Re: RELIGION Religious and political sig lines (was Missionaries)

[Guest guest]

My point was that there is something inherently different for the moderator of

the list (you were the temporary moderator, right) to post a blatantly dogmatic

Christian signature line.

I do agree with in the general case, however. I think that the signature is

a part of the message, in the sense that I have every right to reply to it, and

also that if it is deemed offensive, others will react to it the same way.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> ,

>

> > The subject of sig lines in this context never came up, but I think

> > it's patently ridiculous to consider sig lines to be something other

> > than posts. People post their sigs to the list, and they're part of

> > the post they conclude.

>

> > I have, regrettably, been offlist for awhile, so I'm not fully

> > conversant with the details of this particular dispute, but my

> > absence ends now, and my official ruling is that sigs are part of

> > posts (as they manifestly are).

>

> Whether you are here or not I have no problem upholding this rule at

> all. However, since it is a new rule, I was not aware of it before

> you made it.

>

> Were you on-list February 2005? Look at my sig line:

>

> /message/65443

>

> I had the same signature line in 2002:

>

> /message/11719

>

> People have been using political and religious sigs on this list

> without any comment as far as I know.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 6/18/07, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> My point was that there is something inherently different for the moderator

> of the list (you were the temporary moderator, right) to post a blatantly

> dogmatic Christian signature line.

I think this is absurd, personally. I think the moderator should be

subject to the same rules as she or he is enforcing on everyone else

and that the list owner should be subject to the same rules he is

making for everyone else. and I were and are both doing that,

and Wanita was doing it and so on.

> I do agree with in the general case, however. I think that the

> signature is a part of the message, in the sense that I have every right to

> reply to it, and also that if it is deemed offensive, others will react to

> it the same way.

I don't agree with the new rule but it's not my place to decide what

the rules are so it is a moot point. I think from now on if I have a

religious signature line you would be in the right to protest it.

However, previously I had been following the practice that I had been

following for five years, and I think it was reasonable for me to

assume that if I had been using religious signatures on and off for

five years that it was consistent with the list rules.

But as you have clarified, you had a specific problem with me being

moderator and having such a sig line, which I definitely disagree

with.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>My point was that there is something inherently different for

>the moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator,

>right) to post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

I disagree. As long as I've been on this list (6 years, I think?) I've seen

every type of sigline under the sun and have never seen anyone asked to

change it or remove it. Whether or not someone with a sigline moderates this

list is completely irrelevant, IMO. I couldn't care less. It has nothing to

do with his/her ability to moderate the list.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Of course, I was not saying that there is a causal relation between posting a

particular signature line, and ability to moderate the list, which is what

you're inferring.

However, I'd say that the moderator does represent the list in some fashion, and

emails from the moderator present some kind of official viewpoint. I've at times

found the proliferation of dogmatic Christianity troublesome on this list, and

when the moderator posts such quotations as his signature, there is an

uncomfortable suggestion that this is a Christian list. At times this seems to

be so.

There is also no logical connection between how long you've been on the list and

whether you've seen anyone asked to remove a signature, and whether there can be

interpreted an essential difference between the moderators signature and a

regular member.

Of course, it's fine that you disagree with me, however you don't seem to be

understanding my concern.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

>

> >My point was that there is something inherently different for

> >the moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator,

> >right) to post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

>

> I disagree. As long as I've been on this list (6 years, I think?) I've seen

> every type of sigline under the sun and have never seen anyone asked to

> change it or remove it. Whether or not someone with a sigline moderates this

> list is completely irrelevant, IMO. I couldn't care less. It has nothing to

> do with his/her ability to moderate the list.

>

> Suze

>

>

[Guest guest]

>However, I'd say that the moderator does represent the list in

>some fashion, and emails from the moderator present some kind

>of official viewpoint.

I can't see where this would reasonably be applied to siglines. I'm on a LOT

of lists and see various siglines in the list owners' and moderators' posts

that I never thought to intrepret as some sort of official viewpoint. Most

of them are links to personal or business sites, but I think the same

principle applies to siglines that are philosophical or religious in nature.

I've at times found the proliferation

>of dogmatic Christianity troublesome on this list, and when

>the moderator posts such quotations as his signature, there is

>an uncomfortable suggestion that this is a Christian list.

I find this completely absurd considering the owner of this list is as

" dogmatically " atheist as you perceive to be " dogmatically " Christian.

>

>There is also no logical connection between how long you've

>been on the list and whether you've seen anyone asked to

>remove a signature, and whether there can be interpreted an

>essential difference between the moderators signature and a

>regular member.

Why is it you think that moderators of this list should operate under

different rules than other members of the list?

is an outspoken Civil Libertarian and has always made it clear that he

values free speech and will allow *great* latitude in what people can post

and he has done so since he's owned the list. So again, why should the rules

be different for moderators? Their siglines are NOT official viewpoints. OK,

now you know it.

It all seems like much ado about nothing.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> Why is it you think that moderators of this list should operate under

> different rules than other members of the list?

>

> is an outspoken Civil Libertarian and has always made it clear that he

> values free speech and will allow *great* latitude in what people can post

> and he has done so since he's owned the list. So again, why should the rules

> be different for moderators? Their siglines are NOT official viewpoints. OK,

> now you know it.

>

> It all seems like much ado about nothing.

>

> Suze

I don't recall using the word 'rules'. Did I?

And sorry - you're telling me does not mean that I know it. This has nothing to

do with . wasn't moderating at the time that these sig lines were

posted.

So, I may express the opinion that I don't like these sig lines and that they

are inappropriate, without believing that they should be censored. I may comment

that I don't like a nutrition list turning into a playground for Christian

dogmatists, which it has at times, and doesn't seem to disturb you.

I'm sure you'll read more into this than is there also. I suppose I should just

give up.

[Guest guest]

So again, why should the rules be different

>for moderators? Their siglines are NOT official viewpoints.

>OK, now you know it.

BTW, I don't know what has decided, IF anything, about moderator's sig

lines, but since the list rules are his to make, obviously this is a moot

point if he decides that moderators are not allowed freedom with their sig

lines as other members are.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Again, this is entirely irrelevant, since I wasn't talking about what the

'rules' are, or of banning certain forms of speech, and I don't think that it is

somehow inappropriate to discuss them whatever they are.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

> So again, why should the rules be different

> >for moderators? Their siglines are NOT official viewpoints.

> >OK, now you know it.

>

> BTW, I don't know what has decided, IF anything, about moderator's sig

> lines, but since the list rules are his to make, obviously this is a moot

> point if he decides that moderators are not allowed freedom with their sig

> lines as other members are.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

>I don't recall using the word 'rules'. Did I?

No, but I thought it was implied. If that's not what you meant, then great.

>

>And sorry - you're telling me does not mean that I know it.

If you still don't know it between it being painfully self-evident, and me

telling you it, then there's nothing more anyone can do.

I may comment that I don't like a

>nutrition list turning into a playground for Christian

>dogmatists, which it has at times, and doesn't seem to disturb you.

IMO, you are throwing around the word " dogmatic " too freely. Everyone is

posting to this list through the lense of their own worldview. It seems like

just about everyone is pretty dogmatic about their own world view - you as

much as anyone posting to the list through a Chrisitian lense. Should I be

disturbed any less by *your* dogmatism than anyone else's?

>

>I'm sure you'll read more into this than is there also. I

>suppose I should just give up.

That sure would be nice.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> However, I'd say that the moderator does represent the list in some fashion,

> and emails from the moderator present some kind of official viewpoint.

If that were true, I'd have to essentially refrain from discussion,

period. It makes no sense whatsoever that the contents of my post

represent my personal views but that my sig line represents the list's

official views.

I think the way I had solved this works quite fine: when I have made

official statements as moderator I have put an ADMIN tag in the

subject line and have signed the post as " (Moderator). " In the

vast majority of my posts that have nothing to do with my capacity as

moderator, I don't do that.

> I've

> at times found the proliferation of dogmatic Christianity troublesome on

> this list, and when the moderator posts such quotations as his signature,

> there is an uncomfortable suggestion that this is a Christian list. At times

> this seems to be so.

I can't see how anyone with any familiarity with the list could see it

this way whatsoever, and a newcomer would probably not even recognize

I was the moderator since most of my posts represent my personal

viewpoint. I think most people are intelligent enough not to think

that someone's sig line represents the official viewpoint of an entire

list regardless, and there is always the danger that a newcomer will

misperceive any variety of things, especially if they come in the

midst of a heated debate. You have voiced your concern numerous times

that you are afraid to recommend the list to people because there are

so many " flaky " views expressed as well. The uncountable number of

things you find offensive or potentially embarassing about the list

are really just par for the course. It isn't a Christian list, it

isn't a flake list, and it isn't a Gene list. Even if the moderator

is it isn't a list.

Chris

--

The Truth About Thyroid Toxins

Get the Cholesterol-And-Health.Com Special Report!

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Special-Reports.html

http://tinyurl.com/2nltuy

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> BTW, I don't know what has decided, IF anything, about moderator's

> sig lines

Suze, earlier today said " my official ruling is that sigs are

part of posts (as they manifestly are) " . So I would assume that what

is in the sig line is pertinent to whether the title of the post gets

the POLITICS or RELIGION label. To me, this makes sense.

/message/92594

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> BTW, I don't know what has decided, IF anything, about moderator's sig

> lines, but since the list rules are his to make, obviously this is a moot

> point if he decides that moderators are not allowed freedom with their sig

> lines as other members are.

said in the Missionaries thread from which this sub-thread

sprouted that sig lines are to be considered as post content, the

implication being that no religious or political sig lines are

acceptable unless the subject line bears the appropriate tag,

moderator or not.

Chris

--

The Truth About Thyroid Toxins

Get the Cholesterol-And-Health.Com Special Report!

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Special-Reports.html

http://tinyurl.com/2nltuy

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>> >And sorry - you're telling me does not mean that I know it.

>

>> >If you still don't know it between it being painfully self-evident, and me

> telling you it, then there's nothing more anyone can do.

>

> Well, it¹s hard to know something if it¹s the conclusion of false assumptions

> + illogic.

>

>>> >>I may comment that I don't like a

>>> >>nutrition list turning into a playground for Christian

>>> >>dogmatists, which it has at times, and doesn't seem to disturb you.

>

>> >IMO, you are throwing around the word " dogmatic " too freely. Everyone is

>> >posting to this list through the lense of their own worldview. It seems like

>> >just about everyone is pretty dogmatic about their own world view - you as

>> >much as anyone posting to the list through a Chrisitian lense. Should I be

>> >disturbed any less by *your* dogmatism than anyone else's?

>

> Well, I think that usually religious dogma is reserved a special place...

>

> Plus ­ I¹m not sure what you¹re argument is. If your permitting one to be

> upset by dogma posted repeatedly to the list, then it¹s ok if I¹m upset by it.

> If not, then I¹m not sure what the point is.

>

> I¹m never one for the old argument that goes something like this: well, in a

> way, everyone does x. Therefore, you have no right to be upset by it in its

> more extreme forms. Well, the fact is that we DO differentiate, and while

> everyone does see the world in their own particular way, most of us find some

> types of Œmissionary work¹ more obnoxious than others. Personally, growing up

> non-Christian, I find it rather annoying (and it occurs way more on this list

> than others that I¹m on) to be the recipient of it. And, given Chris¹

> conception of its essence to Christianity, and the fact that he is a

> Christian, it has felt like the moderator of the list is doing his own

> missionary work via his email signatures.

>

> And, while non-practicing, I grew up Jewish, and I find the same kind of

> attitude of superiority among some Jews (though far fewer), and it annoys me

> just as much. And before you respond in the expected way, I don¹t know really

> how someone could argue that a belief that Christians will be Œsaved¹ while

> non-Christians will not be saved should not be viewed as an expression of

> superiority.

>

> Obviously that doesn¹t bother you. It bothers me. I would have stopped trying

> to clarify what my point is well before now if you didn¹t repeatedly insist on

> not understanding it.

>

[Guest guest]

Are we not all here to discuss and share nourishing concepts? Fault finding

and criticisms are not nourishing. In fact stress and criticisms are perhaps

more harmful than any modern additive found in the supermarket. Please, lets all

spend our time here sharing what we have in common, and not finding fault in our

differences. No one will ever be the same as you. If you don't agree with a

signature line- move on don't let it ruin your day.

---------------------------------

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Autos new Car Finder

tool.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> ³ Are we not all here to discuss and share nourishing concepts? Fault

> finding and criticisms are not nourishing. In fact stress and criticisms are

> perhaps more harmful than any modern additive found in the supermarket.

> Please, lets all spend our time here sharing what we have in common, and not

> finding fault in our differences. No one will ever be the same as you. If

> you don't agree with a signature line- move on don't let it ruin your day.

> ²

>

> Actually, we¹re here to discuss and share concepts about nourishment. Concepts

> are not nourishing in the same way that food is...and sometimes, if we do want

> to use that metaphor, thinking about so called negative things can be

> nourishing, just as analyzing what is bad in our diet.

>

> Note also that this is blatantly an off topic thread ­ in other words, not

> about nourishment.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved down my

throat when what I came here for was information on how to keep my family

healthy.

Lorien

On 6/18/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Actually, we¹re here to discuss and share concepts about nourishment.

> Concepts

> > are not nourishing in the same way that food is...and sometimes, if we

> do want

> > to use that metaphor, thinking about so called negative things can be

> > nourishing, just as analyzing what is bad in our diet.

> >

> > Note also that this is blatantly an off topic thread ­ in other words,

> not

> > about nourishment.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

> christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved

down my

> throat when what I came here for was information on how to keep my

family

> healthy.

>

> Lorien

Then don't read the religious posts or the signature lines. I don't

understand what's so difficult about that.

[Guest guest]

--- Lorien Silverleaf <loriensilverleaf@...> wrote:

> I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

> christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved

> down my throat when what I came here for was information on how to

> keep my family healthy.

Lorien,

Religion does impact nourishment, directly by dogmatic rules that

restrict eating certain foods, like pork or beef or even all meat, for

instance. But religion for some people can be nourishing mentally.

So, I have no problem with religion as long as it's adherents do not

mistakenly believe that their religion is the only source of truth and

become intolerant of other beliefs. When any kind of intolerance

leads to political bias and especially to violence, that to me

unacceptable. I can tolerate religious beliefs, as long as I am not

forced to follow them. In my view posting religious beliefs on this

list does not force me to accept them and if I disagree, I am free to

say so. I agree with that it is best to identify these

discussions with the RELIGION or POLITICS flag so that those who are

not interested can ignore these messages.

[Guest guest]

Lorien,

> I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

> christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved down my

> throat when what I came here for was information on how to keep my family

> healthy.

This thread contains the RELIGION tag in the subject line so that

people who do not wish to read religious topics can either delete it

or set their email server up to filter out any posts with RELIGION in

the subject line. That is the rule on this list. This has been the

rule on the list for several years.

Chris

--

The Truth About Thyroid Toxins

Get the Cholesterol-And-Health.Com Special Report!

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Special-Reports.html

http://tinyurl.com/2nltuy

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Whether you are here or not I have no problem upholding this rule at

> all. However, since it is a new rule, I was not aware of it before

> you made it.

>

It is a new rule, or at least a clarification and extension of an old

one, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

> Were you on-list February 2005? Look at my sig line:

>

> /message/65443

>

> I had the same signature line in 2002:

>

> /message/11719

>

> People have been using political and religious sigs on this list

> without any comment as far as I know.

>

I do remember that sig, but there are three differences between now

and then.

First, the issue didn't come up then. Clarifications and additions

to the rules are generally made in response to issues and

disagreements that come up. Gene complained about overtly religious

sigs, and I thought about it and concluded that because sigs are part

of the posts they terminate, the same tagging rules should apply to

them that apply to message bodies.

Second, you are now a moderator of the group, and as such you have an

added burden to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

And third, though I admit I haven't had the chance to look at the

current messages/sigs in question, the example sigs you refer to

above, while religious, are not advocating a position, and as such

are less likely to trigger list member emotions and an application

(and review) of the rules. It's the difference between a sig that

says " The meek shall inherit the earth " and " Abortion is murder! " , or

" Remember to vote! " and " Rudy Giuliani is an evil transvestite! "

I'm inclined to continue to allow untagged nonpartisan religious and

political sigs provided they're not too long (length being a separate

issue of netiquette) but I'm open to arguments pro or con, and your

present status as a moderator means that such a grey area isn't

really open to you anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

On 6/18/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Personally, growing up non-Christian, I find it rather annoying (and it

occurs way

> more on this list than others that I¹m on) to be the recipient of it. And,

given

>Chris's conception of its essence to Christianity, and the fact that

he is Christian,

> it has felt like the moderator of the list is doing his own missionary work

via his

>semail signatures.

I don't see any substance to your complaint other than that you find

my signature line annoying, and you somehow assume that as a (then)

moderator I should have personally embodied the religious neutrality

of the list in my own posts, which is of course your arbitrary

judgment wherein you believe that others should be subject to the laws

of what does and does not annoy you.

If we look at my policy as moderator toward religion as a whole, or

toward the list as a whole, it may shed some light as to whether I

have been using the list for my own " missionary " activities in some

unacceptalbe way. Let's consider:

1) When I took over the moderator position on this list, it was in

utter chaos. There was rampant posting of religious posts with no use

of the RELIGION tag whatsoever, people accusing other people of being

mental defects because of their sexual orientation and people openly

referring to YOU as a " swine " in the third person right in front of

you.

2) Within the first day I took over I began enforcing the RELIGION tag

rules and within several days the discussion almost ceased. Without

taking action against anyone, I suggested that a tamer off-topic

religious discussion had moved to the point where it was no longer

profitable to hold it on list, and it subsequently dissipated. We

have had, I don't think, absolutely zero religious discussion or close

to it -- even though religious discussion is *allowed* on the list

with the appropriate tagging -- since then.

3) The current religious quarrel began with Renate's statement that it

would be nice for the natives to know God, but if they are already

living in Eden, one wonders what good a materialistic and

paternalistic religion will do them. Despite the relatively

anti-missionary sense of this statement that is in relative, though

obviously not perfect, concordance with your own views, you took such

great offense at the idea that they don't already " know God " that this

current discussion was thus born.

3) When I took over the moderator position several months ago YOU

were on moderation, and if I understand the history correctly this had

both the previous moderator's and the listowner's awareness and

consent. Despite the fact that your posts are consistently contrary

to my religious beliefs and that I am one of perhaps two people with

whom you have repeatedly had personal conflict on list before, it was

my action to take you off moderation as soon as I became moderator.

4) Shortly before I began moderating, some dozen or so people had been

put on moderation. I took ALL of them off moderation and in the few

months during which I moderated the list subsisted in peace without a

single person being put on moderation and with all newcomers being

taken off moderation after it was clear their first post was not spam.

5) My religious sig lines did not come from Scripture and were similar

to the religious sig lines I have been using on and off on this list

for FIVE YEARS.

6) Someone else made several posts to this list with the EXACT SAME

religious sig line that I had been using recently. A number of other

people have been using religious sig lines without comment from

anyone in both times recent and times past and the same is true for

political sig lines. I have not asked anyone to modify their sig

lines regardless of whether the religious or political views expressed

therein were or are consistent with mine or contrary to mine.

So, I would say that on the whole my moderation of religious and

political matters has been even-handed, and moreover 100% consistent

with the list rules that have existed up until 's recent ruling

that religious and political sig lines are not allowed, which I have

consistently obeyed from the point he made the ruling and which I

would have enforced as moderator had it been a rule at the time I was

moderating.

Chris

--

The Truth About Thyroid Toxins

Get the Cholesterol-And-Health.Com Special Report!

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Special-Reports.html

http://tinyurl.com/2nltuy

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> I can't see where this would reasonably be applied to siglines. I'm

> on a LOT

> of lists and see various siglines in the list owners' and

> moderators' posts

> that I never thought to intrepret as some sort of official

> viewpoint. Most

> of them are links to personal or business sites, but I think the same

> principle applies to siglines that are philosophical or religious

> in nature.

Inasmuch as I oppose advertising in sigs, I can't very well exempt

sigs from reasonable tagging requirements that are applied to message

bodies.

The issue just never came up in the past, and admittedly I still

haven't had time to dig up the current messages in question. (If

someone could post or email me a link, I'd be grateful; I have far

too much work to do today, and I have no idea how I'm going to finish

it all.)

> I find this completely absurd considering the owner of this list is as

> " dogmatically " atheist as you perceive to be " dogmatically "

> Christian.

Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled squabbling.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> BTW, I don't know what has decided, IF anything, about

> moderator's sig

> lines, but since the list rules are his to make, obviously this is

> a moot

> point if he decides that moderators are not allowed freedom with

> their sig

> lines as other members are.

I have said absolutely nothing about what moderators are " allowed " to

post in their sigs, except for the same advertising rule that has

always applied to everyone. This is a question of tagging.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> My point was that there is something inherently different for the

> moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator, right) to

> post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

Just to further clarify my position on this matter, I disagree with

the sense that I think you mean. Anyone can have a religious sig

line provided it's not grossly inflammatory (e.g. " You're going to

burn in hell you godless heathen scum! " ). The question is simply one

of tagging.

> I do agree with in the general case, however. I think that the

> signature is a part of the message, in the sense that I have every

> right to reply to it, and also that if it is deemed offensive,

> others will react to it the same way.

The sense I have, though I still have some catching up to do, is that

you're the only one who was bothered by current sigs.

The RELIGION tag, however, was instituted in response to widespread

irritation and discomfort with the extensive religious discussions

that sometimes break out on the list. The tag allows people to

filter out religious messages if they so desire, but it is not

censorship of regulation or speech. As such, I don't think it's

unreasonable to tag based on sigs, but such tagging is inevitably

going to be less important and less rigorously enforced than tagging

based on message bodies.

-

[Guest guest]

And before you respond in the

>expected way, I

>> don¹t know really how someone could argue that a belief that

>> Christians will be Œsaved¹ while non-Christians will not be saved

>> should not be viewed as an expression of superiority.

>>

>> Obviously that doesn¹t bother you. It bothers me. I would

>have stopped

>> trying to clarify what my point is well before now if you didn¹t

>> repeatedly insist on not understanding it.

Arrgghhh....I give up!

See you in Hell. <g>

Suze