Hello....Looky what we have here?


Tom, you moderating this bird?

Not that I am aware of. I think Bravus set this up. He has the moderator super-powers and skills for this.

Am thinking, that Stan set that up, and that he fixed it this morning. Stan is also thinking that he will resize the picture to be the same size as the other the pictures. Stan hopes he was the first to think this.
:)

Like wow, dude! The amazing Stan the man on top of things with his ultra-super admin skills at work... And quick as a flash. Neil, that answers your question.

Thanks, Stan for putting this train of thought on track. May it never have a caboose. (That is a twist on what my office assistant likes to periodically remind me when I am in never-ending brainstorming mode, or just rambling on and on about something. She will ask me if this train of thought has a caboose... Sometimes she just makes a low train whistle sound... )

HEY ALL

WOW NEW AVENUE AND CHANGE

THIS WILL BE EXCITING.


dgrimm60

I have an original thought.

I think.

Yes. I do. It is ... I hate the rule that you can't even repeat yourself. I may need to do that because others may not believe my original thought. Whatever it is.

HEY REDWOOD



YES if you have to restate you thought
then it might help the person understand....



dgrimm60

Sort of like shouting slowly in English to a non-English speaking person in hopes that will help them understand better...

Now Now ... Whoops that's repeating myself. But I was going to say that you repeated yourself and will now be subject to moderation.

Edited ... Well ... it looks like you got moderated and your post deleted. Wow. The moderation here is quick.

Exactly .... And if only they understood what EGW was saying in those quotes ... if only they could get in her mind ... they would know what I have said is true. Perhaps if I spoke it louder they would know it is truth.

Yes....yes it does [answer my question]....

I don't know if this is legal or not, but I wonder if this type of quoting is 'leagal'..I quote to give reference only...IOWs, Tom, you have posted so many origional thoughts that one can not address them without some sort of reference....Am I allowed this type of quoting? [No - TW]

Now, I am one to give credit where credit is due...And Tom, I have to give you credit...for stealing the origional thought of your office assistant...:-)

HEY ALL

SO how much of repeating your self is not
accepted here????

and now much of repeating is allowed???


just wondering???


dgrimm60

I think (oops, speaking for Tom) that the goal is to say it once, say it clearly and then assume people are smart enough to understand it - and if they don't agree, it's probably *not* because they didn't understand or didn't listen, it's for one of the dozens of other reasons people disagree. I certainly know that for me endless repetition tends to *reduce*, rather than aid comprehension. And in reference to prayer the Bible says not to use endless repetition.

And... "A QUOTER!!! BURN HIM!!!"

I think one of the underlying principles here is 'assume your interlocutors are smart'. Do we *really* need a quote to remind us of what was said 4 posts ago? I don't think so - either we can remember or we can read back.

It's possible to refer someone back to a particular point, if the thread is as messy and many-topiced as many threads here get, without quoting: "A page or so ago Derek was talking about XX and in relation to that I think YY..."

HEY BRAVUS

I think that quoting the bible chap and ver
would be acceptable here as well as other forums

dgrimm60

Yes, I think saying 'Matthew 8:4' and letting people go look it up is better than copying and pasting the text from an online bible or software passage.

Re: endless repetition -

at the risk of violating the cardinal rule, the Matt 6:7 says 'vain' not 'endless' repetitions, and the Greek battalogeo refers to "babbling," so the emphasis is on emptiness, not repeating. After all, the four living creatures in Rev 4 "Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."

Although apparently endless, those repetitions do not seem to qualify as vain. Sometimes, the only way people get a point is when it is repeated.

Ah, I'd heard it rendered as 'endless' in some translations. Fair enough though.

Still, one man's vain babbling is another man's crucial thought, at least in his own eyes. Good luck making the distinction stick...

Did either you or cardw learn anything new from the last few pages of the morals and ethics thread? Are you aware of readers who did? Not having a go at you, asking because it's a current example of the kind of thing Tom seems to be talking about.

Bravus is understanding the evolving spirit of this place. One can reference, for continuity of response and comment without cluttering with quote boxes. And the referenced endlessly prolonged topic is a most apt example of what prompted this whole adventure into a fresh approach...

I rather like, and do prefer citing the text reference for your favorite verse and letting the readers pick up the Bible and read it for themselves. Two... no three purposes are served by doing so - 1.) Staying consistent with the premise of this place; 2.) Forcing interested readers to go to their Bible themselves; and 3.) fostering a broad view of Scripture without quibbling over versions, etc.

I will be exercising editorial privilege to posts that I see that violate the basic premise. For the time being I will mark them as edited with a brief explanation. If the remaining post is unclear as a result I will do a minimal edit in brackets to avoid confusion. I am using this thread as a practice for this new role. Consider it an instructive/learning arena for what I would like to see achieved here.

One other thing - Old topics are not forbidden here if you can put a fresh perspective on them. Even combining two old ideas in a new and novel approach are encouraged. Find two common things that have never been considered together and mix them up. Consider Chris Rice's song "Smell the Color Nine" as our theme song.

Don't think that I require or expect such utterly esoteric and original topics that only genius can unravel or even comprehend. Sometimes the simplest of new ideas are the most profound. In the original topic that spawned this brainstorming forum I may have set the bar rather high with the suggested topic of applying a stochastic process to theories of time to see how it might shed light on the prophetic gift and to contemplate if God's view of history might resemble an infinite time fractal. I was delighted with the google no hit confirmation that this was an original combination concept. It illustrated the objective I was after most perfectly! Bravus' topic on God and Time is an excellent run at trying to think through and unraveling that topic.

Think.

I prefer 'snippets' to long endless quotes.

[In answer to Bravus' question,] I cannot speak for another. Learning, however, is volitional. For the seeing eye, I think that debate was quite instructive. IN addition, reaffirmation is also an important kind of learning, even if it is not 'new.'

Good luck making the distinction stick...

The point is that disallowing repetition and quotation -- even if possible, which I doubt -- will not produce the desired results.


Do you see a lot of learning going on anywhere here?

From my perspective (I'll let Brvaus let you know what he sees)... Some have chosen of their own volition to learn and participate in a new and different approach. As it is quite early in the process, how much learning has taken place remains to be seen. But the immediate evidence suggests to me that learning one simple rule may be difficult for some to grasp. Or is it unlearning old bad habits?

But I suspect there may be a misunderstanding (or limited understanding) of the desired results. Maybe learning isn't so much the objective, but an effort to get people to start thinking for themselves rather than simply parroting other people's thoughts. And even faciliating everyone in a process of taking what other participants post and briefly summarizing it or saying it in other words does force one to actually think about what that person actually said. It also slows down the dilaog a bit which may help minimize the knee-jerk reactions that don't involve higher cognitive function.

I am bumping this old thread to the top as a short refresher course to maybe help a few folk remember how this whole idea of the Original Thoughts forum got started. This was the very first thread. It was the first toe in these deep waters of trying to encourage thinking for ourselves and expressing our ideas in our own words and not being just parrots endless repeating others and ourselves.

My hope is that everyone will take the time to simply read through and see what our thinking was from the very beginning of this experiment.

I would also encourage everyone to also read the locked and sticky topic at the top of the topic index for this forum as it is the conversation in Townhall that preceded this forum that spawned this experiment.

Tom