I spent about three years as a moderator on a large Bible discussion board. During that time, I learned a lot about how online discussions work (and don’t work). The biggest problem with internet talk is lack of moderation. Since people tend to say things online that they would not say face-to-face, or act in ways they would not act face-to-face, moderation of discussions is an absolute necessity if anything is to be accomplished.

In regard to your question, so far the comments here have not strayed too far off topic. So no, I have not gained a new perspective, but I think the comments here do show why it is a difficult task to get any real discussion off the ground in a free-for-all environment.

Thanks for stopping in, Brad!

Matt

I’m curious & meddling. Has the reaction to this post given you new perspective on how hard it is to keep the commenters (myself included) on target? lol

Have a great day,
Brad

I understand the concept of “plausible deniability” when it comes to your article and what I have had to say about it in the context of what has transpired here. Interested folk can read the comments here and your article and form their own opinions as to my evaluation.

My April 23, 2009 entry above seems to have been clear enough to me as to the point I was opining about and the proof you offered as to it.

I notice that, since your original response thereto, you have not chosen to further pursue your fundamental claims.

You now suggest a certain lack of interest/ability if seriously taking up such “disputable” claims.

That’s fine with me. This would not be a particularly effective venue to pursue such a “conversation”.

For now, I presented my point for consideration; you, Dusty, offered confirmation of the point I was suggesting; and there have been no rebuttals submitted here to the point presented.

Dusty, I have no hostility towards you. I deny certain of your claims referenced in my earlier comments here, but I have no hostility towards you.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Trust me, I have no superiority over my critics. I am a man who is sold out to Jesus. I have trouble arguing over religious matters because the whole arguing thing doesn’t make sense to me. I am a stumbling sinner who humbly seeks the mercy and grace of God to save me. Where is it you think I am coming from? what do you understand about me?

I accept, Robert, that you are my brother in Christ and that we do not have to argee on 100% of things. That’s OK. I can still appreciate your beliefs and your testimony of faith.

I don’t understand your hostility, if any, toward me.

> “Be careful of the names and
> categories you place on people
> for the purpose of proving a
> point or maintaining a position…

> …they may not be correct.”

Go figure!

Dusty attempts to admonish me/us here with such things, while seeming to violate the same in the article he posted to his own blog earlier today wherein he declares his righteous superiority over his critics.

> “Conversation is the beginning
> of understanding”?

Well, I think I am beginning to understand where Dusty is coming from!

As I earlier opined, it represents a fundamental problem that needs to be recognized early on in any serious discussion.

Dusty, thanks for the added “proof” of my point as evidenced by that article you posted today on your blog.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Thanks for proving my point!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I am excited that people are talking. Just because the conversation isn’t easy, doesn’t mean it isn’t productive. Conversation is the beginning of understanding.

Be careful of the names and categories you place on people for the purpose of proving a point or maintaining a position…they may not be correct.

Sincerely from a Prodigal,
Dusty Chris

Alas, providing further insight into a fundamental problem which it is unlikely the principals will deal with (i.e., resolve) are the postings today, from Wayne & Dusty, to GraceConversation clearly indicating that “pentecostal” claims fuel “progressive” theology.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty