rross (needs his own thread)

I actually considered posting something very similar to what you said you might post Nibbler. But then there’s his inevitable argument “Well of course not, that would be a sin.” There are a couple things in play there, not the least of which is the incredible insensitivity of the original statement itself. Orthodox? Probably, but getting less and less acceptable all the time so much so that the idea of gays marrying just to be married is not espoused/encouraged by the leadership Which is what always brings the other paradox to the forefront – how can they say it’s not their choice but not then say it’s a sin?) Of course, rross could also turn a remark such as what suggested around and make it then seem like it’s all a total choice – and it’s not and I don’t think we need to come anywhere close to suggesting it is. And, just as big is I don’t think any of us desire to get in a back and forth with rross and at the same time risk offending those who are LGBTQ+ who find some comfort and solace here, but mostly just lurk.

However, if the majority point of view is to put the post back, I’ll go with the majority.

His other overnight posts (and that seems to be his MO of late) were OK. I don’t think we’re under any obligation to let him rross at will.

I am willing to write an admin note about the fact that we don’t allow debate on this site about contentious issues that cannot be discussed or resolved amicably – or putting his comment back and simply saying, as the author of the post, that a discussion of human sexuality was not the intent of my post and that I don’t want the discussion to go there, given what I have observed over the years when that becomes the main topic.

What do you all think about that approach?

I was thinking of either option – or both. I will do a combination of an Admin Note (#1) followed by a personal comment (#2).

I think it would be good to put the original comment back into the thread, just so everyone can see what prompted the action. It wasn’t appropriate, but it wasn’t malicious. It simply was ignorant.

If anyone wants the original comment deleted and not returned, we can talk about that and remove it once more.

I think we have to consider that seriously. I would like to see how he responds to my comments, but I agree completely that he is on or over the edge already.

I read the thread in question and I like how it has been handled up to this point. Thank you!

The war post bothered me from the OP because, as MM so aptly pointed out, I didn’t see a question or need for support there. It seemed to be a statement of belief which is not different from general orthodox belief. But by the time I saw it other comments had been made and it evolved (devolved?) into the MM discussion. From my perspective, compared to his normal rhetoric/dogma this is on the mild side and there seem to be people willing to engage but also stay mild.

In the other thread I was a bit surprised he directly addresses me, but I don’t think that’s a negative interaction – we agree differently (I just invented that but it seems like ti will work for many things).

That is an interesting observation Roy because I have actually had the same thought. He is very much like one of my employees – she literally does not listen except perhaps to hear what she wants to hear and she never wants to hear criticism. I generally feel as though I made no headway after a supervisory conversation with her and generally that leads to more formal supervisory action for which she gets mad at me.

Her: What do you mean I can’t use sick time for that day?

Me: You aren’t sick or going to a doctor appointment, you told me what it was for and it’s personal. We talked about this before.

Her: But you said I could use sick time for things with my family.

Me: I said you could use sick time to do medical things for your family – like your father is having surgery or your kid is going to the dentist.

Her: So you’re saying I have to use my personal time?! I only have a half day of that left.

Me: I understand. But when I sign your time sheet I’m certifying it’s correct to the best of my knowledge and neither of us is defrauding the State of New York. If you’re audited, and you will be eventually because we all are, I won’t lie.

Her: Fred is taking sick time tomorrow too.

Me: Fred told me he has a doctor appointment. That’s a legit use of sick time. Fred being out also leaves us short, you being out leaves us even more short but we can deal with it. I’m not saying you can’t take the day off, although I could. I’m saying you can’t use sick time because you’re not sick. You told me what you were doing.

Her: How can you deny me a day off? That’s not fair.

Me: I’m not denying the day off, I ran it by the director and we agreed that we would be OK with two of you being out and the other two will pick up the slack. They’re fine with it.

Her: You told the boss?… :crazy: