I read the post and, to me, it certainly didn't seem like Chansen was really putting words in their mouths. 

Chansen - feel free to mock my personal favourite Bible passage if you'd like. It is the parable of the Good Samaritan.

IMO the parody (which most of us missed apparently) raises the question "is the Ask the Nominees Q&A an exercise in bullshit so far?"  For me the answer is yes and judging from the responses I have to wonder if some of the candidates thought the same. 

More helpful for me were the deeper questions featured on a  blog called "Cruxifusion" and the responses so far gave me  much more insight as to what these people believe and their gifts.  Questions like "what is your favorite hymn" are lighthearted at best and don't mean much to me anyway.  Chansen's breakfast cereal comment is apt.  Cruxifusion asked "what does Jesus's death on a cross and resurrection mean to you?  Describe the God you worship?  What authors influenced you?  What are your gifts and passions?

Now to be fair perhaps those deeper questions were going to be asked in the upcoming weeks however it's been pretty light fare for the past six.  It astonished me how many named their father as their mentor in faith.  Makes you wonder about the mothers....

[quote=AaronMcGallegos]

@Alex: In the post about the Luke Magnotta murder, it was removed because it wasn't felt 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.

.
.
.

I never posted a link to the murder video. Perhaps the person who flagged my post said so, but they were wrong. I included two links that were removed. Neither were of the murder video. One was to the Natioanl Post which mentioned the name of the host site. The other was to Xtra, which did not even mention the host site, but had a blogger post a link, to it, that was removed with in a couple of hours of him doing so (and after i posted the link to Xtra) Due to a demand by the readers.
So essentially they were links to the news articles about the video, not the Video it self.

My other post was not in the thread that was removed. It was in a thread about the removal of that thread.

It is still a mystery to me why we have guidleines, when posts are removed that do not contravene them, but offend some, while posts that offend the guidlelines remain.

I find a post that falsely claims i posted a link to the murder video to be offensive and an attack on my character. Could you please remove your own post that says so, or edit ot for me. As well as make a clear statement that i di nor do so. You can go to the way back archives to check as it took you a week to edit my post, and so there was plenty of time for it to be archived.

I also am more concerned about other people editing my posts. Because it can change the meaning of the post. In particular the post concerning art of religious figues being offensive to only to muslims and not christians. in that post i embeded the art work in question feom wikipedia into my post. I do not know how many of my other posts have been edited by administrators, because i do not usually reread my posts. The reason i noticed it that time, was because a troll had threaten me with flagging and since it was a picture i noticed it when someone in admin had removed it. Like chansen post it took time to write and had a detailed about what a famous Roman Catholic Sister who also hosted an art show on PBS had said defending it and claiming it was about how modern values and devalued Christ, and yet a bunch of evengelical protestant say ot as an attack on Christ and had try to destroy it when it was displayed in Australia.

Politicians are real people, Aaron, and they're constantly being satired. They're considered fair game since they have allowed themselves to become public figures (their consent is thus assumed). Have the candidates for Moderator done likewise? Have they not given their consent for their ideas to be parodied by allowing their names to stand for consideration?

Rich blessings.

It's not really the same issue as what has happened with politicians. Politicians need peoples vote thus they have to pit up wth being mocked. I would say that howevr that candidates for moderator only really need delegates votes. This is a relatively small groups of people. But she is also the leader of the whole United Church, and provides leadership to church members and can use her psotion to draw attention to issues to the whole population, like Moderator Tindal has done on the environment.
.
.
.
The moderator is more than just the chair of General Council, and needs to hear what people say about the church, and hear how they talk about issues, and even hear what people gossip about and even how Candians mock the Bible and church leaders. The need to hear is because it will help them understand how to better communictae with people, and to understand their limitations and their strengths.

Without having read the post, I really can't offer an opinion. Both sides have good arguments.  I do agree with freedom of speech but I also believe that there are times that some things written need to be censored or not allowed.

I know what you mean, waterfall. I have a similar position: I agree with freedom of expression, but I also believe that people who walk around with a smile on their face should be shot.

Aaron, can you tell us if it is not too personal , if any othe moderators who have been named are personal friends of yours or others in Admin .Has this entered into Admin's decisions.

LOL, seriously though, can you not think of any instance that you would agree that there might be a line between freedom of speech and somethng that is hateful or inaccurate?

Maybe what you needed was a disclaimer?

I think ideas stand or fall on their own merits. That's why I want people to read the bible, and not just the gentle bits. That's why I don't want religious nutjobs silenced.

The fastest way to give a bad idea some rep points, is to try to hide it. I'd rather point out why it's an idiotic idea and have people laugh at it. Christianity, for example.

The area where I agree with you, is where people are inciting others to violence. Then, I can see the argument for limitations. However, I think it's safe to assume I never suggested violence in my original post in question here. I just want smiling people shot.

And I did state that I was summarizing the comments of the nominees, as I felt they were too long. The first words 'I put in a nominees mouth' were, "Be a Christian, but don't be a dick about it." Anyone who thinks that a guy who looks like the brother of the Archbishop of Canterbury said that, really deserves to have his Internet connection terminated.

Hi crazyheart,

Whoa!

Talk about loaded and leading questions.

Speaking personally I am satisfied with the answers Admin via Aaron has given with respect to why chansens post has been removed.  I am satisfied and respect the answers though I do not agree with them.

Admin, via Aaron, has not denied removing the post and they have provided a rationale for removing the post.  Why do we need to suspect that they aren't being honest?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression RevJohn and AAron. I do not suspect admin of anything. But my question was because I know that personal relationships can alter the way we think about things.

I have been at meetings where personal friends have been beaten up verbally and it has changed the way I have perceived things.

Aaron and Admin, you are doing a good job. Thank you.

Wow. Talk about derailment. Now that Chansen has gotten the spotlight that he so greatly desires, put his freakin' post back up.

I am now in the awkward position of thanking both Jae and Tyson for their support, though Tyson at least keeps with tradition and takes a swipe at me prior to giving his support.

Aaron, you still haven't answered my question about what "removed" means. The forums I have adminned in the past had a function to remove posts from view, without deleting them. I'm not sure if my post was deleted or not.

If not, you could send it back to me, and I could reformat it. After all, the problem is not the words, but the formatting, correct? Or is that about to change?

And I am in the honoured position of being able to say, you're welcome.

Support was easy for me to give. It's my personal opinion that there has been, is, and should always be a place for parody, satire, and laughs.

The world we live in is a scary one these days. People engaging in social activities being slaughtered for the simple deed of being there. We need more laughs in our troubled society, not less.

I stand and applaud people like you chansen who are aces at the comedic art. Feel free to parody myself and my denomination any time.

Rich blessings.

Look, Tyson, if you're going to try to skewer me with an image, try to choose one that is (a) relevant, and (b) doesn't require a widescreen or multi-monitor setup to display it.

Thanks Meredith, this is what I was looking for. Not sure what this "cruxifusion "website is, but  some of the answers of the nominees are really inspiring (I haven't read them all,yet.) while their statements on the GC website does not always go as far as describing what they will be bringing to the United Church. I would have expected that the GC website Q&A would be like the cruxifusion questions.

However, there is no need to call it bullshit and be offensive.

Unless the intent was simply "get to know more about the nominees".  The problem with the Cruxifusion-type question is that then it becomes like campaigning to the whole constituency.  COme the GC41 meeting the nominees are going to have a chance to share their vision for the next triennium witht eh COmmissioners.

I think the intent of these questions (as I recall seeing it at first) was to be "get to know them" not "what are thier theological convictions"

I am just too disapointed for words. ThIt's not the first time Chansen has been censored using a double standard . I understand that it is difficult and that mistakes can be made in applying rules, but being fair is not one of the rules. .

For example.The folling is also not fair.

First time i rember Chansen was censored was when he was for posting his stick figure of the Prophet in case it offended muslims. Yet Mely is allowed post messages that imply all muslims are bad and out to get us. .

Meanwhile white middle class people have to be protected against satire, meanwhile people are allow to say all sorts of offense things against LGBt, muslims, and sometimes other groups like First Nations and Mexicans.

And in response to the claim that the guidelines are not being used, and that i have had posts edited by admin, the admin than claims what i posted was deleted in one case, even through the whole thread is still online, and my original psot is there minus what admin removed, and in the second that i posted something and the post was edited becasue the admin now says that the links were something different. I am just dissapointed.

Alex, this place has been fairly lenient with me, compared to the few other religious forums I've visited. Yes, WC is extra-cautious about not offending cartoon-averse Muslims (under the heading of "don't offend other faiths"), while letting pretty much everything else about any other religion slide. Does it make any sense? No, but I've stopped trying to make sense of the admin decisions here. I've offered to move my post and reformat it (because the formatting was apparently the issue), but nothing from Aaron. He still hasn't said if my post was deleted or just removed from view. When you corner him on something like this, he just stops responding to you.

What I have to go back to doing, is saving some of my better posts locally, so when they are removed and the community points out just what a boneheaded decision it was, I still have the source material. I didn't do that here because I never considered that the post would be controversial in the least. It was simply a humour piece, and there were no dangerous stick-figures.

Removing your links from a post and suggesting you were linking to a dismemberment video, however, is a low blow. Aaron should be making that one right.

Clearly this is a get to know you exercise but why does getting to know them preclude hearing about their theology and gifts?  If their vision is only important for the GC41 to hear then why is it necessary for us to hear trivia about them like their favorite hymn and what they do to relax?  Either ask a variety of questions, some of which have some depth in addition to lighter hearted ones or don't bother-  in my opinion.

O for goodness' sake, put the post back up. I didn't see it, but based on what everyone who did see it has said no one in their right mind would have thought there was anything offensive about it, and if our candidates for Moderator (a position that's supposed to provide spiritual nurture to the church) are so thin skinned that they can't take a parody then the United Church has bigger problems than any of us have even begun to realize. Just put the post back up and stop treating everyone - candidates for Moderator and people on the board - like they're children.

What bothers me as a poster is that i depend on the guidelines of conduct to see what is or is not acceptable. I would have less frustration with admin if they changed them to reflect their decisions of the past, which i may or may not agree with, but that i can accept if i understand why some posts are deleted and some threads or posts are not. I also understand that trolls use the flagging option against certain members to tie up the time of the admin. (which i am not sure how many different people have admin status.) By deleting posts that do not come under the guidlelines of conduct, and by adding to it without actually changing the guidelines, encourages trolls to flag even more, especially i beleive certain members. I know i get flagged often, by trolls, as they threaten to do so all the time.
.
.
.
In the past other members have stated it is the membrs responsibilty to alert admin by flagging posts that contravine the guidelines. But it is difficult to do so, when the decisions to delete cerain posts are not done due to contraventions the published guidelines of conduct. Meanwhile posts and threads of mine are edited or deleted or admn asks me to stop when i have raised as a disscussion racism aginst First nation, ( mely's post on FN problems result from drinking) or when i have pointed out that two different sock puppets are likely the same troll. It makes it hard to do, and while any long posts i will now keep a copy of, i am not likely to do so with most posts.

What bothers me as a poster is that i depend on the guidelines of conduct to see what is or is not acceptable. I would have less frustration with admin if they changed them to reflect their decisions of the past, which i may or may not agree with, but that i can accept if i understand why some posts are deleted and some threads or posts are not. I also understand that trolls use the flagging option against certain members to tie up the time of the admin. (which i am not sure how many different people have admin status.) By deleting posts that do not come under the guidlelines of conduct, and by adding to it (according to the response to your complaint all posts must be "fair" without actually changing the published guidelines, encourages trolls to flag even more, especially i beleive certain members. I know i get flagged often, by trolls, as they threaten to do so all the time.
.
.
.
In the past other members have stated it is the membrs responsibilty to alert admin by flagging posts that contravine the guidelines. But it is difficult to do so, when the decisions to delete cerain posts are not done due to contraventions the published guidelines of conduct. Meanwhile posts and threads of mine are edited or deleted or admn asks me to stop when i have raised as a disscussion racism aginst First nation, ( mely's post on FN problems result from drinking) or when i have pointed out that two different sock puppets are likely the same troll. It makes it hard to do, and while any long posts i will now keep a copy of, i am not likely to do so with most posts.

I saw the post - it was just Chansen being a usual dick.  I didn't think anything about it.  Couldn't be bothered replying.  But now, with Admin's observation and explanation that he was putting words into other peoples mouths, beside their pictures - people who don't frequent the WonderCafe and therefore are not available ot defend themselves, I agree with Admin.  It might not be spelled out in the rules, but I think it would be an understood rule in 21st century communications not to imply that somebody had said something (a direct quote) that they didn't. 

Aren't their theological convictions essential elements in who they are as Christian leaders?

You've been around enough of them to judge commonality?

Everyone, including you, understood they were my words. I forget the exact disclaimer that I put at the top, but it was obviously a parody. For one thing, none of them were actual bible verses. What I really should have done, if I was more clever and cared less (which is a state I'm rapidly approaching), is something like this:

Mr. Moses Kanhai

2 Kings 2:23-24. This passage beginning with the words "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head" continues to exhort us in affectionate terms "And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." There is no more important message in the Bible.

I'm going to bypass the whole conversation about chansen's post and zero in on the exchange between Meredith and Gord which is far more germane to what this thread should be about. I look up Cruxifusion, which Meredith mentioned, and have read through some of the answers. These are very reasoned, thoughtful responses to some very interesting questions. That doesn't mean the Ask the Nominees questions aren't interesting in some respects and that the answers aren't thoughtful. I think your favorite hymn can, in fact, say something useful and meaningful about you (before you ask, it's "We Laugh, We Cry", which is a UU hymn that you'll likely have to Google for). As Gord says, the nominees aren't campaigning to the whole church. However, if you want to know about a Christian and where they are coming from, I'd say that answering their first question (what does the death and resurrection mean) tells you a lot. Likewise "Describe the God you worship".

For those who want to know what Meredith is referring to: http://cruxifusion.ca/

Mendalla

Interesting question: Compare political and church leadership. On the highest level- Prime Minister and Moderator they are not elected directly by the people but by "delegates".

The people still would like to know where they stand and what they will bring on the job. I would like to know this of church leadership candidates on lower levels as well.

Are we supposed to have a mystery understanding" that "it's the spirit that elects church moderators," so the common people don't need to know the nominees until we actually have a Moderator, while in politics candidates are expected to take a stand on what they think and plan to do, because they just get elected in a secular way?

That's a bit like Roman Catholic Bishops voting  the next Pope in the deep caves of the Vatican. Common people just get to see the smoke rising.

And you can say whatever you want against God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit...

But the future pope of the UCC is totally off limits.

They're a three-headed figment of your imagination. Is that what you mean?

Actually, all of the nominees are.