From BC Local News:
Anglican Church parish in Parksville expected to vote in support of same-sex marriage.
A parish council vote December 10 will affirm a local congregation’s support for the blessing of same-sex marital unions within the Anglican Church of Canada.
That according to Andrew Twiddy, reverend for the parish of St. Anne and St. Edmund in Parksville.
He said information he has gathered on an informal basis indicates “a great majority of the congregation is in favour of moving ahead on this. That’s witnessed I think by a vote in 2007 by the diocesan synod (a provincial legislature made up of elected representatives from every parish). Two-thirds of that group voted in favour of blessing same-sex unions.”
The contentious issue resulted in at least 10 vestries from dioceses across the country voting to leave the Anglican Church of Canada after the national governing General Synod agreed in 2007 that blessing rites for gay couples are “not in conflict” with core church doctrine — even though it refused to affirm the authority of dioceses to offer them.
Twiddy said efforts have been made to inform congregations across the country on both sides of the issue and added the Anglican Church of Canada will review the matter again as early as next summer.
“I think we may have reached the point of action. My guess is the [General Synod] will approve,” said Twiddy. “Every text has to be placed in context. The underlying message of justice and compassion is the bigger context of scripture … there’s a hardly a family anywhere that doesn’t have either gay family members or close friends or somebody. We’re doing this on behalf of a lot of people.”
He noted the local vote on Dec. 10 includes a proviso protecting clergy from participating in the blessing of same-sex unions in a manner contrary to their conscience.
Twiddy admitted the issue is creating divisions that make the prospect of divorce within the church very real.
“There are people very angry who say ‘we’ll cut all ties,’” but he added, “I’ve declared my position … people have said to me when there’s a decision in favour of this they will come back to the church … We don’t need conformity across the church to be a community.”
Cathy: I will be back in a day or two with more, however, your statement The information I provided is easily accessible on line. As for your question about the studies being done by totally unbiased persons, such people do not exist. is very dangerous, just think about it. In saying that unbiased persons do not exist totally destroys the idea of the judicial and court systems, especially in dealing with Juries.
In the meantime, here is a quite an interesting site to go to:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php#_ednref22
Also here are two statements that I found that are quite interesting and seem to go against some of what you stated earlier.
~ The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children……Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p. 197.
~ A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581
Cathy: I will be back in a day or two with more, however, your statement The information I provided is easily accessible on line. As for your question about the studies being done by totally unbiased persons, such people do not exist. is very dangerous, just think about it. In saying that unbiased persons do not exist totally destroys the idea of the judicial and court systems, especially in dealing with Juries.
In the meantime, here is a quite an interesting site to go to:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php#_ednref22
Also here are two statements that I found that are quite interesting and seem to go against some of what you stated earlier.
~ The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children……Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p. 197.
~ A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581
Kate:
I find it interesting that the ANiC newsletter which you are now in receipt of found the Robin Barrett Story significant enough to give it and a National Post URL space yet this blog and the mods still feel that it is too “sensitive”.
Please note in the ANiC URL story that one person interviewed says that this is not about homosexuality but rather about something different. I beg to differ. The two are intersecting sexual items and even Kinsey couldn’t dispute that.
I think we can safely say that ag dasan (#2), was not a “curious onlooker”, but rather a troll – in the proper sense of the term (not that I ever really doubted it). I must give him/her credit as he/she posted only once and then had the self control to sit back and chuckle at ensuing discussion (which I admit I contributed to). He/she honestly earned the moniker:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
No, Warren, still curious, but now also a little bit wiser. Regarding your latest and #9 comments, I apologize for intruding on your conversation, I am sorry that you doubted my intentions and were suspicious of my name, and for what you objected to as a gross exaggeration. I have taken the advice of Gerry (#5) and sought another website discussion which is more charitable. Not trolling, just exiting quietly. May God bless you all.
ag,
I think you have just made Warren’s proposition all the more believable.
Ag (#55), you’re good. Here I am commenting and facilitating the troll process all over again (I’m a sucker for that). If you ever want to drop by and have a real discussion rather than twist facts and push an agenda, I think you’ll find me accommodating. Maybe you should start by responding to the several people who responded to your one provocative comment to show your sincerity. Somehow I doubt that’s going to happen, but I’d be happy to have you prove me wrong.
Ag (#2 & #55), I just read Rick Warren’s statement concerning Uganda. If you are sincere about being “curious”, give me your opinion about the statement and maybe we can go from there.
Of course unbiased people don’t exist. That’s why the court system works the way it does. Two laywers make opposing arguments, and a judge makes a decision between them, and he or she has to justify that decision according to the law – this is to try to ensure that the judge does not let his or her personal bias tarnish the decision.
Given the pain that the city of St. John’s went through with the Christian brothers, I can understand your strong feelilngs on the issue, Gerry – but it just isn’t right to assume that all or even most gay people are attracted to children.
Kate: The assumption was not that ‘solid’……I said I had a feeling, not that it was fact…..
David 31 : The problem is, I think, that any post on this is going to imply a tie-in between homosexual behaviour and child pornography – and I don’t believe there is a connection.
Yes David – there is a connection. Barrett is a self confessed homosexual and now is an alledged user of and deliverer of child porn. That seems to be a strong connection to me….or…..Am I not following your statement.
David until some 30 years ago very few Homosexuals (criminal activity and a sin) (still a sin in my book) would dare flaunt their behaviour in public. Today we find ourselves looking at pedeophilia in much the same way. So who’s to say that tomorrow or 10 or 20 years from now (P) will be removed from the criminal code? As the descent of man continues gaining speed and converts (post christians) join forces with the rest of the world. How long do you think it will be before GLBT has another letter?
I understand the need for caution about painting with too broad a brush I’m sure Gerry does to. But Sin is Sin and the sin that is Human sexuality is and always has been – INTERCONNECTED!
Gerry [#61],
Your line of reasoning seems to be this:
Barrett is a homosexual who is now accused of owning and distributing child pornography, therefore, there must be a connection between the two. Since there is a connection in the case of one homosexual, it is likely that there will be one with others.
The problem with this is that there is no obvious direct causal relationship between homosexuality and child pornography in the sense that there is in saying, “John has one leg, therefore John limps. Other people with one leg probably limp too”. This is a plausible generalisation since it is clear that having one leg causes limping.
You can employ your reasoning to produce all sorts of false conclusions. For example:
“John Smith is a heterosexual who has had three affairs; he is now addicted to child pornography. Other heterosexuals who have had multiple affairs are likely to become addicted to child pornography.” This is not a plausible generalisation since, although infidelity and child pornography are both the result of a decline in sexual morality, there isn’t a reason to suppose having affairs causes an interest in child pornography.
Perhaps what you are getting at is that sexual sin is a slippery slope and once the slide starts, it is likely to lead eventually to the more gross forms of sexual sin. I wouldn’t disagree with this, but I think it would be applicable to both hetero and homosexual sin and the bottom of the slide would not necessarily involve children.
David:
While my conversation is much like a branch that is not a bottom of the tree branch and not therefore as strong as a bottom of the tree branch, it is still a branch that isn’t yet broken.
It seems to me that our “Social-Justice” programs have slipped into the webbing of our society so strongly that it is easier and more ‘correct’ in the eyes of ALL to take a weak stand when a strong stand needs to be taken.
We can play with rules and we can play with applications and we can play with illustrations to support our stand until the cows come home and make our stands looks more comfortable in the eyes of All, however, we will someday have to take a stand much like Jesus took in the temple when he overturned tables, etc.
My father (earthly) used to have a saying “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” and it is a true one. He was a very outspoken man and so am I. I rather doubt that this will change a great deal, not even with age, but if it does, it will be by God’s Grace.
Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, a small percentage of them are. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals ad therefore I am not tarring and feathering them all, but there is still that percentage and my point is this. IF the ACoC and other social justice seeking mechanisms don’t see the light, then there will be more and more room for more and more of this type of criminal activity to seep into the Churches. That is why I left the ACoC and became a member of an ANiC Church.
Robin Barrett’s situation would very likely have continued to disintegrate to where it now is because he has chosen to let it go there. He chose not to take all of his problems to The Lord, He chose not to have prayer said over him about the homosexual problem and he was allowed to continue down the slippery slide of sinning to where he is now in a situation where he is charged with one or two of the most deplorable and heinous sins that we know of. If he had been removed from the church and even moreso, if he had had courage enough to leave the church, then the ACoC, The diocese of eastern Newfoundland and labrador and the faith communities of St. Pauls in the Goulds and The Church of the Good shepherd in Mount Pearl would not now have the cloud of darkness over them.
David and Kate, you can take all the stands you wish against my “opinion” but you will not change it. Cathy, it appears that you are a champion of the Social Justice Program or else you would not have been throwing out all of your biased quotes to us. I threw out a couple in rebuttal, but it seems that they have run into stone hard heads. c’est la vie!
I have had my share of sin in my life, some of which I am deeply ashamed of, however, all of my life and all of my sins, past, present and future are in the Hands of the Master now and that, dear friends, is where we need to put them if we wish to seek healthy and wise changes in our lives, changes that can only be made by Jesus Christ, not by the winds of social justice and syndromes such as the hollywood syndrome.
re 51: ~ The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children……Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p. 197.
~ A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581
Given that only approx. 2% of the population identify as homosexual, the percentage of homosexual child sex offenders is much higher than would be expected. This leads one to posit that there may be a correlation between the two. NHSLS (National Health and Social Life Survey conducted 1992 (Lauman et al 1994).
It amazes me how few appeal to the Scriptures as the final authority in the issue. Surely God’s Word is the “rule of conduct”. We must love the sinner (and the homosexual lifestyle is sin!); but hate the sin. The only way of salvation and deliverance from any sin is through the Lord Jesus Christ. He gave his life’s blood to save us from our sins.
For “so-called” church leaders to defend sinful practices is surely the wrong fruit and gives one concern for their right to lead the Lord’s flock.
Let’s return to the Word of God – we can never go wrong here.
Gerry, you are making assumptions to support your position. You assumed that I haven’t responded to you because I am unable or unwilling. In reality I am rarely on the computer over the weekend and I was sick yesterday.
My understanding of the research and I admit it is a limited understanding (I studied music then electronics) is that male/female attractedness (is that a word) is a separate variable to adult/child. Also, that a person may be attracted to one gender when correlating with adult attraction but be attracted to the other gender when correlating with child attraction. Obviously there will be cross relationship and between the two but generalized conclusions should not be made. For example, some people prefer blue cars, some people prefer red cars, some people prefer large cars some small cars. The size and colour of the car are independent variables.
As for your comment about a Social Justice Program, I’m not sure I know what you are talking about.
Hi Cathy:
Thanks for your comments.
It appears that I am incorrect and you tell me I am by asking about Social Justice Program and if you don’t know that much then I am likely incorrect and I apologize, if required.
As far as homosexuality and pedophilia are concerned, there are differences in that in this country homosexuality is not considered a crime and pedophilia is. Some homosexuals are pedophiles and some are not and the same stands for heterosexuals.
What Pedophiles and homosexuals do have in common however are that both of them, according to the Holy Bible, are sinful acts. I’m sure that I don’t need to point out the Scriptures for you on that.
Tfhe Government of Canada says that Homosexuality (committing of homosexual acts) are not against the Law in Canada. The Holy Bible says differently. I guess I can now be charged with Treason because I will stand with the Supremacy of Scripture as being stronger than the law of this Country concerning same.
Peter #66; The word implies on more than one occasion that we should remain vigilant about the circumstances going on around us. Kate was asked by Sam in #30 if a separate post could be made re#26. David responds in 31 and Kate responds in 32. David doesn’t think there is a connection and Kate doesn’t want to inflame anti Gay sentiments.
I have been inflamed with anti-gay sentiments since I first realized that my church was being destroyed. That continues when I see ACOC churches and Bishops marching in Gay Pride parades. Ellie suggested in # 49 that a visit (google) to NAMBLA might be enlightening. it would appear that no one took her up.
Peter since you appear to be fair minded would YOU please comment.
I’m sure Peter will comment eventually, but as David said in comment #46, the decision was made by all four of us together.
NB #66 is not me. NB2: Will reply as soon as I am able.
Gerry, my initial comment was with respect to a correlation you seemed to be drawing between homosexuality and sexual attraction towards children and all my comments have been in relation to those narrow parameters. I don’t think I have made any comments with regard to the morality of either. What scripture says and what Canadian Law says are separate issues.
#70 So? – Just because all four of you made the decision – doesn’t make it a correct one.
Ah but Stuck in Toronto…..the problem is that those 4 control the blog and you and I don’t……so no matter how you spin it, there is not a thing that can change it if they choose not to.
Time to give it a rest I think. Hopefully this won’t get deleted also.
Cathy #67;
Your complete item is all about the Social Justice Program to which I refer. All things being equal means that all things can be made equal even when they are not equal.
This could be a theorem applied to the movement of the GLBT programs and could be applied as “Social Justice”…..
Just to set the record straight (no pun intended) – for those who have made reference to bishop Cyrus Pittman not having removed Rev. Barrett from ordained ministry when he declared himself of homosexual orientation several years ago, it is a fact that the bishop of the diocese of Eastern NFLD & Labrador at that time was bishop Donald Harvey, current ANIC leader. 14 months later bishop Harvey retired as bishop of the diocese. Just want to make sure everyone has the facts
Especially if it casts a bad light on Bishop Don, eh Randy? I thought you said you wouldn’t be commenting again?
Kate – I hope you don’t object to the facts? It seems you are all for casting a bad light on Bishop Pittman and any others you can in the Anglican Church of Canada, so it is only fair to those who read the blogs to know the facts.
No, of course not. Can you give us some links, please? I’ve been looking, but there doesn’t seem to be a list of former bishops and their dates on the diocese of Newfoundland’s website, and I don’t know the relevant dates. Do you?
Ok, I found some links. Bishop Don retired in 2004, as you can see from his bio on the ANiC website, and Rev. Barret declared he was gay in November 2003, even though he was married with two children. (News story here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2323093 Warning though, there is more detail about the charges on that page than many of you probably want to know.)
Would the correct pastoral response be to remove him right away? Or to give him time to think about what he was doing,( in declaring himself gay and abandoning his marriage) ,maybe counsel him, etc? It is not being same sex attracted that is the sin, it is acting on it. Seems to me that Bishop Don probably did the right thing.
#73, 74 and others: I’m wondering why all my favorite people here on this blog are squabbling? When the early church was not dealing with persecution from without, the evil one tried to stir things up from within. We need to be aware of this pressure, dear ones, and remember that we are called to mutual submission (forgiveness, love) in Christ. When we talk of control, it should be his we’re concerned about.
“To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.”-Romans8:6ESV
Kate: I’m glad you have pointed out, and correctly, that it was not the sexual orientation in and of itself but actually living the lifestyle. For many years Anglican dioceses in Canada and beyond have been ordaining celibate homosexual priests. Presumably the ANIC will do the same??? I don’t know that is why I ask the question. In fairness to bishop Harvey he did offer support to Rev. Barrett when he disclosed his orientation, in a pastoral way and supported his decision to remain in parish ministry as a non-practicing homosexual priest.
Are you interested in joining ANiC, Randy? If so, I am sure Bishop Don would be only too happy to talk about policies and eligibility.
David – thank you for the invitation but I will pass all the same. I am part of the wonderful diocese of Central NF and couldn’t be happier. Many good things are happening in this diocese for the Lord
Kate – a valid point.
I don’t know why people commit horrible sexual sin as in rape, sexually motivated murder/ serial murder, pedeophila and lesser sin like beastiality, homosexuality, necrophelia etc.
I do know I have been guilty in my life of sexual sin and I know why. I also know that I could easily have been guilty of the more criminal types of sexual deviance, as mentioned. Saved from these by God’s Grace. The difference between my shameful adultery and fornication and Paul Bernardo’s crimes are simply degrees of abhorance and acceptance. To coin a TV phrase they are all “sexually based offences” to God.
I think it is important to note that God offers unconditional love and grace, Bishop Don knows this and forgive me Kate there can be no probability about it. This man Barret, as so many have – has simply refused that grace.
So Randy – what’s your point.
I started working on #85 at 9:20 without being aware of the additional posts.
A celibate Homosexual. – a person whose life I could joyfully celebrate.
#81 Irena: OK blessed peacemaker, truth in every word. I confess weakness and poor anger management skills.
I truly ask forgiveness of any I have offended (this includes the unfortunate blog that was discontinued.)
Irena you have shown yourself to be truly a sister in Christ Jesus I invite your admonishment whenever you feel it necessary.
In all Love – Born in the City of David, our Saviour, our Lord.
Thanks Be
#82 I don’t see any reason why not.
I’m wondering why you didn’t mention that in comment #76?
#86 Apology accepted.
Since we are setting the record straight (pun intended) perhaps there are two things I need to deal with here. The first is to enter into agreement with Stuck in Toronto in making apologies where necesssary and thereby these are given here right now. I sent one to Kate a few months ago on personal email but never received a response, guess it was overlooked (that was on another item that I took exception to. I don’t hold grudges, but it seems anger and I are old friends. so, to david and kate, my apologies.
The Second thing to set straight here is that (and I doubt that this will ever be totally clarified by the proper persons because they are of much greater humility and charity than it appears I am) while Bishop Donald Harvey was indeed the Bishop of the Diocese of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my understanding that he was under direct threat of ‘lawsuits’ being made against him if Barrett was fired. This I have been told of by several who are closer to Bishop Don than am I.
It is also my suspect that Bishop Don and others knew at that time that ANiC was in it’s embryonic stages and that firing Barrett would have been a colossal waste of time and also very likely a large amount of money would have been awarded to Barrett for wrongful dismissal had he been removed (this is in thanks to the stupidity of our Government in making things that are abominations in the eyes of God legalities in the eyes of our Canadian Government – oops there I go again – treason!!!).
I doubt that the above statement by me will every be substantiated, but to the very best of my knowledge and sources, this is the truth of the matter.
Randy: I understand that things are moving right along in the Diocese of Central Newfoundland and that whilst it is still one of the most conservative in the Country, the liberally minded are making their inroads as they have elsewhere. I am sure you will get plenty of help from the apostate priests in the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador.
Randy are you sure you’re in Central OR is that just a ploy to lead us there and away from where you really live?????? just guessing.
Oh yes, I missed this.
Bishop Harvey did not remove Barrett from office – in the minds of many he should have, but the fact is he didn’t. Whether right or wrong, Cy Pittman inherited Barrett and his use of computers to look at porn (This can be substantiated and was at the congegational meeting held in 2003). Bishop Pittman should have transferred Barrett to some little empty parish in Labrador or elsewhere where he couldn’t lead others astray, but no, he left him right there in Mount Pearl and then moved him to St. Pauls in the Goulds. More people hurt and exposed to the wolf in sheep’s clothing. This only serves to make Bishop Pittman a wolf in sheep’s clothing also…….support the evil one and you are one of his workers!!
Did Bishop Harvey do the right thing in not firing Barrett? Mixed camps will never agree on that one, but the one thing we do know, He will end up getting fired now (if convicted) and then only because Bishop Pittman will have no choice.
You did? I don’t remember anything about a “months ago” apology, or quite frankly, the need for one? Just as well, probably.
Randy # 82:
In fairness to bishop Harvey he did offer support to Rev. Barrett when he disclosed his orientation, in a pastoral way and supported his decision to remain in parish ministry as a non-practicing homosexual priest
Randy, IN FAIRNESS you say that he supported him as a non-practicing homosexual priest. He had no choice. He couldn’t come out and accuse him of lying, could he? And supported him, that only means to me that the Bishop did not fire him AND nothing more.
Was Robin Barrett telling the truth??? I don’t think so. Here’s why.
On the morning that I went to see Robin Barrett with my dual resignations in hand (resigning from Vestry and from the Parish) I met with Barrett in his office and asked him point blank to look me in the eye and tell me that he was not in a homosexual relationship. He looked at his desk and said “I HAVE A FRIEND”. That answer said it all. He couldn’t look me in the eye and he could not deny his “Friend”…….
I tell of the above at this time to make sure that ALL FAIRNESS is afforded to Bishop Harvey in this matter.
There is much more about this whole messy affair with Barrett, but I have a feeling that it would only tend to expose more lies and more deceitfulness practiced by Barrett and his supporters at the Church of the Good Shepherd at the time.
Glad this one’s been sorted out, thanks guys for the apologies even if I’ve not been engaged enough to pin them to specifics. Regarding the issue of seperate post / not seperate post, as David said it we are in agreement that we wouldn’t do that at this time. There’s a whole bunch of issues with this one, but I think David #31 and Kate #32 nailed it. It’s not as if you haven’t had plenty of opportunity to talk about it in this thread, and it’s something we might consider raising specifically at a later date, if we could do it without temperatures raising!
Peter #93
if we could do it without temperatures raising!
Of Course Peter, just so long as all agree, that is, all from both the bloggers and the Admins.
99% of the time, the Admins on this site do exemplary work. Maybe, on those occassions when they are also ‘blogging’ and not being ‘admins’, sometimes they too become rather hot under the collar so to speak and can “trol” us persons endowed with more temper than necessary to become somewhat agitated. Fair is Fair!
Peter: We will do our best, please remember we are only human too, and we’re still waiting for our rather significant salaries Essentials promised us (I’m told they’re in the post…somewhere….
)
I would like to add my 1.5 cents worth to my dear brother Gerry’s words in 94. But before I do that a note if I may. -Gerry please ask the blog team for my personal e-mail and contact me. If you do not wish to do this let me know in your next input.
Peter, my spirit responded to the truth In my sister Irena’s #81, “mutual submission (forgiveness, love) in Christ.” I sought forgiveness with joy. Could I ask that the blog team consider receiving it in the spirit in which it was sent? This is said not to perpetuate but to gently admonish as my Lord instructs.
Absolutely – thank you for your apology, received gratefully, sorry if I have not been engaged, but I’ve got a rather time consuming deadline at work coming up!
David, I reviewed the Blog rules and found wisdom in its symplicity. Although the responses certainly indicate that “the more things change the more they stay the same”. Sorry I digress. In light of recent difficulties that serve no purpose other than expressions of personal feelings Would you consider publishing a detailed purpose for this Blog? Sort of a Mission Statement that would make clear parameters for all of us to settle into. I believe that military/para military and the christian orthodox participants might find this to be helpful. Certainly in my opinion, trolls, counter insurgents, and anti-Christs would have a more difficult time.
In His Name, blessings to all. In joy and celebration of His coming.
95 Stuck in Toronto:
Attention Blog Team…….would one of you, Kate, David, Peter please sent my email address to Stuck. Much appreciated. Thank You.
I’m about to do that
I agree with Stuck. I find that in trying to express my thoughts, feelings, opinions sometimes becomes really touchy bearing in mind that I am fully aware that my words can be used as evidence in a court of law, assuming that one of the bloggers wanted to sue me in court for tarnishing an already tarnished appearance.
Seriously, it’s probably best not to joke about suing. The only Court we need to be really concerned about is God’s.
Trust me Gerry, we are certainly not about to sue you! Unless of course you have a rather large fortune we could help ourselves too in leui of the aforementioned salary.
Blessings to all,
Although the topic of discussion didn’t interest me much, I have found this thread (and the one from Dec 11 that was closed) instructive. Here are a few things I hope I’ve learned and that I will benefit from personally:
- long, personal exchanges are wearisome for onlookers;
- the blogosphere isn’t the real world and this should always be kept in mind when making comments;
- airing of personal hostilities quickly drags a discussion into the mud and the issues that started the discussion get lost in the noise;
- I should strive to keep my comments focused on what other commenters have said, and avoid making inferences about them personally (even if I strongly disagree with their comment);
- if I want to be a participant on a blog (and not just an outsider attacking it), I should strive to make comments that require no intervention from the admins;
- suggesting that action, legal or otherwise, should be taken against another blog participant is less cool than making a loud fart during a party – If I get that hot under the collar I need to just walk away;
- I should remember my intent when making a comment will often be misunderstood – especially if it is made in haste;
- I should wait a little longer before pressing the send button and ask myself if I would respond the same in person; and
- I should always double check my spelling.
Absolutely! Particularly the last point.
Warren:
Really good comments made by you in #97. Really instructive and much appreciated. We should all try to be more purrfect in all we do and not so judgemental.
My comment about lawsuits was not directed at any person or persons and was simply a comment. Your reference to flatulence is less than complimentary and could, if directed at any one person be taken as direct and intended. I will give the benefit of such to being something said without a great deal of thought and sent without leaving the send button alone for long enough.
Blessings.
Gerry (#98), touché.
OK, I have commented above – completely abusing my editing powers to reply inline. I appreciate that this has been an interesting week. On behalf of the admin / mod team and all folks here I would be really grateful if we could all take a break at this point and let these matters rest.
In fact, it would not be a bad idea in the leadup to Christmas to take a break from the blogosphere and go do something more meaningful and enjoyable over the holidays.
As much as I like the community here, like any family, sometimes we need a break. Now might be a good time….
Blessings,
Peter