Mike Schutz is one of several who letters concerning the article by Kevin Ulmet in the previous issue.
Judging from the letters posted, the outpouring of support for the article that we saw on Facebook was also evident in the emails of support HT received.
Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 LaughingSteve Mershon, Hans Deventer, Lucas Finch, Steven Martinez, Cam Pence, Susan Unger, Craig Laughlin - "thanks" for this post
True. There were a lot of likes on FB. However since there is not a dislike button on FB, there is no way to derive if that is a majority support. It only indicated, that of those who cared to respond, and are on FB, x number liked it. The same is true of all searchable comments, whether here, before it was prematurely closed by and arbitrary opinion, on FB or on the HT site itself. It is possible that it does represent a majority of support.Originally Posted by G R 'Scott' Cundiff
However, a conclusion cannot be derived from the information provided. Which is the correct answer, incidentally, for a number of math questions on the GRE and other standardized tests
Indeed the response garnered from my dads rebuttal, most of which you are not privy to, subject to the same assesment I made in the above paragraph. Nor the public responses you are able to find or the responses to which I am privy are an indicator as to whether the majority agrees with my dad. His is further impacted by the fact that the reader needed a bit more stamina to read his response than they needed for Kevin's article. Again, a conclusion cannot be derived from the information provided even with my biased and favorable bent towards my dads opinion, I cannot draw such a conclusion.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I really liked the conclusion that Kevin came to at the end of his letter. I didn't care for the way he arrived at it. Still it's good advice.True. There were a lot of likes on FB. However since there is not a dislike button on FB, there is no way to derive if that is a majority support. It only indicated, that of those who cared to respond, and are on FB, x number liked it. The same is true of all searchable comments, whether here, before it was prematurely closed by and arbitrary opinion, on FB or on the HT site itself. It is possible that it does represent a majority of support.
However, a conclusion cannot be derived from the information provided. Which is the correct answer, incidentally, for a number of math questions on the GRE and other standardized tests
Indeed the response garnered from my dads rebuttal, most of which you are not privy to, subject to the same assesment I made in the above paragraph. Nor the public responses you are able to find or the responses to which I am privy are an indicator as to whether the majority agrees with my dad. His is further impacted by the fact that the reader needed a bit more stamina to read his response than they needed for Kevin's article. Again, a conclusion cannot be derived from the information provided even with my biased and favorable bent towards my dads opinion, I cannot draw such a conclusion.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I am also judging from your response that you believe the letters posted in the current HT are fairly represented (whether numerically or anecdotally) and are in no way skewed towards the editors own opinion. I do not hold to your confindence.
I did not have any particular objection to the conclusion. I viewed it in the same light that I viewed "A Charitable Discourse", potentially great opportunity squadered. Both authors, IMO, cut their audiences in half by thier chosen "tit-for-tat" approach and word choices. They ended up preaching to their choiirs rather than actuall reaching out.
I don't think either men intended for their writings to be that way, it just happend. I love them both. I love them enough to tell them I think they used bad judgement in their communication choices. Why tell the emporer that his new clothes look beautiful, there are plenty of people who can do that, you don't need me for that.
I doesn't matter much whether a person wants to think that the General Church "stacked the deck" in their comments section. In fact, if we want to think they did, it simply underscores the fact that the Church isn't going to allow the negative, accusing voices to dominate the discussion. And so far as Facebook is concerned, I wasn't talking about "likes" - I was talking about the overwhelming number of supportive comments that were there. They outnumbered the comments by the two or three dissenters by an impressive majority.
Again, props to Mike for having his comments published in this issue of Holiness Today.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Is there any online access to the article?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Scott, I think I was as evenhanded in my response as I could be considering that all three men I mention are integrated and impact my family, to three generations, in very personal ways.
I did not intend the letter for publication, but simply as support. If I had known it would be published, I would have written something demonstrative of my usual eloquence and flourish. After all, we can rest assured that a letter to the editor is the only way I will be mentioned in HT.
"Fully embracing the Gospel, fully engaging the world"Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 5 Laughing
The only way? Well, sadly, some day your name will be there in that list they post (or used to post) of those who had stopped drinking coffee.
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
