-=> Quoting Glen Todd to PAUL SCHLEUSENER <=-
 Glen, I appreciate your taking on the responsibility of moderating the
 echo.  I apologize for running afoul of the rules.  It is not my intent to
 either break the rules or offend you (or anyone else).
 I've printed out the rules and reviewed them carefully, and I have a 
 few questions related to my post and your reply.  Perhaps you can help 
 me understand a little better.  I believe that better understanding of 
 the rules (and of your interpretation and application of them) will 
 help me follow them better.
 Due to the passage of time since my post and your reply (I only check 
 this echo occasionally), I'm quoting your reply heavily.
 LM>> Thanks for letting me know that I'm not alone. We are members of an
 LM>> ELCA Church here in our town but are currently driving over an hour
 PS>  Yep, it can be tough sometimes.  I know that there's quite a variation
 PS>  from congregation to congregation within any denomination, and 
utherans
 PS>  seem to be no exception.  While I'd like to have some things different
 PS>  in the congregation we're with now, I feel that loyalty calls us on, 
nd
 
 GT> This is _NOT_ a theological echo, it is an EDUCATIONAL echo.  
 GT> Sectarian doctrinal squabbles are OFF TOPIC.    Read the (regularly
 GT> reposted) rules limiting discussion of religions in this echo -- they
 GT> are quite clear.     If the discussion or the topic thereof do not
 GT> _contribute_ to te educational process, they are off topic.
 
 I can see where what I posted here went beyond what the rules allow.  I 
 apologize.  
 
 I don't understand, though, why this *particular* message (about the 
 fifth or so on this topic) displeased you, and none of the earlier ones 
 did.  Particularly from your later presumption about the "sectarian" 
 nature of a matter based on the mention of a denominational name, it 
 seems that the topic itself should have drawn a rebuke when first 
 introduced.  Is there something I'm missing here?  What did *I* do 
 that violated the rules, that none of the earlier posts did?
        
 
 Based on your post, I understand that it is "off topic" to disagree 
 in the echo with a position the rules (and you, obviously) disagree 
 with, if the position is on a matter that is "off topic."  (And I 
 was, indeed, expressing disagreement, albeit indirectly.)
 
 PS>> Seems to me, though, that I've heard of a newsletter by a Missouri
 PS>> Synod couple for home educators.  I've never pursued it, though, and
 GT> Educationally or theologically oriented?   It sounds like the latterm
 GT> since you find it necessary to specify the sectarian sponsorship;
 GT> therefore off topic. 
 Given your presumption, I understand your position.  However, I really 
 don't know anything about the content of the newsletter.  You probably 
 noticed that I made it clear that all I knew about the matter was a 
 snippet about the publishers/authors.  (In fact, I only mentioned that   
 snippet to confirm that its origin fit the original request, which you
 had not declared "off-topic.")  You're presuming that its orientation 
 is off-topic, because of that snippet.  Does that mean that I need to 
 anticipate your presumptions to stay "out of trouble?"
 PS>  To really follow the curriculum, a family really needs to be willing to
 PS>  adopt a "way of life," in many respects.  I think the program is 
emen-
 GT> I would really question the ethicality of this approach and of the
 GT> people who produce it.
 
 Help me out, please.  Are you moderating here, or commenting?  Since the
 rest of the post is clearly "moderator work," I'm reluctant to reply as if
 it's a comment.  Yet what you said looks more like a comment (open to 
 reply) than a moderator's correction for being off topic...
 PS>  ministry opportunities and "life direction" sorts of opportunities for
 GT> This is blatantly off topic and a direct violation of echo rules.  
 GT> 'Ministry'  is _NOT_ a suitable educational topic, nor is it an ethical
 GT> or honorable activity, as it involves a direct attempt to override and
 GT> abort others' freedom of education and development.   A number of
 GT> people, myself most notably included, find it extremely offensive.   Do
 GT> _NOT_ raise the subject again in any form.
 
 In deference to your position and feelings, I will do my best to either 
 avoid the term in this echo while the current rules are in place, or 
 otherwise make the "on-topic" meaning explicit in advance.
 
 I apologize for inadvertently using a term (with several meanings, not
 all religious) that offends you.  In fact, *none* of the situations I 
 was referring to involve *any* attempts, direct or otherwise, to 
 "override and abort others' freedom of education and development."
 As for the suitability of the matter for an educational topic in this 
 echo under the current rules, I understand your position.  I will try to 
 follow it, and won't argue with it in the echo.
 GT> Ves thu heil,
 
 As an aside, I'm curious what this and your greeting ("Heilsa") mean, 
 and their origins (language, etc.).  Would you please enlighten me?
 Thank you,
 Paul Schleusener
... New restaurant on the moon.  Great food, but no atmosphere.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20 [NR]
---------------