By stating that sheila is "vested with holding's authority" it is being indirectly implied that sheila is representative of holding, but not holding himself.
So in a manner, any argument presented by sheila, is of holding's design, yet not directly attributed to holding himself.
So in a way, it is sort of third party, promotion of a position.
I still however, stand by my position that this is not worthy of a ban.
Originally Posted by foahchon
A sticky is a good idea, but which forum to post it in?
Well, I propose the admin's/moderators create a new section in the "General" area of the forum, entitled "Forum Announcements" and sticky it there.
I think that particular section should be kept solely to the administrators/mods respectively, and all others should be barred from posting.
We allready have an area for Movie announcements, but I do not think we have an area for Forum announcements specifically.
By keeping it free of other posters, we can avoid the inevitable problem of announcements being buried under arguments, and red-herrings that will only serve to bury the original intent of the post.
It would be very apparent to all, easy to link to, and immediately visible to all who came here, instead of sticking it in some sub-forum, where it will inevitably be buried alive, under a bunch of random posts.
The "sticky compramise" has allready been accepted by sheila as an acceptable alternative. I hope the admins/mods agree.
Putting it in another point of view, I think that banning holding's account would do more damage to the athiest cause, than not.
I mean, here we have a respected member of the christian apologetics movement, positioning himself in the line of fire for athiests.
If holding truly is as reprehensible as so many make him out to be, then let it be displayed here for all to see, as proof of the assertions.
But if not, then I think that it's a grand opportunity to attempt to prove any points one might have to make.
I can't imagine allowing such an asset to slip through our collective fingers.
Ultimately, we all have to realise that the internet has it's own rules.
Whoever laughs last, laughs longest. And just like politics, whoever is loudest, is the one people pay attention to the most.
Right or wrong, that's how life is, and we'd better start accepting it.
Taking the "high road" (if you wish to call it that) and not engaging debate might be the acceptable road to take, but ultimately, your only shooting yourself in the foot.
I say fight. If sheila proves to be vitriolic, and offers nothing more than ad-hominems, and fails to back it up with proof or evidence, then call sheila out on it! Make sheila an example publicly.
The argument needs to be tailored to the opponent.
It's this failing that has caused the downfall of MANY a christian.
Many christians fail to understand that "God said it, thus it's true" doesn't FLY WITH ATHIESTS!!
I could care less about the so called, "sins" because I don't beleive in them. So they don't affect me.
If you want to convince me that I'm doing bad things, then you're going to have to use my own world view against me.
That's one thing that athiests commonly have against christians. Their ability to turn the bible against itself. The CONSTANT road block christians face, is their inability (on this forum at least) to seperate their own theology from the athiest methodology. It has been shown repeatedly to fail.
I say, take a cue from this precident, and fight sheila on common ground.
Tailor the argument to how sheila presents it.
If it fails, it fails. We can all shake hands at the end, and leave as respected opponents, with honor.
If you win, you win. And again, we can all respect each other at the end of the day.
I say, give sheila the chance to fight. If sheila breaks any rules here on out, then ban sheila, and I'll definately support the decision.
But I think we ought to give sheila the FAIR chance first.
And this is my last post today, as I'm feeling VERY ill suddenly.
Cheers all, have a groovy day.