I'm starting to think that one of the rules needed is a ban on what is termed "fire-hosing" another persons idea. Someone has already said it here that we need to build on and add to what has been said, not slam it or make fun of it or drag it through the dirt. (Sorry, I guess I said almost the same thing last night, but I really didn't mean to. I just went back are reread what I had written. Oops, my bad.)

I love the idea of using a thread here as a "think tank" where you can really say what is on your heart, knowing that you will not be "laughed at". I for one, though, appreciate it when someone places a quote in the forum because I do not like having to leave the forum just to look something up. (Maybe I'm just lazy?) OTH, I really dislike reading something over and over. In fact, most of the time I just skip the quotes unless I need them. Really though, isn't that what our brains are for, weeding out the unwanted?

Bravus, I'm thinking that this idea was aimed at me and what I posted a few days ago, "Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012 ...". That article was not meant to keep dragging the issue of scaring people, but I really wanted to know what people thought of that post. I got it from my dad. Just trying again to look at all sides. I was thinking that maybe I would see it in a new light, find something NEW.

Back to our topic here. I really like the idea of a "Think Tank" right here in this thread. I am just wondering what others use as their "rules"? Maybe we should take a look before we "reinvent the wheel".

I searched for "think tank rules" and here are a couple of links:

http://academic.regis.edu/volunteer/ivan/sect03/sect03e.htm

This set of rules seems to have the basics, as long as you can leave out the comments related to volunteering. The two main processes seem to be understanding the "why" and the "what if" of ideas.

http://thinktank.wpi.edu/Rules

This set of rules seems to be related mostly to long posts/submissions, but two rules stand out. One is kind of what Tom has already said:
Articles and links that have already been uploaded previously will not be approved a second time. .

There other is actually a short list of unwanted items:
Articles will not be approved if they contain any of the following:
Crude language
Vulgar content or mention of any illegal activities
Disrespectful remarks
Gross spelling or grammatical errors
Clearly unverified statements


What do you think Tom, want to start a brand new thread and state the rules for us? I have never been involved in a "think tank" and find it appealing to imagine. I think we should try it. Do you have something in mind to start us out?

Stan, if this actually gets going you might have to move it into it's own "box".

That's great. And you can have that on all the other forum here. But this forum has decided to ban such quotes. I can verify this as having my small quotes deleted. What I find interesting is the selective allowing of some quotes such as what LifeHisCost has done in four of his posts.

Perhaps the moderator could clarify what quotes he allows and what selection process he goes through to allow said quotes. Or does LifeHisCost just have a free pass?

Maybe "Tom Wetmore" and "LifeHisCost" are the same person and he gets to do what he wants? Actually I didn't know that there were set rules yet, only that we were talking about them. I am surprised that some quotes have already been deleted.

Perhaps you are right.

Thank you for clarifying the point, Bravus. Although I happen to see myself as a loose cannon, I do know that the style can grate against the preferences of others. Recently I withdrew from a Sabbath group because I perceived the person/s in charge felt there was too much contention caused by putting forth ideas foremost from the Scriptures.
I recall another illustrious figure Who ran into this problem also and I do believe this is going to be a greater and greater problem, especially as we see the day of the Lord drawing closer. As a primary example we can already see any public reference to certain aberrant human behavior being legislated as hate crimes in various places in the U.S.

As to what I think, I do feel safe in saying I think the ideas presented from particular Scriptures defines the principle/s (or sometimes lack)of good conduct as espoused by the Creator.
And I also think that what I think personally is of little consequence in establishing foundational truth, especially if it is revealed to contradict or conflict with readily understood Scripture.
God Bless!

I think it is all in the presentation.

If one presents scripture as 'thus says the Lord' ... THIS is what the Word of God says. When in reality ... you are saying that scripture says what your particular interpretation is.

OR ... we can say ... this is 'one' way to look at the subject and then quote scripture. OR ... this is the way I interpret the issue from this particular text.

It is the dogmatic quoting of scripture that drives people away from it.

Patience Humility and Tolerance goes a long ways ....

Just a quick one here:

1. I'm not the moderator of this thread and neither is Tom Wetmore - this is part of the Town Hall forum and is therefore moderated by John317.

2. As I understand it, the 'no quotes' rules applies to the new Original Thoughts forum, but not to this thread *about* that forum in Town Hall. As such there's no inconsistency between removing your quotes there, Redwood, and allowing LifeHisCost's quotes here.

Each moderator still has the right to set the tone of their forum.

...and LifeHisCost has not participated in the Original Thoughts Forum yet.