39 replies to this topic

[Kay]

Could we have one or two volunteers to moderate the debate in "The Pankration" between Fortigurn and
Asyncritus?

Hyperion did offer his services and also Huldah, Huldah is still moderating, but because Hyperion has more pressing matters, "Real Life", as we all do from time to time Huldah needs some help.

One or two would be fine, which means you can move and remove or comment and edit others posts.

Please PM me or one of the other moderators, Cdelph, Huldah, Dianne etcetera.

[Asyncritus]

Kay

As no one seems to be forthcoming, would Huldah mind carrying on by herself? It's not too onerous a job, as we are behaving ourselves pretty well I thought.

Or should we move it into the main Eschatology forum so everyone can have a say?

[Huldah]

Asyncritus, it is very onerous when you are both very wordy. Agree to cut down on your word counts and I'll continue, otherwise, it will be too unweldy for me.

I have 50 essays to mark by tomorrow...

[Asyncritus]

Huldah, on Jan 22 2006, 12:07 PM, said:

Asyncritus, it is very onerous when you are both very wordy. Agree to cut down on your word counts and I'll continue, otherwise, it will be too unweldy for me.

I have 50 essays to mark by tomorrow...

I'll be short. Hmm, better rephrase that somehow!

[Fortigurn]

Huldah, on Jan 22 2006, 08:07 PM, said:

Asyncritus, it is very onerous when you are both very wordy. Agree to cut down on your word counts and I'll continue, otherwise, it will be too unweldy for me.

I have 50 essays to mark by tomorrow...

I submitted to the Mods and to the debate discussion thread a suggestion for reform in this area, as well as a request that the debate guideslines be enforced (to date they have not yet been enforced).

I would like that suggestion to be taken under consideration. I have a reply ready to post, but I see no advantage in continuing unless something like my suggestion is undertaken, and the debate guidelines are enforced.

Edited by Fortigurn, 22 January 2006 - 01:24 PM.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 22 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

Huldah, on Jan 22 2006, 08:07 PM, said:

Asyncritus, it is very onerous when you are both very wordy. Agree to cut down on your word counts and I'll continue, otherwise, it will be too unweldy for me.

I have 50 essays to mark by tomorrow...

I submitted to the Mods and to the debate discussion thread a suggestion for reform in this area, as well as a request that the debate guideslines be enforced (to date they have not yet been enforced).

I would like that suggestion to be taken under consideration. I have a reply ready to post, but I see no advantage in continuing unless something like my suggestion is undertaken, and the debate guidelines are enforced.

What suggestion is that?

[Kay]

Winston I think has offered to be a moderator on this forum, or he enquired about it.

We just have to go through the process of approval of moderators then we can get back on track with the moderation of this trhead.

A day or two perhaps (however, will raise the matter with Winston again).

k

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 01:10 AM, said:

What suggestion is that?

That a strict word limit be set and enforced, and that word limit be 3,000 words. I also wish to suggest that all posts contain only information directly relevant to Revelation (we should not be still debating the meaning of other prophecies such as Zechariah 12, Joel 3, and the Olivet prophecy).

Any additional points which we wish to raise, should be written in a Word document and attached to our post, so that people can read the main argument in the post, and download and read any auxillary points if they wish to do so (but they won't have to wade through them in the post itself).

[Fortigurn]

Kay, on Jan 23 2006, 05:24 AM, said:

Winston I think has offered to be a moderator on this forum, or he enquired about it.

We just have to go through the process of approval of moderators then we can get back on track with the moderation of this trhead.

A day or two perhaps (however, will raise the matter with Winston again).

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 22 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 01:10 AM, said:

What suggestion is that?

That a strict word limit be set and enforced, and that word limit be 3,000 words. I also wish to suggest that all posts contain only information directly relevant to Revelation (we should not be still debating the meaning of other prophecies such as Zechariah 12, Joel 3, and the Olivet prophecy).

Any additional points which we wish to raise, should be written in a Word document and attached to our post, so that people can read the main argument in the post, and download and read any auxillary points if they wish to do so (but they won't have to wade through them in the post itself).

Given Huldah's time constraints, and given that the points now being thrashed out have already had some exposure, 3000 may be a bit much don't you think?

I didn't think we were debating Zech 12, OP and Joel 3. I wasn't anyway. Those passages must come into any interpretation of Revelation, and a blanket ban on discussing them, relevantly of course, will be counterproductive. I have made use of the gospels mainly, with illustrative utilisation of various other passages. It is impossible to interpret the Revelation without extensive use of other Scriptures.

Edited by Asyncritus, 23 January 2006 - 09:11 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Jan 22 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 01:10 AM, said:

What suggestion is that?

That a strict word limit be set and enforced, and that word limit be 3,000 words. I also wish to suggest that all posts contain only information directly relevant to Revelation (we should not be still debating the meaning of other prophecies such as Zechariah 12, Joel 3, and the Olivet prophecy).

Any additional points which we wish to raise, should be written in a Word document and attached to our post, so that people can read the main argument in the post, and download and read any auxillary points if they wish to do so (but they won't have to wade through them in the post itself).

Given Huldah's time constraints, and given that the points now being thrashed out have already had some exposure, 3000 may be a bit much don't you think?

You're right, I am being generous for your sake. I would prefer a limit of 1,000 words.

Quote

I didn't think we were debating Zech 12, OP and Joel 3. I wasn't anyway.

We certainly have been.

Quote

Those passages must come into any interpretation of Revelation, and a blanket ban on discussing them, relevantly of course, will be counterproductive. I have made use of the gospels mainly, with illustrative utilisation of various other passages. It is impossible to interpret the Revelation without extensive use of other Scriptures.

I'm not saying they will be forbidden. I have simply said that the exposition of these passages should not be included in the main posts. Such exposition should be included in an attached file for the audience to read or not as they choose. We can refer in our main posts to extra points made in this file.

[Asyncritus]

Quote

I'm not saying they will be forbidden. I have simply said that the exposition of these passages should not be included in the main posts. Such exposition should be included in an attached file for the audience to read or not as they choose. We can refer in our main posts to extra points made in this file.

This is going to be tricky, and is headed down the see here, here, here route again. Why don't we simply use footnotes which may or may not be read at will, and which do not count towards the 1000 word per post limit, so the moderators won't have the burden of necessarily having to read them ?

And which will not be referred to saying, I've already directed you to...in footnote X, since they will merely be for the convenience of the more interested readers. They may be quoted in the main text, but not used as a baseball bat.

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

Quote

I'm not saying they will be forbidden. I have simply said that the exposition of these passages should not be included in the main posts. Such exposition should be included in an attached file for the audience to read or not as they choose. We can refer in our main posts to extra points made in this file.

This is going to be tricky, and is headed down the see here, here, here route again.

No it's not. It's simply going to be 'See attached'.

Quote

Why don't we simply use footnotes which may or may not be read at will, and which do not count towards the 1000 word per post limit, so the moderators won't have the burden of necessarily having to read them ?

You might as well put them in an attached Word document.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 23 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 23 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

Quote

I'm not saying they will be forbidden. I have simply said that the exposition of these passages should not be included in the main posts. Such exposition should be included in an attached file for the audience to read or not as they choose. We can refer in our main posts to extra points made in this file.

This is going to be tricky, and is headed down the see here, here, here route again.

No it's not. It's simply going to be 'See attached'.

Quote

Why don't we simply use footnotes which may or may not be read at will, and which do not count towards the 1000 word per post limit, so the moderators won't have the burden of necessarily having to read them ?

You might as well put them in an attached Word document.

That's assuming you know how to attach a Word document, and that having attached a Word document, the readers know how to open it. I'll write footnotes and separate them clearly from the main text. You do the Word document thing. That way we're both happy.

Any news from Winston, Kay?

[Kay]

I have changed Winston's status to BTDF Armoury (think I was supposed to get back to him, and slack Kay didn't) - and sent him a message, so Winston can now confirm in this thread his willingness to moderate the debate.

[Asyncritus]

Kay, on Jan 24 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

I have changed Winston's status to BTDF Armoury (think I was supposed to get back to him, and slack Kay didn't) - and sent him a message, so Winston can now confirm in this thread his willingness to moderate the debate.

What's BTDF Armoury? For that matter, what's MD?

[Asyncritus]

Are we ready to go again?

[Winston]

I'm here

For my benefit, what's the basic premise of the debate? Some of the conditions appear at the beginning of this thread. Is that it?

[Evangelion]

Asyncritus, on Jan 24 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

Kay, on Jan 24 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

I have changed Winston's status to BTDF Armoury (think I was supposed to get back to him, and slack Kay didn't) - and sent him a message, so Winston can now confirm in this thread his willingness to moderate the debate.

What's BTDF Armoury?

Managers for The Armoury.

Quote

For that matter, what's MD?

Mature Discussion.

[Fortigurn]

Winston, on Feb 1 2006, 05:51 AM, said:

I'm here

For my benefit, what's the basic premise of the debate? Some of the conditions appear at the beginning of this thread. Is that it?

[Asyncritus]

Evangelion, on Jan 31 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 24 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

Kay, on Jan 24 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

I have changed Winston's status to BTDF Armoury (think I was supposed to get back to him, and slack Kay didn't) - and sent him a message, so Winston can now confirm in this thread his willingness to moderate the debate.

What's BTDF Armoury?

Managers for The Armoury.

Quote

For that matter, what's MD?

Mature Discussion.

If its OK with Huldah, it's your turn to bat, I think, Fort. 1000 max.

Edited by Asyncritus, 01 February 2006 - 08:30 AM.

[Huldah]

I've reopened the thread...

[Fortigurn]

I'm away for the next two days.

[Winston]

sorry...what's the topic for the debate?

[Fortigurn]

Winston, on Feb 2 2006, 06:07 AM, said:

sorry...what's the topic for the debate?

Here.

[Fortigurn]

When there is agreement on the word limit for each post, I will make my reply.

[Huldah]

I'm very busy for the next month and may not be able to keep up with the moderating.

Winston, I'll leave this debate in your capable hands, until mid March.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Feb 7 2006, 10:35 PM, said:

When there is agreement on the word limit for each post, I will make my reply.

Remind me?

[Winston]

Huldah, on Feb 8 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

I'm very busy for the next month and may not be able to keep up with the moderating.

Winston, I'll leave this debate in your capable hands, until mid March.

That's a bit of an assumption isn't it

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Feb 8 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

Fortigurn, on Feb 7 2006, 10:35 PM, said:

When there is agreement on the word limit for each post, I will make my reply.

Remind me?

See earlier posts in this thread.