Hello Everyone!
I thought, though the topic is scattered around the BB, to post my responses here on the "BP" thread, because I trust that my comments will provide some general observations about our beloved BB.
I read Brent's apology on the BB, and he emailed me a copy as well, and I responded via email to him and gladly accepted it. I also tried to clarify some other points re. a "double standard on the BB", to the which I will try and touch on here.
Brent's reply was very gracious and demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility for what he says.
The BB is dead, an unhealthy place, and has double standards: This is the charge of some and there have been various suggestions as how to fix this, such as:
1.) New Moderators who strictly enforce clear guidelines.
2.) Old and frequent posters retiring from the site.
3.) It can't be fixed; let the whole thing die.
As to "1", this is not as easy as one might think. I would recommend that those complaining the most loudly re. this that they should be the first on the list to be elected to this job.
Tom deleted Sondra's post because it had personal insults that didn't attack a person's argument so much as it focused on alledged character flaws of another member of the BB.
Tom also deleted at least one of David M's post's, and I don't recall if it was for the same reason, but for the sake of this example let's say this is the case.
I would not have deleted either, because I think that Sondra and David M. have raised some very interesting points in the past that should be allowed, though they should expect that their comments may face vigorous disagreement, and when obviously foolish and erroneous, possibly Skeptic styled sarcasm.
The only way to solve this dilemna is for there to be an election where the members decide what they want this BB to be, decide what the guidelines should be, and who their Moderators will be.
As an example: 1.) This BB will be for evangelical Christians only: No Modernist, New Age, Atheist, or other fringe religious beliefs will be allowed any expression, unless it is to debunk their ideas.
2.) All posts will never contain personal insults directed at posting members. These insults will be allowed if they are directed to those off this site, and who are in disagreement with the general philosophy of the BB. (as an example: we can pile on the negatives re. GG, SWTE site, etc.).
3.) Moderators, as duly elected representatives of the BB members, will apply the above rules strictly or face dismissal from their assigned duties.
This will make for a very clean and tidy bit of government for our little community, but I have been on sites that were set up to operate like this and in none of these cases were the members satisfied that the Moderator was neutral.
On one such "cult site" the standards of good etiquette in posting were so "neutral" that all disagreement fell under the standard of "hate speech" and made it impossible to disagree with the most noxious of expressed opinions from the likes of those defending the Children of God cult.
I would like you to consider how Skeptic's responses to David M.'s rantings did what Tom's deletions could not. Skeptic used sarcasm to point out how ridiculous it was to suggest that this BB could benefit from the clear insights of former workers who are now atheists. "These former atheists would not post," it was said by David M., because of the climate on the BB, but if they did their wisdom would provide a breath of fresh air to the poisonous environment here.
Deleting and taking his arguments seriously only caused David M. to attack Tom with a greater personal vehemence, and then all the back and forth of character assaination that went with it just built up the froth. (I know, some people love to listen to this stuff, and though they publicaly shake their heads, they tune in daily for the latest installment of "Days of our BB."
The BB is not a family, a church, a city government, a village, or any other kind of normal relationship where we can hold one another responsible for what we say on it. In the words of Frank Zappa, "who are the brain police?!" There is no system of moderation that can be established to produce a "healthy environment" here. It's up to you as an individual contributor to govern your own expressions.
How?1.)
Humility:
There are no "experts", or Assembly recovery gurus who have all the answers. We share from our own perspective, and ours is a very limited and biased one. If you post, you should expect your ideas could be criticized, and try your best to accept and consider that criticism.
2.)
Persuade, vs. using personal attack.
This does not mean we don't confront error (doctrinal or behavioral) but we need to address the specific mistake without the addition of, "the reason you hold that error is because of your former association with the Assembly,etc." We really don't why people are doing what they're doing, and only God knows for sure.
3)
Tolerance (making a difference): One of the chief values of this BB (and possibly far and away the very most important) is it provides an opporutnity for individuals to just pour out their souls (as Gay has just done, along with many others of this BB life) where there are those who understand what they have gone through.
These expressions are not meant to be sophisticated statements that involve clear and reasoned arguments, rather a chance to unload years of emotional grief where it is hoped such feelings will find symathetic hearing (weep with those that weep).
This was my intention in the WP thread, though it has developed into a monolugue of mine that probably should be put to rest for now, though at some point I think I probably will write a book where I just allow many of these "testimonies" to speak for themselves, and provide some comment in between.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope it helps.
God Bless, Mark C.
