What is in Kelvin's Head?

Revised Commenting Policy

04/08/2012
I’ve posted something like this before but have had to add the final bullet point today. (And have today decided not to allow any further comments from the offender who caused me to add this last point. It seems to me that he has been warned enough).

The following types of comments will be deleted without question.
- Comments which appear to be legitimate but whose posters’ details point to porn sites.
- Comments which contain homophobic epithets. I’m open to intelligent discussion but I’m not running a site which allows people to get away with silly name calling.
- Comments which claim to prove something by quoting a single verse taken out of context from the Bible. Scripture is too precious to me to allow that. This is a place where the Bible is loved and honoured and treasured. Comments which use it as a weapon are unwelcome.
- Comments promoting one Bible translation because all the rest are flawed. Like quite a few people who comment here, my Greek and Hebrew are a bit rusty. However, it was worth learning them as I can now make up my own mind about such matters. Go thou and study likewise.
- Comments promoting or trying to raise money for particular missionary societies.
- Comments disparaging women and in particular comments which undermine my female colleagues. I learn about God from them.
- Comments trying to explain Penal Substution as a theory of Atonement. I know what it means. I know how it works. We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it. It gets boring if you try to explain it to me again.
- Comments in which those of us who are gay are likened to murderers either in the eyes of the commenter or in the eyes of God. To be honest, when it becomes that offensive, I don’t think we are talking enough of the same language for me to want to bother carrying on listening. I’m also not in the business of providing space for that kind of rhetoric. Those who want to make such comments can do so on their own blogs but not on mine.
As I’ve repeatedly said before, I like an intelligent argument and tend to adopt this policy as much for the sake of those others who like a sane corner of the web as for myself.

[Most] Comments welcome.

8 responses to “Synod – membership”

Stewart

13/06/2008

Kelvin – you are very modest in not describing your contribution to this debate – I guess it was in your usual style.

Reply
David |dä?v?d|

13/06/2008

Kelvin, I have lurked and read here for some time. I am curious about happenings in sister Anglican churches. I live in the Diocese of Northern Mexico of the Anglican Church of Mexico. American English is a second language for me.

It is difficult for me to follow much of what is written here for two reasons. You all speak a cryptic or clipped form of English at times, even different from what I encounter from the Mad One. You also use a lot of jargon and acronyms associated with the Scottish Church.

This is all OK if you intend your blog to be mostly catering to fellow Scots. However, if you are open to a blog with more international following you all might keep my points in mind when writing.

Reply
David |daveed|

13/06/2008

I usually try to give the Spanish pronunciation of my name, as opposed to the English, but you blog does not like the augmented letters!

Perdoname.

Reply
chris

13/06/2008

Glad to see you got your connection going again – I’m impressed with your speedy blogging!

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

But what was the motion though? You can’t say it failed without telling us what it was.

Reply
Kelvin

14/06/2008

The agenda and papers are available here:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/news/entry/general_synod_2008_agenda_and_papers/

These have all the motions and the preparatory materials.

Thanks for your comment, David – I’d be happy to try to explain any technical terms. Synod is quite confusing enough when English is your first language.

If you take a look at the papers that I pointed to above, you will see that the synod members all have a large book in front of them.

The motion which failed would have updated the way in which membership rolls are compiled to allow people to know whether or not they are on them. At the moment, membership rolls are compiled by rectors who do not need to tell people that they are included on the roll even though they may have liabilities thereby.

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

As one of my bosses used to say “all aid short of actual help”.
If you can be bothered summarising what all the speakers say why couldn’t you take another couple of minutes and summarise the motion?

Reply
Kimberly

15/06/2008

Perhaps what hasn’t been clear to readers who have come upon this post from further afield is that Kelvin was blogging the buisiness of synod in real time. That is only possible in short hand — and therefore probably of most use to those who are unable to be at synod, but broadly aware of the debates going on in the church.

So, perhaps we can let him off the hook for not being all things for all people while blogging from Synod, and be thankful for the wider pattern of good communication that we usually see here.

Reply