Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Are we "obstructive to new thought"?

Recommended Posts

A new member, for their first post, provided a long post promoting his book of "mystic spirituality," and included a long summary of his unconventional perspective (he called it "A Celestial Revelation") of the Second Coming.

I sent him an explanation that the board is not a place for self-promotion, and that promoting one's own literature on the board should only take place in the typical course of board conversation. Members should be here to pursue and participate in conversation, not propaganda. Greg Wright has been a fine example of someone who has found a good balance in this way.

I sent him a polite caution, asking him to demonstrate some degree of desire to participate in the conversation before he "pitched" his book to us.

He responded saying that he found my qualification to be contrary to what he finds elsewhere on this board.

He also said that I am "obstructive to new thought."

I am posting THIS message to ask if others think I am being too unfair, AND to find out if there are places on this board where I have missed new members using the board as an advertising outlet for their own work rather than devoting themselves to conversation.

If you have any thoughts on this, please respond.

I am hoping to get some affirmation from the rest of the board that we want to discourage members from using it primarily as a bulletin board for self-promotion.

For the record, I have no problem with "new thought." I just have concerns that, on this board, people take care in how they present "new thought" ... that it be in a context of conversation. If the board became a platform for pulpit-pounders of ANY kind, I believe it would quickly deteriorate.

Jeffrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely fair, and very clear that your objection has nothing to do with openness to "new thought," and everything to do with preventing people coming along and simply exploiting the forum to promote their own cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. Is Jeffrey obstructive to new thought? Here's what I think:

[information deleted by board administrator.]

But seriously, folks! -- Yes, there is some plugging going on here on the board. I plugged my own CD and a couple of live appearances. But posters in the Musicians section are encouraged to plug their own work, so that's OK -- and I established myself first by participating in some conversations. Peter "plugs" articles he has published elsewhere, but only if they're relevant to a current conversation. If he quotes himself, he does so succinctly. I think plugging is fine if it comes in the form of brief quotes and/or Web links. I linked to my own site, which describes my CD in detail. I didn't upload MP3s of the entire CD to this site. If Andrew had put his thesis on his own site and then linked to it here in the context of a conversation, that would be fine with me, even if I disagreed with him.

What would such a conversation look like? Well, for instance, I could start by saying that a Google search reveals that Andrew Frew is the name of a fairly prominent Australian rugby player, currently with the St. George Illawarra Dragons. I am terribly interested in what Australian rugby players have to say about the Second Coming, so I delved further and discovered that Mr. Frew has spammed a few other discussion boards (such as this one, where a few people responded to him and he immediately labeled them "idiots") with the synopsis of his book, which is also listed at Amazon and reviewed briefly here. But having edited a few books on Revelation and end-time prophecy, I know that every such book contradicts every other such book, so you're better off not reading any of them. According to the information I've linked to above, in his book Mr. Frew has applied the principles of astrology to the interpretation of St. John's Revelation. He concludes that the Battle of Armageddon is really the Second World War. And, since this is part of a conversation, I'd conclude by saying, "What do other board participants think of that?"

I participate in a mandolin discussion board -- we had an episode a while back where this cat spammed several sections of the board with plugs for his recordings, and a quick search revealed that he had done so on dozens of other music-related boards. Not only that, he came across as a know-it-all jerk when he actually did engage in conversation. Fortunately, I think he figured out on his own that his shenanigans were unwelcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mar-- er... Mr. Mando.

I think the distinguishing characteristic of your "plugs" are that you have offered them from friend to friend on this board, having already established yourself as a regular participant in conversation.

That's different than somebody dropping in and promptly posting a big blast of unsoliticited advertisement for their work. (In this case, it was a lengthy description of the writer's manifesto about how the Second Coming has already happened, and how this was a "celestial revelation" he had received.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that I could add something fresh here, but Mando has it about covered. The way we discuss things here makes it to be rather rude to just jump in somewhere and tout yourself, let alone push some pet project right out of the box. We've had folks do that and it is to be noted that, whether they are caught or not, they don't stick around for very long. You are entirely right in your judgement. This "obstructive of new thought" thingie is 1) sour grapes in an obvious sense, and 2) "there is nothing new under the sun" including thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Jeffrey, et. al:

Was he a Mormon, by any chance? I read Under the Banner of Heaven earlier this summer, and I seemed to recall vaguely several of the interviewees using this term to refer to direct, prophetic revelations received from God.

I don't think Andrew Frew professes to be a Latter-Day Saint, and I don't think the LDS Church promotes the idea that the principles of zodiac astrology should be applied to the Book of Revelation in such a way as to identify WWII with the Battle of Armageddon. Which is what Mr. Frew's book is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our buddy Aaron might contend that we were obstructive to LDS thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...