modcat5

Siskel and Ebert were rival critics for the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Actually I also misread Oldiesman's post. My brain also put a "not" in there that was not there.

Ok, then. Now you know.

You're JUST catching on to that?

Please do not refer to anyone in the public eye as a "political charlatan." Doing so validates the expression of an opposing view, which opens a political discussion. Surely we can discuss the question of whether God is arbitrary in who he spares or doesn't spare without having to resort to expressions of political preference.

Ok, i'm done arguing. Do not post politics. Do not post in response to a post about politics. If i need to err on the side of scorched earth to be consistent I will do so. I would much rather try to apply some reason, but if that's going to result in accusations of needing to get over myself, screw it. Thanks

No, that us NOT rationalization. It's moderating a board where no politics is a rule. So when someone brings up politics, we need to decide how to respond. In the past, political posts have been deleted. No warning. What happened here was, political posts went up. People replied. Others replied to the replies. Dome of the replies to replies to replies were political and some were not. Some of these non-political replies make no sense unless you know the political post it was replying to. Everyone misstepped on this one. Maybe I misstepped when I didn't delete the first mention of Butler. The point Charity tried to illustrate was that it's ___ to say God spared someone in a certain situation when someone else in the same situation was not spared. Unfortunately she chose an example steeped in politics. And that opened the door to Oldiesman responding with an implication that God's favor is on a particular politician. And THAT opens the door to a conversation about whether God intervened in Butler and, if he did, whether He did so because of politics. That got shut down. Discuss God's views on politics anywhere but here. We shut down politics YEARS ago. The only question that remains is how much of the thread to retain and how much to delete because of politics. I am so sowwy if i huwt yo feewings in trying to make a reasonable determination of what to keep instead of deleting everything that followed oldiesman's post as responses to politics. Which I would have been completely within the board's right to do. Get over myself? Hold up a mirror when you say that.

Folks, no politics. Thank you.

I asked Karl to post this in Open and I am grateful he did, even though there's an "About the Way" tangent. Thank you for sharing this, and I do hope the book does well. Looking forward to reading it. Raf

I wanna hold your hand to show you I'll be there I like to do the things that let you know I care I sing this lullaby 'cause, girl, you fill me full I look into your eyes, you're so beautiful

We had to open an umbrella for about an hour. Other than that, no issues on the southeast coast. [disclosure: Raf and modcat5, same person too lazy to switch accounts].

Got a complaint that one of these posts crossed into politics. It didn't. But it came very close. Please continue to exercise proper judgment on this. Well done all around (including the "better safe than sorry" report).

Raf here, too lazy to switch logins: I'm not aware of any "exhaustive" effort, and I'm not willing to re-search that (meaning I have done some searching). I know there was a lot of Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard, of course. I don't know if anyone's ever tried to put them all in one thread.

So let it be done. Easy clues only