|
Post by therondunn on Dec 4, 2007 3:34:59 GMT
This post has been removed deliberately since it appears that fair treatment is not available here
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 4, 2007 5:43:10 GMT
I find it interesting that bright light casts dark shadows
Traditionally that is dealt with by balancing light with love
And Masonically we do that by linking Truth with Brotherly Love
Even more so at Christmas
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by therondunn on Dec 4, 2007 6:06:22 GMT
This post has been removed deliberately since it appears that fair treatment is not available here
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Dec 4, 2007 7:23:53 GMT
Ed's website does have some very useful resources, however, I do sometimes feel very 'preached at' by his editorial. Doesn't detract from the great resource he has created tho
|
|
|
Post by idestine on Dec 4, 2007 8:29:59 GMT
Do you not find personal attacks on other Masons detracting? Speaking of which, a question for the moderators. Why is it against this forum's rules to make personal attacks on other members but it is acceptable to post a link to a webpage that makes personal attack on another member? Quite a glaring conflict of policy. Theron posted a page that makes a personal attack on another member. It seems that should be against forum rules to post this link.
D
|
|
|
Post by amos on Dec 4, 2007 8:49:50 GMT
I do. Great point after reading a little more in debth. It looks like he is portraying a **** starter my self. Pardon my language.
|
|
|
Post by xiii on Dec 4, 2007 9:44:35 GMT
There is a lot of good information on that website, but I no longer direct people there for "Masonic Info", as I feel Ed King has begun to insert a rather tasteless judgemental tone into his material. He may be talking about "facts", but he doesn't actually come off as unbiased. Still, I'll take this in. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Dec 4, 2007 10:16:06 GMT
Do you not find personal attacks on other Masons detracting? Speaking of which, a question for the moderators. Why is it against this forum's rules to make personal attacks on other members but it is acceptable to post a link to a webpage that makes personal attack on another member? Quite a glaring conflict of policy. Theron posted a page that makes a personal attack on another member. It seems that should be against forum rules to post this link. D If you have a problem with forum policy then please address one of the mod team directly, and not on the forum, that way we keep the discussion on track and flowing properly. To answer your question, there is nothing on Ed's page that breaches the present rules of the forum. I'm am somewhat concerned as to your position in all this - your first post contains a claim you are an attorney, and all subsequent posts seem to have been aimed at fanning the flames of conflict - if you are an interested party retained by someone as an attorney then you should declare this, so that people are aware of your motivations for posting.
|
|
|
Post by idestine on Dec 4, 2007 10:33:37 GMT
With all due respect Penfold, regarding some of the forum postings, my motivations are not the ones needing to be called into question. And I hope I can express my own opinions here, regardless of my profession.
Personal bashing on a linked webpage certainly addresses the credibility of the page as a whole. That is quite on topic of the discussion but a layer deeper than just a cursory read of the page.
D
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Dec 4, 2007 10:48:11 GMT
With all due respect Penfold, regarding some of the forum postings, my motivations are not the ones needing to be called into question. And I hope I can express my own opinions here, regardless of my profession. Personal bashing on a linked webpage certainly addresses the credibility of the page as a whole. That is quite on topic of the discussion but a layer deeper than just a cursory read of the page. D At the risk of repeating myself, neither me nor any of the other moderators are going to get into a public discussion with you about the respective merits of individuals postings or how we operate the forum. By all means express your opinions, but try to keep in mind that the heat has been removed from this discussion and it really doesn't need you fanning the flames again.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 4, 2007 11:04:18 GMT
The facts speak for themselves. Fact is not a personal attack. The sequence of events are as represented. Do not try to obfuscate by raising the issue of Forum rules. If you know that events are contrary to those potrayed in Bro. King's blog, please present your version.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 4, 2007 11:25:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 4, 2007 11:27:26 GMT
Thanks for the warning, I won't bother myself wasting my time with Ed King then folks.
On the more serious matter of the Mods and Forum Policy. I used to be an Admin on this Forum, I left over a personal animosity for one of the other Mods and the way they handled matters. That has not changed between that particular Mod and me and probably never will. However after a period I decided to come back as an Ordinary poster as this is to my mind one of the best Masonic Fora on the web.
The Admins and Mods have a particularly difficult job with this Topic. There are very strongly held opinions on both sides, not only from those directly involved but from those of us who have decided to support one side or the other. It is a topic which can inflame passions to say the least even in those of us who are not participants in the original dispute.
There is the added complication of these events taking place far away from the UK where this Forum is domiciled and where many of its posters practice their various types of Freemasonry and are therefore not familiar with the minutiae of American Freemasonry, its customs, practices and rules. Add to that the possibility of Legal Action being taken by either side in this matter and the Admins and Mods have to tread very carefully indeed to avoid becoming embroiled therein, especially as again such action would be under US Law not that of the UK.
On many Fora this thread and those associated with the same matter would have been locked by now and I admire the Mods for striving to keep it open given the complications thereof.
Can I ask other posters to give the Mods a break? You don't blame the printer if you don't like the book, so should not have ago at the Mods and Admins if the words of a particular poster cause you offence.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 4, 2007 11:37:11 GMT
And likely will continue indefinitely. There are many spurious groups out there claiming extraordinary claims. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
|
|
|
Post by idestine on Dec 4, 2007 11:41:22 GMT
The facts speak for themselves. Fact is not a personal attack. The sequence of events are as represented. Do not try to obfuscate by raising the issue of Forum rules. If you know that events are contrary to those potrayed in Bro. King's blog, please present your version. Putting aside the issue of forum rules, the statements on the page about a person are skewed and in my opinion, quite nasty. Specifically, for example, King's statements about why an individual has purported problems with their lodge. Is this information published anywhere? No it isn't. It appears to be gossip with the intent to discredit. And as such, in my mind, calls into question the credibility of the rest of what King has written about the GO on King's blog. As a result, I am skeptical about everything written on King's blog about the GO and wish to research on my own and make my own conclusions based on information from other independent sources, not be told by him what to think about the GO. D
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 4, 2007 11:43:28 GMT
You are much more diplomatic than I, Bro. Steve. And don't be so quick to write off Bro. King's blog. He presents the matter factually, albeit interspersed with his own opinion, to which he is entitled. But there is no denying the sequence of events.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 4, 2007 11:47:18 GMT
The facts speak for themselves. Fact is not a personal attack. The sequence of events are as represented. Do not try to obfuscate by raising the issue of Forum rules. If you know that events are contrary to those potrayed in Bro. King's blog, please present your version. Putting aside the issue of forum rules, the statements on the page about a person are skewed and in my opinion, quite nasty. Specifically, for example, King's statements about why an individual has purported problems with their lodge. Is this information published anywhere? No it isn't. It appears to be gossip with the intent to discredit. And as such, in my mind, calls into question the credibility of the rest of what King has written about the GO on King's blog. As a result, I am skeptical about everything written on King's blog about the GO and wish to research on my own and make my own conclusions based on information from other independent sources, not be told by him what to think about the GO. D Then do your research, and make up your own mind. And lose the snotty attitude. Why don't you call the GOoF and see if they've ever even heard of this GOofUS outfit and report back to us?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 4, 2007 11:50:45 GMT
I see on your profile, Idesine, that you are 107 years old, having been born on 01-01-1900. Congratulations on such a milestone.
|
|
vtmason
Member
Running Dog Lackey
Posts: 251
|
Post by vtmason on Dec 4, 2007 11:50:58 GMT
The facts speak for themselves. Fact is not a personal attack. The sequence of events are as represented. Do not try to obfuscate by raising the issue of Forum rules. If you know that events are contrary to those potrayed in Bro. King's blog, please present your version. Putting aside the issue of forum rules, the statements on the page about a person are skewed and in my opinion, quite nasty. Specifically, for example, King's statements about why an individual has purported problems with their lodge. Is this information published anywhere? No it isn't. It appears to be gossip with the intent to discredit. And as such, in my mind, calls into question the credibility of the rest of what King has written about the GO on King's blog. As a result, I am skeptical about everything written on King's blog about the GO and wish to research on my own and make my own conclusions based on information from other independent sources, not be told by him what to think about the GO. D as you should. The internet is a big place, and I'm sure that brother King will not feel offended. Ya know I've been doings Masonic, and gun dog forums for 5-6 years now. I tend to get a little skeptical myself. For instance, when a cat comes on a forum looking into joining Freemasonry, just happens to be a lawyer from a State that is openly discussed, and having turmoil, and seems educated enough in the political drama to continue to go at it with TD, makes me go Hmmm. I'm not calling you to the carpet, of looking for a cut and paste war. Just thinking out loud a bit.
|
|
vtmason
Member
Running Dog Lackey
Posts: 251
|
Post by vtmason on Dec 4, 2007 11:52:57 GMT
You are much more diplomatic than I, Bro. Steve. And don't be so quick to write off Bro. King's blog. He presents the matter factually, albeit interspersed with his own opinion, to which he is entitled. But there is no denying the sequence of events. Ed King is a good man and a great Mason. He has done more for th youth in his home lodge through Demolay than most will do in their lifetimes. I know Ed and his wife personally.
|
|