AssemblyBoard

Folks,

I have deleted a post from "Ruth".  She came here to post a link to an article on her website in which she pours out her bile on most of the regular participants...the men in particular.  She seems to have a "thing" about men.

As to why, I think this would be a good time to explain my understanding of Moderator.

When Brian asked me to be a moderator he did not spell out any purpose, rules, or prohibitions for the board.  He just told me he trusted my judgement. He did not guarantee that he would always agree with me.   Since then he has intervened once, and that only to comment on my decision to delete a post by Dave Mauldin.  He did not overrule me.

Now, having a moderator at all implies that there are standards which should be observed.  So, we have had, (I believe) three moderators who have never agreed upon any standards for the board.

My own ideas are related to the purpose of the board.

It seems to me that the purpose of the board was/is/should be something like:

1. To inform people about the George Geftakys and his assemblies, including the teachings, practices, and inherent dangers.

2. To help people escape from those assemblies or to avoid becoming involved.

3. To help people recover from their involvement.  This can be accomplished by:

a. Answering questions and sharing experiences.

b. Discussing the subjects that arise as people re-establish their lives on a healthier basis.  This would include just about anything.  Religious beliefs are basic to most human behaviors, so we must explore how those beliefs apply to church polity, money, marriage and child raising, doctrinal teachings...even poker (I suppose). 

c. To provide a place of cyber-fellowship for those who have been in the assemblies or even other cultic groups.  (No, I don't think Dave M. should be excluded.  I just think he should behave himself.)

In light of the above, I don't think the board should be a place for attacking individuals for personal reasons. Strong disagreement is one thing.  Vituperation is another. This is why I am limiting "Ruth", as it seems to be her principle reason for coming here.  In her most recent foray she had one of her solo conversations and then popped in here to place a link.

Ruth...don't bother.

These are my thoughts, and I did not hear them from a burning bush. No claim of infallibility.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours every day reading every word in every post.  But I do check in every day and see what is going on.

I cannot promise perfection, but I affirm my good intentions.

Thomas Maddux

Tom, I do believe that we have had our day and our say. I think more recent Assembly escapees should be in charge of the board, and I propose Marcia for moderator. Ciao.

Here's the link that was deleted.

If Ruth had come on here and said a bunch of really bad things I can see censoring her.  Of course, others have done so and they weren't censored, which is a rather sticky consideration.  All she did was post a link, to something she wrote, which you may or may not disagree with.

I think it is clear that Tom does not endorse the viewpoints expressed in this link, and I am also certain that many people will not agree with her as well.

Nevertheless, I trust each of you to be able to read whatever you want to read and draw whatever conclusions you wish to draw.  Who knows?  You might even learn something. 

http://www.soaringwiththeeagles.com/yabbse/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=389

Brent

Vote for Marcia

I am with Tom on this one Brent. Sondra has made her contempt for the participants of this board quite clear.
Considering the strict control she excercises over her domain, it is totally class-less for her to come on this BB and post a link to her site which people are free to go and read if they wish to.
Posting such a link without comment is contemptuous of the process and shows disdain for those conversing here.
Tom was right to delete it in my view.
Verne

p.s. I suggested to Brian 18 months ago that he should consider making Marcia a BB moderator. Good gender balance doncha think? She has a fairly level head too!  :)

[/color]

Some time ago, in a former life, I knew this family who were well-liked because they were so nice and they never "got involved" when issues arose, but they always had a very strong opinion, and other people rose to the occasion to speak out on their behalf.  So the family never suffered from foot in mouth disease as a result.  And then there was me, who always had an opinion and always got involved and always got in trouble just because I got involved.

Well looks like I've gone and done it again, so...

First I want to apologize to Tom for the tone of my recent posts.  I hate having to entreat/exhort a brother, especially one I respect.  It's easier with sisters and even easier when I was annonymous.  So Moonie cut it out!! :)

Second, I am not the woe-man for the job of moderator, especially if the BB is going to die, as some have claimed.  But also because I disagree with Tom/Verne/Moonie re. Sondra and they disagree with me re. Lenore.  So I have a bias so to speak.  Next, I do not know the first thing about BB moderating.

So I vote for Suzie Tr0ckman :)

Marcia

Not gonna happen.  Nope.

DNR is a good policy. 

I say we bring back six weeks off.  Take Six Weeks Off.  Don't show up here for Six Weeks.

Brent

What is DNR?? :-[

Marcia

 I think He means "Do Not Resuscitate" this BB unless there is some new information such as GG inviting us all to a real repentance and reconciliation meeting... especially if he is willing to pay for a caterer to bring in  both lunch and dinner for about 1,000 saints.  Now that would be great news! :)

Do Not Resusitate abbreviation in medical jargon. (Let it die.)  

The only problem with DNR in the wild BB e-life, is that there will be uncontrolled freakish feeders on the carcass.  

So, I say, "VOTE FOR MARCIA!"

And what exactly is it that we disagree about?
That she has come onto the BB and disparaged just about eveyone that posts here, including you?
That she has consumed an inordinate amoung of cyberspace and time denigrating those who have been pointing out the wickedness of the house that George built?
That she has engaged in vicious slander which she refused to acknowledge and apologise for? etc. etc, etc.
Please be more specific.






Whatever her problems, and they are obvious, I consider Lenore a sister in Christ and  am thus greatly contsrained in how I relate to her regardless of my personal feelings.
I have never ever heard Lenore refer to the apostate Geftakys as "The Lord's Servant" and that alone gets her some credit in my ledger... :)
While I think we need to speak the truth in love in every instance, it seems to me that when you consider the conduct and history of these two individuals, you are comparing apples and oranges Marcia. Just my two cents.



Nature abhors a vacuum...
Verne

I was planning to post something this morning, but I will reply to a couple of posts first.

Verne, I was not comparing the two.  I also disagree with Sondra re. her attitude towards you.

Moonie, we need a skeptic type to p'troll ;) the board so that the birds of prey do not swoop in and take over eh??

All,

During the Tom/skeptic ruckus I mentioned that I watched the movie Coach Carter.  It is based on a true story, and it reminded me of our own assembly story, if I was to equate Coach Carter with Brent, and the rest of us with the student/athletes, and Carter's woman with Suzie and...  you get the picture.  See the movie and if the board is still going in 6 weeks, I would love to hear your opinions.

I posted a poem in the Quotes to Ponder thread that was quoted in the movie. see  www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=160.msg26396#msg26396 (http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=160.msg26396#msg26396)
You may not agree with it entirely, from a theological perspective, but read it as an inspirational piece.  It was posted to inspire all former/present assembly members towards real healing and thus be a blessing to others as well.

"And, as we let our own light shine, we consciously give
other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our fear,
our presence automatically liberates others."

See you in 6 weeks, maybe.  I managed less than 2 weeks the last time I left.

Au Revoir, Asta Lavista,
Marcia

P.S.  Delila, I love you and hope you are doing well.  Send me an email sometime.
Marcia

Your persepctive will be sorely missed.
Let's have a little contest shall we?
Whoever posts first owes the other person a double-dip ice cream Sundae! :)
If you accept the challenge, send me a p.m.
Of course after six weeks, we are both free post.
This may inspire both of us to really take some time off the board huh?
Sayonara!
Verne

Margaret,

I believe that there is much much more to say. Much, in fact, that needs to be said.



In addition, I don't think simply changing moderators will make much of a difference.  A moderator can't really moderate unless he/she is allowed to do so. 

In order to moderate fairly, there must be a standard that everyone is expected to observe.  What are the standards for this board?

Beats me!   

Brent,

Regarding my deletion of "Ruth's" link, and your replacing it, exactly what did I do that I shouldn't have?  For that matter, how can I even know what I should do?

Brent you seem to change your mind frequently.  Now visitors can post, now they can't.  Now Matt P. is welcome, now he is excluded.  So, I guess the standard is "How does Brent feel today?"   That's how it seems.

Of course, you could have done that because of some ideas about Libertarianism.   It is, as you  know, a sort of "maximum freedom" philosophy of government.   This situation highlights one of its problems. 

The idea is that "my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins."  So, everyone is free to "swing their arms" until they hit someone's nose.   If you try to limit dangerous arm swinging you must abandon your libertarian principle and set up a new standard of potential harm.  Which, of course, is what governments already do, so what use are the Libertarian ideas?

This may sound theoretical, but just substitute drunk driving for arm swinging, and you can see why no country has never been governed by Libertarianism.

The issue is not what people have a right to read.  Everyone here knows how to get to SWTE, and is free to read all they want.

The issue is allowing people who admire and praise evil to advertise their wares on this BB.  On the one hand you condemn people for not having adequately repented of their involvement of GG, then you turn around and permit what amounts to a Geftays supporter to spread their, (and his), lies here.

Thomas Maddux

Tom, I agree there's much more that needs to be said. The question is whether it will find a hearing. But I guess there's nothing like the good ol' college try.

This post is going to cost me some ice-cream but Sondra I am putting you on notice.
If you come on this BB and continue to  engage in any kind of disrespectful treatment of Tom as the board moderator I am going to become very unpleasant. Try me.
Verne

What brand and flavor do you like, Verne?

Hagen Daz PISTACHIO!

Verne

O.K. Some of you are asking about the fighting words (and they are) so let me try to explain.



There is not a poster on this board that does not know that Ms Jamieson has summarily deleted not only the posts, but also the accounts of those on her website that disagreed with her.
I despise hypocrites.




Delusional God complex. Delusional persecution complex. She should  be given the title of Diablos - slanderer.
The record of her own website will reveal more strident accusation and bitter hatred  and castigation of others than those she accuses of the same.
When has any visit by her to this BB not ultimately resulted in conflict with those posting here?
As I stated before, all that time spent in the company of a juvenile dilinquent has robbed her of her of the facility for keeping the company of adults. She proves me right every time she shows up.




You are now trying to curry favor with Joe Sperling??!! Him of "Mighty Mouse" sobriquet??!



You lack grace madam.
You lack class.
You lack dignity.
You have a problem with Mr Maddux?
Take it up with him privately and work it out between you.
But that is not what you are interested in is it?
Oh no! You want an audience, not peace.
What is the meaning of this public castigation of a man who is not only your senior, but frankly also your better?


And that is why you disabled the stats on your board right?


Your invoking God's name makes me want to puke. Your conduct repeatedly belies your profession of faith madam.
You need to repent of your wickedness.



This is not a statement that any real warrior would make. Your very raising the issue exposes your true condition does it not?

You can say whatever you want. If you attack anyone on this BB, I intend to respond and to do so forcefullly.


Verne

DISCLAIMER:  the following post (except for the closing disclaimer) is presented purely as humor.  Not necessarily good humor, but humor nonetheless.  Any resemblance to serious matters is strictly coincidental (even though the poster doesn't believe in coincidence):


Sondra, in this quote you reveal the weakness of your position:  You see, "turtle" designates the broader order of Testudines, including both aquatic and terrestrial varieties.  The proper King James rendering of Aesop in the tale to which you refer is "tortoise," referring singularly to the family of Testudines that dwell upon land whereas, by default, a "turtle" is assumed to be a water-dweller.  I'm sure that, even from great heights, your eagle-eye can see that the idea of a race between a land-dwelling hare and an aquatic turtle may be the source of unending doctrinal disputation, much as the whale-vs-large fish controversy of Jonah...

---

This reminds me of a true story I read (possibly in Readers Digest-- a very worldly publication I used to peruse in my carnal days).  Back in the day when hang-gliding was at its peak of popularity, one enterprising man studied the habits of west coast seagulls to learn their secrets of successful soaring.  What he discovered was, exactly as Sondra suggests, they ride the "thermals," or rising currents of warm air.  So this fellow endeavored to emulate, and even to join the gulls, launching his glide from a high cliff above the Pacific at a time when the gulls were hovering en masse.  He met with immediate success, and followed the flock for hours and for miles, enjoying the exhiliarating uplift of the breezes.  Finally, far from any shore, they struck a dead-calm.  As man and glider plummeted toward the water, the man helplessly watched the birds begin to flap their wings and fly away...

Those readers who are waiting for my practical application of this to Sondra's post are going to be disappointed, as I don't have one to offer-- I just think it's a funny story! ;D

---

Sondra, I just want you to know you have no reason to fear me either, unless you catch me first thing in the morning, before I've gargled my Listerine-- that could be dicey for you!

al  ;D

---

DISCLAIMER:  the above comments (with the exception of the opening disclaimer) are presented purely as humor.  Admittedly weak humor, but an honest attempt.  Any resemblance to serious matters is strictly coincidental (even though the poster still doesn't believe in coincidence):

work it, al!  8)

seriously, this BB needs a little more levity and a little less gravitas.

Has this quote in red ever been brought out before? If not, it should have been since it is the underlying cause for the existence of SWTB

Very accurate, Verne

Yes you do, and it does not take people with "mature spiritual understanding" to let you know.
Quit with the smug posturing already Sondra.
Let me give you an example:
My eight year old could tell you that calling your supposed sisters in Christ "groupies" is vile, vulgar and vituperative.
Let us see if you have any control whatsoever over that beast that rages within.
You owe the females on this BB you thus referred to an apology and I mean a sincere one.
How dare you come on here after such an ungdoly display of carnal defilement and viciousness with your empty and blasphemous talk about God? Let's see if you have any decency whatsoever.
You apologise to these sisters for your foul vulgarity of not too long ago...
Verne

p.s. you also lack the one thing that truly adorns a Christian woman (and man) with true beauty within (and IMHO) without - humility.
Quit telling us what a spiritual giant you are and rather demonstrate it for us.
I am sure both Marcia and Margaret (women I trust you admire, as do I) would be happy to give you some pointers...

Again, right on the mark.

Well, thanks, E., but I have to say that your observation caused me some consternation.  I was a little sleepy when I first read it, and I thought you were using the Latin term for gravity which, if reduced to any significant measure would send us all flying helplessly into space...

Then the coffee (which I only drink, thank you) started to kick in and it occurred to me that you would be more likely to be using Spanish than Latin, and I wondered why you would want to see more gravies on the bb?

Finally, I looked up "gravitas" in my trusty Webster's Collegiate, and it said "high seriousness," which took me back to the "Jesus movement" of the 1960s, when people were trying to be serious while they were high...

Am I somewhere within the ballpark of your post?

gravitationally, deep fried, and holding on for dear life,
al

al,

lol. don't work so hard! yes, gravitas in the sense of "high seriousness"---remember during the 2000 presidential campaign when all the pundits kept saying how G.W.Bush lacked "gravitas" whereas Al Gore exhibited profound "gravitas" and what we really needed in this country was someone with "gravitas" etc. etc.

so, a little more levity and a little less "high seriousness."

E.

Alas, rawther bad form, old girl!  If it's worth posting on this board, by all means post it!  But if not, well then just leave it to lie where it fell.  What you're doing here appears seductive, as if tempting the weak with forbidden fruit.  Or is that the point?  If you can't honestly persuade someone, go about it seditiously?

Seriously, I departed the SWTE board long ago, and have no problem with posts from there appearing here, but have also had no problem never having returned there to test the waters.  Your comments are welcome here as long as they're reasonable.  A hyperlink by itself is not reasonable, considerate, or polite.  Please, at least offer some commentary or explanation, and stop with the "mysterious" links...

al

Folks,

I have replied to Sondra personally in a private message, because I don't believe that discussion of this nature contributes anything worthwhile to the public forum.  I have no desire to flex my debating skills before an audience OR privately.  Sondra and I will come to a meeting of minds, or we will not, but either way I have no intention of appearing censor-like on this board.  I have expressed an opinion and it stands as offered, with one exception:

Sondra rightly points out my questionable use of the word "seditiously."  I meant it more in the sense of contributing to or inciting secession, i.e., an effort to lure people away from this BB by enticing means, which I wondered and openly asked her whether she was attempting to do.  Sondra's interpretation of the word is quite correct, and is in fact its primary definition.  I should have chosen more wisely, and for this I apologize to all who misunderstood my intention.

For me, it has been delightful to have a brief time of peacefulness on the board, and I had, and have no desire to participate in a brouhaha over anything less significant than heresy to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because of His grace,
al

No need to apologise Al. Posting a link without commentary or explanantion on this BB is discourteous and contemptuous of those posting here. One of the board moderators has already made it clear to her that this practice is unacceptable. This is a person, self-righteous posturing and condemnation of others notwithstanding, who clearly considers herself subject to no one, and beyond all correction and/or entreaty.
Leave her alone. I agree with you completely, that it is not worth the time nor the effort...





I have been thinking about starting a thread called "Basic Doctrines".
Some of the remarkable confusion you see, and in my view the vast majority if heretical ideas stem from a failure to grasp some of the most basic and fundamental truths of the faith. In fact, in many of the neo-evangelical seminaries, there has been abandonment of such fundamental tenets as propitiation, which a failure to rightly understand IMHO, leads to many of the most common errors regarding the nature of salvation. A good place to start is a consideration of the Biblical teaching of justification...what exactly does that term mean? A lot of folk think they know but clearly by their stated ideas  have no clue...

Verne

Actually, I didn't "apologise"-- I apologiZed-- all you islanders & Canucks with your Brit spellings were just left out in the cold! ;D ;D

But seriously, my apology was not for the point of my post, nor for my attitude in making it, but for my poor choice in the use of language.  That is important in my thinking because, as I view it, far too many assy survivors and refugees suffer yet today an inability to cope with certain phraseology (or to even open God's Word) because of the abuses of language and scriptural terminology they have suffered in the past.  For this reason, I make an extra effort to be as clear as possible.

---

Count on me as a reader/participant.

Well.....EXCUUUUZZZZZZEE ME!   ;D

---

Chime in... :)

Verne

It appears that Frankensondra has deleted all her nasty, viscous "Ruth" postings. I can't find them anywhere.