suggestion about unwanted SI messages

S

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

I have been having this thought come across my mind over the past couple of weeks concerning unwanted spam and others who try to bombard SI.

Why not have a filtering system, where anyone who wants to sign up, must first write a testimony in the Welcome and Introduction section? This obviously will create some extra work for the moderators, but a quick testimony may deter and/or hinder many from dropping in and dropping out randomly and recklessly.

Obviously, this is just a thought with little research, although, I am certain that if there is a real problem, then there is a much more real solution.

This would not be to set up walls against those wanting to take part in what God, through Greg, has started, rather to keep floods from penetrating babes in the faith and those who are searching for Truth.

Just a thought.

:-(

S

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

Brother,

this is a great idea. I do need to put something similar like this in place. I am going to work for the sermon comments to have to be approved by moderators first but as you said for the forums there should be some "saftey" to ensure people who are registering are seeking truth. etc.

Do pray for me to have wisdom to do the Lords will. I am open to any other suggestions.

T

TaylorOtwell Nov 11, 2009

I'm a member of another forum that uses this system for new members. It seems to work pretty well...

With care in Christ...

S

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

but a quick testimony may deter and/or hinder many from dropping in and dropping out randomly and recklessly.

You wouldn't want it to be a quick one, a quick one can be easily manufactured. What it could be is a 500 word testimony of sorts and one of the Moderators OR better yet select a new ADMIN that will prayerfully carry out the selection of newbies coming in. Instant access should go the way of the Dodo and a space of a day or two should pass before applications are approved.

P

PassingThru Nov 11, 2009

I am quite privacy conscience when it comes to writing personal details on the web and wouldn't like to "introduce" myself to the millions of anonymous internet users that I know nothing about.

An alternative mechanism would be to allow established, frequent users (say those with 500+ posts) to flag 'troll' posts. If a user is flagged as a 'troll' by 2-3 users they would be automatically suspended.

Once suspended their posts could be automatically replaced with a text explaining that the user has breached the site's code of conduct. This eliminates the attention & public exposure they are looking for.

Optionally the text could publicly expose the source IP address of the unwanted messages, although these can easily be masked by a savvy user, or worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network passing the 'blame' onto an innocent neighbour.

A mechanism of this type also delegates the workload off Greg's shoulders which he might appreciate, while allowing genuine users to remain as anonymous as they like.

PassingThru

M

MaryJane Nov 11, 2009

Greetings Greg

My son in on a forum that has tight rules in place. In order to insure that all post are child friendly when a person first signs up all of their posts go through a moderator for the first three weeks of joining the forum. IF anything is deemed unacceptable it gets bounced and warnings are sent to the account holder. They have a three strikes and your out policy that they stick to. After the three week grace period is over the person can post with out the mod viewing it first, but they still monitor all post to insure the rules are followed. Not sure how practical this method would be for SI though, it would seem to require a great deal more time from the moderators and I realize you are busy as things are now.

God Bless
maryjane

S

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network

Yikes, I've been found out! :-P

L

Leo_Grace Nov 11, 2009

PassingThru wrote:
I am quite privacy conscience when it comes to writing personal details on the web and wouldn't like to "introduce" myself to the millions of anonymous internet users that I know nothing about.
An alternative mechanism would be to allow established, frequent users (say those with 500+ posts) to flag 'troll' posts. If a user is flagged as a 'troll' by 2-3 users they would be automatically suspended.
Once suspended their posts could be automatically replaced with a text explaining that the user has breached the site's code of conduct. This eliminates the attention & public exposure they are looking for.
Optionally the text could publicly expose the source IP address of the unwanted messages, although these can easily be masked by a savvy user, or worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network passing the 'blame' onto an innocent neighbour.
A mechanism of this type also delegates the workload off Greg's shoulders which he might appreciate, while allowing genuine users to remain as anonymous as they like.
PassingThru

This sounds like a good idea, but instead of the 500+ posts required (one can get 500+ by "amen"-ing all threads all the time), the moderators should appoint several forum "elders" chosen prayerfully based on previous participation - men of sound and mature faith. These "elders", guided by a set of rules provided by the moderators, can do the tagging to enforce forum ethics. This will provide an additional layer of protection to what moderators are already doing.

H

HeartSong Nov 12, 2009

For what it is worth, if there had been all of these "requirements" (or any for that matter) when I "stumbled upon" SermonIndex, it is unlikely that I would have ever joined - for Satan had me so bound in fear that I would never have taken the risk of "exposing myself" by doing these things that you are speaking of. I was extremely reluctant to even provide my name and email address. Additionally, for the moment, the Lord has required that I stay "hidden" to some degree. While I do not know the purpose in this, it is my intention to obey His requirements.

It is the Lord that keeps us safe. A good "wolf" will be able to get by all of the roadblocks but an injured lamb will not even try.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

HeartSong wrote:
For what it is worth, if there had been all of these "requirements" (or any for that matter) when I "stumbled upon" SermonIndex, it is unlikely that I would have ever joined...

Likewise. Heartsong you are singing my heart's exact feelings tonight on a number of issues it seems.

M

Miccah Nov 12, 2009

Leo_Grace wrote:

This sounds like a good idea, but instead of the 500+ posts required (one can get 500+ by "amen"-ing all threads all the time), the moderators should appoint several forum "elders" chosen prayerfully based on previous participation - men of sound and mature faith. These "elders", guided by a set of rules provided by the moderators, can do the tagging to enforce forum ethics. This will provide an additional layer of protection to what moderators are already doing.

Respectfully, this is not a church. Brother Paul pointed this out in a different thread I believe.

With all due respect and with nothing personal towards your idea Leo, but if we start "playing church" on SI, my time posting here will come to an end.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Well what 'church' are we talking about here?? I don't come on here to sit in a pew or eagerly await denominational doctrine to be randomly and arbitrarily regurgitated to me. The church is the body of Christ, the renmant church, living stones. Some belong, some don't. Some here have fellowship with others and have formed meaningful relationships, others seek prayer and edification. The one's who don't, they like to stir up trouble, THEY like to attack the forum. Greg knows this.. otherwise he wouldn't entertain the idea of a filter.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

What about truth seeking unbelievers? What would position would the lost be in? Just unwelcome on a board where your circumcision and character must be proved for fellowhsip?

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

What about truth seeking unbelievers?

If you notice on the left side of the margin of this website, "Who's online" you'll currently see at this moment 53 Guests and a meager 8 members on line. The 53 guests are three classes, "the believers, the make believers and the unbelievers". So to answer your question, the unbelievers who are curious have all the information at their fingertips. They have sermons, they have our writings and debates. It's all here. Do they need to become a member to learn any of this? The 53 Guests proves that they don't. Being a member is having the privilege of participating in this forum.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

"What about truth seeking unbelievers? What would position would the lost be in? Just unwelcome on a board where your circumcision and character must be proved for fellowhsip?" lav

I'm obviously speaking for myself here and others who have been here. The post was directed on what the biblical definition of 'church' is. There are those deceivers here who claim to be brethren but are wolves in sheep's clothing. Paul defined them biblically "2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." These use multiple accounts to knowingly deceive the brethren here AND the unbelievers I might add. This is the issue.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

I meant more in regards to being able to ask a question. Between this thread and the other on roughly the same topic, it seems like it would be all but impossible for a seeker to ask questions. Of course they would have all the resources available for viewing. Perhaps that is sufficient.

It may be that because I have not born the brunt of one of these "troublemaker posters" I am not as anxious to have more and more hoops to jump through. Sounds very big government all around.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

I understand what you're saying ccrider. It seems that regular moderation is all that is necessary to handle these cases as they arise without having to reinvent the forum wheel.

Sorry for double post.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Laviver...Okay I see what you're saying now. An unbeliever might not have a testimony. That's a great and legitimate point. I have no answer or suggestion for that... it definitely complicates things. I'm with ginnyrose on the multiple accounts though.. if there is a way to filter those in a proactive way I think it would be beneficial.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Sounds very big government all around.

In the early Church, government was a big thing. Did you know that no one had an independent individuality? They were all in one accord, one mind, broke bread from house to house, sold houses and lands to feed and house the poor IN THE CHURCH. They were interdependent upon one another. No one did their own thing, they did it together. It's was not an "us 4 and no more" attitude. One of the callings of the Spirit is "governments". The 7 men that were called to take care of the widows were gifted with the workings of government.

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

This goes against the "American way". The Camel Sedan they drove they did not consider it to be their own. I mean that is difficult to fathom.

Even when I talk about my privacy, I know that I am speaking foolishly. There is no such a thing as privacy in the Church. Each knew of one another's business, save our wives. Sin wouldn't be so rampant if we knew one another more. Accountability was huge in those days. In those days when the persecution was heightened, you had to be known or you were not let in. Everything about you had to be revealed.

When we get into this thing Brothers and Sisters, we are going to lose our individuality, and we are going to love it, though right now it looks scary.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

I think the big gov't thing is a bit overdramatic. There are rules everywhere folks, many are necessary and not oppressively sinful.

This is real simple: are multiple accounts allowed? If not, and many are getting away with breaking the rules and being deceptive in propagating their theology, then what is to be done? And can this be prevented in a way that's fair to everyone? You guys act like the very idea is voodoo administration.

If I didn't know any better I would think that those here asking for, at the very least, minimal safeguards, were asking Musolini (Greg) and Stalin (Paul) to oppress the masses with an iron fist. Come now. What started out as a simple suggestion by Leo Grace, a dear brethren, to make it more difficult for some to deceive and attack the forum, has turned into a psuedo conspiracy theory. Give me a break guys..... this forum isn't going to start the next communist regime. The Big Brother/Big Sister stuff pertaining to the forum is just plain goofiness.

L

Leo_Grace Nov 12, 2009

ccrider wrote:
I think the big gov't thing is a bit overdramatic. There are rules everywhere folks, many are necessary and not oppressively sinful.
This is real simple: are multiple accounts allowed? If not, and many are getting away with breaking the rules and being deceptive and propagating their theology, then what is to be done? And can this be prevented in a way that's fair to everyone? You guys act like the very idea is voodoo administration.
If I didn't know any better I would think that those here asking for, at the very least minimal safeguards, were asking Musolini (Greg) and Stalin (Paul) to oppress the masses with an iron fist. Come now. What started out as a simple suggestion by Leo Grace, a dear brethren, to make it more difficult for some to deceive and attack the forum, has turned into a psuedo conspiracy theory. Give me a break guys..... this forum isn't going to start the next communist regime. The Big Brother/Big Sister stuff pertaining to the forum is just plain goofiness.

I agree. The emotional level of the objections surprised me. To me, it is a matter of taking personal responsibility for a privilege (not a right) to post in these forums before hundreds of readers everyday.

But then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The gut reaction to preserve individual rights and privacy is very American...

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

"But then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The gut reaction to preserve individual rights and privacy is very American..." Leo Grace

I understand but let's not project that onto a forum that is international in its scope, as far as those who access this forum, and let's understand that we're dealing with our own kingdom brethren here... not the government. If you can't trust a brother like Greg and Paul then who can you trust with these suggestions? Let's have some perspective and some common sense. If it's not plausible then that's fine. Again no is trying to revamp the website or reinvent the wheel. No one here is demanding some kind of superduper spy software that costs ten grand and can track me from my e-mail adress and link me to the serial number of my car thereby watching my every move. Sheesh.

I understand your simple intention Leo, and I understand that Paul and Greg aren't Big Brother, Big Sister, 'BIG' anything. I support your original concern which I know was done in the utmost sincerity.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

I guess both sides of the discussion should be careful not to over-exaggerate the other. I by no means implied this was turning into a totalitarian regime and by no means likened the moderators to Hitler. And you are by no means asking for a thumb-print or passport number.

I will resign from this topic and leave it to the moderators to decide how they will like their forum to run and resolve to respond as Miccah has eloquently stated.

Miccah wrote:
Respectfully, this is not a church. Brother Paul pointed this out in a different thread I believe.
With all due respect and with nothing personal towards your idea Leo, but if we start "playing church" on SI, my time posting here will come to an end.

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Nov 12, 2009

Hello...

I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion. Is the problem really that bad? I've been visiting SermonIndex for over six years now. I have occasionally seen some problems with spam posts, but these are few and far between and are usually taken care of very quickly. I'm not sure if this is in response to the possibility that Jesse Morrell and, possibly, others were posting under multiple accounts or not. However, I just don't see it as being that big of a problem when we already can judge the posts of every poster anyway.

The original idea on this thread suggests that individuals be required to post a "testimony" in the "welcome" section that is inspected by the moderators before they are permitted to receive proper fellowship. On the surface, this sounds like a great idea. However, it immediately serves as a possibly difficult "stepping stone" for individuals who might not be saved yet but who are still interested in learning more about a relationship with our Lord. Over the last six years, I have seen some seemingly sincere individuals here on SermonIndex who readily admitted that they were not yet believers.

Someone else mentioned (in the other concurrent thread about this topic) that SermonIndex is not confined to "free" nations. Greg once displayed a map (or maybe it was a list) that displayed the nations from which SermonIndex had been visited. There are individuals who have visited this ministry from nations that are exceptionally closed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we to expect these individuals (some of whom, of course, might also not even be believers) to have their "testimonies" approved?

I certainly understand the apprehension toward individuals who purposely attempt to deceive those who frequent these forums by secretly using multiple identities for their own particular purposes. And, of course, I think that we should do what we can to stop the "spam" from being contained on this website. However, I am also reminded that Jesus was often accused of being a "friend" to tax collectors, prostitutes and other "sinners" (Luke 7:34-35; Matthew 11:19; Mark 2:15-17; Matthew 21:28-32). The Pharisees and Sadducees criticized him for this. Jesus replied that it is, after all, the sick who need a doctor (Mark 2:17). The disciples also tried to prevent or make it difficult for little children to come to Jesus (Matthew 19:13-15). In fact, it seems like "sinners" were attracted to the Gospel message presented by Jesus and the apostles far more than the "righteous." I just feel a little concern that some of these sincere attempts to help might actually serve to impede the work of Christ in the forums.

My wife and I are already praying for Brother Greg and the moderators in their decisions. The messages and even forum interaction on SermonIndex has played a wonderful role in our lives (and mine in particular). There are plenty of possible solutions to consider if this problem is deemed so great that it warrants some sort of intervention. Like brother Paul West said, this website is not a Church. It is a forum. As such, there is a open ability for discussions. There are individuals from different backgrounds and sectarian persuasion in (and out) of Christianity. While we might be readily concerned about those supposed "wolves" who might come into the forum and create dissension through a particular purpose or agenda, it seems to me that some of the greatest dissension originated from members who were somewhat more seasoned.

Again, I am praying for Greg and the other moderators in this regard. I have been encouraged, challenged, strengthened and matured in the faith through the messages found on SermonIndex. In addition, I have been similarly blessed by many of the conversations here in the forums. Even though we often do not totally agree on every matter under the sun, I believe that there is a very real love for one another between most of the believers who frequent the forums.

:-)

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

"I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion. Is the problem really that bad?" cccchhhrrrisss

I disagree. Leo asked a simple question to start this. Where is the emotionalism on the other end tantamount to the macrocosm of Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Gov't??? A simple suggestion was turned into a philosophical and theoretical debate and was taken too far. Brothertom, who has been here quite along time himself, had the same observation of Leo about this. So, where's the philosophical parallel on this thread from those who support the original premise to those who take this to the point of psuedo oppression, invasion of privacy, and big brother, if looked into?? There might be some hostility towards those who attack the forum under multiple accounts but there's no overemotion to ask about rules and preventative safeguards. If it wasn't that bad lately then it wouldn't have been brought up by Greg himself addressing the specific concern of Leo and others and asking us to e-mail him with any suspicions of such abuses. So, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask for a preventative method here, especially if the moderators are going to ask for reactionary involvement on the other side via e-mail.

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Nov 12, 2009

Hi brother ccrider...

I disagree. Leo asked a simple question to start this. Where is the emotionalism on the other end tantamount to the macrocosm of Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Gov't??? A simple suggestion was turned into a philosophical and theoretical debate and was taken too far.

I think that you misunderstood the purpose of my last post. You, Leo, Brothertom and anyone else are fully entitled to suggest alternatives to "fix" whatever problem that this forum may (or may not) have. However, my post was meant only to question whether or not there is such a major problem there merits the need of such an immediate and dire resolution. In addition, I simply wanted to remind each of us that there are certain side effects that each of the introduced suggestions could have.

Ultimately, the decision to "change" anything on this website lay with Greg and the direction to which he feels the Lord leading him. To this end, my wife and I are praying that the Lord's will be done. I just wonder if the current suggestions would truly "fix" the underlying problem. I also wonder whether or not the problem is truly that big or widespread as to deem something like this to be necessary. Again, this is Greg's decision as he relies upon hearing God for direction. I think that we can agree to pray Greg in regard to this direction.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Sorry about that brother cccchhhhrrrisss.

"You, Leo, Brothertom and anyone else are fully entitled to suggest alternatives to "fix" whatever problem that this forum may (or may not) have. However, my post was meant only to question whether or not there is such a major problem there merits the need of such an immediate and dire resolution. In addition, I simply wanted to remind each of us that there are certain side effects that each of the introduced suggestions could have." cccchhhrrrisss

Agreed, that is a reasonable and gracious response. Thanks.

L

Lysa Nov 12, 2009

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion.

Me too buddy; just as surprised as you are! I thought this thread would go away on it"s own but it just keeps getting bigger and bigger with ideas that the owner never even asked for!

Being the Libertarian that I am, the whole idea smacks of government intervention, which I definitely do not think we need.

There, that was my two bucks worth!

God bless you all!

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

"Being the Libertarian that I am, the whole idea smacks of government intervention, which I definitely do not think we need." lysa

How do you compare this to government intervention? How is Leo's suggestion to the entity of the forum comparabel to the 'smackness' of government intervention? How does it smack?

H

HeartSong Nov 12, 2009

How does it smack?

It is bringing in the law when we are to rely on the Spirit - it is an attempt to put SermonIndex back under the law. If we rely upon the law for correction, then we become subject to that law. It is by prayer that these things are to be corrected - prayer and supplication.

S

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

So are we under the law or spirit when we run a red light??? The fact is that the reason for the suggestion was that people WERE BREAKING THE RULES, they were using the grace of Greg and Paul to attack the forum by not adhering to the rules. Leo's suggestion was not to put anyone under the 'law' it was to get something in place to make them adhere to a LAW or rule that was already in place by the one's who run this forum. It's as plain as that. I'm stunned here.

Let me ask you Heartsong, who was under the law when Greg and Paul asked for us to report people who were abusing the forum priviledge via running multiple accounts? Why did they not just tell us not to pray about it? If they tell us to e-mail them with abusive accounts and they dismiss the offender under the law then how is this wrong? Are we in bondage because of this? This is getting a little out there.

H

HeartSong Nov 12, 2009

It is the same for all.

M

Miccah Nov 12, 2009

Guys... SI is not broke. Doesn't need to be fixed. There will always be trouble makers no matter what controls are put in place.

As for a gut reaction to your request... Please note that not all agree with your suggestion about changes to the forum. This does not mean that we are against you and are thinking conspiracy, but that we disagree with what is being suggested.

Is SI not a place where brothers and sister can agree AND disagree, or do we all need to be of one particular person's viewpoint and opinion? To suggest that one holds more worldly values (American) for not wanting certain filters in place is wrong.

Seriously, are we now throwing accusations against each other because we disagree about SI form etiquette?

L

Lysa Nov 12, 2009

Lysa wrote:
"Being the Libertarian that I am, the whole idea smacks of government intervention, which I definitely do not think we need." lysa

ccrider wrote:
How do you compare this to government intervention? How is Leo's suggestion to the entity of the forum comparabel to the 'smackness' of government intervention? How does it smack?

Obviously, we disagree over “government intervention”!!! I was just equating any rules and regulations implemented in this forum with what the federal government does (Not trying to tell Greg what to do or make this about Greg!).

What I was trying to say and if you didn’t get it the first time, I doubt I will be able to convey my passion about it in another typed post but here goes...

It smacks of government intervention by let’s say that, ~~[b]~~“IF”[/b] Greg were to implement extra moderators to check everyone out, make sure they live where they say they live, and read all their testimonies, etc… then comes rule one, two and three. Ok, then someone else comes along complaining about something else, instituting another moderator or two to take care of THAT problem and then someone else complains about something else and here we elect some more moderators with even MORE rules and regulations... I am, of course, equating the (possible) rules and regulations to BIG government and BIG government interventions and before you know it, freedom here on SI slips slowly away.

I refuse to answer another question on this continue with this line of questioning about big government! ~~[b]~~PM me if you didn't understand my example, please.[/b]

God bless you ccrider!

L

Lysa Nov 12, 2009

ccrider wrote:
Leo's suggestion was not to put anyone under the 'law' it was to get something in place to make them adhere to a LAW or rule that was already in place by the one's who run this forum. It's as plain as that. I'm stunned here.
Let me ask you Heartsong, who was under the law when Greg and Paul asked for us to report people who were abusing the forum priviledge via running multiple accounts? Why did they not just tell us not to pray about it? If they tell us to e-mail them with abusive accounts and they dismiss the offender under the law then how is this wrong? Are we in bondage because of this? This is getting a little out there.

I don’t think your argument is with HeartSong although you seem to be taking it out on her, shame on you. All she did was defend my ‘government intervention’ remark and you like 'threw up' on her!!

I thank you for trying HeartSong!!

About the multiple accounts, I found them thoroughly amusing; especially Loingirder.

Back to seriousness... ccrider, you must have a sense of humor about these things or at least take things with a grain of salt and not so personally. There is life outside of SermonIndex.

If Greg has asked you guys to keep an eye out for spammers and those abusing accounts, then by all means, keep doing what you are doing! I don't get all bent out of shape when I see them post because they don't post very often, thank you God!

I do agree with HeartSong's post on the first page I think... wolves know how to speak Christianese, wounded sheep does not know how and won't even try. I don't know about you but that's who I want.

We must let the tares grow along side the wheat lest we rip any wheat out before it's time.

Please let me reiterate that this is just my two bucks worth and that is all. I do not value my own opinion so highly as to think everyone will bow down to it! LOL This is Greg's web site, I voiced an opinion, period! And if you don't like it or you are not satisfied with my answers, please PM me so we do not hijack this thread.

God bless you ccrider!!

P

PreachParsly Nov 13, 2009

Maybe you could do something like a post limit, say only 20 posts a week until you have 200 posts under your belt.

H

HeartSong Nov 13, 2009

Maybe you could do something like a post limit, say only 20 posts a week until you have 200 posts under your belt.

This would have taken out hmmhmm when he first came on board. He was posting article after article - just like a happy little bee. Every time I came on he was everywhere.

Does not anyone think that the Lord is in control here? This all reminds me of Animal Farm somehow...

S

sermonindex Nov 13, 2009

Seriously, are we now throwing accusations against each other because we disagree about SI form etiquette?

Don't forget that Brother Greg has welcomed these suggestions and has asked prayer to see what can be done to implement them. So he is open for change and improvements.

I like things the way they are, but if something can be done about the security of keeping out scammers, hey, I am for it.

P.S. Just as a side note, Who is getting uptight in this thread? I thought it was a good discussion so far. No?

H

HeartSong Nov 13, 2009

I was just reading Psalm 92 and thought that it applied here:

"O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever: But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore. For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered." - Psalm 92:5-9

I am now going to take my own advice and trust that the Lord is in control here.

God bless you one and all!

S

sermonindex Nov 13, 2009

"I don’t think your argument is with HeartSong although you seem to be taking it out on her, shame on you. All she did was defend my ‘government intervention’ remark and you like 'threw up' on her!!" lysa

What are you talking about?? Shame on me for responding to heartsongs post TO ME. If she's defending you that doesn't matter, she took MY quote (not your quote) and responded TO ME (not to you) with it. I responded back. She hasn't done anything anyone else hasn't done, and neither have I. What gives with this shame and vomit stuff? Have you ever done this on SI?? As in taken a part of a post, quoted it, then elaborated on it even if the discussion was primarily with some other posters. It's called 'joining in on the discussion'. That's what heartsong did. It happens all the time lysa, and I had every right to respond unashamed. Talk about taking things too seriously here... shame on me for responding to my own qoute back to me with a subsequent response from heartsong answering my quote. Okay, for what it's worth... I apologize.. to both of you.

As far as everything else let me just say once again as clearly as I can, the moderators have asked the forum posters to e-mail them with possible abuses. If this is the case in asking for our assistance then it is not unreasonable for someone to say 'okay, but can you help us out too by investigating a filter process to determine multiple accounts'. That's it. No one said reduce freedom, no one said discriminate or oppress... just 'is there a simple way to find multiple account holders who are abusing a priviledge to attack the forum'. How we got from there to here is a little humorous because what's being added to all this is ridiculous. You may find multiple account posters amusing and that's fine, but obviously with the response from the moderators themselves asking for the abuse to be reported... they do not. Someone was simply (and humbly I might add) giving a suggestion to the moderators to try and help them out, it was an attempt to HELP. Not to oppress. Not to bring Big Brother/Sister..Gov't.. legalism or anything else deemed similar onto the forum. Beyond this I can't help the conspiracy freedom fighters understand the gist. -edit- And if there isn't a way to do this without oppressing the masses then that's fine, no one has demanded anything, they just asked. -end-

H

hmmhmm Nov 13, 2009

HeartSong wrote:
Maybe you could do something like a post limit, say only 20 posts a week until you have 200 posts under your belt.
This would have taken out hmmhmm when he first came on board. He was posting article after article - just like a happy little bee. Every time I came on he was everywhere.
Does not anyone think that the Lord is in control here? This all reminds me of Animal Farm somehow...

He sure did :-D i was happy with this find the Lord has showed me and i was in a season in my life where i could read several hours a day. and was very eager to share what blessed me. Many may be "frustrated" with what is lacking with SI, with the great freedom comes great responsibility, and a forum like this, you have all sort of believers and maybe unbelievers as well, from fresh newborns to older and wiser. There will be much that perhaps we could be better without, but also we should be graceful to allow people to grow and mature.

Anyway, i think it shows something good that people have ideas to make SI a better place, but perhaps any ideas should be forwarded to the moderators and specifically Greg since it is his forum.

maybe the 20 post a week would have been a good one, i dont know. the fact is SI is getting more "famous" and have more and more visitors, this is good and bad at the same time. Its good so much of this material spreads to more people, but also you will get more people that may "stir" up things. But we need i think to see to ourselves, we can always speak the truth in love and humility to all.

Every situation in life is a test, and i am convinced every thread we enter into also is just as much a test in how we speak and approach other people, dead wrong in their theology or arguments etc.

We have these people all over our world and God did not save us out of the world but that we would not be of the world. So our post pherhaps should be spices with a pinch of more salt.

Another idea would perhaps to get more moderators? that are mature in their walk and have time to participate more in the threads. The three we have do a great job, but all of them have a life outside SI also, work and family and other personal things.But again these things are for them to decide and pray about.

And just as scripture says, the great falling away must take place first, and we will notice it everywhere, even here i am afraid.

S

sermonindex Nov 13, 2009

shame shame double shame! :-P

S

sermonindex Nov 13, 2009

Does not anyone think that the Lord is in control here?

The Holy Ghost is liken unto Rain.

When it does rain it gets pretty messy and we don't like being out in it. Is the Holy Ghost in that? Sure is! Just because something doesn't look all rosey and sweet doesn't mean that God is not in it. After the Rain, the Sun comes out and straightens everything out again. The branches that sagged low because of the heavy rains are now lifting their bows up toward heaven.

The promise that says, "All things work together to them that love God and are the called according to His purpose", means that even though things look messy, "I am in your midst, and am bringing about the good, so that you can have an expected end".