Maybe I was a little hasty, but I saw an old thread that came back and almost immediately posters appeared to be bickering with each other. To me that is a reason to close, but I am open to suggestions. If you feel there is life left in the thread, you can always start a new one and continue on.

I apologize if I jumped the gun on that one

Frankly, I prefer a quick trigger on them. But I like Boleta's advice. Simply give us a comment as to why the thread is being closed. Hopefully people will learn from their actions.

Eagle, boleta good thoughts,

OGE,

I admit it, I used to be a forum junkie. I've been a member of numerous types of forums on the internet. The only ones I frequent these days is this one and a political forum. From my experience, the moderators try to take as much of a backseat as they can and let the threads roll. They only act when drastic measures are required. They usually will PM the offender. If that doesn't work, they will give a warning in the thread. Next step is to ban the offender as a last resort. If too many people are acting up, then a thread might be closed. My preference for what it is worth is to give a gentel remined to keep the tone friendly and let the thread continue. Just because a thread is old is no reason to close it. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job friend, just telling you how I've seen other forums managed.

In fact, maybe Scouter Terry, Hops and you can visit and come up with some agreed upon rules for what will cause warnings, bans and thread closures and post them for all to see.

Just my two cents. Take it for what it is worth.

I agree with Beaver. I think the discussions ARE interesting and have Scouting relevance even when political. It would be nice to have a chance to respond as well. I wanted to have a chance to respond to MrsSmith's questions to me.
I would have said that I have learned a huge amount since my post in May (I started using the Forum in April). I doubt that I would have written or worded the post the same way today.
I just thought that FOG should be entitled to his point of view. That was before an extreme point of view came along. Maybe you felt that FOG was extreme. But, I agree with you that no one likes to feel insulted.
This is one problem with e-mail type of correspondence. Emotion is very hard to read and things can get out of hand.

Boleta, I am so glad to straighten that out. I understand completely what you are saying.

OGE, I look forward to seeing this new "no bickering" rule in action. I think I agree in principal but I am just not sure what it means in practice. Can you explain it any better.

Censorship is an attempt to control people and their thoughts possibly for fear that somehow the dispenser will become the leader (of the Forum).

As an American, I applaud our freedom of speech and am willing to allow people the right to speak their mind even when I believe they have stepped over that line. I do have lines but they are personal and based on what I believe to be correct. I sometimes simply stand silently to the side knowing that there is a Higher Power at work, one that is much more powerful than any words. Since I have personal evidence of this it is easier to believe than if it were a wish or just words on paper.

I understand Mrs. Smith's concern about FOG and his "way". It would be simpler if FOG was just like BW. It would reduce the clutter of emotional interference. But God made FOG and he made BW different and I would rather both were here than elsewhere. FOG has grown from being here as I have grown. I know that he may not admit it but I have seen it in some of his posts. FOG also has insight and sometimes it is keen criticism. He says it precisely but without decoration.

It just so happens that the mix of a FOG and BW sometimes gives the kind of dialogue that wrenches the truth from a question. It also makes for the type of dialogue that takes both parties to their extreme ground and brings about emotions. Emotions can drive us to anger or to our senses. How we handle it comes from our personal discipline. I do not believe that other people control our thoughts and actions. I believe each individual stands solidly behind their own thoughts and actions but sometimes when we get mad our mask slips and others view our ugliness.

I would hope that we would teach our children personal responsibility about their thoughts, words, and deeds first and foremost. We can then dispense with worrying about what issues forth from others. If our children are so weak as to not be able to discern goodness, to believe in it, to know the reason for it, and to live by it, then our teaching has little use.

If the reason for this Forum is simply to inform, then the approach should leave little to interface. Answers should be arranged alphabetically and numerically. Each person should gather their basket of answers and go about their business.

What I have found here has sometimes been difficult to contend with and it has made me think very carefully about what I believe and what I am as a Scout(er). I just want to thank FOG, and BW and Mrs. Smith because of these dialogues I have found something of value.

I just hope that we do not lose it.

FB

Well said FB, but I think that you're trying a little too hard to draw some value from all of the give and take that goes in many of these forum topics. Granted that good ideas are sometimes flushed out, but far more often things just turn to noise and garbage. Wish that I knew how to look ahead and avoid wasting time and bandwidth on most of it...

Fuzzy Bear,

Spot On!

ps One man's noise is another man's music.
One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

I agree with Fuzzy Bear 100%. I think all threads in the Issues and Politics are important and necessary and should be allowed total freedom to debate the issues with no holds barred, except for name calling and insults. Anyone going into theses forums needs to know they will be hot and heavy and should avoid them if they are too sensitive or bad tempered. Since the changes have come into effect though I noticed the volume of postings are down and threads are closing quickly from lack of response. I think many are afraid to debate any issue for fear of censorship. We should never be afraid to question or debate anything involving Scouting policies or issues.

I also agree with Fuzzy Bear. I winced occasionally, but I tried to defend JasonOK and his incomprehensible raves and rants until his deception was identified. I still stand by the principle, if not the respondent.
My field depends on free and open exchange of ideas and I think that is what makes it better. Perhaps better if also applied to all aspects of society, even when it feels painful?

To stand alone and to ask, Is there a God?, is to be everyman from the time before written language. To say it out loud in a group or to write it in a public forum without threat is a modern concept, especially when the answer is different. To debate it publicly and to divine the width and depth of the question is something unheard of but was done here, in some fashion.

The question of True Religion is exactly that kind search. It is not an easy question to find answers for and I would challenge anybody to begin reading the tremendous number of volumes of literature on the subject without the kind of pain and problems that we found and although 20 some pages in length was only a surface scratch.

We tend to guard our answers or to minimize the outside interference by closing our doors to other answers as a daily routine. But, when someone does knock on our door with another answer, it is a matter of character as to how we treat that individual. So, we must understand that, Our answer and how we answer defines who we are.

By sorting through the garbage and the wisdom, I have found some nuggets of pure gold. I am appreciative of the time spent here by everyone.

FB

And another voice joins the chorus...

I too agree with Fuzzy Bear's first post (and his second for that matter). Pat yourself on the back for speaking so well for so many. No sarcasm intended (just so there's no mistake about my intentions).