenda of shutting out ANY other thoughts and ideas.
> And then it goes into what this thread has gotten into One or two on here are right and that is it I don't care what the majority wants I want it my way and my way only. And keep going gone and on and on until it is right in the toilet~! Many posts should not have gotten the light of day on here imo.
> Too much picking at nits, and get nothing accomplished AT All but a few back and forth little children bickering and that is it.~!
> Too many of this I want it my way and nothing else will DO~! And can't even stop posting but will have to try and have the last word No Matter What~! This sure has gone way out of touch what this forum was want upon a time. And that is a family friendly give and take and SHARING ideas~!


 
I have to agree. 
I understand the GC and Politics forums having expanded to more "outside" the friendly advice type posts. We have seen some change, and in those forums, I guess it is what it is. Fine.. at least for those subject forums. 

But it's not just those (or S&EP). 

This past week or so, there has been a huge jack grits in the poultry forum.. THE POULTRY FORUM.. for pete's sake.
Bashing all thought of a new poster who had questions.

Another one in the goat forum was really ugly too. I pm'd a mod more than a week ago with question about whether that was to be the norm over there, and then reported one post a few days ago, but have heard nothing at all. 

I would like to at least have some clarification. I truly think 2 members, very new, have left the forum completely because of how they were treated. Other members had tried to comment to the person that questions are supposed to be welcome, no matter how entry level or even misguided, but that just seemed to feed the troll.. 

Some lurker members (join dates from quite a while ago, but very low post counts) were so bothered by it, they decided to post how valuable this forum had been in their hard work/learning process. They expressed how they hoped people could continue to post questions and get helpful answers. They expressed concern at the mocking and making fun of a person's question and thoughts.

But this annoyance of a person continued posting, insulting, and boldly feeding what they knew was irritating. It didn't help that one long time member pal'd up and joined in with the bad manners either.

Doesn't the site care about retaining members of the core interests? Livestock, homesteading and general learning of homestead related issues? 

The GC and Pol is sort of secondary to the real purpose of this forum, isn't it? So if members get ticked off over here in GC, they can stop looking or whatever. I don't think that's a huge "click" count loss for the overall forum if that happens.

As painterswife said, there are other forums for more nasty unmoderated posts, and that's great for those who want to be in that environment. Like for GC topics and such. But for those who come here sincerely seeking advice on a home/backyard chicken issue, I'm pretty sure they expect the HT subtitle "neighborly help and friendly advice" 

I am serious, it has crossed my mind that a couple members showing joined in the last month or two, are actually plants by the owners, or some consulting firm that has been hired to test site statistics and what raises them or something. I dunno. But I ain't gonna lie, I've thought it might be possible lately.

If I'm wrong on that, I 'pologize for the accusatory thoughts. But I have trouble with any reasonable explanation for allowing turds in those core threads to belittle the very type of folks that keep the forum going.

If we ruin those core forums over there, I don't know what the purpose of HT would be.


----------



## Jolly

partndn said:


> I have to agree.
> I understand the GC and Politics forums having expanded to more "outside" the friendly advice type posts. We have seen some change, and in those forums, I guess it is what it is. Fine.. at least for those subject forums.
> 
> But it's not just those (or S&EP).
> 
> This past week or so, there has been a huge jack grits in the poultry forum.. THE POULTRY FORUM.. for pete's sake.
> Bashing all thought of a new poster who had questions.
> 
> Another one in the goat forum was really ugly too. I pm'd a mod more than a week ago with question about whether that was to be the norm over there, and then reported one post a few days ago, but have heard nothing at all.
> 
> I would like to at least have some clarification. I truly think 2 members, very new, have left the forum completely because of how they were treated. Other members had tried to comment to the person that questions are supposed to be welcome, no matter how entry level or even misguided, but that just seemed to feed the troll..
> 
> Some lurker members (join dates from quite a while ago, but very low post counts) were so bothered by it, they decided to post how valuable this forum had been in their hard work/learning process. They expressed how they hoped people could continue to post questions and get helpful answers. They expressed concern at the mocking and making fun of a person's question and thoughts.
> 
> But this annoyance of a person continued posting, insulting, and boldly feeding what they knew was irritating. It didn't help that one long time member pal'd up and joined in with the bad manners either.
> 
> Doesn't the site care about retaining members of the core interests? Livestock, homesteading and general learning of homestead related issues?
> 
> The GC and Pol is sort of secondary to the real purpose of this forum, isn't it? So if members get ticked off over here in GC, they can stop looking or whatever. I don't think that's a huge "click" count loss for the overall forum if that happens.
> 
> As painterswife said, there are other forums for more nasty unmoderated posts, and that's great for those who want to be in that environment. Like for GC topics and such. But for those who come here sincerely seeking advice on a home/backyard chicken issue, I'm pretty sure they expect the HT subtitle "neighborly help and friendly advice"
> 
> I am serious, it has crossed my mind that a couple members showing joined in the last month or two, are actually plants by the owners, or some consulting firm that has been hired to test site statistics and what raises them or something. I dunno. But I ain't gonna lie, I've thought it might be possible lately.
> 
> If I'm wrong on that, I 'pologize for the accusatory thoughts. But I have trouble with any reasonable explanation for allowing turds in those core threads to belittle the very type of folks that keep the forum going.
> 
> If we ruin those core forums over there, I don't know what the purpose of HT would be.


One of the things you may want to look at, is whether a GC or Politics poster, posts anywhere else.

I think it's one thing to be a bit thorny down here, but a whole 'nuther ballgame to take that attitude to the rest of the site. And I also think that the folks that participate down here, should at least try to be helpful in some of the other fora...


----------



## Patchouli

Cornhusker said:


> Lotsa muslims on this forum is there?


So it's okay to attack other religions so long as they don't have a high number of members here? How do you know what anyone's religion is besides the very vocal Christian contingent? If I was a Muslim I sure wouldn't mention it here what with people saying they should all be tossed out of this country and stuff like that.


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> SO may seem to have such a thin skin and just MUST talk about how they are getting hit on. Move on the time on this earth is SHORT and worth worth getting undies all tied up in a knot if someone does some kind of religious GREETING OR WISHING WELL.


Says the man who started this recent thread: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...s-gone-absolutely-insane-out-their-minds.html

:thumb:


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> Everybody has a religion. Maybe Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. Even a practicing atheist is a type of religion.
> 
> And some folks belong to The Church of the Perpetually Offended.
> 
> Ready. Shoot! Aim....


Nope sorry. I happen to be an Apatheist. I have no religion, have no interest in ever having one and don't care about it one way or the other so far as my personal existence goes. 

As for perpetually offended I would be careful, you know what they say about pointing.


----------



## partndn

Jolly said:


> One of the things you may want to look at, is whether a GC or Politics poster, posts anywhere else.
> 
> I think it's one thing to be a bit thorny down here, but a whole 'nuther ballgame to take that attitude to the rest of the site. And I also think that the folks that participate down here, should at least try to be helpful in some of the other fora...


Yeah. 
I will make one correction. I said one of the trouble causers looked to join in the last couple months, but actually it was late last year. However, they never posted until very recently. And boy, did they slip in like a sneaky foul fart. :yuck:

Anyway.. Right. Ya know, when I'm in here, I get that I am in a different place.

Pixie knows I don't agree with her here, well never say never, but you know what I mean. And that probably ain't ever changin. 

BUT.. I also think if I posted a pic of an unidentified vine over in that forum, I think she'd be nice enough to post an answer if she knew it. No snark, just info. Helpful advice.

And if painterswife posted a question about a tomato variety I had grown, I'd put a reply there in an effort to give helpful insight.

I mean, surely we can be decent people, in the context of what this forum is really about, without sacrificing our beliefs and opinions.

There are always going to be some conflicts over there, mostly due to big ag vs. small local farm type opinions. But basically, I think the making fun of people should not be allowed in those forums.

We can be for transparency here, and leave all the snarkiness. But over there, I say delete delete delete, and warn/infract when it goes from opinion to running newbies off. Don't be a turd.


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> Yeah.
> I will make one correction. I said the turd looked to join in the last couple months, but actually it was late last year. However, they never posted until very recently. And boy, did they slip in like a sneaky foul fart. :yuck:
> 
> Anyway.. Right. Ya know, when I'm in here, I get that I am in a different place.
> 
> Pixie knows I don't agree with her here, well never say never, but you know what I mean. And that probably ain't ever changin.
> 
> BUT.. I also think if I posted a pic of an unidentified vine over in that forum, I think she'd be nice enough to post an answer if she knew it. No snark, just info. Helpful advice.
> 
> And if painterswife posted a question about a tomato variety I had grown, I'd put a reply there in an effort to give helpful insight.
> 
> I mean, surely we can be decent people, in the context of what this forum is really about, without sacrificing our beliefs and opinions.
> 
> There are always going to be some conflicts over there, mostly due to big ag vs. small local farm type opinions. But basically, I think the making fun of people should not be allowed in those forums.
> 
> We can be for transparency here, and leave all the snarkiness. But over there, I say delete delete delete, and warn/infract when it goes from opinion to running newbies off. Don't be a turd.


Every single person here can be civil , helpful and nice. The tone here in GC and politics has been set for years. Name calling and snark galore. The only difference is that both sides now get tospeak up in the same way.


----------



## Patchouli

I agree on keeping the tone we have here and out of everywhere else on the board. Politics is always going to be crazy and ugly. I don't even go in there anymore. GC has always been more freewheeling although I have seen the moderation change pretty dramatically over the years. I have been here since 2003. I remember the days of wrangling with Comfortably Numb and Oz and it could get pretty crazy. Then it got locked down, they got booted along with a lot of other rather entertaining posters. Then GC became the place to get banned if you weren't part of the protected crowd, a large chunk of 10-12 year members got tossed over about a 1 year period. Everyone had to tiptoe around because you never knew when they infractions were going to fly. 

You can say what you like about a certain person and her 2 buddies but I can name a few on the other side who were absolutely vicious and never got banned or shut down and almost never even had a post deleted. That poster and her cronies are still posting away these days so I would say things have evened out and are more balanced now. For the most part the only thing that I have seen deleted are personal insult slapfests.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> So it's okay to attack other religions so long as they don't have a high number of members here? How do you know what anyone's religion is besides the very vocal Christian contingent? If I was a Muslim I sure wouldn't mention it here what with people saying they should all be tossed out of this country and stuff like that.


Well, when the Roman Catholic Church revives the Knights Templar and sends them into shopping malls shouting "beauseant" and killing little children, they can expect negatitive remarks about Catholicism too.
A dose of reality should temper your expectations of how others ought to speak. You parse out the ugly and announce that Muslims are just like everyone else. But, no matter how you chose to distance what people do by saying it's not everyone, jihad exists, had lots of supporters as long as its non-muslims who get chewed up. To this day I can remember the videos of people celebrating the destruction of 9/11 by dancing in the streets all over the Muslim world. It's an image that has to be put aside regularly.
On the other hand, you seem to be fine with aiming your nasties at Christians with no discrimination at all. That's a lot of picking and chosing . The small faults of any Christian is a source if ridicule while, from the depths of your "areligion' , murder done in the name of Islam is trivialized. 
What point can you have in this chosing between religions except to vent dislike over Christianity itself? If you were truly not biased as to religion, Islam would be condemned at least equally.


----------



## partndn

painterswife said:


> Every single person here can be civil , helpful and nice. The tone here in GC and politics has been set for years. Name calling and snark galore. The only difference is that both sides now get tospeak up in the same way.


Ok, I'm not sure you got where I was headed with what I wrote. I didn't intend to reference anything about speaking up here, in GC.

Right, the tone has been set here, in GC. My concern is in the _core_ forums, where people should be nice, like the "neighborly help and friendly advice" idea, seems to be changing some too.

I think that's not good.

And clearly, from what I've read in some threads there recently, not every single person demonstrates they can be civil and helpful, even after receiving some hints and polite requests to be civil and helpful.. over there. 

See what I'm sayin? I'm honestly not snipping, I'm trying to clarify.

ETA, oh and to add.. I certainly had no implication that pixie or pw was in any way the snarkies over in poulty or goats. Definitely not. I hope it didn't seem that way. The poor taste posts I referred to are by people not known well, by me at least. And I've not seen their posts in GC or Pol, though I sure have not read all threads here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You can say what you like about a certain person and her 2 buddies but I can name a few on the other side who were absolutely vicious and never got banned or shut down and almost never even had a post deleted.
> 
> That poster and her cronies are still posting away these days so I would say things have evened out and are more balanced now.


Yeah, many that complain just refuse to see *they are really no different* in how they behave.


----------



## where I want to

I agree that the goat forum has taken a turn to the ugly. Sudden and sharp turn. I always thought the goat forum was a civil place because- well- having goats creates perspective and humor. The opposite of the equine forum. 
But I noticed the equine forum has become a little less uncivil. For the moment.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Prtnrdn,

I still think the same about deleting and banning as I've said already. But, I agree it's not great to be so snarky on some other forums and it says a lot when you can see that members are willing to shift gears in other forums and be able to put out less contentious posts.

I've gotten to know more about who people are on here and can recognize names with more ease and predict a little better how I expect people will feel on topics. And, I think it would be productive if more members or mods would be willing to speak up and call out fellow members when they jump on other people out in some of those other forums.

I saw some less than neighborly posts recently out in the goat and poultry forums recently. Not what I'd consider good form. But, they can say what they want. I was glad at least some people said something to hopefully make post shy people not want to run for the hills.

I don't usually read the equine forum, but I made a thread on there recently, and several people, even ones I disagree with a lot, were at least kind enough to make a decent effort to toos back some answers at me to try and help me figure some stuff out (thanks pixie and painter and the others there).

I made a prayer thread in cf too, and that's been really pleasant. I felt blessed that no one really jumped in and tore it to shreds.

But, I wonder what interesting threads and posts we're all missing sometimes from people who don't bother joining in because they're afraid they'll get bounced out by mods or targeted by members they see who seem bent or really trying to tear into others mostly instead of just chatting more often than not.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Well, when the Roman Catholic Church revives the Knights Templar and sends them into shopping malls shouting "beauseant" and killing little children, they can expect negatitive remarks about Catholicism too.
> A dose of reality should temper your expectations of how others ought to speak. You parse out the ugly and announce that Muslims are just like everyone else. But, no matter how you chose to distance what people do by saying it's not everyone, jihad exists, had lots of supporters as long as its non-muslims who get chewed up. To this day I can remember the videos of people celebrating the destruction of 9/11 by dancing in the streets all over the Muslim world. It's an image that has to be put aside regularly.
> On the other hand, you seem to be fine with aiming your nasties at Christians with no discrimination at all. That's a lot of picking and chosing . The small faults of any Christian is a source if ridicule while, from the depths of your "areligion' , murder done in the name of Islam is trivialized.
> What point can you have in this chosing between religions except to vent dislike over Christianity itself? If you were truly not biased as to religion, Islam would be condemned at least equally.



See here's how this works on a forum: you have 50 people who regularly post. 45 of those people routinely bash Islam all whilst touting the wonderfulness of their own personal religion. Well the other 5 people just in the interest of keeping things real and truthful step in to point out that Islam isn't as bad as they make out and Christianity isn't all sweetness and light. If I was on a forum where 99% of the posters bashed Christianity and tried to make out that Islam was all sweetness and light I would be defending Christianity and pointing out that Islam isn't all sweetness and light. 

In my opinion they both have serious downsides and when they are on top of their game they have serious upsides.


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> Nope sorry. I happen to be an Apatheist. I have no religion, have no interest in ever having one and don't care about it one way or the other so far as my personal existence goes.
> 
> As for perpetually offended I would be careful, you know what they say about pointing.


Then your religion would no religion, would it not?


----------



## partndn

Totally agree gibbs.. I'm no fan of people pretending to be other than what they are, so if not deleted, mods should call them out first. (speaking of the poultry, goats, etc. forums).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Then your religion would no religion, would it not?


*No *religion is NO *religion*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I saw some less than neighborly posts* recently out in the goat and poultry forums recently. *Not what I'd consider good form*


Yeah, *I* saw a post on the goat forum and it was not what *I* considered good form.

I pointed it out, and you decided my post wasn't good form, and you pointed it out

See how that works? 
Where is the *real* difference?


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> See here's how this works on a forum: you have 50 people who regularly post. 45 of those people routinely bash Islam all whilst touting the wonderfulness of their own personal religion. Well the other 5 people just in the interest of keeping things real and truthful step in to point out that Islam isn't as bad as they make out and Christianity isn't all sweetness and light. If I was on a forum where 99% of the posters bashed Christianity and tried to make out that Islam was all sweetness and light I would be defending Christianity and pointing out that Islam isn't all sweetness and light.
> 
> In my opinion they both have serious downsides and when they are on top of their game they have serious upsides.


There is a more realistic stance and that would be say all religions have their problems and contain members who misuse it. That is not the same as defending either Islam or Christianity. Defending Islam seems inappropriate for a person who says all religions are defective. 
Personally I was born in a culture that derived from Christian roots. That culture offers me much more freedom than anything I have seem in any Muslim country. Religion or no, defending that culture when it is under attack is the equivalent of defending my personal freedom.


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> Then your religion would no religion, would it not?


Lack of religion is the opposite of having a religion. I have none, zip, nada, nothing. There are some militant Atheists who have turned their non-belief into a type of religion in that they are militant in spreading their non-belief and work hard to recruit others to Atheism. I am not one of those. I don't care. 

If you are happy being religious cool beans. If you are happy being Agnostic or Atheist cool beans for you. Just leave me out of it because I am happy not giving a good healthy crap about it. I only discuss religion if someone else brings it up. My answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> There is a more realistic stance and that would be say all religions have their problems and contain members who misuse it. That is not the same as defending either Islam or Christianity. Defending Islam seems inappropriate for a person who says all religions are defective.
> Personally I was born in a culture that derived from Christian roots. That culture offers me much more freedom than anything I have seem in any Muslim country. Religion or no, defending that culture when it is under attack is the equivalent of defending my personal freedom.


Technically I am just pointing out the facts. If you state untrue things about Christianity or Islam then I will point out why it is untrue.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> Technically I am just pointing out the facts. If you state untrue things about Christianity or Islam then I will point out why it is untrue.


Must have missed the Islam criticism. Could you point me in the direction of those posts so I can see?


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> Lack of religion is the opposite of having a religion. I have none, zip, nada, nothing. There are some militant Atheists who have turned their non-belief into a type of religion in that they are militant in spreading their non-belief and work hard to recruit others to Atheism. I am not one of those. I don't care.
> 
> If you are happy being religious cool beans. If you are happy being Agnostic or Atheist cool beans for you. Just leave me out of it because I am happy not giving a good healthy crap about it. I only discuss religion if someone else brings it up. My answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.


I understand the point about the militant atheists and that's a bit of what I had in mind, but isn't not having a religion, be it tree worship, a high Satanic mass or taking communion in St. Peter's, still having a religion of non-religion?

There is matter and ant-matter, but it's still matter...or maybe something like _cis_ and _trans_ protein molecules, identical in compisition, but rotating in opposite directions?


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> See here's how this works on a forum: you have 50 people who regularly post. 45 of those people routinely bash Islam all whilst touting the wonderfulness of their own personal religion. Well the other 5 people just in the interest of keeping things real and truthful step in to point out that Islam isn't as bad as they make out and Christianity isn't all sweetness and light. If I was on a forum where 99% of the posters bashed Christianity and tried to make out that Islam was all sweetness and light I would be defending Christianity and pointing out that Islam isn't all sweetness and light.
> 
> In my opinion they both have serious downsides and when they are on top of their game they have serious upsides.


An interesting perspective that I had no put together about you. :thumb: 

On the whole, I think we disagree more than agree with it comes to Xianity, but I have to admit it is filled with as many flawed people as any other group. I wish I could remove from Xianity the stain of folks like the Westboro Baptist Church, but wishing ain't gonna make it so.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Must have missed the Islam criticism. Could you point me in the direction of those posts so I can see?


? Not sure what you mean?


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> An interesting perspective that I had no put together about you. :thumb:
> 
> On the whole, I think we disagree more than agree with it comes to Xianity, but I have to admit it is filled with as many flawed people as any other group. I wish I could remove from Xianity the stain of folks like the Westboro Baptist Church, but wishing ain't gonna make it so.


You have actually seen it in action on the forum that must not be named.  I will happily sort out posts that I think unfairly malign Christianity.


----------



## Fennick

I've had HT forum on my favourites list since 2005 and been reading regularly for the past 10 years. I don't think any part of the forum is much different now than it was 10 years ago. I've always thought of GC as General Complaints rather than General Chat because GC is where most of the chronic complainers come to complain about whatever is their _plainte de jour_. And the worst complainers from way back when are still mostly the same complainers here today. And guess what - the worst complainers here are not the very worst of them all - the very worst of them all relocated themselves over to Melissa's forum when she left HT and now she's stuck with them but she appears to be making them toe the line and they have to comply because they burned their bridges behind them.

Other than than nothing else has changed. 

I remember years ago when political discussions had got so inflammatory in the GC section that the admin decided to create the Politics forum for political discussions only, and then the Politics forum got so bad that it was made into a closed forum. That was something like 4 years ago that it becamed a closed forum and I haven't read there since then as I have never signed up for it but I bet it hasn't changed. 

Somebody in this thread referred to GC as turning into a pig pen now and I had to laugh at that because I remember as far back as at least 6 years ago when the administrators of HT used to refer to GC and Politics forums as the cess pits of HT. So I guess if it's a pig pen now instead of a cess pit then that's an improvement, right? 

I remember Angie saying that moderating in GC and Politics was a dirty job but it had to be done. At least if GC and Politics forum stay open then it keeps the worst of the dirt piles confined instead of getting tracked all over into all the other forums. If a thread gets out of line in one of the other forums it can be closed or deleted or it can be moved to GC, and there's been lots of times that all of the above have happened, especially threads getting moved to GC.

If somebody has seen somebody else getting out of line in the goat forum, or other livestock or homesteading forum - it's not a novelty. It's happened before and it will happen again because that kind of thing is par for the course.



*Partndn* - I think it's disgusting of you to refer to other forum members as turds. It's more than revolting. Keep in mind that the words that people use to describe other people also tells other people a lot about the character of the person using those words. When you refer to other members as turds it's a reflection of yourself.


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> I understand the point about the militant atheists and that's a bit of what I had in mind, but isn't not having a religion, be it tree worship, a high Satanic mass or taking communion in St. Peter's, still having a religion of non-religion?
> 
> There is matter and ant-matter, but it's still matter...or maybe something like _cis_ and _trans_ protein molecules, identical in compisition, but rotating in opposite directions?


You have to be at least somewhat invested in a belief to have a religion and it has to affect your life and how you live it. There are plenty of people that if you ask them their religion they will give you one because it was what they were raised in or it's their areas cultural religion but when it comes right down to it they are more functional Apatheists. They really don't care and their so called religion in no way affects how they live their day to day life.


----------



## DEKE01

Jolly said:


> isn't not having a religion, be it tree worship, a high Satanic mass or taking communion in St. Peter's, still having a religion of non-religion?


No. According to Merriam-webster

religion
noun reÂ·liÂ·gion \ri-&#712;li-j&#601;n\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

If you take Patch at her word, she has no organization, ceremonies, or rules for worship and she doesn't care if you or I do. So, no, it is not a religion. If you want to say she has a belief system, then yes, she does. I'm not going to put words in her mouth, but she believes or doesn't believe certain things. I've seen evidence she believes it is important to be kind to your fellow man. That is a belief, not a religion. 

She's also correct that some Atheists make a religion of their non-religion and try to make it a practice to convert people to their faith (faith used here as a belief in something that can not be proven). There was a church of sorts in south Florida when I lived there 20 years ago that held services for atheists on Sunday morning. I'm not sure what they did there, but some of them proselytized just as much as the proverbial Bible Thumping Xian.


----------



## Woolieface

where I want to said:


> I agree that the goat forum has taken a turn to the ugly. Sudden and sharp turn. I always thought the goat forum was a civil place because- well- having goats creates perspective and humor. The opposite of the equine forum.
> But I noticed the equine forum has become a little less uncivil. For the moment.


Yeah, I certainly go there less than I once did. At best it has a stale odor about it most days... like someone forgot to dust, and other times it just reeks to high heaven of a rotten attitude in the mix.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Jolly said:


> I understand the point about the militant atheists and that's a bit of what I had in mind, but isn't not having a religion, be it tree worship, a high Satanic mass or taking communion in St. Peter's, still having a religion of non-religion?
> 
> There is matter and ant-matter, but it's still matter...or maybe something like _cis_ and _trans_ protein molecules, identical in compisition, but rotating in opposite directions?


Jolly, I think you're still missing Patchouli's point when you ask your question: _"be it tree worship, a high Satanic mass or..._
Those things would clearly be religions, something Patchouli is clearly saying she doesn't have. 

You seem to be agreeing on the point, one that I share, that there are lots of things that aren't called religions, but really are, at the heart of things, to their subscribers. 

Progressivism can be a religion, though not all progressives are religious about it in their subscription to the belief. The same can be said about Science, Capitalism, and Conservitism. 

To make it even more complex, I've met agnostics who have Faith, but truly no religion. Other agnostics think they know what is going on and prefer the guise of claiming they don't, so they have a religion of their own making. 

I'm not sure where I am, though I'm sure that many would put me into one of those latter two categories. I consider myself a Jew, first, Christian, second, and Muslim, third, but only in that order because that was the order that they wrote their books and brought their beliefs to light. Of course, by their individually set boundaries, the fact that I consider myself all three means that I can't be any of them. 

Left to my own devises, I'm cool with being left out of all three because, while I believe in the one God that I think they are all pointing two, I don't subscribe to the perversions of His Word and Will that they've used their books and practices to make- the part of the Faith-Religion combo I call religion. So, I may just be one of those Faithful who at least partially thinks he knows what is going on, but doesn't have a religion. 

We're all kinds.


----------



## Woolieface

DEKE01 said:


> An interesting perspective that I had no put together about you. :thumb:
> 
> On the whole, I think we disagree more than agree with it comes to Xianity, but I have to admit it is filled with as many flawed people as any other group. I wish I could remove from Xianity the stain of folks like the Westboro Baptist Church, but wishing ain't gonna make it so.


The reason there are problems in everything is because there are problems in all people.


----------



## Woolieface

Fennick said:


> *Partndn* - I think it's disgusting of you to refer to other forum members as turds. It's more than revolting. Keep in mind that the words that people use to describe other people also tells other people a lot about the character of the person using those words. When you refer to other members as turds it's a reflection of yourself.


Sometimes people behave a bit stinky. :shrug:

Good advice for all people, everywhere... DBAT (don't be a turd)


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> Sometimes people behave a bit stinky. :shrug:
> 
> Good advice for all people, everywhere... DBAT (don't be a turd)


I am now horking this for my signature line.


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> You have to be at least somewhat invested in a belief to have a religion and it has to affect your life and how you live it. There are plenty of people that if you ask them their religion they will give you one because it was what they were raised in or it's their areas cultural religion but when it comes right down to it they are more functional Apatheists. They really don't care and their so called religion in no way affects how they live their day to day life.


Well, I reckon I'll stay invested. I wouldn't be fit to live with, without it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Fennick said:


> I've had HT forum on my favourites list since 2005 and been reading regularly for the past 10 years. *I don't think any part of the forum is much different now than it was 10 years ago.* I've always thought of GC as General Complaints rather than General Chat because GC is where most of the chronic complainers come to complain about whatever is their _plainte de jour_. And the worst complainers from way back when are still mostly the same complainers here today. And guess what - the worst complainers here are not the very worst of them all - the very worst of them all relocated themselves over to Melissa's forum when she left HT and now she's stuck with them but she appears to be making them toe the line and they have to comply because they burned their bridges behind them.
> 
> *Other than than nothing else has changed. *
> 
> I remember years ago when political discussions had got so inflammatory in the GC section that the admin decided to create the Politics forum for political discussions only, and then the Politics forum got so bad that it was made into a closed forum. That was something like 4 years ago that it becamed a closed forum and I haven't read there since then as I have never signed up for it but I bet it hasn't changed.
> 
> Somebody in this thread referred to GC as turning into a pig pen now and I had to laugh at that because I remember as far back as at least 6 years ago when the administrators of HT used to refer to GC and Politics forums as the cess pits of HT. So I guess if it's a pig pen now instead of a cess pit then that's an improvement, right?
> 
> I remember Angie saying that moderating in GC and Politics was a dirty job but it had to be done. At least if GC and Politics forum stay open then it keeps the worst of the dirt piles confined instead of getting tracked all over into all the other forums. If a thread gets out of line in one of the other forums it can be closed or deleted or it can be moved to GC, and there's been lots of times that all of the above have happened, especially threads getting moved to GC.
> 
> If somebody has seen somebody else getting out of line in the goat forum, or other livestock or homesteading forum - it's not a novelty. It's happened before and it will happen again because that kind of thing is par for the course.
> 
> 
> 
> *Partndn* - I think it's disgusting of you to refer to other forum members as turds. It's more than revolting. Keep in mind that the words that people use to describe other people also tells other people a lot about the character of the person using those words. *When you refer to other members as turds it's a reflection of yourself*.


If I believed in using the "LIKE" button, I would have used it here


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Jolly said:


> Well, I reckon I'll stay invested. I wouldn't be fit to live with, without it.


As you should. We're all better versions of ourselves when we know Him. But, some become the very worst versions of themselves when they let the trappings of religion muddy up the Faith. 

Think about how many Faithful have lost their Faith, because of the religion imposed on them by others. One can only pray that they find their way once again some day.


----------



## partndn

Fennick said:


> *Partndn* - I think it's disgusting of you to refer to other forum members as turds. It's more than revolting. Keep in mind that the words that people use to describe other people also tells other people a lot about the character of the person using those words. When you refer to other members as turds it's a reflection of yourself.


:shrug:

I am totally okay with whatever perception others may conclude about me after reading my use of that term.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> If I believed in using the "LIKE" button, I would have used it here


Oh, and I forgot to add "Narcissism" to the list of things that are non-religions that can become religions, in my earlier post. 

Thanks, Bear.


----------



## Fennick

Jolly said:


> ...... I can find nothing in the Bible that says where Jesus, Samuel or any other earnestly praying person has sinned by praying in public.


Who said it was a sin? Just because something is done the wrong way does not make it a sin. It's human nature to make mistakes and do things the wrong way. Eventually (hopefully) people learn from their mistakes and correct their ways so they're doing it the right way and then get better results.

Public prayer is only for the benefit of the public. It's a morale booster for the public only, never for the benefit or morale of whoever they're praying to. It's not a sin to pray in public, it's just the wrong way to pray if people expect to be heard.

I think it's a mistake to get all hung up about sins or to equate sin with wrong. Sin and wrongness are not the same thing, they have nothing to do with each other. There are very few real sins in the world and most of the sins that do exist are human sins against nature, not sins against God or against other humans.

Oh, and the bible is not the be all to end all to determine what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect.


----------



## partndn

Fennick,

I edited posts 385 and 390 so that I am not directly name calling a member a turd. 

Not because I have any care about what folks think of me using it, but because the issue I posted about is important. I would hope that as many people read it as possible with the meaning in mind, so the distraction is not productive.

I did leave the part where I said "don't be a turd" since I still believe that's sound advice, and Woolie made a cool acronym of it. LOL


There are easily formed perceptions about posters made here every day that have nothing to do with the use of one little word. Whole posts, tone of posts, and general communication skills or lack thereof, tell much more.


----------



## Fennick

partndn said:


> There are easily formed perceptions about posters made here every day that have nothing to do with the use of one little word. Whole posts, tone of posts, and general communication skills or lack thereof, tell much more.


Very true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh, and I forgot to add "Narcissism" to the list of things that are non-religions that can become religions, in my earlier post.
> Thanks, Bear.


This is your better version?



> We're all better versions of ourselves when we know Him.


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> This is your better version?
> 
> 
> 
> We're all better versions of ourselves when we know Him.
Click to expand...

I give that a pass because he didn't specify _who_ "Him" is.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> This is your better version?


Sure. 
I also called you by your name, as you call yourself here, like I might say you have brown hair or blonde, blue eyes or brown, if I knew what you looked like.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Fennick said:


> I give that a pass because he didn't specify _who_ "Him" is.


He. But many know him by different names. I only know english, so that is what I call Him.


----------



## Jolly

Fennick said:


> Who said it was a sin? Just because something is done the wrong way does not make it a sin. It's human nature to make mistakes and do things the wrong way. Eventually (hopefully) people learn from their mistakes and correct their ways so they're doing it the right way and then get better results.
> 
> Public prayer is only for the benefit of the public. It's a morale booster for the public only, never for the benefit or morale of whoever they're praying to. It's not a sin to pray in public, it's just the wrong way to pray if people expect to be heard.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to get all hung up about sins or to equate sin with wrong. Sin and wrongness are not the same thing, they have nothing to do with each other. There are very few real sins in the world and most of the sins that do exist are human sins against nature, not sins against God or against other humans.
> 
> Oh, and the bible is not the be all to end all to determine what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect.


I still find two points to disagree.

1. If it's good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for any believer. As I showed, Jesus did engage in public prayer.

2. I do think the Bible is the definitive Word on right and wrong, besides being the bedrock of much of our secular law.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> I am now horking this for my signature line.


lol just saw that on another thread. You're welcome to it.


----------



## Fennick

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> He. But many know him by different names. I only know english, so that is what I call Him.


For me it's the garlic patch. Seriously, I kid you not. Anyone who has no knowledge of the profoundly spiritual ecstasy and transcendent communion with God and the universe that comes over one while working in the garlic patch does not know what they're missing. The bigger the garlic patch, the more profound the experience. :happy: :thumb:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

My communion comes in the lens of my telescope. It's one of the few things that, through its immensity, can force me to shut my brain off and stop trying to "figure" Him. There are other venues, but that is the one where He shows Himself most clearly and unquestionably. 

I've never tried to grow garlic.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> There is nothing in #379 that can be considered a personal attack.
> 
> I think thou dost protest too much...


Nah. You can be on the egotistical and arrogant side, but that's OK. I forgive you. 

I have most of my hay in for the year so I can be magnanimous.


----------



## Sumatra

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, many that complain just refuse to see *they are really no different* in how they behave.


One can't have just a...few... with a select pass to behave that way without encountering resistance. 
Some people have to be the same, in order to keep the balance on the forum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> One can't have *just a...few... with a select pass* to behave that way without encountering resistance.


That's how it was here in the past
It's much improved now, but the overall tone has always been the same


----------



## Shine

Fennick said:


> Oh, and the bible is not the be all to end all to determine what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect.


It is my understanding that God has instituted His Self-Revelation through the Word and that it is 100% correct. It carries the wisdom of His works and as He sees fit, the parables found within the whole Book are slowly opened for clear eyes to see and for open ears to hear. The whole problem here in our current reality is that He has hardened some hearts, scaled over some eyes and closed some ears - all to serve His glory.

I understand that we will be provided the answers upon our arrival in Heaven


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> It is my understanding that God has instituted His Self-Revelation through the Word and that it is 100% correct. It carries the wisdom of His works and as He sees fit, the parables found within the whole Book are slowly opened for clear eyes to see and for open ears to hear. The whole problem here in our current reality is that He has hardened some hearts, scaled over some eyes and closed some ears - all to serve His glory.
> 
> I understand that we will be provided the answers upon our arrival in Heaven


I think it's fantastic that your faith gives you comfort and direction. Mine does as well but at the end of the day, your faith guides you and mine does the same for me and we have no right or reason to force our beliefs on each others.

Our dear friend Melissa often serves as one of the best examples I know of for Christianity. She always promoted kindness and used nothing but kind words.


----------



## kasilofhome

Censorship of religion is oppression.

Unless expression of the religion

Involves stoning, beheading, raping, enslaving,terrorism that is not allowed due to those acts cover in many state and code regulations.

So any attempt to push any faith ,not committing crimes, to limit expression is oppression.


----------



## coolrunnin

kasilofhome said:


> Censorship of religion is oppression.
> 
> Unless expression of the religion
> 
> Involves stoning, beheading, raping, enslaving,terrorism that is not allowed due to those acts cover in many state and code regulations.
> 
> So any attempt to push any faith ,not committing crimes, to limit expression is oppression.


Only if its a government body trying to do the limiting, otherwise it's just free expression of ideals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So any attempt to push any faith ,not committing crimes, to limit expression is oppression.


Discriminaton is a crime


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> I think it's fantastic that your faith gives you comfort and direction. Mine does as well but at the end of the day, your faith guides you and mine does the same for me and we have no right or reason to force our beliefs on each others.
> 
> Our dear friend Melissa often serves as one of the best examples I know of for Christianity. She always promoted kindness and used nothing but kind words.


Ah, but therein lies the rub.

What constitutes force?

For some, force may be convert, or die.

Other folks get in a complete snit, when some stranger tells them to have a "blessed day".

I am of the opinion as long as nobody has grabbed you by the collar and is dragging you into the temple/church/mosque, it ain't force.


----------



## Irish Pixie

If someone says they don't want to hear about your religion don't keep talking about it to them. If you use your religion to intentionally annoy people get used to them being snitty. Pretty simple. 

Non religious people want to hear about your religion about as much as you want to hear about what goes on in a gay guy's bedroom. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.


----------



## dixiegal62

Never mind


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> It's seems to me like you bring other people's religion up more than they do. Maybe if you don't want to hear about it you should stop talking about it. Just a thought.


LOL. Religion is brought up in every thread to bolster someone's argument. You can't get away from it.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> LOL. Religion is brought up in every thread to bolster someone's argument. You can't get away from it.


That's a good thing.

Maybe some will rub off on whoever needs it.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> That's a good thing.
> 
> Maybe some will rub off on whoever needs it.


If you need religion, you already have a problem you can't solve.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> LOL. Religion is brought up in every thread to bolster someone's argument. You can't get away from it.


Or they don't want to get away from it. I posted a thought in a thread and never mentioned religion, the first comment I got back on it was about the poster assuming I was a Christian. Why did it matter if I was or not?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Or they don't want to get away from it. I posted a thought in a thread and never mentioned religion, the first comment I got back on it was about the poster assuming I was a Christian. Why did it matter if I was or not?


It doesn't matter, but many have said that describes "90%" of the people here, so the odds favored it, assuming they knew what they were talking about, which may be a mistake in itself


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't matter, but many have said that describes "90%" of the people here, so the odds favored it, assuming they knew what they were talking about, which may be a mistake in itself



It is always someone else...


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> If you need religion, you already have a problem you can't solve.


The "digs" keep on rollin'...


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Non religious people want to hear about your religion about as much as you want to hear about what goes on in a gay guy's bedroom. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.


Now that could be construed as restricting what others can say on this discussion board, even if not directed at you.

Is that what you're saying.....nobody can mention their religion/religious beliefs??


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> If you need religion, you already have a problem you can't solve.


But that is exactly what religion is for - all those problems man cannot solve on his own.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> The "digs" keep on rollin'...


I responded to a dig so yes they keep on rolling.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> But that is exactly what religion is for - all those problems man cannot solve on his own.


Is it really to solve the problems you can't? I thought it was a moral guide on how to live your life.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Is it really to solve the problems you can't? I thought it was a moral guide on how to live your life.


Yep, that, too. Or maybe twofer.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Yep, that, too. Or maybe twofer.


So then if I don't need a moral guide and I don't look to a god to solve my unsolvable problems ( because I am not a victim) I don't need religion. Just what I always thought.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Now that could be construed as restricting what others can say on this discussion board, even if not directed at you.
> 
> Is that what you're saying.....nobody can mention their religion/religious beliefs??


Maybe if that's the way you want to read it and if you squint really hard. 

*How many times do I have to say I don't give a whit if anyone discusses religion as long as it's not directed at me? I can skip over it, it doesn't bother me at all. * Dang. 

Just for you, Txsteader I'll say it one more time. Please don't direct your religion or religious terms at me. I don't want to hear it, I don't believe in it, and it annoys me. Feel free to annoy other religious people tho.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe if that's the way you want to read it and if you squint really hard.
> 
> *How many times do I have to say I don't give a whit if anyone discusses religion as long as it's not directed at me? I can skip over it, it doesn't bother me at all. * Dang.
> 
> Just for you, Txsteader I'll say it one more time. Please don't direct your religion or religious terms at me. I don't want to hear it, I don't believe in it, and it annoys me. Feel free to annoy other religious people tho.


No need to be snotty about it, I wasn't being snotty to you..... but thank you for clearing that up anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> No need to be snotty about it, I wasn't being snotty to you..... but thank you for clearing that up anyway.


I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get so snarky.

Something can only be said so many times without it being believed before it kinda frosts your cookie. Know what I'm saying?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> But that is exactly what religion is for - all those problems man cannot solve on his own.


Just thought of something...you strike me as "spiritual", a person of "FAITH". A little different than "religious". In fact I've yet to see you "prosthetize", or speak of tenets of any "religion".
But I suppose it doesn't matter, if we (majority here) mention faith in a higher power AT ALL, chances are good we'll get hit with the sparkling magic dust rudeness.


----------



## wr

Tricky Grama said:


> Just thought of something...you strike me as "spiritual", a person of "FAITH". A little different than "religious". In fact I've yet to see you "prosthetize", or speak of tenets of any "religion".
> 
> But I suppose it doesn't matter, if we (majority here) mention faith in a higher power AT ALL, chances are good we'll get hit with the sparkling magic dust rudeness.



That's why I mentioned Melissa. I had a great deal of respect for her faith because she used it to guide her life and as a way to find good in everyone.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Tricky Grama said:


> Just thought of something...you strike me as "spiritual", a person of "FAITH". A little different than "religious". In fact I've yet to see you "prosthetize", or speak of tenets of any "religion".
> But I suppose it doesn't matter, if we (majority here) mention faith in a higher power AT ALL, chances are good we'll get hit with the sparkling magic dust rudeness.


Let's be honest and say the rudeness has been coming from both sides and that the rudeness has not been started by one side more than the other. I have read some posts demeaning a person's religious beliefs and I have seen some posts from religious folks using their faith as a club to bash folks who believe differently. Maybe we should all accept our role in the rudeness and strive to do better. I've felt myself being drawn into pointless arguments and, when I realized it, left the field of battle. 

Perhaps, we Christians could do as we have been directed and move on to more fertile fields when the message is rejected. (That does not mean leave HT. It means when a person has been repeatedly stating that he or she does not believe and does not want to be prayed for or blessed that we could respect that wish and stop posting blessings and Bible verses to that person. That particular field is not ready for harvest.)

Perhaps the non-Christians could be a little less sensitive and realize that not every single post containing a Bible verse is meant to be a put down or dig. Often a verse or statement of faith is posted as a "this helped me when I was going through something similar". The ones that aren't posted to be helpful can be ignored. 

Maybe, if we all stop rising to the bait of people from both sides just looking to be unpleasant, HT will return to helpful and friendly advice. After all, it's fairly difficult to argue by yourself.

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It is always someone else...


And the digs keep on rolling


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Let's be honest and say the rudeness has been coming from both sides and that the rudeness has not been started by one side more than the other.


I've been saying that for a long time, but it's not getting through


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've been saying that for a long time, but it's not getting through


SLFarm took the yeast outta my bread. It's just not rising...


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> SLFarm took the yeast outta my bread. It's just not rising...


Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. This appears to be one of those times. So in response to your comment, I'm going to say "Huh? I don't get it. Explain please."


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've been saying that for a long time, but it's not getting through


To yourself or just some other members?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> To yourself or just some other members?


And the digs keep on rolling


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> And the digs keep on rolling


That question was not intended to be entirely snarky. I actually was curious. But, if you have no interest in simply answering that's your decision.

I can say I don't think I'm without fault, but will continue to make an effort to communicate in a positive way, even if it's not always flawlessly executed.

So, I'll ask one more time, but if you don't answer I won't bother playing back and forth. Do you think your "you've been saying that for a long time, but it's not getting through" includes yourself, or it's just other people who should clean up their act, for lack of a better word?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Do you think your "you've been saying that for a long time, but it's not getting through" includes yourself, or it's just other people who *should clean up their act*, for lack of a better word?


I never mentioned "cleaning up acts". That is an individual choice

It was suggested on another thread a while back and no one wanted to try it

I simply said *everyone* needs to *stop pretending* they don't all act the same sometimes

Just *be honest* about it instead of acting as if it's all one sided.

There's a perfect example on the "chicken tagging" thread of some complaining about "too much debate" and "too much trying to say one is right and the others are wrong", and they *are* debating, and they *are* saying *they* are right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

That thread is one of the most viewed in that section for years, but some keep trying to control what others post, even to the point of PM'ing moderators to complain, and complaining here too (with some really childish name calling thrown in)

Like Shine says , "If you want to dictate the content, buy the forum"

But don't pretend you don't do it if someone happens to mention it


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was suggested on another thread a while back and no one wanted to try it


I just tried it... Felt good...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well thanks for answering.

Don't get your last sentence there though. Who is you and pretending what?


----------



## partndn

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never mentioned "cleaning up acts". That is an individual choice
> 
> It was suggested on another thread a while back and no one wanted to try it
> 
> I simply said *everyone* needs to *stop pretending* they don't all act the same sometimes
> 
> Just *be honest* about it instead of acting as if it's all one sided.
> 
> *There's a perfect example on the "chicken tagging" thread of some complaining about "too much debate" and "too much trying to say one is right and the others are wrong", and they are debating, and they are saying they are right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.
> 
> That thread is one of the most viewed in that section for years, but some keep trying to control what others post, even to the point of PM'ing moderators to complain, and complaining here too (with some really childish name calling thrown in)
> *
> Like Shine says , "If you want to dictate the content, buy the forum"
> 
> But don't pretend you don't do it if someone happens to mention it


Ok, that part I bolded in your post is just not true. 

You are referring to me, and I won't have you mislead some of the readers here without responding.

And are you accusing me of pretending something? Because I have a post in this thread here that clearly states I understand the difference in tone of the GC and Pol forums.

That's not debate in that thread in poultry that you refer to. That's not "I'm right, you're wrong" arguing. Anyone here can go read it, and see that the people mocking the original poster are the only ones claiming they are right.

You can use GC to state that both sides act snarky all you want. But you will not find a post of mine in the core forums concerning a person's question that answers in a humiliating way. You have more than enough of those to cover the whole membership's allowance for rudeness.

You misrepresented your theory when you used that thread for an example. You have no credibility with your "everyone does it" statement if you don't correct yourself. 

And how bout you go notice how many members in that thread have chimed in to post specifically they are disappointed with the way the op was treated? People who have been members for years with less than a hundred posts felt compelled to comment.

You think I want to control what everyone posts?? Listen, if I thought I would ever have that control, you would have been vaporized already.

I'm interested in the core forums remaining a helpful place where people aren't afraid to ask a question. So don't drag my issue over there, into your mess in here. We all can see from this thread alone, that things go a certain way here. But that is not applicable for those other sub forums.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Well thanks for answering.
> 
> Don't get your last sentence there though. Who is you and pretending what?


"You" is everyone and the "what" *really* should be quite obvious if you just read what I said, and don't look for hidden meanings.

Scroll back and read the posts again, since it's stated quite clearly by more than one person and in more than one post


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> "You" is everyone and the "what" *really* should be quite obvious if you just read what I said, and don't look for hidden meanings.
> 
> Scroll back and read the posts again, since it's stated quite clearly by more than one person and in more than one post


Well thanks for clarifying the you. 

I didn't think the pretending what was obvious. That's why I asked. It has nothing to do for me personally with looking for hidden meaning. I was interested in clarifying what you meant instead of just guessing.


----------



## DEKE01

partndn said:


> That's not debate in that thread in poultry that you refer to. That's not "I'm right, you're wrong" arguing. Anyone here can go read it, and see that the people mocking the original poster are the only ones claiming they are right.


:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: 

You answered BFF better than what I was planning to write, but he missed the target and the whole side of the barn when he descibed that thread.

Several have asked for people to simply be nice in that thread but a few continue to be anything but nice and they certainly are not helpful. That thread is full of put downs for no good reason. Sure, people have suggested some tin foil hat ideas, but Poultry is not the place to denigrate others just because they have a world view some of us might find silly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You can use GC to state that both sides act snarky all you want. *But you will not find a post of mine* in the core forums concerning a person's question *that answers in a humiliating way.* You have more than enough of those to cover the whole membership's allowance for rudeness


Really? See Post #25

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/cu...s-now-earn-less-than-1968-minimum-wage-2.html



> And how bout you go notice how many members in that thread have chimed in to post specifically they are disappointed with the way the op was treated? People who have been members for years with less than a hundred posts felt compelled to comment.


I've read the whole thread more than once
Just as many have taken the opposite side. 

There are lots of people lately who have been members for years with low posts counts now posting on a number of threads. 

I think it was you who said they may even be plants from CMG. 
Maybe they are just shy. 



> You think I want to control what everyone posts?? Listen, if I thought I would ever have that control, you would have been vaporized already.


No I don't "think" that.
You've made it quite obvious you would like to control what others post, which brings us back to the "pretending" and "being honest"



> I'm interested in the core forums remaining a helpful place where people aren't afraid to ask a question.
> 
> *So don't drag my issue over there, into your mess in here. *
> 
> We all can see from this thread alone, that things go a certain way here. But *that is not applicable for those other sub forums*.


There's the "wanting to control" thing again.

You "drug" it here yourself didn't you, calling people things like "grits" and "turd" and complaining about other posters you didn't happen to agree with?

Why get mad if I mentioned it also?

There's no need to get all worked up over it

Why not *just admit* we *all* do the exact same things?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> "You" is everyone and the "what" *really* should be quite obvious if you just read what I said, and don't look for hidden meanings.
> 
> Scroll back and read the posts again, since it's stated quite clearly by more than one person and in more than one post


Why do you need to be so condescending? It is really unbecoming whoever you are.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not *just admit* we *all* do the exact same things?


I really have not tallied the totals but it seems some more than others. Is it possible that we are witnessing a repeat of history?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Why do you need to be so condescending? It is really unbecoming whoever you are.


Because it was clearly stated several times by more than one person, and I get tired of repeating (as I'm doing now) when anyone can scroll back a few posts to pick up the context.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I really have not tallied the totals but it seems some more than others. Is it possible that we are witnessing a repeat of history?


No, you're seeing things the way they have always been

"Some more than others" still means basically all act the same sometimes.

I'm not the only one who's ever pointed it out, and I won't be the last


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it was clearly stated several times by more than one person, and I get tired of repeating (as I'm doing now) when anyone can scroll back a few posts to pick up the context.


Maybe you should try another board if you are repeating yourself too often.

I have seen where it appears that you seem to rub people the wrong way with a presence that appears to be filled with arrogance. Maybe you could try another motif? [notice the word "appears"]

Do you feel that arrogance is necessary? Is it possible to have anything similar to a civil written conversation with you if we do not agree on a topic?


----------



## DEKE01

Shine, pigs love to roll in the mud. You don't have to get down there with them. If you try logic and reason, it is wasted on pigs and they will just sling mud at you. If you don't have the power to butcher the pig, just quit feeding it and walk away. The pig will wander off in search of mud and feed elsewhere.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Maybe you should try another board if you are repeating yourself too often.*
> 
> I have seen where it appears that you seem to rub people the wrong way with a presence that appears to be filled with arrogance. Maybe you could try another motif? [notice the word "appears"]
> 
> Do you feel that arrogance is necessary? Is it possible to have anything similar to a civil written conversation with you if we do not agree on a topic?


I was once told "If you want to dictate the content, buy the forum"

I see plenty of others who appear quite arrogant to me too, but I don't whine about them, or tell them what they should or shouldn't post.

I just attempt to stick to reality and say what I think, just as they do.

I won't pick a side on an issue just because "the majority" thinks it's right, and I won't ignore things I know are false when I can find proof that refutes it

That's what "rubs people wrong" most of the time. I have plenty of civil conversations, but that doesn't mean I won't disagree if I think someone is wrong. 

But you won't see me get mad about it, or resort to name calling, or posting stupid pictures instead of having an adult conversation.

If I rub you wrong, all I can say is put me on ignore, because I'm not likely to ever change enough to suit you


----------



## partndn

Bearfootfarm said:


> Really? See Post #25
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/cu...s-now-earn-less-than-1968-minimum-wage-2.html
> 
> *You've got to be kidding! But I know you're not since this is usual for you.
> My post in that OLD thread you dug up was to a fella who totally misrepresented what I posted, and called my attitude part of "the problem." He was not asking a question, and that was current events forum. Just like to you now, I don't feel like letting somebody misrepresent MY words.*
> 
> I've read the whole thread more than once
> Just as many have taken the opposite side.
> 
> *Wrong. There are not sides. There are helpful people, and then there is a small number of NON helpful people making repetitive posts. Those are not sides. One allows an idea to be left alone and still be helpful. The other is not helpful, and adds mocking and ridicule.*
> 
> There are lots of people lately who have been members for years with low posts counts now posting on a number of threads.
> 
> I think it was you who said they may even be plants from CMG.
> Maybe they are just shy.
> 
> *NO, I did not. I referred to the OLDER members/hardly ever posters speaking up against the rudeness.*
> 
> *The other thought you are talking about was suspecting the NEWER members of being some kind of plant, if that's what you want to call it.*
> 
> No I don't "think" that.
> You've made it quite obvious you would like to control what others post, which brings us back to the "pretending" and "being honest"
> 
> 
> 
> There's the "wanting to control" thing again.
> 
> You "drug" it here yourself didn't you, calling people things like "grits" and "turd" and complaining about other posters you didn't happen to agree with?
> 
> *Uh, it's not dragging when it is totally on topic for this thread. Hello? This whole thread is about how the forum has been through some changes, and I posted what I had noticed. And when one acts like an grits and a turd, one might get referred to as grits and turd.*
> 
> Why get mad if I mentioned it also?
> 
> Only clarifying the TRUTH, which you had colored up.
> 
> There's no need to get all worked up over it
> 
> Why not *just admit* we *all* do the exact same things?
> 
> *I believe you are skirting your own obligations to admit stuff, and trying to koolaid everyone into just saying that to make you feel okay.
> 
> It was an okay theory for GC, but you messed up.*


*You seem to have infinite denial of accountability, and I don't care, until you use me to state untruths.*


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I was once told "If you want to dictate the content, buy the forum"
> 
> I said that. I meant that.
> 
> I see plenty of others who appear quite arrogant to me too, but I don't whine about them, or tell them what they should or shouldn't post.
> 
> Um.. uh... Yeah, Ok. :hysterical:
> 
> I just attempt to stick to reality and say what I think, just as they do.
> 
> I would expect that.
> 
> I won't pick a side on an issue just because "the majority" thinks it's right, and I won't ignore things I know are false when I can find proof that refutes it
> 
> You forgot to add that you put your opinions in play so that others might understand them is a non-confrontational manner.
> 
> That's what "rubs people wrong" most of the time. I have plenty of civil conversations, but that doesn't mean I won't disagree if I think someone is wrong.
> 
> No, I would offer that it is not your difference of opinion, it is your manner of delivery.
> 
> But you won't see me get mad about it, or resort to name calling, or posting stupid pictures instead of having an adult conversation.
> 
> Ah, but you have if you are going to allow people to understand your total meaning as placed within the written prose. You see, people perceive what you are meaning with the manner in which you deliver your idea. You may not use pictures but your manner of delivery is quite outside the boundaries of "Adult Conversation"
> 
> If I rub you wrong, all I can say is put me on ignore, because I'm not likely to ever change enough to suit you
> 
> You do this to people quite often. I place no one on ignore. It is not I that wishes for you to change, I am just pointing out things that you might want to consider changing so as to be a tad more non-confrontational. It would seem that you might have been misunderstood when one considers the number of times that you have run up against this administrator or that one.
> 
> I wish you well.


Please see above, my text is the Fuscia text


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You've got to be kidding! But I know you're not since this is usual for you.
> My post in that OLD thread *you dug up* was to a fella *who totally misrepresented what I posted, and called my attitude part of "the problem*." He was not asking a question, and that was current events forum. Just like to you now, I don't feel like letting somebody *misrepresent* MY words.


So, you made the same claims about him you now make about me, and went off on him, saying his 15 posts didn't give him the right to disagree 
That's hardly a misrepresentation

If you're truly against "misrepresentation" you will go back and see Jolly "dug up" that thread, not me. 
I just thought it was ironic to see a two year old thread when so many are saying thing "recently changed for the worse"



> Wrong. *There are not sides*. There are helpful people, and then there is a small number of NON helpful people making repetitive posts. Those are not sides. One allows an idea to be left alone and still be helpful. The other is not helpful, and adds mocking and ridicule.


There are most definitely sides

I think most everyone who posted in that thread thought their post was helpful in some way. Honesty is what I consider most "helpful". 

You didn't make a comment about maybe some posters were "plants"?



> NO, I did not. I referred to the OLDER members/hardly ever posters speaking up against the rudeness.


Post #385


> I am serious, it has crossed my mind that a couple members showing joined in the last month or two, are actually* plants* by the owners, or some consulting firm that has been hired to test site statistics and what raises them or something. I dunno. But I ain't gonna lie, I've thought it might be possible lately.





> *Uh, it's not dragging when it is totally on topic for this thread*. Hello? This whole thread is about how the forum has been through some changes, and I posted what I had noticed. And when one acts like an grits and a turd, one might get referred to as grits and turd.


If it's not dragging to bring it up in this thread, why object because I mentioned after you did?



> I believe you are *skirting your own obligations to admit stuff*, and trying to koolaid everyone into just saying that to make you feel okay.


Haven't I said many times we all do it?
That "all" includes me doesn't it"? 



> You seem to have infinite denial of accountability, and I don't care, until you use me to state untruths.


None of the things I've stated are "untruths" just because you happen to disagree.
I stated them all with no name calling, and I didn't turn purple with rage


----------



## Shine

For Bearfootfarm:

I would sincerely like to exchange views with you, you seem to have a clear and concise way of viewing things. All I am asking is moderation in your way of delivering things. The possibilities for me to learn are endless. Being who I am, I would like to think that you feel the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No, I would offer that it is not your difference of opinion, it is *your manner of delivery*.


I try to keep it short and simple since some seem to have a hard time understanding which leads to lots of repetition. I have found no matter how innocuous a comment, or how simply stated, someone will be offended by it anyway.



> You may not use pictures but your manner of delivery is quite outside the boundaries of "Adult Conversation"


Some would disagree. I would also disagree



> It is not I that wishes for you to change, I am just pointing out things that you might want to consider changing so as to be a tad more non-confrontational.
> 
> It would seem that you might have been misunderstood when one considers the number of times that you have run up against this administrator or that one.


I'm happy you don't want me to change after all the suggestion on how I should change

All my major run-ins were always the same moderator, but that's history

The Fuscia looks nice though. It has a calming effect


----------



## arabian knight

I have been saying for weeks now things are not in moderation anymore. And that is too bad. I don't think some even know what the word means.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> For Bearfootfarm:
> 
> I would sincerely like to exchange views with you, you seem to have a clear and concise way of viewing things. All I am asking is moderation in your way of delivering things. The possibilities for me to learn are endless. Being who I am, I would like to think that you feel the same.


That sounds fine to me, but as I said before, I doubt I will change enough to make you happy. 

Just don't take everything personally, or too seriously, and it will be much easier

It's just the internet


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That sounds fine to me, but as I said before, I doubt I will change enough to make you happy.
> 
> Just don't take everything personally, or too seriously, and it will be much easier
> 
> It's just the internet


My happiness is not the goal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> I have been saying for weeks now things are *not in moderation anymore*. And that is too bad. I don't think some even know what the word means.


Some say that, others say not much has changed.
I don't see many real changes


----------



## partndn

Bearfootfarm said:


> So, you made the same claims about him you now make about me, and went off on him, saying his 15 posts didn't give him the right to disagree
> That's hardly a misrepresentation this doesn't even make sense
> 
> If you're truly against "misrepresentation" you will go back and see Jolly "dug up" that thread, not me.
> I just thought it was ironic to see a two year old thread when so many are saying thing "recently changed for the worse"
> 
> Nope wrong again. Jolly may have resurrected the thread itself. You dug from it to post here unsuccessfully trying to show that I was snarky with someone who had asked a real question. I got snarky with someone in a current events debate.
> 
> There are most definitely sides
> 
> You perceive there are sides from posts you've read before debating tin foil type type issues, but NOT in the poultry forum. The posters on that poultry thread did not use it for tin foil debate. You guys brought that up.
> 
> I think most everyone who posted in that thread thought their post was helpful in some way. Honesty is what I consider most "helpful".
> You confuse honesty with opinion very often.
> 
> You didn't make a comment about maybe some posters were "plants"?
> You had it right in front of you, and you don't see??? OMG, I already clarified this for you. YOU HAD THE FOLKS I REFERRED TO AS PLANTS BACKWARDS WITH THE FOLKS WHO WERE POSTING ABOUT WANTING HELP. Please read before misrepresenting.
> 
> 
> Post #385
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not dragging to bring it up in this thread, why object because I mentioned after you did?
> 
> I object to you posting stuff that is ALL MIXED UP when it involves something I said.
> 
> Haven't I said many times we all do it?
> That "all" includes me doesn't it"?
> 
> I already stated my perception of why you keep saying that. It makes you feel better. But no, there are plenty of members here who never get snarky. Possibly your "we" means GC posters. Here again, I have already clarified this for you and you don't comprehend the distinction in the different subforums.
> 
> None of the things I've stated are "untruths" just because you happen to disagree. Yes you have, and I've proven it twice. They are not disagreements, they are just flat out incorrect.
> I stated them all with no name calling, and I didn't turn purple with rage Your delivery has been addressed.


I conclude there is no helping you comprehend, IF that is what is going on.


----------



## Sumatra

arabian knight said:


> I have been saying for weeks now things are not in moderation anymore. And that is too bad. I don't think some even know what the word means.


Yep, I only see WR, Shrek, and sometimes Teimpo posting much nowadays. There are a few other mods who come online, but they're only visible due to the online users list in the home page, and look more like they're hiding than anything else.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Sumatra said:


> Yep, I only see WR, Shrek, and sometimes Teimpo posting much nowadays. There are a few other mods who come online, but they're only visible due to the online users list in the home page, and look more like they're hiding than anything else.


Is highlands a mod? I've read some stuff they wrote recently I think in the pigs forum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nope wrong again. Jolly may have resurrected the thread itself. You dug from it to post here *unsuccessfully trying to show that I was snarky* with someone who had asked a real question. *I got snarky* with someone in a current events debate.


Snarky is snarky, question or not. I didn't qualify anything.
Would you be happier if I had shown a snarky post from the chicken thread towards a 1st time poster?



> You perceive there are sides from posts you've read before debating tin foil type type issues, but NOT in the poultry forum.
> 
> *The posters on that poultry thread did not use it for tin foil debate. You guys brought that up*.



There is more than one post in that thread referring to the different "sides"
The "tinfoil" wasn't started by the OP nor any whom I suspect you call "you guys"
Check back to see the first to say "The Govt did it". 
You may be surprised.
Most had already offered helpful *logical *suggestions by that point



> I object to you posting stuff that is ALL MIXED UP when it involves something I said.


Nothing is mixed up.
It's all there for anyone to read.



> I already stated my perception of why you keep saying that. It makes you feel better. But no, there are plenty of members here who never get snarky. Possibly your "we" means GC posters. Here again, I have already clarified this for you and *you don't comprehend the distinction in the different subforums*.


Of course there are members who never get snarky.

Just as there are members who *do*, but pretend they don't

And there are members that average 1-2 posts a year

It's a wide cross-section, so naturally any remarks apply to those active in the threads.
That's just common sense

I comprehend there are different subforums, but the truth is the truth no matter where it happens to be. I didn't resort to any name calling nor posting of silly pictures to imply others were trolls.




> Yes you have, and I've proven it twice. They are not disagreements, they are just *flat out incorrect*.


I don't think I've gotten anything "incorrect"
I've tried to be very accurate


----------



## rachelmcmurtrie

So I am one of those "lurkers" (didn't know there was a name for people like me, semi-unflattering but I'm sure Partndn meant no harm). I joined these forums last year when my hubby and I were looking for information on turning our 30 years of city living to sustainable living. I was one of "those" who complained that these forums had changed since I came upon an interesting thread in the poultry forums (chicken got tagged one) and found it sad that people were making fun of the op when he seemed genuine in his concern.

So one thing led to another and I just spent the last (I don't know how many) hours reading this thread and wanted to give my take on things in an attempt to help/share what is on my mind (that's what forums are for right? )

So off the bat, it seemed Irish Pixie seemed very offended by Shine (I think) telling her that she prayed for her. Me being a Christian, I found that to be very odd since like many have said prayer is a good thing, like band-aids, and can help fix things. Then I tried some empathy on for size and I saw things differently. One of the worst things for us Christians (more so Christian women I think) is to hear/witness an act of abortion. I know this is a drastic comparison but just for the sake of an example, I thought to myself what if an abortion Doctor said to me "I am going to keep my clinic open an extra 20 minutes (I'm guessing this is how long it takes to do the "deed") and do an extra abortion just for you". I would be horrified. I think many of us that insist prayer is a good thing would be. Well in the Doctor's eyes abortion is a good thing and he's in essence fixing a problem as well but that doesn't make it any less horrifying for me to hear or makes it right for him to go out of his way to do so and then tell me. I know prayer and abortion are in different worlds to some of us, but who is to say prayer is not so horrific to hear for Irish Pixie as abortion is to you and me? I think the important thing with prayer and anything really is intent. The intent should be love. In this case, an intent of love would decide that it is best not to say you are praying for her since she dislikes it so much. You can still pray as she is not forbidding that, just don't tell her.  To my fellow believers I say: keep fighting the good fight, or rather praying the good prayer. To the non-believers I say: don't write off all believers and the Christian faith because of a few here and there. That's like refusing to purchase a good product because of a bad review and every popular product has bad reviews!

I think freedom of speech is great. I also think making others feel welcome and safe to post their thoughts and feelings is a nice privilege. These forums to my knowledge seem to allow us to post our thoughts and opinions with freedom. I think this is great because while there are many who will argue and disagree, wouldn't the world be super boring if everyone agreed with one another? Having said that, I do think it is important not to personally attack one another as that serves no purpose other than to cause frustration and sadness. I think everyone on this forum would agree we should not go out of our way to cause drama, or be malicious. But then it seems there is some confusion on what is okay and not okay. I personally think everything goes until someone says "hey that is not okay, I don't like that, please stop, it hurts my feelings and makes me sad". 

So in that lien of thinking, in my opinion the most unfruitful posts I have found are the ones where Bear foot farm was referred to in an analogy with pigs and how having a conversation with him was akin to rolling in the mud with pigs, Partndn made a post referring to someone as a back-end/feces which she fixed up I believe, Fennick calling Shine who insisted on praying for Irish Pixie as a weakling and hating themselves and the various number of posts telling Irish Pixie to more or less "brush the dirt off her shoulders" which to me is synonymous with invalidating her feelings on the matter.



Fennick said:


> If you are in conversation with your lord from the time you awake until the time you sleep and feel you cannot get through your life without that constant conversation then I think you have a problem. Again, no offense intended but I think you need to get some counselling from a qualified religious counsellor or support group about that because it's really not healthy and you need help that you won't find online to overcome that kind of dependency.
> Good luck with that, okay? I wish you well.


This one saddened me the most since I feel it is not directed at one person like the three examples listed above, rather at anyone and everyone who wants to spend their day praying to their God. I aspire to be one of these people and I don't see why anyone who feels this way would say so in a thread where others insist are 90% + Christian unless the intent is to go out of the way to offend the majority who are reading it, which accomplishes nothing good. If no offense was intended then you would take this post as one of enlightenment and not say such things in the future as this is very offensive to me. Furthermore, if such posts are allowed then you will have defensive Christians saying well those who don't pray have no purpose in life and things of that nature (this is an example, I am not saying non-Christians or those that don't spend their day praying have no purpose). This leads to a back and forth of insulting and putting down that accomplishes absolutely nothing but sadness. Just to be clear, it does not make it okay to say something rude and then add "no offense intended", if truly no offense is intended, it would not be repeated in the future once the unaware offender has been clued in. General chat section or not, I do not see the purpose of an url that reads *homesteadingtoday* to be used as a means to offend or put down anyone (Christian or not) and well...has absolutely zero to do with homesteading.

I also don't think any "group" will fare better for having rushed the other group off. From just skimming over the likes it was very easy for someone new-ish like me to see who are all forum buddies and who the "frenemies" are. What it comes down to is we all have very unique lives filled with unique experiences that can enlighten and help each other. Just because painterswife and Irish Pixie are non-believers doesn't mean I won't find something they post regarding livestock/gardening/homesteading to be 100% useful.

I will also say all this talk about someone leaving, taking lots of members with them, and Melissa, makes new people like me very curious to want to find which forums Melissa and her friends are at and the information that one has to offer. There has been talk about how to get these forums more clicks, retain traffic, and such. Just wanted to add that perhaps talk of "greener" pastures is not a great way to go about achieving that. Greener for me because I read Melissa never had anything but kind words to say, greener for those opposites of me since it is apparently an uncensored/anything-goes site so they can read all the Christian-bashing posts they want.


----------



## HDRider

Does anyone wonder how wars get started?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> From just skimming over *the likes* it was very easy for someone new-ish like me to see who are all forum buddies and who the "frenemies" are.


I've pointed that out multiple times, and it's one reason I don't use it.

It's nice to see someone else recognize too how it clearly defines the "sides" on any thread


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've pointed that out multiple times, and it's one reason I don't use it.
> 
> It's nice to see someone else recognize too how it clearly defines the "sides" on any thread


And I take a different approach. I very often disagree with Wistco and Patchouli on left vs right issues. I very often disagree with you because of your style of non-responsiveness to questions. But I've seen you do it so often I think you fail to understand how poorly your thought is expressed more often than not. But regardless, when I see messages by you folk and others with whom I'm often in disagreement, I make a point to like the messages that I sincerely find thoughtful, correct, and insightful. 

There are too many folk that merely are part of a click-like-clique, liking everything they think their allies or buddies say. And I don't want to be a part of that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I very often disagree with you because of your style of non-responsiveness to questions


Mostly you just don't like the response, and claim I didn't answer.

I answer logical questions presented in a reasonable manner

I won't answer the same question repeatedly just because you think the answer will change, and I will ignore questions when it's obviously just trolling, as is often the case.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Mostly you just don't like the response, and claim I didn't answer.
> 
> I answer logical questions presented in a reasonable manner
> 
> I won't answer the same question repeatedly just because you think the answer will change, and I will ignore questions when it's obviously just trolling, as is often the case.


Well that is certainly one way of looking at it. But in the few threads I look at, it seems you have the problem of not being understood fairly often.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Well that is certainly one way of looking at it. But in the few threads I look at, it *seems* you have the problem of not being understood fairly often.


Things aren't always what they seem.

If I make a simple 4 word statement and someone* repeatedly* asks what I said, it's hard to see how it's my problem alone.

It's not hard to scroll back


----------



## hippygirl

What? This thread hasn't been locked yet? I'M STUNNED!!!

Also, unless I overlooked something, it doesn't appear there have been any "edits" or deletions...I'M DOUBLE-STUNNED!!!


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Things aren't always what they seem.
> 
> If I make a simple 4 word statement and someone* repeatedly* asks what I said, it's hard to see how it's my problem alone.
> 
> It's not hard to scroll back


And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Scrolling back doesn't help when you've not addressed the point of the Q.


----------



## painterswife

If you don't think he has answered the question and you keep asking it in different ways it just might be you that has the problem. Quite often I have noticed that those who keep questioning BFF have a control problem. Just my opinion. Your opinion is yours. Neither actually matters unless BFF wants it to.


----------



## Tricky Grama

rachelmcmurtrie said:


> So I am one of those "lurkers" (didn't know there was a name for people like me, semi-unflattering but I'm sure Partndn meant no harm). I joined these forums last year when my hubby and I were looking for information on turning our 30 years of city living to sustainable living. I was one of "those" who complained that these forums had changed since I came upon an interesting thread in the poultry forums (chicken got tagged one) and found it sad that people were making fun of the op when he seemed genuine in his concern.
> 
> So one thing led to another and I just spent the last (I don't know how many) hours reading this thread and wanted to give my take on things in an attempt to help/share what is on my mind (that's what forums are for right? )
> 
> So off the bat, it seemed Irish Pixie seemed very offended by Shine (I think) telling her that she prayed for her. Me being a Christian, I found that to be very odd since like many have said prayer is a good thing, like band-aids, and can help fix things. Then I tried some empathy on for size and I saw things differently. One of the worst things for us Christians (more so Christian women I think) is to hear/witness an act of abortion. I know this is a drastic comparison but just for the sake of an example, I thought to myself what if an abortion Doctor said to me "I am going to keep my clinic open an extra 20 minutes (I'm guessing this is how long it takes to do the "deed") and do an extra abortion just for you". I would be horrified. I think many of us that insist prayer is a good thing would be. Well in the Doctor's eyes abortion is a good thing and he's in essence fixing a problem as well but that doesn't make it any less horrifying for me to hear or makes it right for him to go out of his way to do so and then tell me. I know prayer and abortion are in different worlds to some of us, but who is to say prayer is not so horrific to hear for Irish Pixie as abortion is to you and me? I think the important thing with prayer and anything really is intent. The intent should be love. In this case, an intent of love would decide that it is best not to say you are praying for her since she dislikes it so much. You can still pray as she is not forbidding that, just don't tell her.  To my fellow believers I say: keep fighting the good fight, or rather praying the good prayer. To the non-believers I say: don't write off all believers and the Christian faith because of a few here and there. That's like refusing to purchase a good product because of a bad review and every popular product has bad reviews!
> 
> I think freedom of speech is great. I also think making others feel welcome and safe to post their thoughts and feelings is a nice privilege. These forums to my knowledge seem to allow us to post our thoughts and opinions with freedom. I think this is great because while there are many who will argue and disagree, wouldn't the world be super boring if everyone agreed with one another? Having said that, I do think it is important not to personally attack one another as that serves no purpose other than to cause frustration and sadness. I think everyone on this forum would agree we should not go out of our way to cause drama, or be malicious. But then it seems there is some confusion on what is okay and not okay. I personally think everything goes until someone says "hey that is not okay, I don't like that, please stop, it hurts my feelings and makes me sad".
> 
> So in that lien of thinking, in my opinion the most unfruitful posts I have found are the ones where Bear foot farm was referred to in an analogy with pigs and how having a conversation with him was akin to rolling in the mud with pigs, Partndn made a post referring to someone as a back-end/feces which she fixed up I believe, Fennick calling Shine who insisted on praying for Irish Pixie as a weakling and hating themselves and the various number of posts telling Irish Pixie to more or less "brush the dirt off her shoulders" which to me is synonymous with invalidating her feelings on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> This one saddened me the most since I feel it is not directed at one person like the three examples listed above, rather at anyone and everyone who wants to spend their day praying to their God. I aspire to be one of these people and I don't see why anyone who feels this way would say so in a thread where others insist are 90% + Christian unless the intent is to go out of the way to offend the majority who are reading it, which accomplishes nothing good. If no offense was intended then you would take this post as one of enlightenment and not say such things in the future as this is very offensive to me. Furthermore, if such posts are allowed then you will have defensive Christians saying well those who don't pray have no purpose in life and things of that nature (this is an example, I am not saying non-Christians or those that don't spend their day praying have no purpose). This leads to a back and forth of insulting and putting down that accomplishes absolutely nothing but sadness. Just to be clear, it does not make it okay to say something rude and then add "no offense intended", if truly no offense is intended, it would not be repeated in the future once the unaware offender has been clued in. General chat section or not, I do not see the purpose of an url that reads *homesteadingtoday* to be used as a means to offend or put down anyone (Christian or not) and well...has absolutely zero to do with homesteading.
> 
> I also don't think any "group" will fare better for having rushed the other group off. From just skimming over the likes it was very easy for someone new-ish like me to see who are all forum buddies and who the "frenemies" are. What it comes down to is we all have very unique lives filled with unique experiences that can enlighten and help each other. Just because painterswife and Irish Pixie are non-believers doesn't mean I won't find something they post regarding livestock/gardening/homesteading to be 100% useful.
> 
> I will also say all this talk about someone leaving, taking lots of members with them, and Melissa, makes new people like me very curious to want to find which forums Melissa and her friends are at and the information that one has to offer. There has been talk about how to get these forums more clicks, retain traffic, and such. Just wanted to add that perhaps talk of "greener" pastures is not a great way to go about achieving that. Greener for me because I read Melissa never had anything but kind words to say, greener for those opposites of me since it is apparently an uncensored/anything-goes site so they can read all the Christian-bashing posts they want.


Post of the day award.

Wow, rachaelmcmurtrie, that was great' I wasn't gonna quote it b/c of length but maybe it will get read again.

I'm so glad you brought up the post about praying most of the day or however it was worded. I didn't go back & check but seems usChristians were relatively silent after that, did not engage the poster or argue. Even tho I looked up many verses to contradict that position & I suspect others did too. For I know we've been told to "pray constantly". Seems the best thing to do is leave falsities like that lie.
I also thought it was good of us....come to think of it might not be This thread, to mostly ignore posts accusing scripture of mocking, ridiculing women then degrading into childish names for the Bible, God, etc. That has happened so often it's become a bore, lost the shock value.

So, maybe you can help keep us all in line...
:thumb::thumb:


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> If you don't think he has answered the question and you keep asking it in different ways it just might be you that has the problem. Quite often I have noticed that those who keep questioning BFF have a control problem. Just my opinion. Your opinion is yours. Neither actually matters unless BFF wants it to.


You could be right. Maybe I'm just too dumb to have understood his answer and needed to have it explained. It's certainly happened before where I needed to hear something a few different ways before :idea:. But if someone really wanted to be understood and not just argue for the sake of arguing, they might try to restate their opinion using different words. 

If we take BFF's summation of the chicken tagging thread as an example, he's not very good at accurately, honestly, and/or recognizing key issues and relating them in written word. Just IMO, but I think HT would be a far better place if people were less interested in winning an argument and more interested in sharing information. 

I try to be patient with folks (and often fail) because I'm no Hemingway and HT is made up of people with varying degrees of writing skills and time to put into a post. That is not to say it is comment on anyone's intelligence, we all have different abilities and areas of expertise. But it seems some have no desire to be understood, they just get a kick out of the fight. That's why I generally walk away from those who want to debate and demean others for their religious or lack of religious beliefs. :gossip: 

(Hmmmm...upon rereading my message, I see there is room for those here to misinterpret my last line. Don't try to make sense of it. It is a private, not very funny joke, about a non-HT matter that Painter's wife will most likely understand)


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> You could be right. Maybe I'm just too dumb to have understood his answer and needed to have it explained. It's certainly happened before where I needed to hear something a few different ways before :idea:. But if someone really wanted to be understood and not just argue for the sake of arguing, they might try to restate their opinion using different words.
> 
> If we take BFF's summation of the chicken tagging thread as an example, he's not very good at accurately, honestly, and/or recognizing key issues and relating them in written word. Just IMO, but I think HT would be a far better place if people were less interested in winning an argument and more interested in sharing information.
> 
> I try to be patient with folks (and often fail) because I'm no Hemingway and HT is made up of people with varying degrees of writing skills and time to put into a post. That is not to say it is comment on anyone's intelligence, we all have different abilities and areas of expertise. But it seems some have no desire to be understood, they just get a kick out of the fight. That's why I generally walk away from those who want to debate and demean others for their religious or lack of religious beliefs. :gossip:
> 
> (Hmmmm...upon rereading my message, I see there is room for those here to misinterpret my last line. Don't try to make sense of it. It is a private, not very funny joke, about a non-HT matter that Painter's wife will most likely understand)


There are a few people on here that I can't seem to make sense out of their answers (BFF is not one of them). 

On the last line. Why do you continue to stir the pot and bring things from other forums to this one? You really can't stand getting bested and it shows.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> There are a few people on here that I can't seem to make sense out of their answers (BFF is not one of them).
> 
> On the last line. Why do you continue to stir the pot and bring things from other forums to this one? You really can't stand getting bested and it shows.


Nope, I don't have a problem walking away from an argument that is useless. I also usually don't have a problem acknowledging a valid point made by an opponent. I did that to BFF recently. The religious debate issues apply to HT so that is why I made the comment. You might want to consider if your comment about being bested is some form of projection.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> Nope, I don't have a problem walking away from an argument that is useless. I also usually don't have a problem acknowledging a valid point made by an opponent. I did that to BFF recently. The religious debate issues apply to HT so that is why I made the comment. You might want to consider if your comment about being bested is some form of projection.


Not projection. Just fact. You have got bested by so many of the members of that forum that you keep making digs here as some sad form of getting even.

If you feel the need to make digs about the other forum either do it there or start a new thread here. This passive aggressive crap of inserting that forum into threads whenever you can here is getting old.


----------



## Jolly

Tricky Grama said:


> Just thought of something...you strike me as "spiritual", a person of "FAITH". A little different than "religious". In fact I've yet to see you "prosthetize", or speak of tenets of any "religion".
> But I suppose it doesn't matter, if we (majority here) mention faith in a higher power AT ALL, chances are good we'll get hit with the sparkling magic dust rudeness.


No, I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with a Bible, to make them convert. And I'm not the most active member of my local church.

But I believe. Intensely. Passionately. Although that belief may not be exactly like another Christian's. IMO, I don't think anybody needs an intercessory between him and God's Word. The complete roadmap to life, the rules for what is right and what is wrong, the way you should conduct yourself and how you should treat others, are all found within the pages of The Book. Along with a little side aspect called Eternal Salvation, and what is said about Judgement, Heaven and Hell.

All of that, and much, much more can be learned and lived, if man is just willing to read, study and believe. Maybe you find something a bit different in their than I do - that's fine, because each man is his own priest, his own confessor, his own conduit to God. That's not to say Christians don't have any beliefs in common...Most agree on the major aspects of Christianity, most of the small ones and probably even a majority of the minutiae. It's just saying I believe the Word reveals the needed clarity to the individual as they need it, found through a combination of study and prayer.

So if I believe all that, why am I not a better person? It may shock you, but I'd like to think I am. Most of the scars have faded from my knuckles and I haven't picked up a weapon in anger, in a long, long time. But I'm still a sinful soul, a product of man, not perfect and never will be. Christians mess up and sin like anybody else, it's just that God has given us a enough light to know we're wrong, enough knowledge to try to fix the problem and enough Grace to make the fix work. 

Plus, I've had the privilege of seeing one miracle in answer to prayer and an awful lot of things that happened in my hospital career, that doctors shook their heads at and simply could not explain. 

And yet...Even if I did not believe, I would still strive to do so. Pascal was right...Man, through reason alone, cannot determine the existence of God. Therefore, if we reject Him, and He does not exist, there is nothing after life but death. However, if we reject Him and He does exist, the afterlife is definitely not going to be pleasant. 

Considering the flip side, if a Christian believes in God and He does exist, Heaven awaits. If He does not exist, at least the Christian has lived a good, productive, virtuous life. Or at least he's trying to...


----------



## Tricky Grama

I certainly agree, Jolly. Also being a HC prof, I've seen things too. Don't know many who don't have faith.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Scrolling back doesn't help when *you've not addressed the point of the Q*.


See?

There's that denial I described
In the example I gave, no one was asking for a "point"

They kept asking "What is the question?"

It was 4 simple words, and if this "pig" can figure it out, anyone should be able to without asking the "pig" to repeat


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Not projection. Just fact. You have got bested by so many of the members of that forum that you keep making digs here as some sad form of getting even.
> 
> If you feel the need to make digs about the other forum either do it there or start a new thread here. This passive aggressive crap of inserting that forum into threads whenever you can here is getting old.


Sounds like projection to me. 

I'll continue as I see fit and you do the same.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> If you don't think he has answered the question and you keep asking it in different ways it just might be you that has the problem. Quite often I have noticed that those who keep questioning BFF have a control problem. Just my opinion. Your opinion is yours. Neither actually matters unless BFF wants it to.


When a person will not answer a question, _particularly_ a yes or no question that is not personal, how can anyone have a fruitful conversation with someone like that?

When you ask, "Did it rain at your place yesterday?" and you get pages of non-answers, not even including a "I don't know", that person has no intention of being engaged in anything but a monologue with prompts.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> When a person will not answer a question, _particularly_ a yes or no question that is not personal, how can anyone have a fruitful conversation with someone like that?
> 
> When you ask, "Did it rain at your place yesterday?" and you get pages of non-answers, not even including a "I don't know", that person has no intention of being engaged in anything but a monologue with prompts.


You might think it is a yes or no answer but you asked a question and you don't get to decide how they respond. No matter how you were going to use that yes or no to pigeon hole someone.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> You might think it is a yes or no answer but you asked a question and you don't get to decide how they respond. No matter how you were going to use that yes or no to pigeon hole someone.


You ask questions to establish positions. You ask questions to learn.

I asked a person did they believe in the Holocaust, yes, or no. That is not an unproductive question and it certainly isn't pigeonholing someone. Webster defines pigeonhole as _ a neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities_.

I think if someone denies the Holocaust, it opens up an absolute trunk of complexities, don't you think?

Wouldn't you like to hear why someone thinks that? What proof do they have or what lead them to that conclusion?


----------



## wr

Sumatra said:


> Yep, I only see WR, Shrek, and sometimes Teimpo posting much nowadays. There are a few other mods who come online, but they're only visible due to the online users list in the home page, and look more like they're hiding than anything else.


It is my understanding that members and mods have the ability to function in 'invisible mode' which means they are around but they don't show that they are reading or even on the activity list at the bottom of the directory. I don't care for it and never have. Some mods may be using it and because I'm a mod, it wouldn't show the same for me as regular members so I can't say if this an issue or not. 

Shrek is a bit more nocturnal that I am so you're likely inclined to see his presence more in the evenings but for the most part, mods are not expected to be here full time and all of us do receive notification of reported posts and we do communicate with each other regarding unusual time away or something that may affect the amount of time we can invest. 

I've been around a bit more because I'm working from home and I messed up my ankle again so if you see something that you feel needs attention outside GC & Politics, you're welcome to send a pm (which I would also receive notification) and will try to resolve the problem because I do have global capabilities.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Deleted


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think if someone denies the Holocaust, it opens up an absolute trunk of complexities, don't you think?


When someone even mentions the Holocaust and Nazis in as thread *about abortion*, it's just trolling, and doesn't merit a response, which is what I think I told you before you decided to spam the same picture and demand an answer repeatedly.

I simply stopped playing your game
Did you ever see the movie "War Games"?

"The only way to win is to not play"


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> You ask questions to establish positions. You ask questions to learn.
> 
> I asked a person did they believe in the Holocaust, yes, or no. That is not an unproductive question and it certainly isn't pigeonholing someone. Webster defines pigeonhole as _ a neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities_.
> 
> I think if someone denies the Holocaust, it opens up an absolute trunk of complexities, don't you think?
> 
> Wouldn't you like to hear why someone thinks that? What proof do they have or what lead them to that conclusion?


I don't know whether he answered it directly or not. Don't feel like looking. I can say that there is nothing in his posts that would make me believe that he would say no. In fact if I remember correctly he has discussed both Hitler and Mengele and what they did. Why should he need to answer anything more than that. It is self evident that he believes the holocaust happened. Therefore your need for a yes or no answer seems superfluous.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> I don't know whether he answered it directly or not. Don't feel like looking. I can say that there is nothing in his posts that would make me believe that he would say no. In fact if I remember correctly he has discussed both Hitler and Mengele and what they did. Why should he need to answer anything more than that. It is self evident that he believes the holocaust happened. Therefore your need for a yes or no answer seems superfluous.



There you have it Jolly. Next time you have a question for someone, send it to Painterswife first to make sure it qualifies as worthy of being published.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> I simply stopped playing your game
> Did you ever see the movie "War Games"?
> 
> "The only way to win is to not play"


This isn't a comment on the abortion thread, I avoid those as best I can. But I heartily endorse that sentiment.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> There you have it Jolly. Next time you have a question for someone, send it to Painterswife first to make sure it qualifies as worthy of being published.


I guess that was your screwy interpretation of my response that I could tell BFF believes the holocaust happened. Maybe you could do the same and check in with me first before posting.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> When someone even mentions the Holocaust and Nazis in as thread *about abortion*, it's just trolling, and doesn't merit a response, which is what I think I told you before you decided to spam the same picture and demand an answer repeatedly.


I disagree. I think the parallel between abortion and Mengele's atrocities are especially relevant to that discussion. It just happens to be some peoples' opinion which, according to you and PW, they are entitled to express.

Now it may be your opinion that the point being made is merely trolling, but that's just your opinion. Does that give you the right to demand others stop expressing their opinion just because YOU don't think it's pertinent?


----------



## Bret

hippygirl said:


> What? This thread hasn't been locked yet? I'M STUNNED!!!
> 
> Also, unless I overlooked something, it doesn't appear there have been any &quot;edits&quot; or deletions...I'M DOUBLE-STUNNED!!!


 No tasers or livestock prods were used in the stunning of this HT Contributor.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> I disagree. I think the parallel between abortion and Mengele's atrocities are especially relevant to that discussion. It just happens to be some peoples' opinion which, according to you and PW, they are entitled to express.
> 
> Now it may be your opinion that the point being made is merely trolling, but that's just your opinion. Does that give you the right to demand others stop expressing their opinion just because YOU don't think it's pertinent?


Bit Jolly has now started another thread and inserted the question into this one. He really believes he is owed the answer he wants.


----------



## arabian knight

DEKE01 said:


> You could be right. Maybe I'm just too dumb to have understood his answer and needed to have it explained. It's certainly happened before where I needed to hear something a few different ways before :idea:. But if someone really wanted to be understood and not just argue for the sake of arguing, they might try to restate their opinion using different words.
> 
> If we take BFF's summation of the chicken tagging thread as an example, he's not very good at accurately, honestly, and/or recognizing key issues and relating them in written word. Just IMO, but I think HT would be a far better place if people were less interested in winning an argument and more interested in sharing information.
> 
> I try to be patient with folks (and often fail) because I'm no Hemingway and HT is made up of people with varying degrees of writing skills and time to put into a post. That is not to say it is comment on anyone's intelligence, we all have different abilities and areas of expertise. But it seems some have no desire to be understood, they just get a kick out of the fight. That's why I generally walk away from those who want to debate and demean others for their religious or lack of religious beliefs. :gossip:
> 
> (Hmmmm...upon rereading my message, I see there is room for those here to misinterpret my last line. Don't try to make sense of it. It is a private, not very funny joke, about a non-HT matter that Painter's wife will most likely understand)


 For sure. So very true.
Sometimes I wonder if it is a conspiracy on here by one or two to chase ALL the others OFF so they can have there tiny little cliches once again. It is just so few that seem to see it in themselves to bring every post into a peeing match of he said this she said that and I know I am right because it read it on the internet, So it MUST be true that makes ME true the heck with the rest of you.
No give and take, no compromise no nothing just this constant picking at nits just to make GOOD Threads go bad.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> You ask questions to establish positions. You ask questions to learn.
> 
> I asked a person did they believe in the Holocaust, yes, or no. That is not an unproductive question and it certainly isn't pigeonholing someone. Webster defines pigeonhole as _ a neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities_.
> 
> I think if someone denies the Holocaust, it opens up an absolute trunk of complexities, don't you think?
> 
> Wouldn't you like to hear why someone thinks that? What proof do they have or what lead them to that conclusion?


I didn't read your posts in that thread, because I was pretty sure that the holocaust was unrelated to the conversation. Are you sure that what you were doing couldn't be defined as a non-sequitur?


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> For sure. So very true.
> Sometimes I wonder if it is a conspiracy on here by one or two to chase ALL the others OFF so they can have there tiny little cliches once again. It is just so few that seem to see it in themselves to bring every post into a peeing match of he said this she said that and I know I am right because it read it on the internet, So it MUST be true that makes ME true the heck with the rest of you.
> No give and take, no compromise no nothing just this constant picking at nits just to make GOOD Threads go bad.


And yet we have over 500 posts where everyone said what they wanted. No one was banned. No post deleted.

I think I even saw an apology or two. So be a victim believe you are being driven off or just give your opinion and let others give theirs, like is actually happening here.


----------



## painterswife

Oops something did get deleted. Forgot what thread I was in.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> I don't know whether he answered it directly or not. Don't feel like looking. I can say that there is nothing in his posts that would make me believe that he would say no. In fact if I remember correctly he has discussed both Hitler and Mengele and what they did. Why should he need to answer anything more than that. It is self evident that he believes the holocaust happened. Therefore your need for a yes or no answer seems superfluous.


Superfluous, or not (and we discussed at length whether what Hitler did was legal, while Hitler was in power), it still is a simple question, worthy of a simple answer.

The answers would have fallen into 4 categories, as they do in most yes or no answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes, but qualified. The answer is affirmative, but illustrations are given to further explain the person's position on the matter being discussed.
4. No, but qualified. The answer is negative, but illustrations are given to further explain the person's position on the matter being discussed.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Superfluous, or not (and we discussed at length whether what Hitler did was legal, while Hitler was in power), it still is a simple question, worthy of a simple answer.
> 
> The answers would have fallen into 4 categories, as they do in most yes or no answers:
> 
> 1. Yes
> 2. No
> 3. Yes, but qualified. The answer is affirmative, but illustrations are given to further explain the person's position on the matter being discussed.
> 4. No, but qualified. The answer is negative, but illustrations are given to further explain the person's position on the matter being discussed.


Why does it matter in an abortion thread? I believe you have some point you just can't wait to make if he answers so go ahead and make it.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> I didn't read your posts in that thread, because I was pretty sure that the holocaust was unrelated to the conversation. Are you sure that what you were doing couldn't be defined as a non-sequitur?


Not necessarily.

The debate was whether Hitler had broken German law by killing undesirables in the Holocaust. Mr. BFF contended Hitler had broken German law, if I understood his position correctly. I contend that Hitler was the supreme power in wartime Germany and his word was law - while what he did may have been illegal internationally, it may have been legal under German law, in German held territories.

But looked at with a bit of a different view, if the Holocaust did not happen, or did not happen in the manner we think it did, how could Hitler break any law, for something which may not have happened?

I'm a plain person and I'd like to think, somewhat logical. When someone is being intentionally obtuse, I think it helpful to at least have definitive agreement on a starting point.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Why does it matter in an abortion thread? I believe you have some point you just can't wait to make if he answers so go ahead and make it.


Paranoid people have enemies, too? 

When one's conversational gambit is to always be digging the next hole you want someone to fall in, one tends to view everything anybody else says as a trap.

Sun Tzu was right...the biggest mistake you can make, is to think your opponent thinks just like you do.

I like to converse with people, share ideas and debate. I'm not here to nail jello to the wall. I don't need the frustration.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Paranoid people have enemies, too?
> 
> When one's conversational gambit is to always be digging the next hole you want someone to fall in, one tends to view everything anybody else says as a trap.
> 
> Sun Tzu was right...the biggest mistake you can make, is to think your opponent thinks just like you do.
> 
> I like to converse with people, share ideas and debate. I'm not here to nail jello to the wall. I don't need the frustration.


Then why are you chasing this answer? If you have read any of his posts you know he believes the holocaust happened. He just does not believe (like I do) that Hilter had any legal right to commit such atrocities.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Then why are you chasing this answer? If you have read any of his posts you know he believes the holocaust happened. He just does not believe (like I do) that Hilter had any legal right to commit such atrocities.


I've read his posts. I've never read where he said plain out the Holocaust happened. 

So, I asked. Not necessarily politely, but asked nonetheless.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I've read his posts. I've never read where he said plain out the Holocaust happened.
> 
> So, I asked. Not necessarily politely, but asked nonetheless.


And asked and asked and asked and asked and asked.


----------



## arabian knight

Well that person does deserve an answer not just a one dissing off to no mans land,.


----------



## rachelmcmurtrie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm so glad you brought up the post about praying most of the day or however it was worded. I didn't go back & check but seems usChristians were relatively silent after that, did not engage the poster or argue. Even tho I looked up many verses to contradict that position & I suspect others did too. For I know we've been told to "pray constantly". Seems the best thing to do is leave falsities like that lie.
> I also thought it was good of us....come to think of it might not be This thread, to mostly ignore posts accusing scripture of mocking, ridiculing women then degrading into childish names for the Bible, God, etc. That has happened so often it's become a bore, lost the shock value.


I think it's everyone's right to have an opinion or believe that they don't believe in prayer and/or prayer in public places. I just think saying someone who does believe in praying all day should seek counselling is not the nicest of things to say. That was all my point was. I agree with you that some things are best ignored and laid to rest, but there are also things worth fighting for. I have a lot to learn so maybe I will eventually come to think of these comments as the norm, but for now it seems no one was trying to intentionally hurt so I felt I was helping by informing that that's what it was- flinging hurt by saying we are to seek therapy if we pray all day.

As for people interpreting the Bible as mocking or degrading them, I find that sad. Not sad in a negative way that they are sad beings, but rather sad for them because to me they are missing out on something amazing. Perspective and state of mind have a lot to do with any interpretation. I don't think that's something that can be argued for what someone thinks is shaped by the experiences they've had. Maybe one of us has mistreated them and taught them to interpret it that way in the past which is unfair and sad but there is nothing to be done by arguing about it. May-hap we can show love through our actions and words and through that get them to see the Bible in a different light and that it is written with love and warning to merely get each of us to heaven. Because there is someone who loves us so very much waiting to receive us on that end 

On a separate note, I must say that I find it incredibly fascinating that for the most part lots of farmers are believers and/or believe in living a sound healthy lifestyle. I don't mean eating seaweed and running around the track 10 times a day. Rather, eating grass-fed (staying away from CAFO meat), recycling/reusing, putting in manual labor, etc. At least, the ones I've gotten to know are all this way.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> And asked and asked and asked and asked and asked.


And will probably ask again.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> The debate was whether Hitler had broken German law by killing undesirables in the Holocaust. Mr. BFF contended Hitler had broken German law, if I understood his position correctly. I contend that Hitler was the supreme power in wartime Germany and his word was law - while what he did may have been illegal internationally, it may have been legal under German law, in German held territories.
> 
> But looked at with a bit of a different view, if the Holocaust did not happen, or did not happen in the manner we think it did, how could Hitler break any law, for something which may not have happened?
> 
> I'm a plain person and I'd like to think, somewhat logical. When someone is being intentionally obtuse, I think it helpful to at least have definitive agreement on a starting point.


I knew it was off the rails, I just didn't know who drove it there. Fair enough.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> Your opinion is your own, of course.
> 
> I can't recall of a time, though, when opinions stopped prayer.


I was trying to think of a way to say this...very good, Jolly.

More than likely, there's been many Xs more prayers in the last few days b/c of this thread! As well as folks praying in public, too, ah the HORROR!

Whenever 2 or more are gathered together...
Confess, and pray for one another.
Together you may with one voice glorify God.
All there with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer...
Peter was kept in prison, but ernest prayer was made to God by the church...
Pray w/o ceasing.
...went to house of Mary, MANY were gathered praying.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> Straight up... --> Are you saying that this is what happened?


Seeing into others hearts & minds again, huh.


----------



## Shine

It's all right, I am seeking counseling... That's why I talk to Him all day. For the most part, it works.


----------



## gapeach

A silent prayer said for someone never hurts, even if they don't want your prayers. I believe in prayer warriors.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> I disagree. I think the parallel between abortion and Mengele's atrocities are especially relevant to that discussion. It just happens to be some peoples' opinion which, according to you and PW, they are entitled to express.
> 
> Now it may be your opinion that the point being made is merely trolling, but that's just your opinion. Does that give you the right to demand others stop expressing their opinion just because YOU don't think it's pertinent?


I didn't tell anyone to stop anything. I made no demands at all

Jolly got mad because he mentioned "T4" to show what Mengele did was "legal", and I found *documentation* that stated it was actually *illegal*.

He then started the persistent "MR BEAR" rambling and posting the KKK picture repeatedly until he got the thread locked because I showed evidence he was wrong 

He can have any "opinion" he wants, but his *facts* were incorrect and he threw a temper tantrum when that was shown

And he's still playing that silly game, only without me now


----------



## Fennick

gapeach said:


> A silent prayer said for someone never hurts, *even if they don't want your prayers*. I believe in prayer *warriors*.


I don't agree. Prayer should never be done with the attitude of fighting a war. 

Maybe it doesn't hurt if a Christian prays for another Christian because it's all the same to Christians, right? 

However, even with the best of intentions, if the intentions are ignorant or unconcerned about other people's ways and beliefs it can cause more harm than good to the person being prayed for if that person is of a different faith and different beliefs. It may even bring harm or grief or shunning to or from that person's family or community. 

For the people in my culture, which is not a Christian culture, it could cause serious repercussions and a lot of unecessary grief for a community. If a person doesn't want the prayers of other people who are of a different faith and asks them to not pray for him and those other people do it anyway against his wishes then they have cursed the person that they prayed for. Not only have they cursed the person who didn't want the prayers, they have brought the attention of a foreign god, possibly even a hostile god, to be focused onto the person and his community who didn't want the prayers of foreign believers. That may make it necessary for the cursed person to seek aid and counsel from his own religious leader(s) to undo the curse and deflect the attention of the foreign god away from him and his community.

When a person of any faith prays for a person of a different faith against that person's wishes they are not praying sincerely for that person. If it's deliberately against somebody's will and wishes, then the people praying for them are praying out of their own self interests to bring their own god's attention to themselves and make themselves look good to their own god.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by gapeach View Post
> A *silent* prayer said for someone never hurts, even if they don't want your prayers. I believe in prayer warriors.


No one had any problems with "silent" prayers, but it's obvious some were going out of their way to mention it in reference to someone else who had asked nicely and repeatedly that they not direct it towards her.

To continue showed antagonism, not compassion nor caring


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one had any problems with "silent" prayers, but it's obvious some were going out of their way to mention it in reference to someone else who had asked nicely and repeatedly that they not direct it towards her.
> 
> *To continue showed antagonism, not compassion nor caring*


A declaration of war.


----------



## Marshloft

Fennick said:


> A declaration of war.


 Ya know, that's really not fair. You all are talking about someone behind their back who is probably asleep.
A declaration of war? That's quite a stretch don't you think?
Unless you all are talking about a declaration of war here on HT where the christians against the non christians. Yeah like that'l fly and come out smelling like roses.
I understand that "Chuck" instituted a "no evangelist" clause. As it should be, most folks (christians) don't do that so well. Mostly because we aren't equipped , or knowledgeable about how to do that correctly without doing more harm than good.
But I also don't believe he would have allowed the snarky and rude remarks as a comeback either. We both would be banned from HT.
I also noticed where a moderator jumped on the bandwagon with her little dig and attempted to compare melissa with what was being stated here on this thread. Its not like all christians are melissas and St Teresa ya know. That only comes from a great deal of wisdom and age, along with humility.
I'm just wondering why the dogpile,,, is that really necessary?


----------



## Fennick

Marshloft said:


> Ya know, that's really not fair. You all are talking about someone behind their back who is probably asleep.
> A declaration of war? That's quite a stretch don't you think?........


I don't care if she's asleep or not. She said it. Read it again:



gapeach said:


> A silent prayer said for someone never hurts, *even if they don't want your prayers. I believe in prayer warriors*.


That right there is a declaration of war coming from a warrior. She's saying she'll do what she wants and that she will decide what she thinks is good for somebody else even if they don't want it. And other people agreed with her. That's a dog pile too. 

Why is her above statement okay? And how is it not a continuation of the discussion?


----------



## wr

Marshloft said:


> Ya know, that's really not fair. You all are talking about someone behind their back who is probably asleep.
> A declaration of war? That's quite a stretch don't you think?
> Unless you all are talking about a declaration of war here on HT where the christians against the non christians. Yeah like that'l fly and come out smelling like roses.
> I understand that "Chuck" instituted a "no evangelist" clause. As it should be, most folks (christians) don't do that so well. Mostly because we aren't equipped , or knowledgeable about how to do that correctly without doing more harm than good.
> But I also don't believe he would have allowed the snarky and rude remarks as a comeback either. We both would be banned from HT.
> I also noticed where a moderator jumped on the bandwagon with her little dig and attempted to compare melissa with what was being stated here on this thread. Its not like all christians are melissas and St Teresa ya know. That only comes from a great deal of wisdom and age, along with humility.
> I'm just wondering why the dogpile,,, is that really necessary?


I don't feel I was making a dig in any way. I was responding to something and perhaps I'm just as wrong as anyone else but when I think of Christians that get my attention, a couple come to mind and since you don't know my grandfather or my neighbors, there was no point in mentioning them so I went with someone most of us do know and while she's certainly not Mother Theresa, she taught me a lot and there have been many times that her kindness, patience and respect for people where a guide for me when I've been inclined to be a bit too direct or prickly. 

My point was simply that regardless of who's delivering the message, sometimes the best way to deliver it is with respect and dignity and there was no dig intended.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I don't want to thread drift too far. And, I'll say I absolutely do not speak for all Christians. But, I am one and will speak for myself. I don't consider the term prayer warrior violent or warlike at all. I consider it to mean a person who is committed to the use of prayer.

I agree it's not the kindest thing to tell someone who hates Christian faith that you will pray for them, but I also understand that sometimes people say that not to keep upsetting someone, but because it's their way of saying they are yielding from an argument.

I also will say that I think some people feel that Christians aren't being Christian unless they are always focused on absolute kindness, and I think that's not true. Yes, we are called act with faith and love. But, I believe God made us all different because he wants us all to do different things.

Not all angels in the bible are described as precious moments type caricatures. Some were absolutely warriors for god. The same variety of descriptions are there for many of God's people. I don't mean that I think Christians should behave like extreme jihadists. But, some, IMO are used by God to be defenders of the faith.

We send men of faiths to war with our military. And, Jesus was a shepherd to his flock. Many people are called to Shepherd flocks, IMO. And, shepherds don't bribe wolves away with dog biscuits. They stand their ground and are prepared to fight when necessary.

Like I said, these are my opinions, based on my understanding of my faith. It is not at all a call to arms of any sort. Even just a war of words. Just thoughts I had after reading that prayer warrior was being discussed as some type of declaration of war.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I agree it's not the kindest thing to tell *someone who hates Christian faith* that you will pray for them, but I also understand that sometimes people say that not to keep upsetting someone, but because it's their way of saying *they are yielding from an argument*.


If they said it *once*, I'd say you're correct
When more than one *kept* doing it intentionally, it was premeditated spite

She also never said she hated anything
She said she *didn't believe*, and *didn't want* it directed towards her


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fennick said:


> A declaration of war.


And thanks to you I can now just pity them for their lack of real faith. 

I thank you again for explaining why they need to use their religion as a weapon.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> And thanks to you I can now just pity them for their lack of real faith.
> 
> I thank you again for explaining why they need to use their religion as a weapon.


If the moderators cannot see this as an ongoing slight to Christians then I do not know what to think. Pixie said it was offensive, I have ceased any mention of prayer, yet she continues to act as it is still burning her skin, Fennick has jumped in with his professional opinion and casts it as an unwavering spotlight upon any who would do something that they initially thought was innocuous. 

This is really becoming insulting and I would request that it be stopped. I have held my tongue for quite some time but nothing has been done to keep this in a somewhat balanced realm. 

Stop this feeding frenzy please.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> If the moderators cannot see this as an ongoing slight to Christians then I do not know what to think. Pixie said it was offensive, I have ceased any mention of prayer, yet she continues to act as it is still burning her skin, Fennick has jumped in with his professional opinion and casts it as an unwavering spotlight upon any who would do something that they initially thought was innocuous.
> 
> This is really becoming insulting and I would request that it be stopped. I have held my tongue for quite some time but nothing has been done to keep this in a somewhat balanced realm.
> 
> Stop this feeding frenzy please.


There are those here that wish to continue what some of us consider to be insulting. Are you going to request of them to stop? It is a two way street.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> I don't feel I was making a dig in any way. I was responding to something and perhaps I'm just as wrong as anyone else but when I think of Christians that get my attention, a couple come to mind and since you don't know my grandfather or my neighbors, there was no point in mentioning them so I went with someone most of us do know and while she's certainly not Mother Theresa, she taught me a lot and there have been many times that her kindness, patience and respect for people where a guide for me when I've been inclined to be a bit too direct or prickly.
> 
> My point was simply that regardless of who's delivering the message, sometimes the best way to deliver it is with respect and dignity and there was no dig intended.


There were comments in this thread that I even as a non-Christian felt crossed the line, sky daddy, magic fairy dust were totally uncalled for. The baiting and name calling are ridiculous, both sides need to use their grown up language. It is at times for those of us that are not Christian or atheist to wade through the childish attempts at controlling the dialogue to get to the meat of the thread. 

Come on people this forum can be so much better, lots of good discussion out there. 

And yeah, I expect the hair on fire complaints.


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> If the moderators cannot see this as an ongoing slight to Christians then I do not know what to think. Pixie said it was offensive, I have ceased any mention of prayer, yet she continues to act as it is still burning her skin, Fennick has jumped in with his professional opinion and casts it as an unwavering spotlight upon any who would do something that they initially thought was innocuous.
> 
> This is really becoming insulting and I would request that it be stopped. I have held my tongue for quite some time but nothing has been done to keep this in a somewhat balanced realm.
> 
> Stop this feeding frenzy please.


 You got that right. This is getting now ridiculous and dumb.
That is a good thing to happen this back and forth nit picking is going no where. So some get a blessing and don't like it when they get one. LET IT GO~! Move ON and let it be. The are just keeping this alive and making this entire board into a frenzy similar to what was going on a few months ago. No this is not going to move those Christians over to some other board. This stuff happens all the time in a Christ Like Nation. LET IT GO.


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> There were comments in this thread that I even as a non-Christian felt crossed the line, sky daddy, magic fairy dust were totally uncalled for. The baiting and name calling are ridiculous, both sides need to use their grown up language. It is at times for those of us that are not Christian or atheist to wade through the childish attempts at controlling the dialogue to get to the meat of the thread.
> 
> Come on people this forum can be so much better, lots of good discussion out there.
> 
> And yeah, I expect the hair on fire complaints.


 That is for sure. They better look in the mirror and say this isn't worth it and move on life is too short for this kind of bs to be going on.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. This is getting now ridiculous and dumb.
> That is a good thing to happen this back and forth nit picking is going no where. So some get a blessing and don't like it when they get one. LET IT GO~! Move ON and let it be. The are just keeping this alive and making this entire board into a frenzy similar to what was going on a few months ago. No this is not going to move those Christians over to some other board. This stuff happens all the time in a Christ Like Nation. LET IT GO.



So the moderators should stop what bothers you but it was wrong for them to stop what was bothering Pixie?


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> So the moderators should stop what bothers you but it was wrong for them to stop what was bothering Pixie?


So there are favorites here? Pixie's feelings are more important is that what you are saying? I actually find both sides over reactive to the whole thing, with the continued obsessions with inconsequential comments and perceived offenses there is no discourse happening now.


----------



## gapeach

Fennick said:


> I don't care if she's asleep or not. She said it. Read it again:
> 
> 
> 
> That right there is a declaration of war coming from a warrior. She's saying she'll do what she wants and that she will decide what she thinks is good for somebody else even if they don't want it. And other people agreed with her. That's a dog pile too.
> 
> Why is her above statement okay? And how is it not a continuation of the discussion?


Are you guys kidding? This is unreal.

I have a real life experience to share with you this morning. I have a lifelong friend who happens to be an avowed Atheist. She found out yesterday in an ER in Florida that she has lung cancer, breast cancer and also cancer in her hip. I am shocked and saddened. I will say many prayers for her and most of them will be silent. 

Declaration of war? Surely you don't mean that......... Think about how outlandish that statement really is. I have not had time to read any of this since I went to bed last night but I will not waste my time either.


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> And will probably ask again.


If the new standard is that all questions must be answered I'll have to take some time to back and revive some old threads. I've had many questions I've asked, over and over, left unanswered.

I'm more disturbed by the new standards that links to proof of statements are superfluous. Or that the opposition must provide proof that a statement is false rather than the poster proving it is accurate. Or that even posting a link doesn't mean the poster agrees, has vetted, or even read the link or that the link might be disavowed as having anything to do with what the poster initially said. 

Or the standard that liking a post may mean that the liker only approved of some small portion of the post, not its entirety, message or tone. It's up to others to decipher what the liker liked, if it was indeed anything more than the person who posted it.

Or the new, annoying gambit by some, to preface statements with terms like " I think I read somewhere" or "Didn't I see somewhere" to give their proclamations some semblance of truth and themselves some plausable deniability as to what they really read or saw. It's difficult to engage in adult discussion and dialogue with those who won't take responsibility for their own words and thoughts.

Yeah, much has changed. Many of those who went unchallenged before now must cope with their ideas not being sancrosact. Many of those who were stifled before have tested the new limits, and sometimes gone too far. Anytime the dynamics of a social structure change someone will be unhappy.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> So there are favorites here? Pixie's feelings are more important is that what you are saying? I actually find both sides over reactive to the whole thing, with the continued obsessions with inconsequential comments and perceived offenses there is no discourse happening now.


I am unsure if you understand what I meant.

The moderators did not stop or tell anyone to stop saying prayers for Pixie and she did not ask them to. Pixie did ask the people doing it to please stop.

Why should the moderators then be expected to stop or ask Pixie to stop doing the same?


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> Are you guys kidding? This is unreal.
> 
> I have a real life experience to share with you this morning. I have a lifelong friend who happens to be an avowed Atheist. She found out yesterday in an ER in Florida that she has lung cancer, breast cancer and also cancer in her hip. I am shocked and saddened. I will say many prayers for her and most of them will be silent.
> 
> Declaration of war? Surely you don't mean that......... Think about how outlandish that statement really is. I have not had time to read any of this since I went to bed last night but I will not waste my time either.


I did not find it unreal. Silent prayers or prayers for someone that wants them is not the same thing.


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> Are you guys kidding? This is unreal.
> 
> I have a real life experience to share with you this morning. I have a lifelong friend who happens to be an avowed Atheist. She found out yesterday in an ER in Florida that she has lung cancer, breast cancer and also cancer in her hip. I am shocked and saddened. I will say many prayers for her and most of them will be silent.
> 
> Declaration of war? Surely you don't mean that......... Think about how outlandish that statement really is. I have not had time to read any of this since I went to bed last night but I will not waste my time either.


I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I wish her the best.

If you told your friend you were praying for her and she expressly asked you not to because of her beliefs and feelings what would you do? Would you continually tell her that you were praying for her despite her wishes? What you pray for in private is between you and your god. When you openly involve others in those prayers, especially when they've asked you not to, who are you really serving?


----------



## Sumatra

gibbsgirl said:


> Is highlands a mod? I've read some stuff they wrote recently I think in the pigs forum.


Oh, right, yes he is. It's nice to know some other mods that are participating in the forum rather than just moderating only.


----------



## gapeach

Somebody is really mixed up here about what a prayer warrior is. It has nothing to do with war. A prayer warrior is a strong,brave person who prays for everybody who has a hurt or a need. Sometimes when you have a tragedy or terrible illness that very well could be terminal or a loss of a loved one, the prayer warriors are the ones that we call on. They spend much of their times on their knees praying to God for those who in turmoil and pain. I know many of them and thank God that I do know them. The are some of the most unselfish people I have ever known,


----------



## gapeach

mmoetc said:


> I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I wish her the best.
> 
> If you told your friend you were praying for her and she expressly asked you not to because of her beliefs and feelings what would you do? Would you continually tell her that you were praying for her despite her wishes? What you pray for in private is between you and your god. When you openly involve others in those prayers, especially when they've asked you not to, who are you really serving?


I guess I will find out when I talk to her. I intend to tell her that I am praying for her and I think she will appreciate it. This is someone that I started first grade with and went all 12 grades with. I would not keep anything from her.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> I am unsure if you understand what I meant.
> 
> The moderators did not stop or tell anyone to stop saying prayers for Pixie and she did not ask them to. Pixie did ask the people doing it to please stop.
> 
> Why should the moderators then be expected to stop or ask Pixie to stop doing the same?


I don't really care one way or the other about the prayers. What I do care about is the constant inconsequential comments. The constant back and forth to the effect of locking out anyone who wants to actually discuss the topic. 

The denigrating a persons religion, any religion is downright childish. In the same vein I don't feel the lack of religion should be denigrated either. 

It has come down to two groups controlling the discourse to the detriment of a lot of others and it seems to have bled over into other parts of the forum.


----------



## Sumatra

wr said:


> It is my understanding that members and mods have the ability to function in 'invisible mode' which means they are around but they don't show that they are reading or even on the activity list at the bottom of the directory. I don't care for it and never have. Some mods may be using it and because I'm a mod, it wouldn't show the same for me as regular members so I can't say if this an issue or not.
> 
> Shrek is a bit more nocturnal that I am so you're likely inclined to see his presence more in the evenings but for the most part, mods are not expected to be here full time and all of us do receive notification of reported posts and we do communicate with each other regarding unusual time away or something that may affect the amount of time we can invest.
> 
> I've been around a bit more because I'm working from home and I messed up my ankle again so if you see something that you feel needs attention outside GC & Politics, you're welcome to send a pm (which I would also receive notification) and will try to resolve the problem because I do have global capabilities.


Oh, thank you for explaining that. 

Yes, I've noticed Shrek's nocturnal habit, and often think of him more as a night shift mod, and it's always good to have someone around at those hours. I'm not saying the mods should be on all the time, just that they don't seem to be around as much in the past. Actually, writing this now, it may have something to do with so many active members leaving with Melissa, so there isn't as much going on.

I do hope your ankle gets better quickly, and I will keep that bit in mind about PM'ing you for problems outside of GC and Politics.


----------



## arabian knight

The War On Religion is alive and well. This has been in a escalating mode for years now and it sure is sicking.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> I don't really care one way or the other about the prayers. What I do care about is the constant inconsequential comments. The constant back and forth to the effect of locking out anyone who wants to actually discuss the topic.
> 
> The denigrating a persons religion, any religion is downright childish. In the same vein I don't feel the lack of religion should be denigrated either.
> 
> It has come down to two groups controlling the discourse to the detriment of a lot of others and it seems to have bled over into other parts of the forum.


How is anyone locked out? They may choose to not post or read what they don't like. I do that all the time.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> How is anyone locked out? They may choose to not post or read what they don't like. I do that all the time.


What is the point of posting if the only discourse is the petty back and forth between the two groups, jockeying for control.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wr said:


> I don't feel I was making a dig in any way. I was responding to something and perhaps I'm just as wrong as anyone else but when I think of Christians that get my attention, a couple come to mind and since you don't know my grandfather or my neighbors, there was no point in mentioning them so I went with someone most of us do know and while she's certainly not Mother Theresa, she taught me a lot and there have been many times that her kindness, patience and respect for people where a guide for me when I've been inclined to be a bit too direct or prickly.
> 
> My point was simply that regardless of who's delivering the message, sometimes the best way to deliver it is with respect and dignity and there was no dig intended.


Most of us who've been here a long time & remember Melissa knew what you meant.
I'm sure all would be happier if we'd all turn into Melissas.

However, she would say now & then, you are in my prayers. Hmmm... Don't recall her speaking of her magical beliefs, tho. Or of magical people in her magical book. Wonder if she considers herself one of those self professed pius Christians? I'll ask her next time I'm at her forum.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> What is the point of posting if the only discourse is the petty back and forth between the two groups, jockeying for control.


That would be your opinion. See you are free to share it. Nothing stopping you.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> It's all right, I am seeking counseling... That's why I talk to Him all day. For the most part, it works.


And He can be the best counselor.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> That would be your opinion. See you are free to share it. Nothing stopping you.


Yep, I just did, didn't I. :facepalm:


----------



## Woolieface

Fennick said:


> I don't agree. Prayer should never be done with the attitude of fighting a war.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't hurt if a Christian prays for another Christian because it's all the same to Christians, right?
> 
> However, even with the best of intentions, if the intentions are ignorant or unconcerned about other people's ways and beliefs it can cause more harm than good to the person being prayed for if that person is of a different faith and different beliefs. It may even bring harm or grief or shunning to or from that person's family or community.
> 
> For the people in my culture, which is not a Christian culture, it could cause serious repercussions and a lot of unecessary grief for a community. If a person doesn't want the prayers of other people who are of a different faith and asks them to not pray for him and those other people do it anyway against his wishes then they have cursed the person that they prayed for. Not only have they cursed the person who didn't want the prayers, they have brought the attention of a foreign god, possibly even a hostile god, to be focused onto the person and his community who didn't want the prayers of foreign believers. That may make it necessary for the cursed person to seek aid and counsel from his own religious leader(s) to undo the curse and deflect the attention of the foreign god away from him and his community.
> 
> When a person of any faith prays for a person of a different faith against that person's wishes they are not praying sincerely for that person. If it's deliberately against somebody's will and wishes, then the people praying for them are praying out of their own self interests to bring their own god's attention to themselves and make themselves look good to their own god.


Actually, we are in a war. It's not against people, however. The Bible we believe in states that this earthly realm in this age of sin is a battleground. Our enemy is the enemy of all souls, not just ours. Of course you don't agree with that and many non believers treat Us as the enemy, not understanding that the stakes of the war being fought are their own souls.

_"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."_ - Ephesians 6:12

We were commanded to pray for you. That command is above all negative reactions to the contrary and so, whereas the idea of that might offend you, that is not contrary to a sincere sentiment of caring by us. 

You can't judge sentiment or intent unless you are God. I can't either. Some might let you know they are "praying for you" to point out your flaws, but lots of people say lots of things that I might take a certain way, yet I try to refrain from reading possible implications. I liken doing so to annoying myself unnecessarily, anyway. That involves the same lack of omniscience that prevents you from knowing if a Christian prays for you without mentioning it.

Let me assure you that our God is not a hostile one, whether that assurance goes anywhere or not, it warrants saying. He loves even those who don't love Him back. He's done everything, literally everything, to reach out to mankind and there's no one, anywhere, that He will not welcome with open arms if they come to Him.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Fennick said:


> I don't care if she's asleep or not. She said it. Read it again:
> 
> 
> 
> That right there is a declaration of war coming from a warrior. She's saying she'll do what she wants and that she will decide what she thinks is good for somebody else even if they don't want it. And other people agreed with her. That's a dog pile too.
> 
> Why is her above statement okay? And how is it not a continuation of the discussion?


Oh, brother, talk about no freedom of religion!
Peach NEVER called out a poster or said anything inappropriate...made a simple declaration. 
We all know by now NOT to announce we're praying or who for.


----------



## MDKatie

no really said:


> I don't really care one way or the other about the prayers. What I do care about is the constant inconsequential comments. The constant back and forth to the effect of locking out anyone who wants to actually discuss the topic.
> 
> The denigrating a persons religion, any religion is downright childish. In the same vein I don't feel the lack of religion should be denigrated either.
> 
> It has come down to two groups controlling the discourse to the detriment of a lot of others and it seems to have bled over into other parts of the forum.


Since I've been a member, this forum has been a heavily right-leaning god-fearing forum. For years those religious people have insinuated (or blatantly said) those who don't believe are heathens, lacking morals, baby killers, etc. Liberals are constantly called names and put down in threads having not a thing to do about politics. It got to the point I asked to be banned from the politics forum so I didn't even have to read the forum titles. They were so vicious and nasty! 

Now that people are fighting back, all of the sudden those who got away with all their childish comments are getting upset. If you dish it out, you better be able to take it back.


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> What is the point of posting if the only discourse is the petty back and forth between the two groups, jockeying for control.


Control IS what it is all about and has been going on for some time now in this country and here is no difference. A few that just can't stand to hear anything about Christians have a hissing fit every time the subject comes up and prayer and praying for some and praying in general has had its discourse for many years. Good advice is if you don;t like to read or see such things just don't look don't open don't read pass it up and move on, but they can't seem to get by without making some slime remark about it.


----------



## MDKatie

And it's very obvious when someone says, "I'll pray for you" and means it in a patronizing, "bless your heart" way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *This is really becoming insulting and I would request that it be stopped.* I have held my tongue for quite some time but nothing has been done to keep this in a somewhat balanced realm.
> 
> Stop this feeding frenzy please.


That's what Pixie said in the beginning of this kerfuffle, and yet several persisted and even went out of their way to mention praying for her in posts directed at her.

"Balance" won't happen without admitting both sides are guilty at times

The keyword in "silent prayer" is "*silent*" when it's being done in the presence of those who have specifically requested it not be done for them


----------



## Tricky Grama

no really said:


> There were comments in this thread that I even as a non-Christian felt crossed the line, sky daddy, magic fairy dust were totally uncalled for. The baiting and name calling are ridiculous, both sides need to use their grown up language. It is at times for those of us that are not Christian or atheist to wade through the childish attempts at controlling the dialogue to get to the meat of the thread.
> 
> Come on people this forum can be so much better, lots of good discussion out there.
> 
> And yeah, I expect the hair on fire complaints.


I thought we all behaved pretty well in the face of the childish name-calling, didn't you? Maybe b/c we're used to it by now? We've "considered the source"?
I went back & read those pages, yup, was a tad appalled that it was left but very glad it was. 
GREAT reference.


----------



## no really

MDKatie said:


> Since I've been a member, this forum has been a heavily right-leaning god-fearing forum. For years those religious people have insinuated (or blatantly said) those who don't believe are heathens, lacking morals, baby killers, etc. Liberals are constantly called names and put down in threads having not a thing to do about politics. It got to the point I asked to be banned from the politics forum so I didn't even have to read the forum titles. They were so vicious and nasty!
> 
> Now that people are fighting back, all of the sudden those who got away with all their childish comments are getting upset. If you dish it out, you better be able to take it back.


And it makes for such a congenial discussion, gotta get those who you feel power over. Why not just get on with life now that you feel you won some sort of war.

By the way I am a Heathen. Never felt attacked and don't really care if I am.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I thought we all behaved pretty well in the face of the *childish name-calling*, didn't you? Maybe b/c we're used to it by now? *We've "considered the source*"?
> I went back & read those pages, yup, was a tad appalled that it was left but very glad it was.
> GREAT reference.


Like this?


"I know! I know!
It's the LyingCorruptIneptVilelargecottaegcheeserear's staff!"


----------



## arabian knight

Does it hurt when the TRUTH is told? LOL


----------



## MDKatie

no really said:


> And it makes for such a congenial discussion, gotta get those who you feel power over. Why not just get on with life now that you feel you won some sort of war.
> 
> By the way I am a Heathen. Never felt attacked and don't really care if I am.


I am guessing you mean't the general "you" above. I don't feel I'm in any sort of war. It seems we're all having a discussion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> Since I've been a member, this forum has been a heavily right-leaning god-fearing forum. For years those religious people have insinuated (or blatantly said) those who don't believe are heathens, lacking morals, baby killers, etc. Liberals are constantly called names and put down in threads having not a thing to do about politics. It got to the point I asked to be banned from the politics forum so I didn't even have to read the forum titles. They were so vicious and nasty!
> 
> Now that people are fighting back, all of the sudden those who got away with all their childish comments are getting upset. If you dish it out, you better be able to take it back.


I thought so. 
How long is the revenge supposed to last?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I thought so.
> How long is the revenge supposed to last?


I don't see it as revenge. I see it as both side getting to actually post their views. I guess you might see it as revenge.


----------



## MDKatie

Tricky Grama said:


> I thought so.
> How long is the revenge supposed to last?


LOL, like there's going to be an end. As long as people have opinions, there will always be disagreements. And we all know that when this many people, each with his own opinion, get together to "discuss" something, there will always be arguments and people trying to "one up" the other.

How many threads have you seen where people talk about hot topics (like abortion, politics, etc) where each person gives his opinion, and then everyone thanks each other for a stimulating conversation, and all go their merry way? :hysterical: It would be nice, wouldn't it?


----------



## no really

MDKatie said:


> And it's very obvious when someone says, "I'll pray for you" and means it in a patronizing, "bless your heart" way.


Maybe they need to grow a thicker skin or avoid internet forums.:banana:


----------



## MDKatie

no really said:


> Maybe they need to grow a thicker skin or avoid internet forums.:banana:


Maybe. And maybe so do those who are hurt that their prayers weren't appreciated. :thumb:


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> Maybe they need to grow a thicker skin or avoid internet forums.:banana:


 Yes and the war lives on. Never to end it is a endless petty internet thingy for some who are getting a thrill now that they can slam the Christians. War ON


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> I guess I will find out when I talk to her. I intend to tell her that I am praying for her and I think she will appreciate it. This is someone that I started first grade with and went all 12 grades with. I would not keep anything from her.


Now I'll badger you a bit to answer my question as asked. I'm not really asking you to comment on your relationship with your friend. I'm asking you to step back and think about what you would do if someone expressly asked you not to pray for them. Would you honor their request, feelings and beliefs or would you disregard them and continue to state openly, over their objections, that you would continue to pray for them?


----------



## Woolieface

MDKatie said:


> Maybe. And maybe so do those who are hurt that their prayers weren't appreciated. :thumb:


I'm not sure anyone feels hurt that their prayers weren't appreciated. I'm not ever personally shocked or offended when that happens. The mention of it was removed from the thread. That's what started this.


----------



## no really

MDKatie said:


> Maybe. And maybe so do those who are hurt that their prayers weren't appreciated. :thumb:


And as I stated I don't care about the prayers just the perception of attack. Roll with the punches.


----------



## MDKatie

no really said:


> And as I stated I don't care about the prayers just the perception of attack. Roll with the punches.


Well you weren't the one who felt attacked. Move on.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Maybe they need to grow a thicker skin or avoid internet forums.:banana:


Then that should go both ways. If people choose to use Skydaddy and other names that offend Christians, those offended should just grow a thicker skin.


----------



## no really

MDKatie said:


> Well you weren't the one who felt attacked. Move on.


Really what a childish comment.:thumb:


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Then that should go both ways. If people choose to use Skydaddy and other names that offend Christians, those offended should just grow a thicker skin.


I don't know about anybody else but I never complained that it was said. There are certain things I expect out in the world... people who don't like my beliefs is one of them.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> Then that should go both ways. If people choose to use Skydaddy and other names that offend Christians, those offended should just grow a thicker skin.


Yes it should but bottom line is why pollute a forum with vindictiveness on both sides just to feel like something was won?


----------



## arabian knight

And this that don't want to hear a single thing about God, Jesus, praying etc. should Also MOVE ON. And let things be.
Nothing to see here folks,. move on.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Yes it should but bottom line is why pollute a forum with vindictiveness on both sides just to feel like something was won?


You seem to be only saying this to one portion of the people in this conversation. I don't see you calling out the Christians on their part of the problem.


----------



## MDKatie

no really said:


> Really what a childish comment.:thumb:


How is it childish when you're saying the exact same thing to others? Roll with the punches.


----------



## Txsteader

Fennick said:


> I don't agree. Prayer should never be done with the attitude of fighting a war.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't hurt if a Christian prays for another Christian because it's all the same to Christians, right?


Then you don't understand the definition of a prayer warrior or the purpose of prayer.

Are you familiar w/ these scriptures?
Ephesians 6a: 10-13
_10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil&#8217;s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand._


----------



## no really

no really said:


> Yes it should but bottom line is why pollute a forum with vindictiveness on both sides just to feel like something was won?


I think I did call out both sides, I do feel both are way beyond rational.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> There were comments in this thread that I even as a non-Christian felt crossed the line, sky daddy, magic fairy dust were totally uncalled for. The baiting and name calling are ridiculous, both sides need to use their grown up language. It is at times for those of us that are not Christian or atheist to wade through the childish attempts at controlling the dialogue to get to the meat of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people this forum can be so much better, lots of good discussion out there.
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, I expect the hair on fire complaints.



And that could very well merit the post of the decade award.


----------



## no really

MDKatie said:


> How is it childish when you're saying the exact same thing to others? Roll with the punches.


Sorry I just don't see the need to do the attack dog tactics, I would like to see both sides step back and rethink their actions. It is not productive to play one side against the other, even though it seems the norm at the moment..

Now who is winning the contest I would like to keep score.:buds:


----------



## TripleD

no really said:


> I think I did call out both sides, I do feel both are way beyond rational.


The old saying (sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me ) comes to my mind. If I was really under attack I'd be wearing a plate carrier and making a trip to the safe.


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> And this that don't want to hear a single thing about God, Jesus, praying etc. should Also MOVE ON. And let things be.
> Nothing to see here folks,. move on.



I don't think anybody is saying that but if so, it should be mentioned, HT is a homesteading group, not a Christian, Athiest, Pagan or any other faith based group.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Sorry I just don't see the need to do the attack dog tactics, I would like to see both sides step back and rethink their actions. It is not productive to play one side against the other, even though it seems the norm at the moment..
> 
> Now who is winning the contest I would like to keep score.:buds:


You do know that I started a thread about this. I asked if we could figure a way to do this. It was shot down in flames.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> And this that *don't want to hear a single thing about God, Jesus, praying etc*. should Also MOVE ON. And let things be.
> Nothing to see here folks,. move on.


No one said that at all.
This is about specific statements made to specific people


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> You do know that I started a thread about this. I asked if we could figure a way to do this. It was shot down in flames.


Sorry I missed it, sad that things can't be more congenial.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Sorry I missed it, sad that things can't be more congenial.


You participated in it.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> You participated in it.


Hah, I guess my memory is going. Will have to go back and check it when time permits. 

If it turned into another contest I may have just written it off,


----------



## no really

What was the title?


----------



## TripleD

no really said:


> Hah, I guess my memory is going. Will have to go back and check it when time permits.
> 
> If it turned into another contest I may have just written it off,


It did and was locked.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> So the moderators should stop what bothers you but it was wrong for them to stop what was bothering Pixie?


So you understand me clearly - "Stop this feeding frenzy BY BOTH SIDES."


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> So you understand me clearly - "Stop this feeding frenzy BY BOTH SIDES."


I am willing. Who else is?


----------



## Marshloft

wr said:


> I don't feel I was making a dig in any way. I was responding to something and perhaps I'm just as wrong as anyone else but when I think of Christians that get my attention, a couple come to mind and since you don't know my grandfather or my neighbors, there was no point in mentioning them so I went with someone most of us do know and while she's certainly not Mother Theresa, she taught me a lot and there have been many times that her kindness, patience and respect for people where a guide for me when I've been inclined to be a bit too direct or prickly.
> 
> My point was simply that regardless of who's delivering the message, sometimes the best way to deliver it is with respect and dignity and there was no dig intended.


 Then I apologize, I see where it could have gone both ways. When a young christian is compared to a more wise and stronger christian, it can be an unfair comparison.
And when I mentioned "the no evangelism clause" it meant I agree with it. This thread is an obvious reason for it being there.
The only reason I opened my BIG MOUTH is when I saw the "act of war" comment. Thats the second time this week I've jumped in sporadically with a comment and caused more gnashing of teeth than was intended.
And for this reason, I not only apologize to you WR, but to others on this forum. Christian and non christian alike.
G.


----------



## Shine

MDKatie said:


> And it's very obvious when someone says, "I'll pray for you" and means it in a patronizing, "bless your heart" way.


How is it that you know the intent of the pray-er?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *no really*
> _Yes it should but bottom line is why pollute a forum with vindictiveness on *both sides* just to feel like something was won?_
> 
> You seem to be only saying this to one portion of the people in this conversation. I don't see you calling out the Christians on their part of the problem.


Um... I think she did call out both sides but - hey - that's just me.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> I am willing. Who else is?


I'm willing :thumb:


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> I am willing. Who else is?


Me too :sing:


----------



## kasilofhome

I would warn folks not to agree to something with out terms spelled out....vagueness and assumptions are loopholes and snares.

More rights and freedoms are giving away with out much thought.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I would warn folks not to agree to something with out terms spelled out....vagueness and assumptions are loopholes and snares.
> 
> More rights and freedoms are giving away with out much thought.


Should we have stated what exactly each thing we would like stopped? I purposely did not because then we would have another argument. I was going with I am an adult and I will take these people at face value and work through this together. I want to move forward.

Are you in?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> How is it that you know the intent of the pray-er?


When they have been politely asked not to do it, and they do it multiple times afterwards, the true intent is obviously not to help anyone


----------



## wr

Marshloft said:


> Then I apologize, I see where it could have gone both ways. When a young christian is compared to a more wise and stronger christian, it can be an unfair comparison.
> And when I mentioned "the no evangelism clause" it meant I agree with it. This thread is an obvious reason for it being there.
> The only reason I opened my BIG MOUTH is when I saw the "act of war" comment. Thats the second time this week I've jumped in sporadically with a comment and caused more gnashing of teeth than was intended.
> And for this reason, I not only apologize to you WR, but to others on this forum. Christian and non christian alike.
> G.


My skin is pretty thick most days and I sure didn't take any offense at all. I just figured my original statement warranted clarification. 

There was a point in my original comment that I do think many missed and while I originally cited Melissa, it was more because her grace and kindness, not because she was a Christian that displayed grace and kindness. 

You do owe me no apologies and I welcome the opportunity to clarify my statement as well.


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> If the new standard is that all questions must be answered I'll have to take some time to back and revive some old threads. I've had many questions I've asked, over and over, left unanswered.
> 
> I'm more disturbed by the new standards that links to proof of statements are superfluous. Or that the opposition must provide proof that a statement is false rather than the poster proving it is accurate. Or that even posting a link doesn't mean the poster agrees, has vetted, or even read the link or that the link might be disavowed as having anything to do with what the poster initially said.
> 
> Or the standard that liking a post may mean that the liker only approved of some small portion of the post, not its entirety, message or tone. It's up to others to decipher what the liker liked, if it was indeed anything more than the person who posted it.
> 
> Or the new, annoying gambit by some, to preface statements with terms like " I think I read somewhere" or "Didn't I see somewhere" to give their proclamations some semblance of truth and themselves some plausable deniability as to what they really read or saw. It's difficult to engage in adult discussion and dialogue with those who won't take responsibility for their own words and thoughts.
> 
> Yeah, much has changed. Many of those who went unchallenged before now must cope with their ideas not being sancrosact. Many of those who were stifled before have tested the new limits, and sometimes gone too far. Anytime the dynamics of a social structure change someone will be unhappy.


The new standard probably only applies to questions that can be answered yes, or no. :shrug:

Feel free to ask,


----------



## Jolly

Fennick said:


> I don't agree. Prayer should never be done with the attitude of fighting a war.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't hurt if a Christian prays for another Christian because it's all the same to Christians, right?
> 
> However, even with the best of intentions, if the intentions are ignorant or unconcerned about other people's ways and beliefs it can cause more harm than good to the person being prayed for if that person is of a different faith and different beliefs. It may even bring harm or grief or shunning to or from that person's family or community.
> 
> For the people in my culture, which is not a Christian culture, it could cause serious repercussions and a lot of unecessary grief for a community. If a person doesn't want the prayers of other people who are of a different faith and asks them to not pray for him and those other people do it anyway against his wishes then they have cursed the person that they prayed for. Not only have they cursed the person who didn't want the prayers, they have brought the attention of a foreign god, possibly even a hostile god, to be focused onto the person and his community who didn't want the prayers of foreign believers. That may make it necessary for the cursed person to seek aid and counsel from his own religious leader(s) to undo the curse and deflect the attention of the foreign god away from him and his community.
> 
> When a person of any faith prays for a person of a different faith against that person's wishes they are not praying sincerely for that person. If it's deliberately against somebody's will and wishes, then the people praying for them are praying out of their own self interests to bring their own god's attention to themselves and make themselves look good to their own god.


Why do Christians pray? Thought this excerpt was pretty good:

_1. God's Word Calls Us to Pray

One key reason to pray is because God has commanded us to pray. If we are to be obedient to His will, then prayer must be part of our life in Him. Where does the Bible call us to prayer? Several passages are relevant:

"Pray for those who persecute you" âMatthew 5:44 (NIV) [1]
"And when you pray â¦" âMatthew 6:5
"This, then, is how you should pray â¦" âMatthew 6:9
"Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer." âRomans 12:12
"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests." âEphesians 6:18
"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." âPhilippians 4:6
"Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful." âColossians 4:2
"Pray continually" -1 Thessalonians 5:17
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone â¦" -1 Timothy 2:1
Prayer is an act of obedience. God calls us to pray and we must respond.

2. Jesus Prayed Regularly

Why did Jesus pray? One reason he prayed was as an example so that we could learn from him. The Gospels are full of references to the prayers of Christ, including these examples:

"After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray." âMatthew 14:23
"Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, 'Sit here while I go over there and pray.'" âMatthew 26:36
"Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed." âMark 1:35
"But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed." âLuke 5:16
"One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God." âLuke 6:12
"Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." âLuke 18:1
3. Prayer is How We Communicate with God

Prayer allows us to worship and praise the Lord. It also allows us to offer confession of our sins, which should lead to our genuine repentance. Moreover, prayer grants us the opportunity to present our requests to God. All of these aspects of prayer involve communication with our Creator. He is personal, cares for us, and wants to commune with us through prayer.

" â¦ if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." -2 Chronicles 7:14
Isaiah wrote, "He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint" (Isaiah 40:29-31).
Hebrews 4:15-16 reads, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."
Prayer is not just about asking for God's blessings â though we are welcome to do so â but it is about communication with the living God. Without communication, relationships fall apart. So, too, our relationship with God suffers when we do not communicate with Him.

4. Prayer Allows us to Participate in God's Works

Does God need our help? No. He is all powerful and in control of everything in His creation. Why do we need to pray? Because prayer is the means God has ordained for some things to happen. Prayer, for instance, helps others know the love of Jesus. Prayer can clear human obstacles out of the way in order for God to work. It is not that God can't work without our prayers, but that He has established prayer as part of His plan for accomplishing His will in this world.

5. Prayer Gives us Power Over Evil

Can physical strength help us overcome obstacles and challenges in the spiritual realm? No, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). But in prayer even the physically weak can become strong in the spiritual realm. As such, we can call upon God to grant us power over evil.

"For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come." -1 Timothy 4:8
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." â Matthew 26:41
6. Prayer is Always Available


This point is covered separately in another article. But, in short, another reason to pray is because prayer is always available to us. Nothing can keep us from approaching God in prayer except our own choices (Psalm 139:7; Romans 8:38-39).

7. Prayer Keeps us Humble Before God

Humility is a virtue God desires in us (Proverbs 11:2; 22:4; Micah 6:8; Ephesians 4:2; James 4:10). Prayer reminds us that we are not in control, but God is, thus keeping us from pride.

"Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." âMatthew 18:4
8. Prayer Grants us the Privilege of Experiencing God

Through prayer we obtain an experiential basis for our faith. We do not ignore the intellect or reasons for faith, but prayer makes our experience of God real on an emotional level.

9. Answered Prayer is a Potential Witness

If our prayer is answered, it can serve as a potential witness for those who doubt.

10. Prayer Strengthens the Bonds Between Believers

Prayer not only strengthens our relationship with God, but when we pray with other believers, prayer also strengthens the bonds between fellow Christians.

11. Prayer Can Succeed Where Other Means Have Failed

Have all your options been exhausted? Prayer can succeed where other means have failed. Prayer should not be a last resort, but our first response. But there are times when sincere prayer must be offered in order to accomplish something.

12. Prayer Fulfills Emotional Needs

Do we need God through prayer? Yes! We were made to function best, emotionally, in a prayerful relationship with God. As C.S. Lewis put it, "God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other." [2]

Prayer, then, has its reasons, and they are many.

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New International Version of the Bible.

[2] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1952), Book II, Chapter 3, "The Shocking Alternative."
_


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Prayer, then, has its *reasons*, and they are many.


Harassment isn't one of them


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Harassment isn't one of them


I would ask you, with sincerity, and an apology for my perceived transgressions, please, let it pass.


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> Somebody is really mixed up here about what a prayer warrior is. It has nothing to do with war. A prayer warrior is a strong,brave person who prays for everybody who has a hurt or a need. Sometimes when you have a tragedy or terrible illness that very well could be terminal or a loss of a loved one, the prayer warriors are the ones that we call on. They spend much of their times on their knees praying to God for those who in turmoil and pain. I know many of them and thank God that I do know them. The are some of the most unselfish people I have ever known,


That's a little different than what I understand it to be. The premise for the concept of a prayer warrior has also been linked to Ephesians 6 and the concept is very much one of being a true warrior battling spiritual forces of darkness. 

The Whole Armor of God *10 *Finally, _e_be strong in the Lord and in _f_the strength of his might. *11 *_g_Put on _h_the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against _i_the schemes of the devil. *12 *For _j_we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against _k_the rulers, against the authorities, against _l_the cosmic powers over _m_this present darkness, against _n_the spiritual forces of evil _o_in the heavenly places. *13 *Therefore _p_take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in _q_the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. *14 *Stand therefore, _r_having fastened on the belt of truth, and _s_having put on the breastplate of righteousness, *15 *and, _t_as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. *16 *In all circumstances take up _u_the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all _v_the flaming darts of _w_the evil one; *17 *and take _s_the helmet of salvation, and _x_the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, *18 *praying _y_at all times _z_in the Spirit, _a_with all prayer and supplication. To that end _b_keep alert with all perseverance, making _c_supplication for all the saints,


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> I would warn folks not to agree to something with out terms spelled out....vagueness and assumptions are loopholes and snares.
> 
> More rights and freedoms are giving away with out much thought.


I think all of can understand what acting like an adult means and stick to it. I am willing.


----------



## kasilofhome

Funny..... being ABLE to be offended is a great privilege that intolerant people seek to end.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Funny..... being ABLE to be offended is a great privilege that intolerant people seek to end.


So you are calling Shine intolerant? Shine wants it to end. Haypoint. Me, Patchouli, No really, all are intolerant.


----------



## arabian knight

kasilofhome said:


> Funny..... being ABLE to be offended is a great privilege that intolerant people seek to end.


Ya really, they seem to keep posting and posting Stop and let it be, Give it a break already. Seems like they will want to have to last word but then again that is a liberal trait. LOL


----------



## Lisa in WA

arabian knight said:


> Ya really, they seem to keep posting and posting Stop and let it be, Give it a break already. Seems like they will want to have to last word but then again that is a liberal trait. LOL


Hey! Why don't you go on and be the bright light and shining example and lead the way for the rest of us? Take a good long breather and before long I expect we yappy liberals will shut our pie holes and follow suit. Since it was your idea...you go first.


----------



## Patchouli

basketti said:


> Hey! Why don't you go on and be the bright light and shining example and lead the way for the rest of us? Take a good long breather and before long I expect we yappy liberals will shut our pie holes and follow suit. Since it was your idea...you go first.


I don't think he can do it.....


----------



## gibbsgirl

Oh good grief. Honestly, I get that it can get heated in here. And, I get that some stuff occasionally feels way past the lines of reasonable to some or even many people.

My thoughts, being on our best behavior is an unrealistic goal. First of all everyone has their moments good and bad and in between, second of all its written communication which is far more easily misunderstood and third, this thread can't even n seem to get group consensus of who will go first or even n keep going when things get rough again.

My thoughts, what's really missing is the skills to be able to let people try ask each other questions and restate each others thoughts to clarify. 

What's really missing is people wanting to look for little bits they agree on in a conversation, more often than looking for bits to tear into each other with. Too much trying to make people eat their words for my taste. 

What's really missing is people willing to just include that their posts are in fact their thoughts, beliefs, understandings, etc and not the infallible the uths, realities, etc that everyone must accept period. 

What's really missing are people being willing to just let people apologize to quickly try and clear the air and then move on. Too much people trying to collect little bits of weakness in others to throw back at them. 

Sorry, but in my book apologizing takes a lot of strength, not weakness. And, in my book, accepting an apology takes a lot if strength as well.

None of us are perfect, myself included. But, I'd rather just say, I'm attempting to do the right things I said above more often than not, and I hope that at least is coming across to some here. But, I'm not perfect, so i won't promise to be. I also won't promise to be based on any other commitments anyone else is making. I'm just doing it cause that's how I choose to be.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> You seem to be only saying this to one portion of the people in this conversation. I don't see you calling out the Christians on their part of the problem.


Exactly. It takes more than one person to mindlessly bicker, doesn't it? No one is telling the christians that they are part of the problem, are they?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> None of us are perfect, myself included. But, I'd rather just say, I'm attempting to do the right things I said above more often than not, and I hope that at least is coming across to some here. But, I'm not perfect, so i won't promise to be. I also won't promise to be based on any other commitments anyone else is making. I'm just doing it cause that's how I choose to be.


Who said promise? Who said be perfect? Lots of words that and all we want to know is are you in to try or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I am willing. Who else is?


I have no problem either. I wasn't going to post again after my initial post this morning.

It's hot, hazy, and humid in upstate NY today. DH and I were were out and about running errands and when I saw an older woman having a problem walking in a parking lot. I immediately went to help her, got her in her car with AC going, got her water, and made sure she was OK. It took 15 minutes I really didn't have because I had to come home and throw hay. But it was the right thing to do, and I don't begrudge her a second of it. She looked at me and said, "god bless you for helping me. You must be an angel sent from heaven. I didn't know what I was going to do." I said, "Ma'm it's nothing, and you're welcome." Ten minutes later I sneezed in the store and someone said, "god bless you." I said, "Thank you."

That's the way to tell someone bless you, she _meant_ it. It wasn't used as a weapon, it wasn't used to mock. It was used to sincerely thank me for what I did for her. The sneeze? It was just a nice thing to say.

I'm done as long as you (collective you) are.


----------



## Shine

Quote:
Originally Posted by *painterswife*  
_You seem to be only saying this to one portion of the people in this conversation. I don't see you calling out the Christians on their part of the problem._

Pixie said: Exactly. It takes more than one person to mindlessly bicker, doesn't it? No one is telling the christians that they are part of the problem, are they?

Please???


----------



## Fennick

Thus spoke Zarathustra:

"Okay everybody, out of the pool .... now!!!!"

He didn't really but by the by, here are some truly excellent quotes taken out of the book of quotes titled _"Thus Spoke Zarathustra"_ - some of which are relevant and appropriate to this very thread. Enjoy.

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/196327-also-sprach-zarathustra


----------



## no really

no really said:


> There were comments in this thread that I even as a non-Christian felt crossed the line, sky daddy, magic fairy dust were totally uncalled for. The baiting and name calling are ridiculous, both sides need to use their grown up language. It is at times for those of us that are not Christian or atheist to wade through the childish attempts at controlling the dialogue to get to the meat of the thread.
> 
> Come on people this forum can be so much better, lots of good discussion out there.
> 
> And yeah, I expect the hair on fire complaints.


I did call out both sides, but it seems this will just continue unabated.


----------



## no really

no really said:


> Yes it should but bottom line is why pollute a forum with vindictiveness on both sides just to feel like something was won?


And another time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> I did call out both sides, but it seems this will just continue unabated.


It's human nature, and it's how this forum has always been, although some want to think it's a recent event.

It's not hard to find posts from years ago on all the same topics, with many of the same people, making all the same statements


----------



## no really

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's human nature, and it's how this forum has always been, although some want to think it's a recent event.
> 
> It's not hard to find posts from years ago on all the same topics, with many of the same people, making all the same statements


Yeah, you are right, history repeats.


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> *It's human nature, and it's how this forum has always been, although some want to think it's a recent event.*
> 
> *It's not hard to find posts from years ago on all the same topics, with many of the same people, making all the same statements*


Truer words were never spoke. Nothing has changed in years and likely won't. Same people, same complaints, same bickering, same topics, yada yada yada.

That's why I suggested everyone get out of the pool and let this thread die out because it's just going in a whirlpool and nobody can swim against a whirlpool, it just sucks everything down.


----------



## Shine

...well - I tried. I know now where I stand.


----------



## painterswife

I actually think we have made progress in this thread.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> ...well - I tried. I know now where I stand.


Shine, I very much appreciate what you have said you would work towards.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. It takes more than one person to mindlessly bicker, doesn't it? No one is telling the christians that they are part of the problem, are they?





painterswife said:


> Shine, I very much appreciate what you have said you would work towards.


I will do as well as I am able. There seems to be no sense in this particular thread because I believe that neither side can see the viewpoint of the other. If one plays the devil's advocate and peers from the other side things start to sound reasonable but to step out of being the devil's advocate returns one to a location where the blindspot returns and the premise of "reasonable" goes right out the door. I would think that it is the same for those on the other side.


----------



## Shine

Oh my goodness. I was ruminating about the concept I placed before this August crowd, I find that I might have failed in the angle of my argument. 

Please read the following if my use of "devil's advocate" offended anyone.

In common parlance, a *devil's advocate* is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.

There was no actual intent to insinuate that the "other side" had anything to do with the "devil"

Please forgive the oversight...


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Oh my goodness. I was ruminating about the concept I placed before this August crowd, I find that I might have failed in the angle of my argument.
> 
> Please read the following if my use of "devil's advocate" offended anyone.
> 
> In common parlance, a *devil's advocate* is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.
> 
> There was no actual intent to insinuate that the "other side" had anything to do with the "devil"
> 
> Please forgive the oversight...


Maybe it's that very label for such a simple, useful concept that keeps many, who might benefit from looking at things from another's perspective, from utilizing it.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no problem either. I wasn't going to post again after my initial post this morning.
> 
> It's hot, hazy, and humid in upstate NY today. DH and I were were out and about running errands and when I saw an older woman having a problem walking in a parking lot. I immediately went to help her, got her in her car with AC going, got her water, and made sure she was OK. It took 15 minutes I really didn't have because I had to come home and throw hay. But it was the right thing to do, and I don't begrudge her a second of it. She looked at me and said, "god bless you for helping me. You must be an angel sent from heaven. I didn't know what I was going to do." I said, "Ma'm it's nothing, and you're welcome." Ten minutes later I sneezed in the store and someone said, "god bless you." I said, "Thank you."
> 
> That's the way to tell someone bless you, she _meant_ it. It wasn't used as a weapon, it wasn't used to mock. It was used to sincerely thank me for what I did for her. The sneeze? It was just a nice thing to say.
> 
> I'm done as long as you (collective you) are.


God works in mysterious ways and his tools are many. :rock:


----------



## painterswife

Jolly did you mean to try to push buttons. I could respond with a snide comment but we are trying to stop that. You responding like that to Pixie is exactly what others have said they would not do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Jolly did you mean to try to push buttons. I could respond with a snide comment but we are trying to stop that. You responding like that to Pixie is exactly what others have said they would not do.


We have to consider the source, apparently he's sad again today. I could elaborate on why he's sad but he knows already.

Based on his post, there are some that actually want the bickering and fussing to continue.


----------



## Shine

.....sigh


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> The new standard probably only applies to questions that can be answered yes, or no. :shrug:
> 
> Feel free to ask,


Here's an easy one for you- Do you still beat your dog? A simple yes or no, please.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fyi.... think any buyers remorse on the impact of the patriot act?

History repeats without learnin. That is why I stay alert from those who first nd comfort in dipping into restrictions of rights and freedom.


----------



## Shine

:ashamed: sorry... which dog?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> :ashamed: sorry... which dog?


It's a simple yes or no question. Why complicate it?


----------



## kasilofhome

Define what you mean as a dog. What IS a dog? First finding a common understanding of the terms prior with moving forward to answer the question would be stage one.

What do you understand beat means.

Honestly my son beats me daily... that is the truth.. he is stronger and can carry more , so he beats me in carrying the wood .


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes, I beat my dog in driving...he really sucks at it.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> It's a simple yes or no question. Why complicate it?


Claification, matters.


----------



## Woolieface

My dog beats me. How's that for a spin on things..


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You seem to be only saying this to one portion of the people in this conversation. I don't see you calling out the Christians on their part of the problem.


Perhaps you could provide the documentation. 
Is it in this thread? B/c I've re-read it and no one said they were praying for any one who did not want it. I couldn't find one post. 
However, go back to pgs 8, 9, 10 & the mockery, the infantile name-calling, the rude jabs at "Christians goes on & on.

Fine w/me, I get a kick outta seeing some use up a thesaurus.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Jolly said:


> God works in mysterious ways and his tools are many. :rock:


As Det. Spooner so wisely said, "Do me a favor and keep that kinda ---- to yourself."


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You do know that I started a thread about this. I asked if we could figure a way to do this. It was shot down in flames.


Anyone can go re-read that thread. 
While you see that you were shot down, it was crystal clear to the majority that only your rules were to be followed. I.e. If you deemed something rude, it was gospel, if the rest thought something was rude,, well, too bad. 

I think the nail in the coffin was your "no rudeness for politicians".


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Anyone can go re-read that thread.
> While you see that you were shot down, it was crystal clear to the majority that only your rules were to be followed. I.e. If you deemed something rude, it was gospel, if the rest thought something was rude,, well, too bad.
> 
> I think the nail in the coffin was your "no rudeness for politicians".


I put out there what was important to me. Anyone was free to discuss it with me.

Yes, I know that name calling is something you can't let go of. I guess that means you won't be changing what you post. I will put you down in the no box.


----------



## kasilofhome

Tricky... Now I am going to disagree with you because I am very much against limitation place on free speech. I really hate that slippy slope. 

I felt I saw right thru the glitter and saw someone wanting the power to shut people up and be able to turn around and claim ......but we all agreed to it.

Sometimes when rules change fast the impact is learned later.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no problem either. I wasn't going to post again after my initial post this morning.
> 
> It's hot, hazy, and humid in upstate NY today. DH and I were were out and about running errands and when I saw an older woman having a problem walking in a parking lot. I immediately went to help her, got her in her car with AC going, got her water, and made sure she was OK. It took 15 minutes I really didn't have because I had to come home and throw hay. But it was the right thing to do, and I don't begrudge her a second of it. She looked at me and said, "god bless you for helping me. You must be an angel sent from heaven. I didn't know what I was going to do." I said, "Ma'm it's nothing, and you're welcome." Ten minutes later I sneezed in the store and someone said, "god bless you." I said, "Thank you."
> 
> That's the way to tell someone bless you, she _meant_ it. It wasn't used as a weapon, it wasn't used to mock. It was used to sincerely thank me for what I did for her. The sneeze? It was just a nice thing to say.
> 
> I'm done as long as you (collective you) are.


I suppose b/c you saw the lady you determined she was genuine? Yet heaven forbid a poster here says bless you?
I'm wondering if anyone here is surprised you didn't go off on the lady w/something usual, like take your sky daddy & magic dust elsewhere.
To me, it's a believable story. I just don't think about the possibility you could be laughing uncontrollably...


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> .....sigh


Yup, and so it continues, huh, we tried for a second.


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> Here's an easy one for you- Do you still beat your dog? A simple yes or no, please.


I'll respond with a quote from Robert Heinlien - _Never trust a man who wouldn't shoot his own dog_.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, and so it continues.


Yes, you did continue it. For what purpose? Stirring the pot? You could have just let those of us that have agreed to try and make things better do that. Do you not want things to get better?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> We have to consider the source, apparently he's sad again today. I could elaborate on why he's sad but he knows already.
> 
> Based on his post, there are some that actually want the bickering and fussing to continue.


Now, now, now...Did I bless you? Did I say a prayer for you? Did I quote scripture?

Nope, I didn't. I actually made a pretty generic statement. In my world, where God does exist, it would be taken as a complement. You did a good deed. I just wanted to see if we were serious or just talking to hear our heads run.

As I suspected, the Truth lies somewhat in the middle.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Jolly did you mean to try to push buttons. I could respond with a snide comment but we are trying to stop that. You responding like that to Pixie is exactly what others have said they would not do.


I could ask the same...was no one supposed to respond to that post of the elderly lady story? Only supposed to respond as some deemed acceptable? No mention of God unless certain ones mention?
See, there's rules some of you make up as you go...


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I could ask the same...was no one supposed to respond to that post of the elderly lady story? Only supposed to respond as some deemed acceptable? No mention of God unless certain ones mention?
> See, there's rules some of you make up as you go...


Where did I say anything about you responding to that post?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I put out there what was important to me. Anyone was free to discuss it with me.
> 
> Yes, I know that name calling is something you can't let go of. I guess that means you won't be changing what you post. I will put you down in the no box.


Put me down for not calling any one on HT names. More than I can say of you & your friends.
There are a few who have no clue who are ordinary folks & who are politicians, i get that. I'll put them down as permanently 'sad'.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Jolly said:


> I actually made a pretty generic statement. In my world, where God does exist, it would be taken as a complement.


Bull! 

From a Christian looking from the outside, you meant it to be provocative and insulting. If you meant it otherwise, you clearly missed your mark badly!


----------



## Jolly

Lastly, about being sad...nah. Retired from one job, got a nice pension, a pretty good nest egg, started another job, very different type stuff that's been a lot of fun. Everything's been paid for for years, the kids are doing well (boy just got a 20% raise, daughter's getting married) and I've a bright, shiny new tractor to play along with 30 acres to play. Wife is doing ok, too.

I have music in the house at night, laughter in the morning, the company of old friends and some good folks down at the church. I don't worry much about this life and I darn sure don't have to worry about the next one. I may not be rich in wordly goods, but I'm blessed beyond belief.

Shucks, I'm happier than a dead hog in the sunshine. :sing:


----------



## Bret

My random obtusivization--The farmer and the cowboy should be friends...the farmer and the cowboy should be friends...

Near and far, we are the same.

We are more alike than we are apart.

I am OK in my own boots. 

At what point do I need to retire my working cowboy hat because I keep wearing it to town and it looks like hell? I have a perfectly good one. I'm past trying to fool anyone. It's too much fun being me. 

We are virtually, each one of us, the same distance from Pluto.

A poster once asked how old I was. I feel that the post may have been implying that my posts were juvenile. I may have been getting a crap test.  I grinned.

People should not look in my closet.

I accept Visa, MasterCard Sky Daddy, prayers, magicdust, fudge and all forms of happy thoughts. 

If you have a smile and look like you want to dance, I will ask you to dance.

If no one is asking you to dance I will ask you to dance.

If I have a plate of peanut butter rice krispy squares, I'm gonna pass them around until they are gone.

If you don't want to dance, I'll offer the above treats. If you tell me you are diabetic, I will nod and smile.

There are sometimes gists to my posts, but most times, I just like tapping to the wind that I hear in my head. If you put your ear next to mine, you can hear the ocean

and Rodger's and Hammerstein's Oklahoma SoundTrack at this moment.

I must be two years old.

If the whole neighborhood is in an uproar, I will arrange a barbeque and keep dancing...in one hat or the other. I will keep the same address as long as it suits me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> Tricky... Now I am going to disagree with you because I am very much against limitation place on free speech. I really hate that slippy slope.
> 
> I felt I saw right thru the glitter and saw someone wanting the power to shut people up and be able to turn around and claim ......but we all agreed to it.
> 
> Sometimes when rules change fast the impact is learned later.


Yup, you did, saw right thru, I fell into it, again, as soon as we do, the insults began.
It's ok. They're sad. Again today.


----------



## Jolly

nchobbyfarm said:


> Bull!
> 
> From a Christian looking from the outside, you meant it to be provocative and insulting. If you meant it otherwise, you clearly missed your mark badly!


You have your opinion, of course.


----------



## Jolly

Bret said:


> My random obtusivization--The farmer and the cowboy should be friends...the farmer and the cowboy should be friends...
> 
> Near and far, we are the same.
> 
> We are more alike than we are apart.
> 
> I am OK in my own boots.
> 
> At what point do I need to retire my working cowboy hat because I keep wearing it to town and it looks like hell? I have a perfectly good one. I'm past trying to fool anyone. It's too much fun being me.
> 
> We are virtually, each one of us, the same distance from Pluto.
> 
> A poster once asked how old I was. I feel that the post may have been implying that my posts were juvenile. I may have been getting a crap test.  I grinned.
> 
> People should not look in my closet.
> 
> I accept Visa, MasterCard Sky Daddy, prayers, magicdust, fudge and all forms of happy thoughts.
> 
> If you have a smile and look like you want to dance, I will ask you to dance.
> 
> If no one is asking you to dance I will ask you to dance.
> 
> If I have a plate of peanut butter rice krispy squares, I'm gonna pass them around until they are gone.
> 
> If you don't want to dance, I'll offer the above treats. If you tell me you are diabetic, I will nod and smile.
> 
> There are sometimes gists to my posts, but most times, I just like tapping to the wind that I hear in my head. If you put your ear next to mine, you can hear the ocean
> 
> and Rodger's and Hammerstein's Oklahoma SoundTrack at this moment.
> 
> I must be two years old.
> 
> If the whole neighborhood is in an uproar, I will arrange a barbeque and keep dancing...in one hat or the other. I will keep the same address as long as it suits me.


Do you write professionally? That's very, very good.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Yes, you did continue it. For what purpose? Stirring the pot? You could have just let those of us that have agreed to try and make things better do that. Do you not want things to get better?


Things will not get better as long as you & yours are allowed to make the snide, snarky comments & snipe at others when they object.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Things will not get better as long as you & yours are allowed to make the snide, snarky comments & snipe at others when they object.


I responded to your comments. Are you somehow not part of the problem? I already admitted I was. You keep stirring the pot. How is that helping?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Where did I say anything about you responding to that post?


I never said you did. 
You chided jolly, you inferred he was in the wrong. I asked a question...I see you are sad & don't want to answer my question.


----------



## kasilofhome

Stop choosing to be offended .....it works


----------



## Patchouli

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no problem either. I wasn't going to post again after my initial post this morning.
> 
> It's hot, hazy, and humid in upstate NY today. DH and I were were out and about running errands and when I saw an older woman having a problem walking in a parking lot. I immediately went to help her, got her in her car with AC going, got her water, and made sure she was OK. It took 15 minutes I really didn't have because I had to come home and throw hay. But it was the right thing to do, and I don't begrudge her a second of it. She looked at me and said, "god bless you for helping me. You must be an angel sent from heaven. I didn't know what I was going to do." I said, "Ma'm it's nothing, and you're welcome." Ten minutes later I sneezed in the store and someone said, "god bless you." I said, "Thank you."
> 
> That's the way to tell someone bless you, she _meant_ it. It wasn't used as a weapon, it wasn't used to mock. It was used to sincerely thank me for what I did for her. The sneeze? It was just a nice thing to say.
> 
> I'm done as long as you (collective you) are.





Jolly said:


> God works in mysterious ways and his tools are many. :rock:


:facepalm:
That was just uncalled for and exactly what is the problem here. You use your religion to take a poke. Pixie made an effort to politely show you what she has been trying to say about religion and how she is fine with it on a general basis and you have to respond with a childish remark. 

This is why we can't have nice things here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I responded to your comments. Are you somehow not part of the problem? I already admitted I was. You keep stirring the pot. How is that helping?


Stirring the pot how?

Is it b/c I responded to Shine's post? Should've just "sighed" back?

What do you call it when a quote is copied from the politics forum & pasted here? Page, 30, bottom, to refresh your memory. Was that to show that some have no clue who's a vile politician & who are HT members?

Or was it to show that you can post something that belongs in politics HERE and not get deleted yet 7thSwan cannot?

Most detest bullies. Those who wish to impose regs on others w/o adhering to the same ARE the problem.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Stirring the pot how?
> 
> Is it b/c I responded to Shine's post? Should've just "sighed" back?
> 
> What do you call it when a quote is copied from the politics forum & pasted here? Page, 30, bottom, to refresh your memory. Was that to show that some have no clue who's a vile politician & who are HT members?
> 
> Or was it to show that you can post something that belongs in politics HERE and not get deleted yet 7thSwan cannot?
> 
> Most detest bullies. Those who wish to impose regs on others w/o adhering to the same ARE the problem.


Are you having fun yet?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Are you having fun yet?


I see you have no answer, not surprising, it's all back on you babe, don't be sad.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I see you have no answer, not surprising, it's all back on you babe, don't be sad.


Having a good day? I hope so.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Having a wonderful day, thank you very much.


----------



## Fennick

Jolly, I want to say thank you for this. I've bolded the parts that are relevant to the point I was making about Jesus instructing his followers to pray in private, and the example he set in doing his praying privately.



Jolly said:


> Why do Christians pray? Thought this excerpt was pretty good:
> 
> ... <snip> ...
> 
> _2. Jesus Prayed Regularly_
> 
> _Why did Jesus pray? One reason he prayed was as an example so that we could learn from him. The Gospels are full of references to the prayers of Christ, including these examples:_
> 
> _"After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside *by himself* to pray." âMatthew 14:23_
> 
> _"Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, 'Sit here while I go *over there* and pray.'" âMatthew 26:36_
> 
> _"Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off *to a solitary place*, where he prayed." âMark 1:35_
> 
> _"But Jesus often withdrew *to lonely places* and prayed." âLuke 5:16_
> 
> _"One of those days Jesus went out *to a mountainside* to pray, and spent the night praying to God." âLuke 6:12_
> 
> _... <snip> ..._


----------



## Shine

Fennick said:


> Jolly, I want to say thank you for this. I've bolded the parts that are relevant to the point I was making about Jesus instructing his followers to pray in private, and the example he set in doing his praying privately.


If I remember correctly you indicated that you are not of the Christian faith, is that correct?

Might I inquire as to why you appear to want to manage the central tenets of our faith? I can show you a number of passages where it suggests to pray incessantly and some that advocate public and open air prayer. Why are you so caught up in the in's and out's of a religion that you do not participate in?

This is really curious.

ETA: Jesus did regularly pray in solitude, I am in no way saying that He did not. Much of my prayer is in solitude but also much of my life is surrounded by others as I practice what I have been shown. Should I not pray with my family over a meal in a public place? Should those sports arenas and venues not allow prayer? Should we stop all prayer at any public event?

For Jesus praying in public I direct you to the following verses:
Matthew 11:25-26
Matthew 15:36
Matthew 19:13
Luke 9:28
Luke 11:1
Luke 24:30
John 6:11
John 11:41-42
John 17:1-26
Mark 7:34-35
Mark 8:6


----------



## Fennick

Bret said:


> My random obtusivization--The farmer and the cowboy should be friends...the farmer and the cowboy should be friends...
> 
> Near and far, we are the same.
> 
> We are more alike than we are apart.
> 
> I am OK in my own boots.
> 
> At what point do I need to retire my working cowboy hat because I keep wearing it to town and it looks like hell? I have a perfectly good one. I'm past trying to fool anyone. It's too much fun being me.
> 
> We are virtually, each one of us, the same distance from Pluto.
> 
> A poster once asked how old I was. I feel that the post may have been implying that my posts were juvenile. I may have been getting a crap test.  I grinned.
> 
> People should not look in my closet.
> 
> I accept Visa, MasterCard Sky Daddy, prayers, magicdust, fudge and all forms of happy thoughts.
> 
> If you have a smile and look like you want to dance, I will ask you to dance.
> 
> If no one is asking you to dance I will ask you to dance.
> 
> If I have a plate of peanut butter rice krispy squares, I'm gonna pass them around until they are gone.
> 
> If you don't want to dance, I'll offer the above treats. If you tell me you are diabetic, I will nod and smile.
> 
> There are sometimes gists to my posts, but most times, I just like tapping to the wind that I hear in my head. If you put your ear next to mine, you can hear the ocean
> 
> and Rodger's and Hammerstein's Oklahoma SoundTrack at this moment.
> 
> I must be two years old.
> 
> If the whole neighborhood is in an uproar, I will arrange a barbeque and keep dancing...in one hat or the other. I will keep the same address as long as it suits me.


Well said! :thumb: Such a wonderful, glorious outlook. I love it. 

If you want to add some extra lightness to your dance steps every once in a while so you feel like you're dancing on air I highly recommend dancing in a garlic patch. :happy:


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Are you having fun yet?





Tricky Grama said:


> I see you have no answer, not surprising, it's all back on you babe, don't be sad.





painterswife said:


> Having a good day? I hope so.





Tricky Grama said:


> Having a wonderful day, thank you very much.


I'm glad you gals are being nice.:thumb:
If I didn't know better, I'd swear we were seeing the yankee version of "Bless your heart" :rotfl:


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, and so it continues, huh, we tried for a second.


Ya really I thought "others" would finally give up and stop but I guess not like I said 'they' have to always have the last word. God forbid someone out posted them. LOL


----------



## Jolly

Fennick said:


> Jolly, I want to say thank you for this. I've bolded the parts that are relevant to the point I was making about Jesus instructing his followers to pray in private, and the example he set in doing his praying privately.


You're welcome.

(I bet you didn't know this is a nefarious Christian plot to get you to read more Scripture, MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) :idea:


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> Ya really I thought "others" would finally give up and stop but I guess not like I said 'they' have to always have the last word. God forbid someone out posted them. LOL


It's great to see you prevented one of the others from having the last word :rotfl:


----------



## Fennick

Jolly said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> (I bet you didn't know this is a nefarious Christian plot to get you to read more Scripture, MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) :idea:


Sure, I knew that.  I do understand it's commanded and required in your particular religion. 

I try to maintain a basic acquaintance and understanding of all religions and all religions' holy books or tenets and demands. Specific scriptures from each holy book - meh, not so much, but I do have the basics down pat since so many of them are repetetive. No one religion or god is better or more enlightening than any other but they're all cool if you're interested in reading about that kind of thing and learning what motivates religious people and makes them tick. :grin:


----------



## Shine

Fennick said: "but I do have the basics down pat since so many of them are repetetive."

I would offer a different view. It is apparent that you have missed the true intent of prayer within the Christian Realm and focused your attack on only one facet.

I accept your lack of an explanatory reply to my question, you never were required to reply.

I wish you well.


----------



## Fennick

My computer has picked up a bug and come under the weather sometime within the past three days. It keeps on freezing up on me and taking a couple of hours to fix it each time. I'll reply only to the following quote from your last post and hopefully this post will submit okay without freezing up again.



Shine said:


> If I remember correctly you indicated that you are not of the Christian faith, is that correct?
> 
> *Might I inquire as to why you appear to want to manage the central tenets of our faith?* I can show you a number of passages where it suggests to pray incessantly and some that advocate public and open air prayer. *Why are you so caught up in the in's and out's of a religion that you do not participate in?*


 
That's correct, I'm not a Christian. I have God but no religions. But what makes you assume I might not participate in the Christian religion? How do you know whether or not I may participate in all religions? A person doesn't have to be a religionist or follower of a religion to participate in any religion or their religious practices. 

It's better to not make assumptions about things I've not said. Just read my words carefully and don't infer things from them that haven't been said. 

Re: the bolded parts of your post, I'll answer your questions with another question: 

Can you give me good reasons for why I should not want to manage or get caught up in the ins and outs of ANY religion that tries to manage me or other people who aren't followers of that religion?

If you read all my words correctly you would realize I've never indicated that I want to manage or dictate how people pray. I have said there's something wrong with people who use their prayers in spite to try to impose their will over other people. I have said that praying in private is the correct way to pray if people want God to listen and answer. I don't care about all the scriptures from your bible that says people have done so or should pray in public. People will do what they want. 

It shouldn't bother some of you so much that I say you are praying wrong if you aren't praying in private. If you feel secure in your personal religious practises you shouldn't feel a need to defend yourselves or care what I say about your prayer practises. Just don't impose them on other people who don't want it.


----------



## kasilofhome

A person doesn't have to be a religionist or follower of a religion to participate in any religion or their religious practices.






False...my sister freaked out when she failed to be allow to partake in our faith.

Many faith do not allow non members or those not in good standing to be involved.


----------



## Fennick

kasilofhome said:


> A person doesn't have to be a religionist or follower of a religion to participate in any religion or their religious practices.
> 
> 
> 
> False...my sister freaked out when she failed to be allow to partake in our faith.
> 
> Many faith do not allow non members or those not in good standing to be involved.
Click to expand...

I think that's a somewhat different situation. You're talking about her being rejected by the fellowship, not rejected by the god.

I know it's true the people of several faiths will reject people that they think aren't good enough for them or their religion. Personally I think that speaks poorly of the people and their religion, not necessarily anything bad about the god though. 

If your sister wants to have faith in your god what is stopping her from doing it on her own? Does she really need other people to approve of her in order for her to worship your god? 

If she's really serious about it she only needs to worship and follow the god of your faith and go by that god's tenets. I've never heard of any person being rejected by any god that the person wanted to worship. Gods want to be acknowledged and appreciated. She doesn't have to follow the people or have faith in the people or follow the tenets of the people.

You tell her I said so. She can believe in and worship any god she wants to and she doesn't need acceptance or permission from any other people whether or not they worship the same god.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sis, could not meet the standards....she had no parish to back up her faithful attendance...(guess not going to church any where caused that)... thus when she requested to be godmother..brother knew he did not even hurt her feelings ...sent her the forms and she could not find a priest to lie... end of story.

So, she can't get married in the church, be a godmother, or sponsor for and of brothers kid, ... that's reality... if you are not in the church you out rejected from many sacraments.

Sorry rather than lie to her.... I will skip your message. You're information while pleasant is not correct.


----------



## Fennick

I don't think much of that religion then. It sounds like some kind of elite cult. Your sister is probably better off not involved with something as discriminatory as that one. She needs to find a more welcoming religion and church if it's truly god, religion and fellowship she wants and not just acceptance as a godmother or to get married in a church. There's nothing stopping her from worshipping their god on her own though, if that's what she really wants.

If your brother wants her appointed as a familial sponsor or guardian for his children he can arrange that legally outside of his church, she doesn't have to be a church approved godmother to legally be an appointed sponsor or guardian.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I've come to the conclusion that people who are obsessed with forcing their view on others are nothing but egotistical, self aggrandizing bullies. I can find absolutely no reason for this very high self opinion, at least in reading their posts. It must be something that you (collective you) lack in your character or your life that makes you believe that the world revolves around you, and that you know what is best for everyone. That everyone should appreciate and acknowledge your "pearls of wisdom" and somehow recognize you as the superior creature you think you are. Sadly, in reality you are viewed as a prime example of a feminine hygiene product. 

I do believe that people of this sort actually like to bicker because it makes them feel important. I'm not buying into this, or the myriad other reasons that self important use argument as gratification, any longer. You won't derive any more pleasure from me. 

I don't think for one minute that this post will change what you (collective you) do, it couldn't or the self you have created would crumble into dust, but perhaps it will make you think just a bit. 

Just my good deed for the day.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I've come to the conclusion that people who are obsessed with forcing their view on others are nothing but egotistical, self aggrandizing bullies.


I agree, those atheists/anti Christians can really come on too strong. :thumb:


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> False...my sister freaked out when she failed to be allow to partake in our faith.
> .


OMGOMG....it's true! You ARE like a female, Alaskan version of Dwight Schrute!

But you can't see this because I was SHUNNED!
:banana::sing:

Now I understand you better. Who doesn't love Dwight Schrute?


----------



## Kung

Keep it clean, people, or we'll just delete the thread altogether.


----------



## AngieM2

My part was clean. And only an generic observation.


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> OMGOMG....it's true! You ARE like a female, Alaskan version of Dwight Schrute!
> 
> But you can't see this because I was SHUNNED!
> :banana::sing:
> 
> Now I understand you better. Who doesn't love Dwight Schrute?


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2Y.HTM
And I know the requirements....cannon law.


----------



## Shine

Fennick said:


> My computer has picked up a bug and come under the weather sometime within the past three days. It keeps on freezing up on me and taking a couple of hours to fix it each time. I'll reply only to the following quote from your last post and hopefully this post will submit okay without freezing up again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct, I'm not a Christian. I have God but no religions. But what makes you assume I might not participate in the Christian religion? How do you know whether or not I may participate in all religions? A person doesn't have to be a religionist or follower of a religion to participate in any religion or their religious practices.
> 
> It's better to not make assumptions about things I've not said. Just read my words carefully and don't infer things from them that haven't been said.
> 
> Re: the bolded parts of your post, I'll answer your questions with another question:
> 
> Can you give me good reasons for why I should not want to manage or get caught up in the ins and outs of ANY religion that tries to manage me or other people who aren't followers of that religion?
> 
> If you read all my words correctly you would realize I've never indicated that I want to manage or dictate how people pray. I have said there's something wrong with people who use their prayers in spite to try to impose their will over other people. I have said that praying in private is the correct way to pray if people want God to listen and answer. I don't care about all the scriptures from your bible that says people have done so or should pray in public. People will do what they want.
> 
> It shouldn't bother some of you so much that I say you are praying wrong if you aren't praying in private. If you feel secure in your personal religious practises you shouldn't feel a need to defend yourselves or care what I say about your prayer practises. Just don't impose them on other people who don't want it.


First off, I would rather not be called a "Christian" as that seems to signify that I have completed something. I have not, I would rather be known as a follower of Christ's teachings, some of which come easy, some of which seems almost impossible. 

In Post 552 you said:
"For the people in my culture, which is not a Christian culture, "

If you are one of God but not of any religion then I am troubled by your attempts to label something as important as prayer as being perverted by many. You make this declaration without any understanding of the person, only your presumption as to what was intended. That is a very dangerous stance with regards to the harming of one AND many.

While you are entitled to your opinion it seems that you are trying to push your edict that all prayer should be in hiding, or in seclusion. I have offered a number of verses where Jesus made very public prayers. If we are to follow your line of reasoning then Jesus is in violation of your edicts.

So I asked: Why is it that you want to badger people with this? You have posted more than a few times regarding this.

I say that prayer, when done with as pure an intention as possible is legit in almost any situation. If you wish to address my prayer habits directly with me then I will comply and discuss them, but your attacks upon the propriety of praying which are seemingly aimed in my direction(your citing follows the exact appearance of my offering a prayer to another on here) are, in my opinion, misguided.

Fennick said: " I have said there's something wrong with people who use their prayers in spite to try to impose their will over other people." where I also submit that this is wrong in my opinion also. Are you sure that you can detect this type of thing with a 100% accuracy? I cannot.

Be well...

P.S. - Fennick said: "Just don't impose them on other people who don't want it." 

Good idea... Please follow your own sermon...


----------

