Posted on 07/12/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by the_conscience
Yes, it’s complaining.
I had seen some posts, last year, in the open forum.
I did not know the rules, at the time, but I did have a question and I was asking it on behalf of a friend who is a member of that faith.
I was told pointedly “Get Out! You are not “xxx” and are not welcome!”
Needless to say I was taken aback and the question was not and could not have been taken as an offense but the mere fact that I am an outsider is offensive.
I will say I was shocked as a Christian that someone would respond like that and confused as all of Christianity is open to well... All.
Oh well, some people like living on an island.
I wasn’t the one who pinged the RM on that thread.
Besides, your now deleted comment in post 50 was about not wanting me on the thread, not the content of my posts.
I asked then and today what you objected to about them and have not yet got a response.
Did you not like the *Good for him for being a man of conviction and standing up for what he believes in. *?
Or the *May God richly and abundantly bless him to counter the harm Satan would inflict on him.*?
LOL
oh well, many of us aren’t welcome on any threads, we count it all gain
As one reads through the thread one first notices that a self proclaimed and well known Hindu was posting to the thread who had not been invited per the guidelines set by the Religion Moderator. In fact, while the former member was being discriminated against the Hindu was able to post freely. One FReeper, seemingly oblivious, asks the Hindu if the FReeper whose posts were removed was a member of that particular denomination.
One issue is the inconsistency with which the caucus rules appear to be enforced. That does violate Rule of Law.
If Caucus threads are by invite only, then it should be clearly stated as such and forget what denomination they belong to.
Gee, I wonder why?
A few other people stumbled upon that thread and got a reception much like the one you relate.
There’s no room for curiosity or blunders on a caucus thread.
or humor
My comments in support of him were not welcome then?
Too bad.
Isn’t this the same poster who wanted Catholic caucus opened to everyone since he claimed the word Catholic pertained to all Christians. There followed an interminably long thread on who can be called Catholic. It had to do with attempting to label us as Romans, if I remember correctly.
I’m pretty much German and can prove it, btw, besides being Catholic. No Romans on my side.
I’m pretty sure the poster is the same person.
I appreciate your perspective.
I think you make some good points.
Personally, it is bothersome to disturbing when the boundaries of the Caucus designation are
gamed destructively, glibly etc.
HOWEVER,
I FIND that generally, the RM does a masterful job with all the special categories that Holy Spirit has led him to foster and establish on FR.
There are perverse motivations and actions on the part of some within any large group of
humans
on the planet.
And sometimes, that seems to be a worse phenomenon within large diverse RELIGIOUS groups.
And one (or more) reference groups hereon is PARTICULARLY perverse and bad at such gamey-ness.
HOWEVER, regardless, the RM is usually quickly and certainly with astute sharpness, on top of all such gamey-ness.
It doesn’t bother me when the RM chooses wisdom or even simply a ‘not worth the bother’ response to some such gamey-ness.
I do NOT WISH to bother the RM by wailing needlessly about technicalities and petty details.
The Caucus designation is GENERALLY EXTREMELY WELL RAN.
WE ALL
NEED, AT LEAST OCCASIONALLY, the caucus designation for a safe, warm, familiar setting to have an unperturbed home reference group discussion in. PRAISE GOD, it’s now available on FR. It didn’t used to be.
I wish to support the RM in all their efforts—sometimes—in this case—by shaking my head and refusing to join the
‘yeah, but’s’
insisting on a more RELIGIOUS, obsessive policing of the boundaries of the caucus designation. There’d be no end of such prissy finger pointing.
The RELIGION FORUM has an inherent, chronic infection of prissy finger pointing AT BEST, all the time anyway.
WHO NEEDS ANOTHER CATEGORY OF THAT!
imho, the RM does an excellent job of protecting the basic sanctity of the peaceableness, safety, warm fuzziness of the caucus category for those who set up such a thread.
MORE POWER TO HIM. LONG LIVE THE RM!
I find his judgments in such regrds usually anointed and Spirit-led.
If he occasionally APPEARS human and arbitrary—reflection usually bears out that he wasn’t—he was just labeled so by some special case of at least momentary prissiness.
A huge part of me agrees.
However, I love intense exchanges and the energetic intellectual fray.
Some hollow hot-house plants wither at the thought of such exchanges.
Discussing the finer points of theology and church happenings without strife is a perfect reason for the designation of *caucus*.
Like I said, next time I just repost the thread in News and deal with the fall out later. No more trying to be courteous.
The rabid cliques usually find anything other than
an identical copy of their atmospheric expulsions
to be a waste of bandwidth
Then perhaps it would be fruitful to have a
CAUCUS PLUS
designation.
I still think the caucus designation as structured and maintained is a precious, viable and fitting thing.
Just dropping by to say I’m on your side, and you can have a Guinness and a kitten any time you like!
Hey, we both know
there’s no point in trying to be courteous with the rabid clique folks.
However, please do be careful also about what you post in BREAKING NEWS etc.
Posting an open thread in the Religion Forum may still be the most fitting way to go with a former caucused topic/article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.