Hey, just noticed that a post has been withdrawn here ... must have been by admin, because it is gone without a trace.

Granted it was pretty cheeky.

WC Is convinced that the candidates have no sense of humour and are not bright enough to distinguish between satirical comments and misquotes.

What were the chances that all the candidates for UCCan moderator would be Tea Party members?

I actually thought the post was a good one, Chansen.

It was witty enough to motivate me to go and check out the moderator candidates' responses to the question. I don't think I would have bothered otherwise.

On the other hand, it was arguably just as much a threadcrap as Jae's yawns so I can see why it might have been either flagged or caught admin's attention, esp. coming so soon after the incident.

Back on topic, I have many favorites, including a couple that I've picked up from reading these responses. The famous Ecclesiastes 3 (Unto everything there is a season) is one that I come back to time and time again. 1 Corinthians 13 is another.

Mendalla

Were the yawns pulled, Mendalla?

I would be please if Admin would leave a little note indicating when a post has been deleted. It would save a lot of confusion in some cases.

I must have missed "the incident" ... not sure what this refers to.

Thanks. I certainly put some effort into it, looking up each of the passages and noting the hilarious or ridiculous aspects of each. To put my effort on par with Jae's "yawn" threadcrap is more of a stretch than any of the answers given by the nominees.

And, yes, it's my post that gets canned. That I'm aware, Jae's "efforts", or severe lack thereof, are still on display.

The reason, I was told, is that while most would understand the joke, the nominees might not. Seriously - that's what I was told. WC really thinks the nominees could be that dense.

I wish I had seen your post chansen.

As a commissioner, I have read most of the profiles in the workbook. I think this question may have been the most useful....for what it is worth. It will be interesting to see them in person. I have met Sally, so have an idea about her. What a decision.....

I saw your post Chansen and found it quite amusing!

My favourite Bible passage is the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Thanks.

Tell you what - I pretty much remember most of it. Maybe I'll put it back together and re-post it. See if I can make it better.

It'll also be interesting to see how many nominees are as clueless as Aaron suspects and complain about being misquoted.

I will keep checking in on this chansen. I am a commissioner, so need to make a decision......your input might help.......

In the context of choosing a moral non hierarchical leader what would be most important for staff, ministers, members and others want or need to hear in times of difficulties, or in good times. . As oppose to an interesting passage theologically, or otherwise.

i like Tom Sherwood's answer.

I too am sad that i did not get to see Chansens joke, i can always use a laugh, also i hate it when Chansen posts get flagged or deleted, it might mean he takes the lead for most post deleted/ admended/ warning. It means i have less of a chance of taking or keeping the lead.

Excuse the expression, but you don't have a prayer. I get more flags from thin-skinned and humorless Christians in a day than you get in a month. Now, if this place were crawling with Catholic priests, you'd have a shot.

I have 3 of the nominees left to write. Can't remember what I posted on them. Won't re-post until I mock each of them equally.

Chansen, can you please not repost it? We don't want to mock our nominees for Moderator. 

Thanks,

Aaron for WonderCafe

Aaron, are you honestly convinced that the nominees can't take a joke? If so, which of us thinks less of the nominees, you or I?

I'm sure they can take a joke, this just isn't the place for it. Thanks Chansen.

An Internet discussion forum isn't the place to have fun with the process of choosing a moderator? Did you guys install velvet wallpaper and hire doormen with white gloves while I wasn't looking?

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

Can I ask who the "We" is in this case?

While I am hot&cold with mockery I recognize that it does have its place.  If the questions asked are merely opportunities for candidates to "preach to the choir" then I fail to see how the exercise amounts to anything more than mutual back-patting.

Members within The United Church of Canada are not afraid to point to certain passages and suggest that they are "texts of terror."  We shouldn't be shrinking from hearing how any particular text chosen by any particular nominee impacts favourably or not upon those who hear it.

While chansen and I will not see eye to eye on scripture's necessity let alone its interpretation I don't think Chansen's interpretation needs to be censored. 

That said, chansen putting his interpretation of passages of scripture into the mouths of others could be seen as unfair.  However, John Wesley engaged in pseudopigraphy so there is precedent for it to be used in and against the Church.

Grace and peace to you.

John

And for the record, I was so impressed that of the crowd only one quoted Micah.  I expected we would get a ton of amens for that text.

Not that I have anything against the Micah passage.

Just the frequency of it being quoted in a Church which loves justice and is short on the grace and humility aspect.

Grace and peace to you.

John

That would be WonderCafe. It isn't really the appropiate place for it at this time. If the nominees were active members here and could defend themselves, it might be different.

Yes, that's how it was portrayed.

Thanks for the support, John. I really appreciate it.

Aaron, given how this admin decision of yours is going over (again), could you please reinstate my post? You mentioned to me that you "removed" it. Hopefully you didn't just delete it. It took a while to write it, I had fun writing it, and it just isn't coming out as good the second time around. Thanks.

I stated right at the top that it was me summarizing the comments of the nominees. Anyone who read those summaries and thought they were faithful to the intentions of the nominees is probably a Baptist.

I guess the question for me that as Aaron suggests the folk who have let their names stand for Moderator do not come to this site. , "Why not". It might be good practice for them to face the folk who are the constituents in all of this. Just a couple of cents.

Hi crazyheart,

That presumes that they do not have regular interaction with folk who are the constituents in all of this.

I'm doubtful that a majority of Commissioners to GC-41 are WonderCafe.ca members and since it is only the Commissioners who will vote for Moderator I think expecting to see the Moderators here is simply wishful thinking.

There might be some value in members of the United Church getting a chance to look over the field of contenders.  I'm not sure what that value actually is.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I've seen one candidate pop in, just once though. She's pretty busy.

HI AaronMcGallegos,

Respectfully Aaron that is a vague answer.

Is WonderCafe.ca the Administration, the members or some mixture of the two?  I respect Admin's right to moderate and administrate.  At present I don't see any call to have chansen's post removed coming from the membership.  Admittedly there could be flags I know nothing about.

So despite the answer I really don't know who "We" actually is.

Maybe not.  I read it before it was removed.  I didn't find it to be inappropriate.

Fair enough.  Does that mean that future discussions on WonderCafe.ca will be censored for comments about individuals who may not be members?  For example, Prime Minister Harper is not, to my knowledge a member of WonderCafe.ca can we expect posts critical of the Prime Minister to be removed under the rubric of his not being a member to defend himself?

Above I point out that John Wesley used pseudopigraphy and he is not a member of WonderCafe.ca and cannot defend himself.  That he has been dead for a number of years doesn't actually change that rationale.

Except that I don't really think it was.  Admittedly I have a bias because I am familiar with chansen's posting.  A newcomer might not have understood.  Even so, I don't think anyone reading chansen's post would have understood it to be him quoting the nominees verbatim so much as him critiquing the scriptures they have chosen.

If members flagged the post and you responded to that then, at the very least, you have acted in what I believe to be an entirely consistent manner with respect to the deletion of posts.  If it was a proactive matter among the administrators and not a response to concerned members I think the action may have been slightly heavy handed.

Generally I am supportive of Admin and I would continue to support the removal of material mocking others not from the United Church without flags from the community.  When the mockery is directed at members of the United Church I think we need to wear our big boy pants.

I don't always share chansen's sense of humour.  If "We" represents the whole of WonderCafe.ca then I would think chansen is a part of that "We" and as such he deserves to have a post stand until such time as the rest of us say we would rather it not.

The same holds true for any member's ability to post freely.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think we have to remember that in the grand scheme of the UCCan, WC is not a big influence nor is it a big part of the church for the majority.

With all the wise things that are said here about the church, I can hardly beleve that Mendalla.

Do the Moderators to be get tongue in cheek humour,like above. Just saying......

Thanks for your concern RevJohn. We (WonderCafe admin) didn't feel it was fair to ask the nominees for their response to a question only to have their responses mocked as soon as we posted them, using the pictures they submitted of themselves and the layout from the GC41 site so it could look as if those were their words. That's not in keeping with the spirit they were asked or responded to the questions.

About the "big boy pants" comment. You've been here since the very beginning so you know we (WonderCafe admin) don't have the policy of removing items critical of or even mocking the United Church, the current Moderator, WonderCafe, Emerging Spirit, our even WonderCafe admin. But there are some posts that are removed (very few really) that just aren't appropiate for this site to host for one reason or another in the estimation of WonderCafe admin.

Aaron,

Could you clarify please who was doing the asking? If Wondercafe were the poser of the questions, I could see your logic here. But it seemed to me the questions originated on the GC41 website. 

Or is there no real difference between Wondercafe admin and the hosts of the GC website?

Hi Paradox3, 

The "Ask the Nominees" series of questions are being asked by the General Council Office for posting on our websites: GC41, WonderCafe, Cafechange (hopefully), Facebook, and Twitter. Yes, the hosts/admin are the same for all these.

Can Chanson repost his deleted on another or new thread?

To be fair, it's a lot more humourous if I use the same format, but nobody is going to buy that the words are coming from the nominees. And I didn't respond with my post "immediately." This thread sat around for a number of hours, a completely dry and bit of Q&A with the nominees providing highly predictable answers to a simple question. Had I not posted and had some fun with it, this thread likely would have been almost completely ignored, just like the similar thread on the nominees' favourite hymn. It couldn't get much worse if you asked for their favourite breakfast cereal.

And I understand that you have the right to remove posts at random if you so wish, and it really appears that's what you're doing here. What bothers me most, is this wasn't just a throwaway post that I fired off in 5 seconds. It took some time, and in my estimation, it was a rather clever bit of text that people were enjoying. Members have said as much above.

What I'd like to know first, is was it deleted, or just removed from view? If it wasn't deleted, I again ask that you reinstate the post. After all the discussion and all the hype, it will never be as good as people are now expecting it to be, but it will still be more entertaining than listening to you try to justify why you removed it in the first place.

That's a perfectly fine compromise to me. Thanks, Alex.

While not representative of the UCC, the members of wondercafe are representTive of a certain demographic that is as important as any other demographic in the UCC. it also has many non UCC membrs who's views do reflect those of certains Canadians.

Not only would The wise posts be of interest, but the inwise along with the funny ones, the mocking ones, and all the orher ones as well. i believe that good leadership starts with the ability to listen to diverse sources, with diverse views. This can help them understand who they are leading, and will inform them pf things that there closest advisor might not.

While we wait for an answer of my question i will anser the question posed by the original post.

My favorite verse is "Jesus wept" from the book of John. It is my favorite because shows Jesus to be a human. It also shows him to have empathy and compassion for other humans. It also shows him to mderstand that death of a human is a sad thing, and not something to be celebrated and uplifted, as many people do with his death.

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for clarifying. Somehow I was thinking that the GC41 website and Wondercafe were more "at arm's length" from each other.

I know you have some difficult calls to make around here, but personally, I just thought Chansen was being a bit cheeky. And I didn't think for a split second that I was reading the authentic responses from the nominees. 

As I said earlier, Chansen's wit motivated me to go take a look at what the candidates were actually saying.

Agreeing with you totally, RevJohn.

And also finding it amusing that our resident atheist got himself into trouble by reading and talking about scripture here on wondercafe.

Of course WonderCafe admin wouldn't have a problem with a person reacting to scripture in their own words. The main problem with Chansen's post is that he used the GC41 page format and nominees' pictures in a way that could look like these were the words of the nominees themselves. It comes very close, if not crosses the line, to misrepresenting the words of the nominees. And it doesn't seem fair to the nominees.

Alex, for the same reason, we have asked Chansen to please not post it again.

Thanks,

Aaron for WonderCafe

I don't want to post it again. I want you to reinstate the original. Please. You're the only one in this entire thread who thinks it was a good idea to remove it.

At least let me know if you deleted it or not.

Aaron,

For heaven's sake.

It is really, really difficult for me to imagine that anyone mistook Chansen's post for the original words of the nominees.  

Parody is an art form.

While I didn't have the pleasure of enjoying chansen's post in question, it seems that the vast majority of those who did found it quite funny, along the same lines perhaps as the kind of satirical material that often appears in newspapers during election times.

Surely the UCCanada is a mature enough institution to be able to laugh at itself. It seems the vast majority of the members of the denomination here are able to have a good laugh at the formalities of the organization.

Aaron, I join the chorus in respectfully requesting that you restore the deleted post.

Rich blessings.

Or even, I daresay, along the same lines as the original advertising which launched Wondercafe.ca

It was edgy and provocative.

With the big difference being that it was a joke made at the expense of real people without their consent, colleagues for some of us, who could speak for themselves if they like (and I guess they did by answering the questions in the first place).

Sorry, I don't think we have used an especially heavy hand here. Just trying to show some respect for the nominees who have put their time and thought into replying to the questions as we asked them to. The "Ask the Nominees" series is supposed to help people get to know them better, not to make fun of them. 

Chansen, sorry we had to remove your post. I know you put time into crafting it, but we (and it's not just me) just didn't think it was appropiate in this time and place.

Have any of the nominees checked in on this issue, Aaron? Do we know how any of these individuals are reacting to this whole shebang? Do they even care?

Right now, it seems to me like the UCCAN is circling the wagons.

There is a problem where the guidelines are often ignored and psots remain. Howevvr there are posts such as Chansen which are removed or edited by the admin that do not break the guidelines.

Sometimes these posts are edited without imforming the poster, such as when i had a piece of art (which a RC Sister praised, and fundies called blasphemous)removed from a discussion about the image of Muhammed, and where many claimed by some that Christian were not offended by images of Christ. My point was made that only some muslims are offended by images, just as some Christians were. Howevr i broke no guidelines. Equally when i posted a link to the National Post about the online murder, it too was removed. And again i broke no guidelines.

What is up!

I didn't see Chansen's post, so I can't comment on that. Just want to note that overall, I find the questions for the nominees quiet lame. They sound like the intention is to introduce the nominees from a personal background, but avoid anything that could show some opinion to actual important topics from politics or religion.

Or even questions that an employer would ask ,like "what are you bringing in for the job' or what is your personl motivation or where do you see yourself , if elected , one year from now."

After the first two questions, I didn't find it worth going back to the site.

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

Just for clarification then.

If a regular member has a post mocked as soon as they post it that is understood as being part and parcel of regular participation here at the WonderCafe.ca.  If an invited guest poster is mocked as soon as they post that is understood as a lack of hospitality on the part of WonderCafe.ca?

If so that is a rather glaring double standard and it would have been nice to know that such a double standard existed before these threads began appearing.  If not, then I'm more than a little perplexed.  I can accept that we regulars might be asked to hold ourselves to a higher standard around invited guests.  I don't think that applying that standard without warning is conducive to community.

I can appreciate the formatting issue.  Shell Canada has recently been victimized by Greenpeace in pretty much the same way.  Chansen's effort, though somewhat clever, was not as subtle as Greenpeace's parody.

I suspect it is the "but" which is the crux of the issue.  I know that WonderCafe admin is very tolerant with respect to many posts that have been made here and I appreciate that yourself and the rest of the Admin team have taken grief because of that relaxed approach.

After five years of a very liberal approach towards such mockery this less tolerant approach is a bit puzzling.

I for one am very appreciative that WonderCafe.ca is not anything goes.  That there are lines at WonderCafe.ca which ought not to be crossed and when someone does I am generally content to let Admin act as they see fit.

I may not always agree with admin's decisions.  I do respect Admin's right to to make those decisions.

Grace and peace to you.

John

@Alex: In the post about the Luke Magnotta murder, it was removed because it wasn't felt <edit: articles which offered> a link to the video of the actual murder and dismemberment was appropiate for this website. I don't remember the exact post in the other incident you note, but it could have been your post was caught up in "collatoral damage" when a whole thread was removed, which is sometimes necessary unfortunately.

@Mrs. Anteater: The "Ask the Nominees" questions are supplemental to the nominees' statements on who they are and what they might bring to the job, questions which they address in their statements here: http://www.gc41.ca/moderator-nominees

@RevJohn: It isn't mockery which is the primary problem here, but the formatting of the post which could make it appear that the responses Chansen offered were in the nominees' own words. That didn't seem fair. Similarly, anyone of us could use the quote function here on WonderCafe and change each others words to something other than what the original poster intended. Most people would cry foul at that. It really isn't too different, imo. On the other hand, any WonderCafe visitor could write "Rev. So and So's favourite Bible passage is terrible for these reasons," and "Rev. JaneDoe's selection was lame." etc. That would have been acceptable (in most cases). But setting it up so in some cases it appeared people were saying something they weren't isn't, in the opinion of WonderCafe admin including me.