Posted by Rick on March 14, 1999 at 15:09:14 {MWSZV6.08fSjY}:
I ordinarily don't have time to read every post, and it would have been a fulltime job to read the over 2,000 moderator removals from our team of over 50 moderators. Due to the overwhelming number of complaints, however, I started a random sampling of deletions. I will identify certain comments herein as applying "generically without fingering any particular moderator," and comments specifically to a moderator.
Commenting generically without fingering any moderators, some deletions seemed to me, and this is just my personal viewpoint, the equivalent of pulling over someone for 66 mph in a 55 mph zone. Having to prioritize my limited time, I'll keep randomly sampling posts until we get someone who appears to be going the 65 mph limit who got pulled over and cited for speeding. Can I do it?
Regretfully, the first random sampling of this sort happens to involve Moderator 52. Depending on whence my finger twitched when clicking randomly it could have been ANY moderator, so please don't feel singled out, M52. We're all accountable. Sometimes cops make mistakes and a random audit reveals the mistake, so don't consider this an affront to your abilities to moderate.
Cutting to the chase, please reply to this post why the following post was removed? I see no contradiction to the Forum Participation Policy (FPP). This is exactly the kind of introspection we as Jehovah's Witnesses need. The post was short and concise, well cited, made pertinent comments relating to the consistency between our "enforcement" of celibacy and the blood doctrine, and was respectfully worded.
For the Moderator Program on H2O to work, at some point Moderators must become accountable for their actions and have a willingness to explain their actions. Thanks in advance, M52, for explaining why this post warranted removal under the FPP.
Rick
(NOTE: If anyone can email H2O similar types of removals from H2O's other moderators, then I'll call on the carpet other moderators to explain their actions as well. This is not an attempt to single out any one moderator, but obviously we have to start somewhere.)
[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Jeffery M.
Schwehm on March 11, 1999 at 09:10:33
{MWMnSA1j0cGFE}:
Hi-
In the February 22nd, 1999 Awake! there is a very interesting letter to the
editor and editorial response. The letter reads as follows:
"Celibacy- For some years I
have been a reader of your magazines. I have
to protest your one-sided reporting about the doctrines of the Catholic
Church in the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: Is Celibacy a Requirement
for Christian Ministers?" (June 8, 1998)
There is no "enforced celibacy" in
the Catholic Church! There is only voluntary chosen celibacy that is a
prerequisite for a certain profession. Whoever claims that he was forced
into celibacy is lying.-R.G., Germany"
Here is part of the editorial response:
"We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase
enforced celibacy and the notion that people are forced into celibacy. If,
for example, a corporation establishes a dress code
and hires only those
who agree to adhere to it but fires those who violate it, then it could be
said that the corporation has an "enforced" dress code. In a similar sense,
it is fair to say that there is "enforced celibacy" in the
Catholic priesthood."
I was wondering if the analogy that the WTS uses above about the
"enforced celibacy" of the Catholic priesthood could not be used of the
Watchtower Society's "enforced" ban on blood transfusions. Is it not
true
that all Jehovah's Witnesses are considered Christian ministers? And, is it
not true that those Jehovah's Witnesses who decide not to live by this rule
on blood transfusions are disfellowshipped or fired from their position
as
ministers in the Watchtower Organization? If this is the case, then is it not
fair to say that there is an "enforced ban" on blood transfusions among
Jehovah's Witnesses?
What do you all think?
Jeff S.