# Coming Changes for General Chat



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

Alright guys, 

The mods and I have discussed it and we will be instituting some changes next week I wanted you all to be aware of. 

First, politics will now be Politics, Religion, and Debate. It will require thick skin in order to participate and will be governed by minimal rules. 

General Chat will be reserved for forum games, and other polite topics that don't fall into other categories. 

We're doing this in order to put all the debate style threads in one section and hopefully turn General Chat into a more light hearted section we can all gather in and have some fun. 

If you guys have any questions please let me know.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Confining the bare knuckle stuff to one arena works for me. Thanks!


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

So, the first page of thread titles in GC indicates that only 3 of the 25 will still be considered general chat, and the other 22 will be in politics and religion? And debate, I remember there were wars and bannings about the best way to grow potatoes. Any subject can be debated. Do you plan to move a thread whenever there is an opposing position posted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I would suggest that the new category be done like the current "Politics" section in that it is open *by request only*.

Then those who don't want to see or participate won't have to be there at all, and those who choose to be there have no reason to whine all the time if they don't like it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

*Austin*, I think this is a terrific decision, and I agree with *Bear Foot Farm* it should be an opt-in, just as Politics is now. If this is how you intend to proceed, then I further suggest that in the main part of the forum, there be *very* strict moderation of the "be nice" rule. If I understand you correctly, this is how you do mean to proceed, simply expanding the opt-in Politics forum to Politics, Religion and Debate. Do I have that right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Curious about what the rules will be in the politics etc forum. Anything goes?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Did some snowflake want a safe space?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Did some snowflake want a safe space?


Does not sound like the new forum will be a safe place at all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Austin or any of the mods can respond.

What is the reasoning behind this? Less work for the mods?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

SingleTree needs locked down too. A lot of malcontents in there.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> SingleTree needs locked down too. A lot of malcontents in there.


Huh. I haven't been around here as long as you, that's sure. But in my time in ST, the moderation has always seemed pretty consistent and even-handed. I haven't always agreed with moderation decisions, but that's my problem, not theirs.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Rae, notice the ><
You were one of those I was referring to..lol


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Wolf you know us Singltreers are bananas.

And we come as a bunch. Lol

Back to the topic at hand...I see this as a welcome change but like Clem would like to see debate better defined.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Rae, notice the ><
> You were one of those I was referring to..lol


LOL, oh, well sometimes you have to hit me upside the head with a shovel instead of just sticking your tongue out at me.  I'll plead guilty to your characterization!!


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Austin said:


> Alright guys,
> 
> The mods and I have discussed it and we will be instituting some changes next week I wanted you all to be aware of.
> 
> ...


I have a request. Please, pretty please with sugar on it, can the Politics, Religion and Debate forum be composed of three subforums then? One subforum for politics, one for religion, and one for all the other general controversial subjects? 

Because I want to avoid the politics threads entirely and previous experience has demonstrated that a topic title alone does not always indicate if the thread is about politics or about something else. 

If all topic titles are mixed together on one page and people have to weed through all of those damnable politics topics just to eliminate them and determine what are the other controversial topics that they might be interested in ....... that will cause problems. Avoiding those problems was the whole reason why the separate politics forum was created in the first place, so that people could peruse through everything else on General Chat without having to wade through all the god-awful politics topics.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

If everyone were given a sundae with whipped cream, nuts, and a cherry on top they would complain there are no sprinkles. I hope the gloves can come off in the new forum "be nice" has different meanings in the 82nd and the the ladies quilting circle.


----------



## MoTightwad (Sep 6, 2011)

Does this mean that we can no longer post answers to general subjects? I have been a reader and once in a while a writer and so far have loved the things I read. I will definitely stop reading if this is the case. Nothing is interresting about politics or debates. Religion is a private subject to be the persons private beliefs. Not to be subject to all the slams and critical comments.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Raeven said:


> *Austin*, I think this is a terrific decision, and I agree with *Bear Foot Farm* it should be an opt-in, just as Politics is now. If this is how you intend to proceed, then I further suggest that in the main part of the forum, there be *very* strict moderation of the "be nice" rule. If I understand you correctly, this is how you do mean to proceed, simply expanding the opt-in Politics forum to Politics, Religion and Debate. Do I have that right?


Just like when this change was made with politics I thought then and think now you opt in when you click to go to general chat, or politics. How many times do get shocked by what you read before you quit clicking to go read some more?

just my opinion 
Jim


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol isn't this entire site opt-in ?
I mean it's not like you have to post in any part of it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I have a request. Please, pretty please with sugar on it, can the Politics, Religion and Debate forum be composed of three subforums then? One subforum for politics, one for religion, and one for all the other general controversial subjects?
> 
> Because I want to avoid the politics threads entirely and previous experience has demonstrated that a topic title alone does not always indicate if the thread is about politics or about something else.
> 
> If all topic titles are mixed together on one page and people have to weed through all of those damnable politics topics just to eliminate them and determine what are the other controversial topics that they might be interested in ....... that will cause problems. Avoiding those problems was the whole reason why the separate politics forum was created in the first place, so that people could peruse through everything else on General Chat without having to wade through all the god-awful politics topics.


 The problem I see with trying to have different sub forums is the fact there is too much intermingling. A lot of political threads involve religion and a lot of religious threads involve politics.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And a LOT of politics also involves so many homesteads as well, Where you can build, What you can build, what is regulated, what is allowed and what is not. And so on and and so forth.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Austin said:


> Alright guys,
> 
> The mods and I have discussed it and we will be instituting some changes next week I wanted you all to be aware of.
> 
> ...


Where is the debate forum? Is it a private forum that you must subscribe to? It is not listed in the area that is supposed to have all the forum in it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> Where is the debate forum? Is it a private forum that you must subscribe to? It is not listed in the area that is supposed to have all the forum in it.


It's answered in the first sentence of the first post:



> The mods and I have discussed it and we will be instituting some changes* next week* I wanted you all to be aware of.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> A lot of political threads involve religion and a lot of religious threads involve politics.


And therein lies some of the problem with things in the greater sense, both here at HT and in our world. Politics and Religion should never intermingle. What someone's religion dictates should never be the basis for laws. Those dictates are the basis for mores and morals.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Tommyice said:


> And therein lies some of the problem with things in the greater sense, both here at HT and in our world. Politics and Religion should never intermingle. What someone's religion dictates should never be the basis for laws. Those dictates are the basis for mores and morals.


So based on that logic, should murder and theft be legal? They are, after all, God's commandments that we must not murder and steal (among other things). 

I think I understand what you are saying but I don't think that you can really separate the discussion. For example, say a state passes a new law pertaining to abortions. Where would it be discussed? Politics or religion? Because I am sure that at some point, religion would play into such debate.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This is going to be fun,,, or not. 

Is the new forum an infraction-free zone?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I have a question for the Austin or the mods. How will the new General Chat be different from Countryside Families?


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Nothing stays the same - there is constant change in the world.

Several good points have been brought up - with one of them being the Politics and Religion forum should be an "have to opt in" with the person understanding a thick skin is required because entering the site is like entering a pit of vipers - anyone at any time may unexpectedly strike against you!

Should be interesting!


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I prefer to talk to trees, they say very little, but it is always profoundly rooted.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Does not sound like the new forum will be a safe place at all.


I was talking about General Chat


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

Fennick said:


> I have a request. Please, pretty please with sugar on it, can the Politics, Religion and Debate forum be composed of three subforums then? One subforum for politics, one for religion, and one for all the other general controversial subjects?
> 
> Because I want to avoid the politics threads entirely and previous experience has demonstrated that a topic title alone does not always indicate if the thread is about politics or about something else.
> 
> If all topic titles are mixed together on one page and people have to weed through all of those damnable politics topics just to eliminate them and determine what are the other controversial topics that they might be interested in ....... that will cause problems. Avoiding those problems was the whole reason why the separate politics forum was created in the first place, so that people could peruse through everything else on General Chat without having to wade through all the god-awful politics topics.


That's a good idea on how to execute this idea, but as stated later in this response a lot of the topics blend so it may make it hard for broader categorization.



MoTightwad said:


> Does this mean that we can no longer post answers to general subjects? I have been a reader and once in a while a writer and so far have loved the things I read. I will definitely stop reading if this is the case. Nothing is interresting about politics or debates. Religion is a private subject to be the persons private beliefs. Not to be subject to all the slams and critical comments.


No of course not. You will still be able to post in the forum, be merry, do what you do and how you do it.



watcher said:


> The problem I see with trying to have different sub forums is the fact there is too much intermingling. A lot of political threads involve religion and a lot of religious threads involve politics.


Right, but maybe some thread prefixes would help label the thread a bit better. 



HDRider said:


> This is going to be fun,,, or not.
> 
> Is the new forum an infraction-free zone?


Not exactly. I don't like name calling. I feel it's unproductive. I also feel it leads to a general malice in the forum is allowed to exist, but that being said I will expect those who opt in to the section to almost self moderate. 



FarmerKat said:


> I have a question for the Austin or the mods. How will the new General Chat be different from Countryside Families?


It will share a lot, no doubt, but really it's just a depository for threads that don't fit anywhere else. Nice threads. Friendly threads.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The general chat topics range so far a field from the original post that it may be hard to decide which forum to place them in.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

FarmerKat said:


> I think I understand what you are saying but I don't think that you can really separate the discussion. For example, say a state passes a new law pertaining to abortions. Where would it be discussed? Politics or religion? Because I am sure that at some point, religion would play into such debate.


Frankly I don't give a crap where you discuss it. 

I don't come here for talk about abortions. I come here to learn and explore homesteading, sustainable living, gardening and have fun on the Singletree. Occasionally I'll wade into some current event topics but as a general rule I stay away from discussing religion, some politics, and salary.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Sounds like the forum owners are tired of it and looking for a way to lessen participation.


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Sounds like the forum owners are tired of it and looking for a way to lessen participation.


Not at all. I just want those who choose to interact in a combative style to be able to do so away from those who don't.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Tommyice said:


> Frankly I don't give a crap where you discuss it.
> 
> I don't come here for talk about abortions. I come here to learn and explore homesteading, sustainable living, gardening and have fun on the Singletree. Occasionally I'll wade into some current event topics but as a general rule I stay away from discussing religion, some politics, and salary.


You made a comment about never mixing politics and religion, I misunderstood your post as a one of the suggestions to create three separate areas - religion, politics and debate. I was simply giving an example that religion and politics often come up during the same debate. And since you do not care where those of us who just like to have a debate do it, then I am not really sure I understand what was the point you were trying to make (at least in the context of this thread).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The general chat topics range so far a field from the original post that it may be hard to decide which forum to place them in.


They are placed based on just one post.
Think about it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by FarmerKat View Post
> I think I understand what you are saying but I don't think that you can really separate the discussion. For example, say a state passes a new law pertaining to abortions. Where would it be discussed? *Politics or religion?* Because I am sure that at some point, religion would play into such debate.


Neither
That would be "Debate" since the *OP* has nothing to do with "religion"


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

So having put some thought into it I'm going to do a single Politics, Religion, and Debate forum then use Thread Prefixes to indicate the type of thread in that section.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Tommyice said:


> Frankly I don't give a crap where you discuss it.
> 
> I don't come here for talk about abortions. I come here to learn and explore homesteading, sustainable living, gardening and have fun on the Singletree. Occasionally I'll wade into some current event topics but as a general rule I stay away from discussing religion, some politics, and salary.


And then there are people like me who thrive on such subjects. I wonder what causes that - we could do a study on irritating forum members.:icecream:

_Study of Internet Forum Homsteading Today's most irritating members shows conclusive correlation between being irritating and shoveling barns_


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> And therein lies some of the problem with things in the greater sense, both here at HT and in our world. Politics and Religion should never intermingle. What someone's religion dictates should never be the basis for laws. Those dictates are the basis for mores and morals.


Sure they should. You can't have laws without something to base them on.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Sounds like the forum owners are tired of it and looking for a way to lessen participation.


I think the vocal minority have complained and whined too much to admin and they are tired of it. Rather than offend the snowflakes, they have decided upon this silly PC way out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wolf mom said:


> I think the vocal minority have complained and whined too much to admin and they are tired of it. Rather than offend the snowflakes, they have decided upon this silly PC way out.


That may well be the case.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

watcher said:


> Sure they should. You can't have laws without something to base them on.


Laws are based on what is best for society. Religion is not the basis of law. Do you believe that without the fear of God society would not have come to the conclusion that it is better to live with out the constant fear that you could just be killed? 


Jim


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> Sure they should. You can't have laws without something to base them on.



And who's religion do they get based upon? Yours? Mine? Abdullahs? Menachem's? My Buddhist friends? My pagan friends? Taoists? Sikhs? Santeria? Hoodoo? What about agnostics and atheists. Shamanists? Polytheists? See? It's a sticky wicket as to what to use as the basis.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

_w_


Wolf mom said:


> I think the vocal minority have complained and whined too much to admin and they are tired of it. Rather than offend the snowflakes, they have decided upon this silly PC way out.


The vocal minority being those that don't want to see and be tempted to see the discussions. They believe it needs to be hidden away.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Sure they should. You can't have laws without something to base them on.


No, because then we end up with defunct countries in the Middle East trying to base their laws on religion. It completely messes them up. There is no basis for morality except that which we give it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> Laws are based on what is best for society. Religion is not the basis of law. Do you believe that without the fear of God society would not have come to the conclusion that it is better to live with out the constant fear that you could just be killed?
> 
> 
> Jim





Tommyice said:


> And who's religion do they get based upon? Yours? Mine? Abdullahs? Menachem's? My Buddhist friends? My pagan friends? Taoists? Sikhs? Santeria? Hoodoo? What about agnostics and atheists. Shamanists? Polytheists? See? It's a sticky wicket as to what to use as the basis.


You can think that, but history tells us that all law came from a belief in a deity.
Whether man would come up with it without that belief or conform to it is an unknown answer, but I'd have to say it was mush easier, faster and effective than leaving it to chance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> You can think that, but history tells us that all law came from a belief in a deity.
> Whether man would come up with it without that belief or conform to it is an unknown answer, but I'd have to say it was mush easier, faster and effective than leaving it to chance.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
> ...


That's absurd, because since man created deities to believe it, ergo we created the laws that went with said deities. Perhaps they were inspirational, but certainly the same laws, and likely more rational ones, would have come about had religion not existed first.

I'm in the process of reading about morality from a purely biological standpoint:

https://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Kinda dry, I know, but very interesting.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's absurd, because since man created deities to believe it, ergo we created the laws that went with said deities. Perhaps they were inspirational, but certainly the same laws, and likely more rational ones, would have come about had religion not existed first.
> 
> I'm in the process of reading about morality from a purely biological standpoint:
> 
> ...


Perhaps, in that case all of history is absurd.

It COULD have happened without a belief in a god...........but it didn't happen that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's absurd, because since man created deities to believe it, ergo we created the laws that went with said deities. Perhaps they were inspirational, but certainly the same laws, and likely more rational ones, would have come about had religion not existed first.
> 
> I'm in the process of reading about morality from a purely biological standpoint:
> 
> ...


There are posters that are never, ever wrong even when proof is forced under their noses.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are posters that are never, ever wrong even when proof is forced under their noses.


Yes, I've noticed that too.........


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I've noticed that too.........


And there are posters that admit they're wrong and apologize, but not many.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> And there are posters that admit they're wrong and apologize, but not many.


Yep.

In Heritage's point however, I don't see a conclusion about who is "right or wrong".
I am familiar with the logic used in the article, as well as the admitted limitations stated from the beginning.
It IS a valid opinion, but as I stated before, historical facts state otherwise.
Using the same logic as Accom's razor, the most likely explanation is the obvious one.


*"â¢ Evolution itself does not express or yield values.
Nature may seem to exhibit its own values. For example, natural selection may seem to "favor" adaptive traits. Survival and reproduction may seem inherent values because they lead to continuity of the lineage. However, historical facts are distinct from values. Effects do not indicate intentions. Patterns of causation do not reflect processes of evaluation. A falling body does not reflect a value of gravity. Two charged particles do not reflect a value of electrical attraction. In the same way, reproduction and survival do not reflect a value of evolution. As exemplified in extinction, species do not "need" to be perpetuated. As exemplified in sterile insect castes and non-fertile individuals, single organisms do not "need" to reproduce themselves. The language of natural "selection" may easily mislead one to personify nature inappropriately. Recognizing such tendencies may be important in avoiding mistaken impressions.
â¢ Science is limited to description.
Biological analysis may enrich our understanding of morality, but it is also limited. Science is not able to discover ethical principles in nature. Nor to justify them. Nor to evaluate them, say, based on evolutionary history. Nor even to develop them based on some presumed universal or "objective" principle of "human nature." Many have tried. All have failed (Farber 1994, Bradie 1994). Rather, the achievable aim is to explain how organisms such as humans evolved moral capacities, to form moral concepts and to act on them in particular environments. That may also involve describing how, as organisms, they are able to do so (neurologically, cognitively, emotionally, socially). To describe morality as a practice is not to prescribe any particular moral rule. To explain the behavior is not to justify it. Facts and values (is and ought) are conceptually distinct. Charles Darwin, in his own presentation, notably limited the scope of his analysis to the "natural history" of ethics (1871, p.71). Still, knowing how and why (historically) we value things may fruitfully guide reflections on the process. Having introduced these caveats, then, let us consider what biologists have discovered about morality as an evolved form of behavior."*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I would suppose that humans evolved the capacity for morality as a consequence of our supreme intelligence and thinking abilities. There is very little use for morality in terms of basic survival. Unless, of course, we take into account that maybe it is also a consequence of our behavioral patterns. We evolved social strautures, because cooperation enables survival better, and out morality enables us to keep the pack together, so to speak. 

Most of thats pure speculation. Oh, and we've managed to derail even this thread.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> I think the vocal minority have complained and whined too much to admin and they are tired of it. Rather than offend the snowflakes, they have decided upon this silly PC way out.


 Its been said for years that a few spoiled apples ruin the entire barrel and now you are seeing it for yourselves.
Two For Sure and a third one chimes in and gets their way, so many times and now this is the end run for this forum, as those have had their way the last few months have ruined this once nice family Christian Forum and now it is just a sin away from going down the tubes.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

speaking of thread drift...


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I appreciate the efforts being made by *Austin* and the moderators to accommodate *all* the competing interests at HT, while simultaneously preserving the basic function of the forum â which is *homesteading*. I think most people find this place in their searches for answers to specific questions with respect to gardening, livestock, how to identify plants or make soap. There is a tremendous repository of information in this forum for all of that and more. But fewer and fewer people stay and participate in those areas of the forum that were actually the forumâs intent.

People *stay* when they find a welcoming, warm and fun place to spend their time. Admit it: This forum has not been that for quite awhile. Instead of people taking the high road, the road has sunk lower and lower. That may gratify the needs of some who like to vent their spleen on every perceived disenfranchisement theyâve ever felt they endured, whether at the hands of government or a particular type of person; or someone who enjoys showing off how âexperiencedâ they are at self-sufficiency in comparison to new people who are just starting out on their journey. I donât see how such nastiness serves the needs of the forum as a whole. Nor can it have been pleasant or easy to navigate the pitfalls of moderation â a task done on a voluntary basis and frequently without thanks but with a lot of abuse.

While tangential discussions can be interesting and even productive, they require heavy moderation and are also off-putting to people who just wanted to find out about what to do with a sick pig â especially when the tone is not nice. The tone has been not nice. The practice of homesteading in the modern sense appeals to people across a broad spectrum, and participation in a forum focused on the subject should be growing. Instead, participation has fallen and fallen, now about a third of what it once was. Maybe even less.

And despite that, HT isnât shutting down the discussions. Want to discuss these subjects? Go ahead. What difference does it make if you have an audience or not? Why is that so important? It certainly doesnât serve the goals of the forum owners or even the majority of forum participants. As far as being âPCâ is concerned, best Iâve ascertained, not being âPCâ is just an excuse to be an unmannerly jerk to anyone who isnât like you.

Thereâs a reason many forums ban discussion about politics, religion and other lightning rod issues. This forum is simply choosing to put such discussions in a place that doesnât detract from the forumâs focus as a whole. Pretty nice of them, in my opinion. They could have simply eliminated discussion on these topics entirely. The forum isnât here to meet my special needs or yours. Donât like it? Stop whining and go elsewhere. Goodness knows there are hundreds of forums dedicated to discussions about politics, religion and the like.

I applaud this change. Itâs one Iâve openly advocated for a long while and I know I was not the only one in favor of it. I hope it makes the forum a more pleasant place for people who have *homesteading* in common, even if little else. I enjoy a good, lively discussion as much as anyone, but thatâs not why I come to HT. And itâs why lots of others have stopped coming to HT, too. I know, because I hear from them. 

I suspect the change is being instigated to get the forum back to its originally intended use, and to encourage it to grow instead of decline. If the way it's been going was making the forum successful in the way the owners want, they'd never have made the change. That's not hard to understand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Raven

I agree with the majority of your post. I see the need and the why. I however believe that these sections have always been part of the HT lifestyle. Walling things off because some can't self regulate by just not opening a thread or section seems to be their problem.

If it is for the purpose of making the mods jobs easier because anything goes and they don't have to mod then I understand.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

PW, I understand what you are saying. There have been good, respectful discussions in GC, even since moderation changes were made in 2014. I am sorry to see those go, but they are few. The level of disrespect for others has only increased, for the most part. There are people who seem to relish seeing how much they can get away with.

I agree about the self-regulation. If it isn't heavily moderated, that's unfortunately how it always goes. It's just not fair to the majority of users of this site, or to moderators who actually have a life and don't need all the aggravation and abuse. I don't speak for them of course and have no "inside knowledge" about it, but I can only just imagine what a job it must be. It would get old real quick.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't see the lesser moderation being beneficial. Many people will just get the merry go round spinning faster and faster until it devolves all the way into a playground swearing contest. We could rely on self-moderation, but I fail to see why anyone would believe that would actually work. 

What about the rest of the forum? I've had conversations that started out as a way to get new information or ask questions, and the thread gets derailed into a bickering festival. I realize we all value free speech here, but ignoring people who do nothing but cause trouble isn't the answer.

GC and Politics are already the repository for all the lightning rod topics. I can see GC becoming a repository for all the miscellaneous topics, such a... All right, I don't really know what would go in here.

Well, whatever flys. I don't really have a vested opinion one way or another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Its been said for years that a few spoiled apples ruin the entire barrel and now you are seeing it for yourselves.
> Two For Sure and a third one chimes in and gets their way, so many times and now this is the end run for this forum, as those have had their way the last few months have ruined *this once nice family Christian Forum* and now it is just a sin away from going down the tubes.


It was never a "christian forum"
When Chuck owned it there was even a rule against proselytizing:




> prosÂ·eÂ·lytÂ·ize
> [&#712;prÃ¤s(&#601l&#601;&#716;t&#299;z]
> VERB
> convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another:
> ...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't see the lesser moderation being beneficial. Many people will just get the merry go round spinning faster and faster until it devolves all the way into a playground swearing contest. We could rely on self-moderation, but I fail to see why anyone would believe that would actually work.
> 
> What about the rest of the forum? I've had conversations that started out as a way to get new information or ask questions, and the thread gets derailed into a bickering festival. I realize we all value free speech here, but ignoring people who do nothing but cause trouble isn't the answer.
> 
> ...


It may be refreshing too. I live in a world of non PC on the job sight and you just have to pick your fights. Some people will debate with you and some will never. I have been to forums that even encourage flaming. It is expected. By and large the flamers lose ground and are discounted like a 90% off sale after a while. One day they will even be free and no one will take them off the shelves.

Ever.......

Just my nickel.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Oh boy oh boy! It's now officially next week.


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

I'm going to try and implement the changes Monday. I'm travelling a good chunk of the week but it should only take about an hour to change everything up and post the announcements that it's complete.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Austin.

Is this just to hide these sections or is it so that these sections can have different rules?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I think this is a good move. Put all these topics in an area where only those who wish to see them and request to do so can take part. I have taken part in many myself. But when you think of homesteading, politics abortion and murders dont come to mind. And the people who visit here to learn of homesteading are bombarded with these topics. Even Googling around you see people on other forms talking about how we are all politics and shock value topics over here. I think the powers that be have picked up on that. So put those topics out of sight where people who want to join in can after requesting to do so.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

I have been hanging around HT for 13 years or so and it seems to go through
a seizure about GC and the more controversial thread topics on a somewhat regular basis. I have observed those who complain most vigorously are generally in there slugging it out and losing. For whatever reason moderation
has at times been biased and that aggravates the situation. Topics in Goats, poultry and seemingly everything else have gone up in smoke. In fact if dueling were legal we would have seen some duels on HT. I wonder if there is an answer.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I think this is a good move. Put all these topics in an area where only those who wish to see them and request to do so can take part. I have taken part in many myself. But when you think of homesteading, politics abortion and murders dont come to mind. And the people who visit here to learn of homesteading are bombarded with these topics. Even Googling around you see people on other forms talking about how we are all politics and shock value topics over here. I think the powers that be have picked up on that. So put those topics out of sight where people who want to join in can after requesting to do so.


There is real fallacy in this thinking. Politics is at the center of homesteading.
Homesteading is and has been in some places regulated out of existence. Burying ones head in the sand is a sure way to lose whatever is dearest to ones heart.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

bjba said:


> There is real fallacy in this thinking. Politics is at the center of homesteading.
> Homesteading is and has been in some places regulated out of existence. Burying ones head in the sand is a sure way to lose whatever is dearest to ones heart.


 You bet it comes hand in hand, un;less you are4 on your own little island or something. but you bet politics and all its regulations sure is at the forefront of any homesteading adventure. Pretty much anywhere you are, some kind of regulations are in place, or going to be put in place. And regulations are put in place by yup you guessed it, Politicians. LOL.
And anyone that doesn't think politics and homesteading do not belong together, well Wow. A person sure has to be OR Should be on top of ANY thing that elective officials have put in laws or regulations in place or thinking about putting in.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Politics is like religion. It's the heart and soul of _everything_ only for those people who are obsessed with it. And just like with religion, if some people don't want to have other people's political obsessions forced down their throats they have a perfect right to turn their backs on it or stick their heads in the sand.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Fennick said:


> Politics is like religion. It's the heart and soul of _everything_ only for those people who are obsessed with it. And just like with religion, if some people don't want to have other people's political obsessions forced down their throats they have a perfect right to turn their backs on it or stick their heads in the sand.


Then those who ignore the political situation are willing to accept any thing
"their betters" throw at them. They have every right to bury their heads in the sand and no right to beg or plead for help when disaster strikes. Forgo protecting home and family at every turn and accept what comes without a stir. Ask the Jews of Europe how that worked out for them, ask the Japanese Americans of the early 1940s how that worked out for them.
No one is ever obligated to protect him/herself ask the victims how that works out for them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Then those who ignore the political situation are willing to accept any thing
> "their betters" throw at them. They have every right to bury their heads in the sand and no right to beg or plead for help when disaster strikes. Forgo protecting home and family at every turn and accept what comes without a stir. Ask the Jews of Europe how that worked out for them, ask the Japanese Americans of the early 1940s how that worked out for them.
> No one is ever obligated to protect him/herself ask the victims how that works out for them.


Yay. More victim blaming.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

bjba said:


> Then those who ignore the political situation are willing to accept any thing
> "their betters" throw at them. They have every right to bury their heads in the sand and no right to beg or plead for help when disaster strikes. Forgo protecting home and family at every turn and accept what comes without a stir. Ask the Jews of Europe how that worked out for them, ask the Japanese Americans of the early 1940s how that worked out for them.
> No one is ever obligated to protect him/herself ask the victims how that works out for them.


Uuummm ...... hey kiddo, in case you haven't noticed it's just an internet discussion board that's been kindly provided by our hosts for our entertainment and information. Those victims of the past had no such thing as internet so bringing up their situations is not relevant to people today refusing to accept other people's politics being forced on them over an internet discussion board. Life and death disaster situations and political policies in real life don't get resolved by armchair / keyboard political warriors on internet discussion boards. So maybe you should get with the program, take a chill pill and relax and just enjoy the forum. Worrying so much about things you can't resolve on an internet forum is bad for your blood pressure. If political situations are so important to you then you should be getting proactive about it off-line in your real community where you actually live.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

As a wise man once said:
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana

And the words of a wise old Greek:
&#8220;Why bother about winter?&#8221; said the Grasshopper; &#8220;we have got plenty of food at present.&#8221; But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
[SIZE=-1]&#8220;IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ãsop
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2][/SIZE]

A word to the wise.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I swear, people can be so shallow! Particularly when they're being wise.


----------



## homebody (Jan 24, 2005)

The way I see it, there are 2 people in particular that will have even more freedom to spew their hate when the deed is done. They are not a part of my life and you all can have it, spit, fight, argue, hate , I' ll have no part of it because I've come to the conclusion that life is too short to waste time with evil, toxic people. Anyone who "sees" my likes knows who I'm talking about. I've had it up to "here".


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Wow.

Haven't been through here in awhile, but everything seems to be about the same.

Mr. Austin, I'll give you a couple of words of advice, if you want any from someone who's been knocking around discussion boards since the days of Usenet.

1. If you are going to moderate, moderate fairly. 
2. Some people like to tip toe all the way up to the line and then look over it. Those people can make your life miserable. Show them the door.
3. Rotate your moderators. 
4. There is a huge difference between being confident and talking about one's religion and proselytizing. Some may shout otherwise, but most homesteaders have Faith...kinda goes with the territory. They have just as much right to exhibit that faith, as others do to exhibit their lack of faith.
5. Do not tolerate spill-over. Some folks carry a grudge from GC to other areas of the board. That just doesn't work.

Any way, y'all have fun, ya here?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

homebody said:


> The way I see it, there are 2 people in particular that will have even more freedom to spew their hate when the deed is done. They are not a part of my life and you all can have it, spit, fight, argue, hate , I' ll have no part of it because I've come to the conclusion that life is too short to waste time with evil, toxic people. Anyone who "sees" my likes knows who I'm talking about. I've had it up to "here".


 You got that right. For months THIS is just exactly what they wanted to happen and now it looks like they now got their wish. Hope they enjoy it. Cause this site is now more then even doomed with their hate to be spewed out even more so on here. What a waste of a nice family site that a few from the other side can ruin it for all. The Devil may have won this round, they WILL git their comeupins it ain't over yet.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

We have been reading that this site is doomed for more than a year now. Funny that those predicting that doom are still hear reading and posting. If this site is not to your liking then why are you still here?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. For months THIS is just exactly what they wanted to happen and now it looks like they now got their wish. Hope they enjoy it. Cause this site is now more then even doomed with their hate to be spewed out even more so on here. What a waste of a nice family site that a few from the other side can ruin it for all. The Devil may have won this round, they WILL git their comeupins it ain't over yet.


Thank God we've got you to remind us all of our shortcomings.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. For months THIS is just exactly what they wanted to happen and now it looks like they now got their wish. Hope they enjoy it. Cause this site is now more then even doomed with their hate to be spewed out even more so on here. What a waste of a nice family site that a few from the other side can ruin it for all. The Devil may have won this round, they WILL git their comeupins it ain't over yet.



Did you find a job yet ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> We have been reading that this site is doomed for more than a year now. Funny that those predicting that doom are still hear reading and posting. *If this site is not to your liking then why are you still here*?


The only logical answer is either they lie, or they just want to :stirpot:


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Although this thread was posted by HT host admin to make members aware of changes being implemented at admin level, those changes have not taken effect yet nor has the mod staff been notified of any relaxation of moderation on the GC and Politics boards yet.

As such we still moderate to the limits that we have been instructed to by HT site admin and I have place a few replies in review status.

As our admin level staff is working on the site modules to achieve the changes Austin is implementing, please keep content within the current site limits on all boards.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> Laws are based on what is best for society. Religion is not the basis of law. Do you believe that without the fear of God society would not have come to the conclusion that it is better to live with out the constant fear that you could just be killed?
> 
> 
> Jim


Ok, who gets to and how do you decide what's best? 

Would you not say it is "best for society" if you eliminated as many diseases as possible? If so then would it not be "best for society" if you forced known carriers of genetic diseases to be sterilized? 

Without morals, which must be based on a belief system, you don't have a slippery slope to go down you have a double black diamond ski run.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, because then we end up with defunct countries in the Middle East trying to base their laws on religion. It completely messes them up. There is no basis for morality except that which we give it.


Ah, no. Their laws are SET by religion, not based on them. As we have shown you can have a republic of free people and a law system based on religious teachings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by arabian knight View Post
> You got that right. For months THIS is just exactly what they wanted to happen and now it looks like they now got their wish. Hope they enjoy it. Cause this site is now more then even doomed with *their hate to be spewed out *even more so on here. What a waste of a nice family site that a few from *the other side* can ruin it for all. The Devil may have won this round, they WILL git their comeupins it ain't over yet.


I see most of the "hate" and "spewing" coming from those you claim are on "your side".
I predict if it gets worse, it will also be due to those same few

We've already seen a couple trying to get a head start


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Ok, who gets to and how do you decide what's best?
> 
> Would you not say it is "best for society" if you eliminated as many diseases as possible? If so then would it not be "best for society" if you forced known carriers of genetic diseases to be sterilized?
> 
> Without morals, which must be based on a belief system, you don't have a slippery slope to go down you have a double black diamond ski run.


OK, I agree. But why do these morals have to come from religion? IMO we'd be much better off if these morals simply came from a desire to do good. It's pretty basic, really.



watcher said:


> Ah, no. Their laws are SET by religion, not based on them. As we have shown you can have a republic of free people and a law system based on religious teachings.


Christians love to claim our country is based on Biblical teachings, but the truth is that the majority of the inspiration came from secular philosophy. Sure, the Framers and Founders were some of them religious, but not all. Considering the Church's faulty record on a variety of historical human rights issues, it seems odd to take credit for the US Constitution's beauty.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

My proposed CHANGE: Change the title to "General Chit" or "General Chat [content deleted]"

Homesteading Today > Specialty Forums > General [content deleted] > Coming Changes for General Chit


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

This forum seems busiest in threads that are all arguing and bickering. Look at the threads with the most views, a series of "did nots" and "did to's", no information of any actual value whatsoever. Click on the number in "Replies" and you'll get a pop-up page with the names of the posters and the number of replies they made in that particular thread. The greater majority of the posts in the most widely viewed threads are by the same small handful of people, who argue endlessly among themselves never realizing that they're not convincing anyone of anything, instead just being whiny babies. That sort of stuff *needs* to be put behind a wall, it's embarrassing.


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

The new section is setup. I will be moving threads from GC over the next week to the correct section as GC becomes the friendly off topic section it should be. 

Sorry for the delay guys, I've been travelling and have more to do the rest of the week. Well travel and a test for my spine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> This forum seems busiest in threads that are all arguing and bickering. Look at the threads with the most views, a series of "did nots" and "did to's", no information of any actual value whatsoever. Click on the number in "Replies" and you'll get a pop-up page with the names of the posters and the number of replies they made in that particular thread. The greater majority of the posts in the most widely viewed threads are by the same small handful of people, who argue endlessly among themselves never realizing that they're not convincing anyone of anything, instead just being whiny babies. That sort of stuff *needs* to be put behind a wall, it's embarrassing.


No one is compelled to read anything they don't want to read :shrug:


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is compelled to read anything they don't want to read :shrug:


So true, but...

So many threads in General Chat start out as very interesting topics that many of us would like to read but soon devolve into peeing matches, with loads of toxic nastiness thrown in for good measure (usually by the same individuals, in thread after thread).

By the time the pee puddles begin to accumulate, I am long gone. 

Many times I have given up reading one thread after another in General Chat, but occasionally I return and click onto a new thread, in the hopes that maybe the typically toxic posters will either 1) feel better, or 2) not show up on the thread, or 3) somehow be encouraged to keep their nastiness away from the general population, or 4) get banned.

For the record, I have never reported a post for any reason (and probably never will) but it sure would be nice not to have to wade among the few who seem to delight in insulting others on a regular basis.

You know who you are, and I have only this to say to you:

Rudeness is a small person's imitation of power. Many view you as being mean and small and generally avoid where you normally hang out.

If your kind is given a special forum to yourselves, it would be for the betterment of HomesteadingToday.com



.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are posters that are never, ever wrong even when proof is forced under their noses.


I guess this thread needs to be moved to the dark room.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Anyone who thinks GC has "changed" just needs to go back and read some threads from the last 10 years. You will see only some of the names have changed.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...countryside-families/369743-general-chat.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone who thinks GC has "changed" just needs to go back and read some threads from the last 10 years. You will see only some of the names have changed.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...countryside-families/369743-general-chat.html


Spoken by one arisen from the dead, in defense of other arisen.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Spoken by one arisen from the dead, in defense of other arisen.


I wonder who he paid off...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Spoken by one arisen from the dead, in defense of other arisen.


It's been over a year, are you ever going to give up on the banned posters asking for readmission thing? You do rather like passive aggressive drive by comments tho...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's been over a year, are you ever going to give up on the banned posters asking for readmission thing? You do rather like passive aggressive drive by comments tho...


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Ooops, looks like another thread already destined for the debate section.

Isn't it ironic that even the thread about so-called changes to General Chat would itself qualify to be moved out of general chat? Maybe the whole forum should be moved to debate? Hmmm, didn't some predict it would happen?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think if we were all gathered around a fire pit with a beverage, a lot of things that get people's panties all in a wad here would just be laughed off or at least shrugged off. But the printed word just doesn't have the nuance of person to person communication. 

Ford vs Chevy, toilet paper under or over, hard or soft taco shells, you name it, somebody will get over-excited about it. And everybody has an opinion, it's hard not to get sucked into the vortex sometimes.

ETA - Ford, over, and hard and don't you forget it!!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I think if we were all gathered around a fire pit with a beverage, a lot of things that get people's panties all in a wad here would just be laughed off or at least shrugged off. But the printed word just doesn't have the nuance of person to person communication.
> 
> Ford vs Chevy, toilet paper under or over, hard or soft taco shells, you name it, somebody will get over-excited about it. And everybody has an opinion, it's hard not to get sucked into the vortex sometimes.
> 
> ETA - Ford, over, and hard and don't you forget it!!


No! Toyota! Take that! *throws childish temper tantrum*


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Chevy don't give me any lip about it either!!! :nono:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Aaaaand, to wrap things up folks, the fight for vehicle brand legitimacy produced 25 pages and 1000 replies before finally being locked and two members banned, both of them Mini Cooper fans. The were unable to comment due to being angry and driving underneath all the Fords.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Spoken by one arisen from the dead, *in defense* of other arisen.


I'm not defending anyone.

I'm pointing out the fact that as long as there's been HT and GC, there have been those who whine about what others say.

The *big* exodus took place without any help from me


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


>


So do others.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Oh wow. This decision is rather late in coming, but is a fantastic arrangement right there!! Thank you!

Does this mean General Chat will actually become a forum section that's as well moderated as all the others are, rather than being the one that bogs them all down as it has been?

Maybe... Just maybe, we might start seeing more of that "Neighborly help and Friendly advice" I hear about but see very little of. I'm certainly looking forward to it. 

Austin, I really hope you pay attention to Jolly's post. Wise words right there.

Also, Raven, you have been a good voice of reason on this thread. Thanks.


----------



## HTAdmin (Dec 21, 2015)

I just had to make some changes to the new section. If you're supposed to have access (you requested it) and you don't any longer please let me know.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well I requested access before and had it yesterday.. Now only GC shows up..

I really don't know why I bother anymore.. 

They want to play this game AGAIN..

I'm done this time.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Austin said:


> I just had to make some changes to the new section. If you're supposed to have access (you requested it) and you don't any longer please let me know.


I had it and now I don't....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Gone for me as well.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Gone for me as well, but, here is a link, so, the page is still there: :lookout:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/politics-religion-debate-controversy/


----------



## Eric Shultz (Jan 21, 2013)

I don't understand why, if this web forum is for neighborly and friendly advice and such, why do you even have a GC section to begin with? People who want to argue and abuse can go to reddit or some other place.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Eric Shultz said:


> I don't understand why, if this web forum is for neighborly and friendly advice and such, why do you even have a GC section to begin with? People who want to argue and abuse can go to reddit or some other place.


Well, I like arguing, but I try to avoid abusing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Eric Shultz said:


> *I don't understand* why, if this web forum is for neighborly and friendly advice and such,* why do you even have a GC section* to begin with? People who want to argue and abuse can go to reddit or some other place.


Because people wanted it and asked for it.

People who don't like it don't have to read it.

I don't understand the concept of complaining about something you have to make a conscious effort to view.

If you don't like it, don't click on it. It's a simple solution


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

> I don't understand the concept of complaining about something you have to make a conscious effort to view.


Then you would never make it as Q.C. inspector.
:grin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Then you would never make it as Q.C. inspector.
> :grin:


Again context eludes you


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> And who's religion do they get based upon? Yours? Mine? Abdullahs? Menachem's? My Buddhist friends? My pagan friends? Taoists? Sikhs? Santeria? Hoodoo? What about agnostics and atheists. Shamanists? Polytheists? See? It's a sticky wicket as to what to use as the basis.


I'd think that most would agree laws were made for this country by our Constitution. Funny thing, it wasn't based on Shamans, Tao, or even Hoodoo. It was based on Judeo-Christian principles.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd think that most would agree laws were made for this country by our Constitution. Funny thing, it wasn't based on Shamans, Tao, or even Hoodoo. It was based on Judeo-Christian principles.


AND secular principles.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd think that most would agree laws were made for this country by our Constitution. Funny thing, it wasn't based on Shamans, Tao, or even Hoodoo. It was based on Judeo-Christian principles.


It was also based on the Confederacy of the Iroquois Nation. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the Onadagas, Mohawks, Oniedas, Senecas and Cayugas weren't good Christians and Jews.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Neither were some of our Dietist Founding Fathers. Is that the right word?lol


----------

