Christian Shark Tank

[Mister E]

First of all-- I LOVE that there is a 'safe zone' for unorthodox Christian ideals. Can we be honest though?

It isn't much of a safe zone (whatever that was supposed to be) -is it? I liken it to a Christian Shark Tank. One where there are very sharp-toothed, very dangerous, very unpredictable 'Christian sharks' circling about, just waiting for the next feeding frenzy. The minute the sharks sense a little blood in the water, they congregate- each giving the victim a bump or a nudge. A nip here and a chomp there until the chaos takes over and the victim is devoured.

They 'pretend' it's a safe zone. 'C'mon in! The water's fine!' -but they are maneaters. It's their nature. Their natural response to any who might venture into their habitat and feeding grounds. It was no different when Jesus encountered the same. Well, he didn't call it a pool of sharks- he referred to them as a nest of vipers. A brood. I didn't want copyright infringements. But it's the same picture. In fact, it's the same 'usual suspects.' When he came and shared the things he did- those very unorthodox ideas and ideals- they attacked him just the same. Of those ones he said-

“So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

The same brood. The same family. The sons of the killers of the prophets from A to Z. They were the guardians of orthodoxy and Jesus was univited and yet swimming in their pool. Stirring up and disturbing their nest.

Oh but this is different. This is 'the safe zone' and don't forget-- these here are not Pharisees, no! These 'experts' are "Christian" Sharks.

Friends? Any who might venture into this unorthodox safe zone? Those Christian sharks are the absolute most dangerous kind. They feast on the very flesh and blood of Christ and were Jesus himself to show up here today, they'd circle up on him in a heartbeat if he dared contradict any of their beliefs just as quick as those Pharisees did two thousand years ago. You don't believe it? You could bank on it.

But.... as I said, even if it is disingenuine it's nice that one small corner of this forum exists for the moment. Even if stovebolts reveals himself in calling this supposed safe zone the Rejected Christian Ideas forum, and sets it up so that you have to select "Yes" for the Heresies option to gain access -- at least it's something.

Jesus said-- Let the little children come unto me.

The sharks salivate. Yes--- bring your ideas. We want to hear them. We might buy in.

 

[stovebolts]

I think you've missed the point.

People have very different ideals about Christianity and this particular forum is a place where those ideals can be discussed without moderator or administrator oversight.

We each have personal theological convictions and I am no exception. I could very well niche this site and only accept discussion which I personally agree with. I could also as easily bring staff around me that only agrees with my theological views and instruct them to remove any threads, posts or members that disagree with "our" theological views.

I refuse to do that.

It is very easy for you, as a short-term member of this site who very well may simply be passing through to write such an OP attacking what you don't understand.

If this particular forum or any of the other safe zone forums become a 'shark tank', then I will remove those from it who only wish to devour anyone with a differing opinion.

What I hope to achieve with this particular forum is simply this. Everyone should have an unbridled voice and not be subject to heavy handed moderation from staff who are biased against what they (or I) deem heresy. As such, this forum is a 'safe zone' from heavy handed, biased moderation from staff.

If you have a better idea how to allow discussions from biased moderation, please, by all means let me know. I've only been doing this since 2004 and I am still open to new ideas on how to bring the Body of Christ together to discuss differing opinions.

 

[Mister E]

I made the point pointed.

Your words betray your attitude and heart. All it takes is a quick review of how you and others responds in this ‘safe zone’ to those you disagree with to reveal it for what it really is.

When wolves dress as shepherds they don’t stop being wolves.

In the safe tank there are only a few who dared to swim. None of them survived the effort.

bulmabriefs144

sk0rpi0n​

Rajesh Sahu​

Runner​

 

[stovebolts]

In the safe tank there are only a few who dared to swim. None of them survived the effort.

bulmabriefs144 asked that I ban his account.
sk0rpi0n was banned well before I purchased the site and while I was not on staff.
Rajesh Sahu is still a member and can come and go as he pleases.
It is also worthy to note that sk0rpi0n came back as Rajesh. They are one and the same.
Runner is still a member and can come and go as he pleases.

Your words betray your attitude and heart. All it takes is a quick review of how you and others responds in this ‘safe zone’ to those you disagree with to reveal it for what it really is.

Rajesh Sahu has complimented me several times on how I treated him with respect and dignity, even though we disagreed theologically.

I'm going to pause for a moment... Didn't you tell me somewhere else that people do not want to be censored? What exactly did you mean by that? I am asking because this forum in particular is uncensored. Not only is it uncensored, but I have removed the ability for Moderators to manage the posts in this thread to eliminate bias.

I am a little confused. You are angry because a buddy of yours had a post deleted in a 'regular' moderated forum, so I move the entire thread to this forum where it is free from moderation and now you complain that it's a shark tank?

What would make you happy?

When wolves dress as shepherds they don’t stop being wolves.

While that's a nice saying, how specifically does it apply? What justifies you calling me a wolf in sheep's clothing?

 

[Mister E]

bulmabriefs144 asked that I ban his account.
sk0rpi0n was banned well before I purchased the site and while I was not on staff.
Rajesh Sahu is still a member and can come and go as he pleases.
It is also worthy to note that sk0rpi0n came back as Rajesh. They are one and the same.
Runner is still a member and can come and go as he pleases.


Rajesh Sahu has complimented me several times on how I treated him with respect and dignity, even though we disagreed theologically.

I'm going to pause for a moment... Didn't you tell me somewhere else that people do not want to be censored? What exactly did you mean by that? I am asking because this forum in particular is uncensored. Not only is it uncensored, but I have removed the ability for Moderators to manage the posts in this thread to eliminate bias.

I am a little confused. You are angry because a buddy of yours had a post deleted in a 'regular' moderated forum, so I move the entire thread to this forum where it is free from moderation and now you complain that it's a shark tank?

What would make you happy?

While that's a nice saying, how specifically does it apply? What justifies you calling me a wolf in sheep's clothing?

When someone speaks in a general sense and someone else chooses to personalize that remark- what does that infer?

I’m not mad Bro’ and Runner isn’t my buddy. Just because I was friendly toward him doesn’t mean we were friends. I had a dozen or so interactions with him. I agree with some of the things he said and disagreed with others. We didn’t become friends when we agreed and enemies when we didn’t, but I think some people think that’s how ‘theology’ should be approached.

His complaint centered on how folks are treated here when they disagree. And on “that” point my own observations synched with his opinions. Simple as that.

“Administrators and site moderators will not interfere with these discussions.”

That’s stated to be the case in print, but not in practice. Contacting members in private is also interference. Some of those names that I referred to above testified saying that you or other Moderators contacted them privately telling them that their views were out of step and to stop posting them. They heard similarly from other Moderators, Administrators and Members alike.

And that’s the point I was referencing by starting this thread. To raise a point for discussion isn’t an act of hostility. Yet many people (not just you) think of disagreement as some kind of attack. Can’t it be considered an acceptable launching point for discussion?

I disagree, therefore I MUST dislike.

That’s juvenile. And that was the core of Runner’s complaint- along with the other examples I made note of. What would make me happy? I think it would be great if Christians treated others with respect whether their beliefs agree or not. It would make me happy if folks could present their views without coming under attack and if folks could agree to be respectful even if and especially when they disagree.

 

[stovebolts]

When someone speaks in a general sense and someone else chooses to personalize that remark- what does that infer?

You'll have to give me a specific example. I generally try to avoid inferences.

I’m not mad Bro’ and Runner isn’t my buddy. Just because I was friendly toward him doesn’t mean we were friends. I had a dozen or so interactions with him. I agree with some of the things he said and disagreed with others. We didn’t become friends when we agreed and enemies when we didn’t, but I think some people think that’s how ‘theology’ should be approached.

I don't think that's how theology should be approached either. We are in agreement.

His complaint centered on how folks are treated here when they disagree. And on “that” point my own observations synched with his opinions. Simple as that.

His, as in Runner , correct? Can you show me his complaint? How come I'm hearing his complaint second hand through you? I've tried to make it a point not to talk to members about other members but in this case, I've never heard any complaint from him. We do have a report mechanism that I try to stay on top of. He never used that system, nor did he bring it up to staff in the TWTS forum which you are readily familiar with.

Moving forward, let's talk about your complaint. If other people have a complaint, they can start a private thread in the TWTS forum.

“Administrators and site moderators will not interfere with these discussions.”

This only applies to the forums where it is posted. I have removed all moderator and administrator privileges from the forums where that is posted so they cannot interfere.

That’s stated to be the case in print, but not in practice.

How can that not be the case when I have removed their permissions to moderate?

Contacting members in private is also interference

I disagree. When we moderate, often sending a PM is the best way to discuss the matter and we will continue to use that practice.

Some of those names that I referred to above testified saying that you or other Moderators contacted them privately telling them that their views were out of step and to stop posting them.

You really are in other people's business, aren't you?
Here is the piece I think you are missing. So please, pay careful attention since you haven't been on this site for a few years. There was a time that yes, we, and by we I even mean I have sent members PM's telling them that their theological views were just a bit more than we would allow. I have even banned many members strictly on their theological views.
Currently, one is very hard pressed to get banned on this site. In April I looked around and had what one might call an awakening. The 'Safe Zones' are part of that awakening.

Each 'Safe Zone' forum represents a community of believers or ideas that were once banned or shunned from this site. Furthermore, within those forums I have appointed autonomous 'Overseers' that are pro subject area and I have removed all moderator privileges from our Moderators and Administrators in those forums. This will hopefully ensure that these communities will have a voice on this site within their proper domains.

And that’s the point I was referencing by starting this thread. To raise a point for discussion isn’t an act of hostility. Yet many people (not just you) think of disagreement as some kind of attack. Can’t it be considered an acceptable launching point for discussion?

There will always be disagreement. Disagreement is part of many discussions. However, I am of the opinion that these discussions should be held in a civil and respectful way.

And that's the biggest problem. Until you try and run a site of this magnitude and diversity, you won't fully understand all of the dynamics.

What staff will not become are police officer's nit picking every post. Its a balance of allowing people their voice and keeping thing respectful. This is why we have a TOS. It's to keep a standard set of expectations for everyone and when we edit or remove posts, it is always because of a TOS violation.

I disagree, therefore I MUST dislike.

Again, I agree. But there are those that don't agree. This is where the TOS comes into play as far as moderating is concerned. Listen, I can't sit behind your keyboard and make you be who I want you to be. In other words, I can't control what you or others post and honestly, I don't want to control it. However, I can control how I reply to people, and that includes people I disagree with. I have a strong temperament, but not everyone else does. Sometimes you just have to accept where people are at and learn how to talk to them in a way they understand. Sometimes this is an impossible task.

That’s juvenile. And that was the core of Runner’s complaint- along with the other examples I made note of.

So it's not that a staff member edited his post based on a TOS violation and I moved his thread to this forum so the discussion could continue but rather, his view on a particular topic was so foreign to some of our other members that he didn't have the patience nor tact to continue discussing the matter with him. Got it.

What would make me happy? I think it would be great if Christians treated others with respect whether their beliefs agree or not.

That would make me happy too. And it lines up with the Community Message. But just having the idea doesn't make it so. We have to live that out, and we have to teach others by our example how to achieve that. And part of that starts with extending grace to others or looking at others and saying , "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing". Sometimes love is long suffering, but it always hopes.

It would make me happy if folks could present their views without coming under attack and if folks could agree to be respectful even if and especially when they disagree.

Then be that example the best you can. You can't control other people, but you can learn how to control yourself. I can't do this on my own. I need members like yourself that want the same thing, and try to live that out within every post.

 

[stovebolts]

Mister E
It just occurred to me that I do not have an 'Overseer' for this forum.
Would you like to oversee this forum with complete autonomy to run it as you see fit? My only requirement is that you abide by the Staff Expectations so the way we function is uniform.

 

[Mister E]

Mister E
It just occurred to me that I do not have an 'Overseer' for this forum.
Would you like to oversee this forum with complete autonomy to run it as you see fit? My only requirement is that you abide by the Staff Expectations so the way we function is uniform.

That sounds like asking if anyone would like to be a cop in Chicago.

Here’s a uniform— don’t say anything to anyone. Don’t touch anyone. Don’t look at anyone.

—-umm aren’t you going to give me a gun?

No. No guns, they’re too dangerous. You could hurt someone.

Okay, how about a whistle?

No. No whistles. Too offensive.


— wait one sec— this isn’t a uniform you gave me. It’s a target.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That sounds like asking if anyone would like to be a cop in Chicago.

Here’s a uniform— don’t say anything to anyone. Don’t touch anyone. Don’t look at anyone.

—-umm aren’t you going to give me a gun?

No. No guns, they’re too dangerous. You could hurt someone.

Okay, how about a whistle?

No. No whistles. Too offensive.


— wait one sec— this isn’t a uniform you gave me. It’s a target.

I think he’s asking you to step into his or a moderators shoes and see if you can do better.

But I do agree with it being assumed one is emotional when disagreeing. But that is likely cultural. Our study group
didn’t know how to handle anyone disagreeing either. It was seen as a rude challenge so matter how worded.

 

[stovebolts]

I think he’s asking you to step into his or a moderators shoes and see if you can do better.

But I do agree with it being assumed one is emotional when disagreeing. But that is likely cultural. Our study group
didn’t know how to handle anyone disagreeing either. It was seen as a rude challenge so matter how worded.

Very close to what I'm asking.

 

[stovebolts]

That sounds like asking if anyone would like to be a cop in Chicago.

Here’s a uniform— don’t say anything to anyone. Don’t touch anyone. Don’t look at anyone.

—-umm aren’t you going to give me a gun?

No. No guns, they’re too dangerous. You could hurt someone.

Okay, how about a whistle?

No. No whistles. Too offensive.


— wait one sec— this isn’t a uniform you gave me. It’s a target.

So I'm your target. I think I'm catching on to this game you're playing with me.
Game over friend.
If you're not going to step into a role to make a difference, then I think our conversation is over. I'm not going to be your sounding board to beat on because you don't like something yet aren't willing to step into a role where you can actually make a difference.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think a lot of these kinds of interactions are character tests. Am I’m not at all sure that God isn’t taking notes too. Tests of this kind are also training.

I mean the offer given and the response.

 

[Mister E]

So I'm your target. I think I'm catching on to this game you're playing with me.
Game over friend.
If you're not going to step into a role to make a difference, then I think our conversation is over. I'm not going to be your sounding board to beat on because you don't like something yet aren't willing to step into a role where you can actually make a difference.

I didn't mean to come off like that. I guess I don't understand what it means- to be an "Overseer" and I personally don't like the title. I wouldn't want if for myself, nor Deacon or Elder or Rabbi.... I don't like those kinds of titles. I would be in favor of something like 'Facilitator' or 'Conversation Enthusiast' lol.... Something without overtones. Moderator would be fine as well- it's just that there seems to be a distinction that I don't yet understand between the overseer and moderator roles. And people hate to be moderated. I helped run another Christian forum where the only rule was 'be nice' and people couldn't. They couldn't be decent to one another when they disagreed. It's human nature. One of our flaws that must be overcome.

This sub forum would be almost impossible to moderate in that it would be 'the dumping ground for those Christian ideas that are not widely accepted as orthodox Christian teachings." The danger is that by definition it pits the "accepted" ideas as acceptable and the unorthodox as unacceptable-- hence the "dumping ground" allusion. Like kids on playground equipment, there is a sense of "we were here first" by the orthodox crowd that requires the unorthodox not only to present themselves, but also to displace the orthodox in order to have standing. Though it's meaningless in terms of evaluating a new idea, the orthodox kids will ask-- "How old are you?" Unorthodox- "I'm five." Orthodox- "Well I'm seven! -so you can't play here."

I think the role of the facilitator here would be essentially guarding the playground and preventing the takeover of all the conversations by the orthodox kids, and that would surely enrage them, would it not? They are quite used to having things their own way. When a red-headed new kid shows up-- their first instinct is to chase him off, or throw some rocks. Tell me I'm wrong.

To return to my original/opening post- You are asking me to be a lifeguard in the shark tank and to protect the poor chum that finds his or herself surrounded by malnourished parties that haven't really come for entertainment. If that's what you are asking me to do-- sure. I can do that.

 

[hawkman]

I didn't mean to come off like that. I guess I don't understand what it means- to be an "Overseer" and I personally don't like the title. I wouldn't want if for myself, nor Deacon or Elder or Rabbi.... I don't like those kinds of titles. I would be in favor of something like 'Facilitator' or 'Conversation Enthusiast' lol.... Something without overtones.

I guess "Boss Man" is out of the question . You could be the " Hall Monitor" and maybe we could get you an armband . Hey I got it ! "The Dude " .
Kidding aside you will do fine Mister E .

 

[Mister E]

I guess "Boss Man" is out of the question . You could be the " Hall Monitor" and maybe we could get you an armband . Hey I got it ! "The Dude " .
Kidding aside you will do fine Mister E .

Brilliant! Forum Dude. I love it. Or the unorthodox dude.

Being from California, it fits perfectly. We could have a thread dedicated entirely to Duderonomy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Brilliant! Forum Dude. I love it. Or the unorthodox dude.

Being from California, it fits perfectly. We could have a thread dedicated entirely to Duderonomy.

I like “hall monitor” and it made me laugh out loud. I think I am one but only in the Preterist section. So, my boy, just get out of line in that section and you’ll experience a different Dorothy Mae.

I hope you laughed. I told my teenage boy that once. He was acting up and I had one serious talk with him. Went like this,.

“Son, you seem to think I’m afraid of you and won’t dare correct you. That I am soft. Well I’m here to here you I’m not the least afraid and if you keep going the way you are, you’re going to experience an entirely different Mother!” The last three words were slightly slower and a tick louder. It worked. The untoward behavior stopped “tuit suite.”

 

[stovebolts]

I didn't mean to come off like that.

yet you did

I guess I don't understand what it means- to be an "Overseer"

Because you're too busy speaking your mind airing your grievances to listen, let alone try to understand what I've been trying to say to you both in this thread and in other threads. God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. You need to become a better listener instead of a talker.

I personally don't like the title. I wouldn't want if for myself, nor Deacon or Elder or Rabbi.... I don't like those kinds of titles.

got it

I would be in favor of something like 'Facilitator' or 'Conversation Enthusiast' lol.... Something without overtones.

I don't know what overtones you are tagging to 'Overseer'. From my perspective, it communicates that said person is overseeing a specific area. If you look at Dorothy Mae 's title, it says preterist overseer. Short, simple and to the point. The term Overseer stays. It's not negotiable.

Moderator would be fine as well

No, Moderator indicates an overall site function. Moderators can "moderate" across the board with the exception of the "safe zones" which are safe from moderation by a Moderator. Instead, an Overseer has autonomy within their forum to run it as they see fit.. and once again, I'm repeating myself to you.

it's just that there seems to be a distinction that I don't yet understand between the overseer and moderator roles.

please see above reply. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer to you. But if you still don't understand, why don't you start asking questions where your confusion lives. I have no idea what confuses you but obviously my repeating myself numerous times isn't clearing it up.

And people hate to be moderated.

People hate a lot of different things. question is, what brings order? In the case of Runner , apparently, he hated that his opponents were not moderated. You will never make everyone happy. Perhaps Runner didn't understand that by me moving his thread to this forum, he was free from moderation by staff.

I helped run another Christian forum where the only rule was 'be nice' and people couldn't. They couldn't be decent to one another when they disagreed. It's human nature. One of our flaws that must be overcome.

Last year I and staff spent a tremendous amount of time trying to get people to be nice to one another. These same people justify their bad behavior because they think they have the theological high ground. It's like it's their pass to be a jerk. Very rarely do they get off their high horse and do some introspection on their poor attitude and behavior. For them, it's more important to be self rightous than to allow somebody else to think differently than they do. Very few actually overcome this.

This sub forum would be almost impossible to moderate in that it would be 'the dumping ground for those Christian ideas that are not widely accepted as orthodox Christian teachings.

Things are impossible when one believes they are impossible. That could make you a victim instead of taking responsibility for what you can do to make a difference. Not many things are impossible when one puts their mind to it. I learned a long time ago its real easy to throw rocks at things you don't like, but it takes effort to get in there and make something what you want it to be. Some things should anger us, but that anger should be used to improve the situation, not make it worse by becoming a part of the problem.

The danger is that by definition it pits the "accepted" ideas as acceptable and the unorthodox as unacceptable-- hence the "dumping ground" allusion. Like kids on playground equipment, there is a sense of "we were here first" by the orthodox crowd that requires the unorthodox not only to present themselves, but also to displace the orthodox in order to have standing. Though it's meaningless in terms of evaluating a new idea, the orthodox kids will ask-- "How old are you?" Unorthodox- "I'm five." Orthodox- "Well I'm seven! -so you can't play here."

Some things are unorthodox or heresies. I don't mind calling things what they are. In our modern era, I won't call a boy a girl and I won't call a girl a boy just because they want to be called by a different pronoun.
As far as how others view the matter is up to them. But what matters more is how they interact with one another. We have members that despise calvinism, yet I have a hyper calvinist running his forum in the manner of his choosing. I have members that think the catholic church is the anti-christ, yet I have a catholic overseeing a catholic forum the way he thinks best. By design, this keeps a site moderator, or Administrator from moderating with their bias against a topic they are against and it assures that these groups that represent Christianity have their voice on this site. They cannot be silenced nor can they be moderated.

I think the role of the facilitator here would be essentially guarding the playground and preventing the takeover of all the conversations by the orthodox kids, and that would surely enrage them, would it not?

I generally don't make decisions because I'm afraid of stepping on toes. I make decisions that will ensure different voices within Christianity have a place at the table with the hope that it will bring the Body of Christ closer to reconciliation than division. Right now there is much division and if people loose their place at the table, reconciliation will never occur.

When a red-headed new kid shows up-- their first instinct is to chase him off, or throw some rocks. Tell me I'm wrong.

You are not wrong and the word I use is Tribalism. Again, this is why I created "safe zones". I hope you are starting to understand now why I've set up the 'safe zones'. Each tribe has a seat at the table and each tribe has it's own authority where it cannot be kicked out.

To return to my original/opening post- You are asking me to be a lifeguard in the shark tank and to protect the poor chum that finds his or herself surrounded by malnourished parties that haven't really come for entertainment. If that's what you are asking me to do-- sure. I can do that.

No, that's not what I was asking you to do because that in and of itself lacks vision and would reduce your role to a mere police man policing others around looking for infractions.

 

[Mister E]

I don't know what overtones you are tagging to 'Overseer'. From my perspective, it communicates that said person is overseeing a specific area. If you look at @Dorothy Mae 's title, it says preterist overseer. Short, simple and to the point. The term Overseer stays. It's not negotiable.

It's the "over" part, if I wasn't clear. Your pride makes you rigid.

People hate a lot of different things. question is, what brings order? In the case of @Runner , apparently, he hated that his opponents were not moderated. You will never make everyone happy. Perhaps Runner didn't understand that by me moving his thread to this forum, he was free from moderation by staff.

Maybe instead of taking offence, which you obviously have, you should have considered the things he was saying. I guess those things didn't make you happy. You wonder why (or maybe you don't) people come here and stay only a short while? This is the vast majority. 9000 members and about 50 online at any given moment. More casual readers than actual posters. It's illustrated by the way you treat folks (like me or Runner, or anyone else) that dares share their observations. You get offended. That's pride mate. Check yo'self before you start tongue lashing with childish garbage like this>>

God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. You need to become a better listener instead of a talker.

How many ears did God give you? Oh I forgot-- you are OVER everyone else.

No, that's not what I was asking you to do.

Your nose is bent. I'll leave you with it.

 

[Edward]

I remember that episode of shark tank. It wasn't anything like that. The kid made a deal with a shark and they weren't talking to him like that.

 

[stovebolts]

It's the "over" part, if I wasn't clear. Your pride makes you rigid.

It's not so much that I'm rigid as I'm not going to restructure the entire board because you have something against the title I used. I want consistency where I can. So if I take pride in anything, it's the idea of consistancy and certainly not my ego.

Maybe instead of taking offence, which you obviously have, you should have considered the things he was saying.

First off, I'm not sure why you assume I've taken offense to anything he was saying. Are you still on the rant that you're mad at me for moving his thread into a 'safe zone' where he was no longer being moderated? That's just getting a little silly. Let it go. He has the right to a voice at the table without being moderated as much as anybody. Don't be angry or upset because I placed his thread in a forum that allowed him a voice.

I guess those things didn't make you happy.

What on earth are you talking about?

You wonder why (or maybe you don't) people come here and stay only a short while?

You seem to think that I have some magic wand to bring everyone together. I don't. People are going to do what people do. I don't get that deep into their heads.

This is the vast majority. 9000 members and about 50 online at any given moment.

I've been a member here since 2004. I've seen a lot of different things over the years. I don't see the significance in your observation.

More casual readers than actual posters.

That's usually the case.

It's illustrated by the way you treat folks (like me or Runner, or anyone else) that dares share their observations.

I've had little to zero interaction with Runner, and I really wish you would stop speaking for him.
I believe I have given you your voice. Simply put, you don't like it when others speak to you the way that you speak to them. You complain how others can be so mean, yet here you are how many days later? How many different threads?
And for what? One post was removed because he violated the TOS. I found out about it, moved his thread to a forum that was out of reach for Moderators and Administrators, restored the post that was removed and three days later you're still ranting about how bad I treat members. Ok, got it. You have the right to think and feel anyway you like. My conscience is clean.

You get offended. That's pride mate.

Let's call the kettle black my friend... you sure are offended that I moved somebody else thread and restored their post. How many more days is this going to go on?

Check yo'self before you start tongue lashing with childish garbage like this>>

Then why do you repeat yourself over and over about what the safe zones are and how they function? You don't listen and if you do, when you get confused you don't ask for clarification. Learn to listen and ask questions that help you get out of your state of confusion. Instead, you let your imagination run wild and you keep typing and typing and typing.

How many ears did God give you? Oh I forgot-- you are OVER everyone else.

I am who I need to be and I choose not to put myself "over" you. However, God has put me "Over" this forum. It wasn't my choosing. I am doing the best I know how.

Your nose is bent. I'll leave you with it.

I don't even know what that means.

When I asked you if you wanted to oversee this particular forum, I was serious when I asked. However, if you can't resolve issues with me, then I can't trust you to resolve issues with other people.