It appears you've come up with a very viable solution, especially if the 'no quotes, no repeated thoughts forum' is plainly identified at the outset. Although I'm not too sure that will work effectively in the society we live in today, anymore than keeping girls out of the boy scouts proved successful.
Lots of luck.
Regards!

Well, this is a very interesting concept. There are a few things that have come to mind as I have read this whole thread in one sitting though:

* What if I have not read the same things the moderator has read and he deletes what I have been thinking about for so long and finally come up with "something new" to post?

* What if I read something written by EGW and read it the same way as the moderator even though I have never read it that way before and all of a sudden I see "something new" that the moderator has seen all along?

* This thought was already written in this thread, but what if I want to comment on what someone wrote back about 6 posts? How do I refer to what they were saying? How would anyone know?

* What if my memory is not as good as the moderators and I repeat something I wrote last year? (Maybe I just thought of it again! It's new to me. Happens all the time for me )

* The idea of putting someone elses thoughts into your own words and those thoughts being checked by a piece of software for plagerism seems a little "wrong". It was suggested that we do exactly that very thing, take a thought and reword it using your own words.

* What is old news to you may not be old news to me even if it was written just yesterday. (I don't get much time to read, maybe you do.)


I understand the problem of having to read so much "stuff" just to find the nuggets of real worth because I love to learn and find new and interesting things too and I really don't have much time to dig, but isn't that kind of like panning for gold? Maybe we need to find a better way to "wash out" all the garbage and get to the really "new and interesting" stuff?

The problem seems that each of us would have to have a totally different set of what is "old stuff" so that we would never reread what we have already read. But really, isn't that what God is asking us to do with our brains? Isn't that what "thinking" is? You and I take in information from many different places. Some of us will read one thing and someone else hears the same thing. Another feels something and another smells it, but it's all new to to each of us. Kind of like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. All of us will come away with a different understanding of what is/was being talked about.

When we get to heaven will we be disappointed if we hear something again that we just learned last Sabbath, or maybe 2,000,000 years before? My memory will not be so bad anymore, so I will know if I have heard it before, so don't ever tell me something I already know. I only want to hear NEW stuff, OK?



(BTW-That brings up an interesting point, how are you going to keep track of what everyone has already heard there?)

It is good to know you are thinking about this as evidenced by the questions you have raised.

The idea is a work in progress. While a bit of hyperbole may have been used here to make the point, in practice applying common sense to the concept will be helpful.

The biggest bugaboo to be avoided on the original thoughts forum is primarily twofold: 1.) no cutting and pasting from another source to make a point; and 2.) within the context of the immediate thread itself, no cutting and pasting from another post, either as an unedited block of the whole former post or chopping it up dissecting it and feeding it back bit by bit.

The objective of the second point is to force the writer to think about it enough to connect the prior thought to his own new added thought in a more conversational or normal writing format that flows more naturally. That might involve a simple reference back by a word or two or simply picking up the train of thought. In normal conversation it would be very annoying to have everyone repeat everything or substantial portions of what had just been said previously before making their own point. The dissecting cut and paste approach easily devolves into an argument.

A huge objective of the new thoughts forum is to add something of value to what has already been said not to reduce, rip apart and destroy what others say as is so typical in an argument. Consider it a building process with each person bringing their own bricks to add to the whole discussion as apposed to a demolition project where everyone comes armed with sledge hammers and crowbars to pry apart and smash everyone else's thoughts in order build on the resulting rubble of their defeated opponent. The hope is that it becomes a cooperative process rather than a competitive one. That builds friendship and camaraderie. Argument and debate tends to drive people apart and destroy friendships.

The first point above is simply that cutting and pasting is lazy and seldom requires much real personal thought of the poster. They are just regurgitating someone else's idea. Leaving a short reference or link is enough to allow the really interested person to go read for themselves. If someone else's idea conveys what you are really thinking, try to put it in your own words.

While my initial thoughts suggested avoiding any paraphrasing, what I meant was that it needs to be enough to pass a typical academic plagiarizing filter. Simply rearranging a few words or changing a couple phrases so that it is technically not a direct quote is not acceptable. But taking the idea, completely putting it in your own words, editing, rearranging order, etc., with some additional thoughts or points makes it new and fresh and your own work product. It is like a basic premise of copyright law. Ideas are not copyrighted, the expression of them is. Doing a real and allowable paraphrase requires you to really think about what was originally said to be able to convey the idea in a new way. Ask Jerry Thomas. To do it well is not easy.


Tom

I think the one main rule should be like you said above, we should bring our own thoughts (bricks) to build on rather than to destroy what has been said.

Seems to me that if someone has said something "smart" and has already worded it very well, as you have done above, maybe we should not try to reword or restate it? But I do like the idea of adding to what has been said.

When a group of people set out to build something usually they have a plan as to what they want to create. Do you see our adding one "brick" onto another as building something that is actually good for us or only something different?

I don't see it as just something different. I see real benefit in a more constructive process of exploring ideas. Being a critic is a easy task. Some would like to think that offering critical analysis would encourage the other person to rethink and maybe reconsider what they say and come back with a better idea or even change their mind. But I seldom, if ever, see that happening here. Argument simply boxes others into a defensive posture where they stubbornly dig in their heels and maintain the same point of view and calcifies their resolve against seeing things any other way.

But it requires actual thinking to take an idea and build on it, expand it and add value in a constructive way. It is the thinking that I want people to do. So much of what gets posted strikes me as having engaged a minimal amount of brain power.

It's like a think tank or a true out-of-the-box brainstorming session. If you have ever participated in such a creative process of coming up with something new where no idea is too far-fetched to put on the table and no idea gets shot down. The ideas start to fly thick and fast. At some point, a really great idea stands out, head and shoulders above the rest. But the rest are still on the table with out bruises. They are just left behind or held for another day or further development later.

Since I am boxed in by the way or the what or the where or the how an idea is presented, I am left only with my opinions as the most that can be offered. Those opinions are no more nor less valid than any other fallible opinion. Therefore the necessity to rely upon greater Wisdom already established, that is without equivocation, Whose foundation is sure and without peer and will not change as other opinions are later presented.

BTW, have you seen or heard some of the most recent scientific, archaeological, astrological, theological, and physical evidences being presented as of late? These not only disprove some of the greatest principles of past generations that have been relied upon for establishing "evident reality", but also reveal how our present civilizations have been led into disastrous goals that have wreaked havoc upon millions who believed in men, who had feet of clay, as having the "way" of salvation.
Regards!

You make a lot of very good points, Lineman. Don't you feel great when you recognize that Jesus doesn't make you fit into the philosophy or theology of others, but is willing to allow you to pursue the path in which the Holy Spirit guides you?
OTOH He also allows all others the same freedom and I'm glad of that also, as it lets all accept responsibility for their own choices.

Then, of course, it's good to give those choices we've made, to Jesus. He may just wash them in His blood and put us on a sure path.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 NASB
Blessings!

But almost all of Lineman's points are based on a misunderstanding of the goals and approaches of the new forum. It's as though people have trouble with reading comprehension. I'm not trying to be mean, but it gets frustrating. None of those things you raise, Lineman, are going to happen, because we all recognise that 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

What is forbidden - *all* that is forbidden - is using quotes to either bring in text from outside (which can, however, be referenced, e.g. Matthew 7:12 or GC p. 248 etc.) or earlier comments from other posters (which can likewise be referenced, e.g. 'As Jim was saying in an earlier post, we tend to think that...').

That's it. It's *really* not that complicated.

PS, LifeHisCost, I should make it very clear that as far as I know (can't speak for Tom) this iniative was *not* aimed at you and at your style of posting. I know that, although I am occasionally frustrated by your posts because I would be interested to know what *you* think, in general I very much appreciate your posts because they bring new Scripture to the question and inform the debate. I'm absolutely happy for you to keep posting that way in every one of the more than 100 forums other than the Original Thoughts forum, and will read your posts with enjoyment.

Oh my Bravus ... LifeHisCost is "blantantly and intentionally" disobeying the rules by posting John 14:6 NASB and Ezekiel 3:11 KJV and Proverbs 21:2 NASB and Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV on four different posts. And yet no snide comments and no deletions?

And after all this time ... when the rules have been so clear and so easy.

But no outcry? Stand up and be heard. Don't be timid.

Well that is my original thought for the day.