Slice of Laodicea - New and Improved
The revamped Slice of Laodicea truly is an improvement over the former manifestation.
The main purpose of this blog is to watch the watch dogs. We analyze the analyzers. And when it comes to the regular objects of analysis we’re usually pretty critical – and for good reason. We are quick to point out their misuses of Scripture, their ignoring of context, their use of partial quotes to skew the intended meaning, as well as their redefining words to suit their own agenda… given all this it is only fair we applaud the good as well.
It’s not a biblical issue, or a significant change of heart that I can see, but the new Slice of Laodicea allows responses. And from my experience so far, they are not filtering them to just those that agree. I think this is good, it is an improvement, and it should be lauded.
So, to Ingrid in particular I would like to say “Thank you.â€Â Thank you for allowing me and the others, to respond, to clarify, to converse. I hope this improvement is a lasting phenomenon.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“I hope this improvement is a lasting phenomenon. ”
Neil, you are enviably niave. I hope it is not chemically induced! (ha)
May 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Maybe I am - naive that is… not chemically induced. But every post I’ve submitted has shown up. And that never happened before.
Neil
May 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Yeah, me neither Neil. I’ve been trying to take note of it though, and let Ingrid know that I really appreciate being posted. I think it makes for such a better site when you allow people to actually discuss the meat of what you’re saying. I don’t even moderate comments on my weblog.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Well, her last comment to Nathan was “shut up.” I think you might be a bit optimistic here Niel.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:34 am
This will last about a week. You watch.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Can we start a poll to guess when the comments start being, umm, “moderated”.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:42 am
well - at least telling Nathan to shut up is interaction… and this is an improvement.
I’d rather not start a pool - maybe I am naive, but I’d rather focus on this improvement and relish in it… let’s not be Marvins (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) about it yet…
Neil
May 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
“they are not filtering [comments] to just those that agree”
This seems to imply that the old Slice did filter comments to only those that agreed, when Ingrid told me that such was definitely not the case.
Of course, her statement was, er um, inaccurate. But regardless, I’d give it another 9 days before the Slice 1.0 comment policy gets implemented, but it’ll still be claimed that comments aren’t filtered only to those who agree.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I think before they would post comments that disagreed, as long as they were an easy target to refute.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
When I asked why only about 20% of my comments were posted on Slice 1.0, Ingrid, clearly told me that Rick Warren, et al. had a big enough voice and Slice was not going to give them any more of a voice.
I knew it was not that my comments were disrespectful, because I never even came close to that. Of course, she allowed stuff like “Rick Warren is the anti-Christ.”
May 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
True enough - we all had similar experiences at Slice 1.0. The first couple comments might get through, but if you didn’t follow the part line, they stopped posting them. They may say they weren’t filtering, but what else do you call it when those who agree got posted and those who disagreed didn’t. The irony in my case - I didn’t disagree as mush as ask follow-up questions… maybe the saw the outcome of answering.
Anyway - so far so good on Slice 2.0 giving open discussion a chance.
Neil
May 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Hey, have any you seen Ingrid rant about “Evan Almighty” yet? I just about LOL’d when I read this part:
“Here’s a little sampler of what the first movie contained according to capalert.com: 15 uses of the three/four letter vocabulary including a child, vulgar gestures, crude toilet humor, repeatedly, adults in underwear, repeatedly, including stripping for sex, dressing to maximize the female form, repeatedly, thong nudity, excessive cleavage, sexual humor, co-habitation, drinking and drugs.”
Not that some of that stuff isn’t bad, but “excessive cleavage”?! I’ve never seen that term in a movie review of any form before. Who determines what is excessive?
I think I’ll say that next time I have plumber to my house. “Excuse me, sir, but I’m afraid you’re showing excessive cleavage at the moment”.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
How sad, not only were you all doing your pavlov’s dog impression when Ingrid started her new blog, now your trapsing down memory lane since you don’t have enough from her new site to whine about. How sad. I almost feel for you.
As for the comments on the old Slice, as one who had access to them I will gaurantee most were purposely off the topic of the post, and many were jst plain bad form re: language insults etc. all designed to cause chaos. That is the post-modern for God right……chaos?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Chris P,
The opposite of God is chaos (or formless and void - tohu va bohu), so NO, it is not post-modern (or ‘emerging-speak’) for God, but the opposite, as well…
May 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Chris P. wrote, “As for the comments on the old Slice, as one who had access to them I will gaurantee most were purposely off the topic of the post, and many were jst plain bad form re: language insults etc. all designed to cause chaos.”
Did that work both ways whether one agreed with Ingrid?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
It’s funny how that only the fundamentalists swear on this web site. Thanks Chris P for bringing it up.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Chris P., do you deny that honest, unoffensive though dissenting posts were blocked?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Matt
I am not a fundamentalist, and using the the term “bs” is not swearing, so get off it.
Todd
We have only your word as to their honest or unoffensive nature. Some could have been deemed unoffensive in terms of language but as for honest…..most were designed simply to provoke.
Then there were those written by folks who had long been banned, for their disrespect, and knew that they would not be published, but continued to fire off their invectives anyway.
Chris L. you have accurately described pomo theology;
“Without form and void;tohu va bohu”
Should be the title of Mcclaren’s next book.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I’m sorry, but what does “BS” mean?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Chris P.,
The whole point of this post was to praise an improvement with the new Slice - so your snarky “now your trapsing down memory lane since you don’t have enough from her new site to whine about” is…
As far as the comments - those of mine that were filtered were neither off topic nor bad form… that aside, they were still filtered.
Neither postmodernism nor modernism are friends of the Gospel… we could find areas in each that are hostile to the Gospel and areas within each that are lend themselves to it’s advance.
It’s not wise to tie oneself to either.
Neil
Neil
May 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Matt:
First word is bull, second word is not something I’m going to post for fear of getting caught in the filter. Four letters, starts with S.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Yeah, I know. I was being mildly sarcastic. I dare Chris P to spell it out.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hmm, the word inane seems to apply to this thread…
May 10th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Can the next version of the Internet have a sarcasm tag?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
BS stands for Barbara Streisand, and she is 10lbs in a 5lb bag.
I do not tie myself to modernism nor post-modernism.
I am not a pragmatist either.
BTW I wasn’t being snarky. You start out complementing Ingrid on her new blog and by the 4th comment it’s back to business as usual. Also she did not tell Nathan to “shut up”.
More of your fair and accurate critique?
May 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I always made a point of being polite and on-topic, because I knew SOL’ers were looking for any excuse possible to ban dissenting voices.
Didn’t make much difference, as I was perma-banned anyways. It’s kinda predictable, such as certain SOL writers always coming here to pontificate without content.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
And so it begins again.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Chris P - “I am not a fundamentalist”
Even Ken Silva has said he is not a fundamentalist. Ingrid has said the same.
LOL.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I am not a fundamentalist as you would define that word.
It goes right along with the whole post-modern line that anyone who adheres to scripture as authoritativ, inerrant, and infallible is a pharisee, when the pharisees were the ones who didn’t keep scripture at all.
You and the other pomo ilk are the worst offenders at broadbrushing and creating strawmen. I just had to use that word since I haven’t seen it appear here in awhile.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Chris P said Bull S$%t! haha
May 11th, 2007 at 12:22 am
sorry… just couldn’t resist.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I never defined it for you, Chris P.
But people like Silva, Phil Johnson, Ingrid have said they are not fundamentalists because fundamentalists are stupid and defensive and they are not.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I don’t think fundamentalists are stupid and defensive. Not all of them are, so where do they get off thinking that and why are they so quick to avoid that label.
Just as a lot of repressed gays spend a lot of time telling the world that they are gay, fundamentalists spend a lot of time telling the world they are not fundamentalists.
:).
May 11th, 2007 at 6:38 am
The strange thing is that most on this site believe Scripture to be authoritative, inerrant, and infallible. Does that make us fundamentalists?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Leonard Sweet once said something to the effect of “When it comes to the Message, I am a fundamentalist. When it comes to our methods, I experiment.”
Or something like that.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Chris P wrote: Todd, We have only your word as to their honest or unoffensive nature.
Well, that and the word of the scads of others who were similarly blocked (or totally banned) for no reason.
Isn’t “we have only your word” a roundabout way of saying “LIAR” ?
May 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
mj wrote: “I think before they would post comments that disagreed, as long as they were an easy target to refute.”
You’re right, mj. I revise my former statement.
The only thing more fun than blasting your brothers and sisters from a distance is blasting other brothers and sisters up close. Of course, you have to cherry-pick the up-close ones.