Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I think the parameters of particular discussions are pretty obvious if you just pay attention and proceed from the assumption that the world doesn't revolve around you.
For example, if two people are discussing how Christ could be both man and God, and the assumption is he was both, it's really a nuisance for someone to start chiming in that he believes Christ wasn't really God.
If two people are discussing advanced theories of exegesis, it's a nuisance for someone who doesn't even know what exegesis means to chime in and say he thinks that exegezix stuff is a waste of time.
If some people are discussing the ins and outs of LSM's legal wranglings, it's a nuisance for someone to post "LSM stinks to high heaven!" and really have nothing else to add.
This might offend zeek's egalitarian sensibilities, but it's a fact. Everybody is welcome, but every comment is not appropriate, helpful or interesting--and some are just nuisances. When someone's comments begin to be more nuisance than appropriate, we begin to talk about that person as we are doing here.
Why else would we talk about it? Because deep down we feel Harold's scintillating conclusions have shaken the core of our beliefs and we must silence him forthwith?
Please.
|
Then an open forum is not an appropriate setting for the discussion you would like to have. Perhaps a PM, or a forum that is invitation only. By definition, an open forum is open for all to chime in.
What might be more appropriate is if, after holding the open conversation, you might learn there are two or three who are interested in pursuing the conversation without interruption. Then set up an invitation only forum.