New page number limit

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by StefanM, Aug 23, 2004.

  1. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    I would just like to give a big THANK YOU to Dr. Bob for choosing to shut down the version threads after 5 pages. Excellent thinking! [​IMG]
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree. Seems like too many of these threads get hijacked by simpletons who can't stay on the subject, making endless pages of nonsense.
    Good job, Dr. Bob!
    [​IMG]
    AVL1984
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto. [​IMG] However, I would like to see threads that are still on topic at 5 pages be allowed to continue until they go off topic.
     
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree with that natters!
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And so they shall be. The 5 page is NOT MANDATORY and some may go the full 20 page (limit on the BB generally).

    I would ask that mindless listing of Scripture passages, usually unrelated (except in her mind) to the topic at hand, be stopped. This takes a tremendous amount of space in each thread.

    Note I am not saying to stop ALL Scripture verse posting.

    And those found guilty of "trolling" - flaming, asking questions with NO thought of real discussion but just to hit-and-run and create a stink - will be suspended without trial or writ of habeus corpus.

    Thus spake Zorathrusta. [​IMG]
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    This definately sounds like a HUGE step in a good direction!

    Bravo to the good Dr! Bravo!

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the other hand, a 5-page limit just makes it 4 times easier for the resident KJV-onlyists to filibuster into oblivion any threads they want to shut down because they present inconvenient truths.
     
  8. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    When KJVOist hijack a thread it only proves that they:the KJVOist, have nothing to stand on. Think about it, when a person who is neutral reads the post by KJVOist, it becomes clear that KJVOist are hiding something. I say let the kJVOist hang themselves. When KJVOist start spinning stop the thread and ask them to address the issue at hand. If the KJVO refuses to do so then close the thread.

    KJVOist can not simply answer questions without evading the issues.
     
  9. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Dr. Bob, how about having them cut down on the excessive cut and paste variety of post, too. This gets to be a real pain. For many of us a link would suffice. Just a suggestion. [​IMG]

    AVL1984
    [​IMG]
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    True, Ransom. It's a shame they can't be more honest and upright like the KJV. :eek:

    AVL1984
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Defending" the KJV usually doesn't translate into believing or obeying the KJV.
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Again, how true, Ransom.
     
  13. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting thread. Are you anti-KJVers getting paranoid? [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Phrases like "anti-KJV" are only flaming, thump. Don't know a single such animal here.

    Now "anti-KJVonly"? I am chairman!

    No, we're not paranoid. We are fighting a battle against error . . but it seems almost unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Have a great evening! ;)
     
  15. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have stated it before and ill say it again, you are either 100% for the KJV or you are against it, there is no middle ground you either take the other version with their lies and contradictions with the KJV and trust in your "scholastic credentials" to pick "the bible im going to use this sunday" or you accept the KJV as the only Bible for the English speaking people, Gods preserved,infallilble,inerrent Word of God
    Its not really fair to argue with you anti-KJVers who trust in their brains to get to heaven and have NO support for their position but you started it. ;) ;) Have a nice day. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have stated it before and ill say it again, you are either 100% for the KJV or you are against it,

    I have stated it before and ill [sic] say it again: This false dichotomy is foolishness having no basis in Scripture or plain reason, as there are plenty of alternatives in between.

    One might simply be totally apathetic concerning the KJV.
    The KJV might be inerrant in Genesis, but not Exodus, and so forth.
    One might be sympathetic to the KJV translation despite its flaws.
    And so forth.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am 100% for it... and 100% against your false, unscriptural beliefs about it.

    Thankfully, you are not the final authority.
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thump - are you slow on the uptake? I said there are no ANTI-KJV here. Just ANTI-KJVonly. Huge difference. Most of us use and love the KJV (I use the 1611AV since it has the translators marginal notes about variations in passages)

    If you would please not flame by using a 100% false and inflamatory phrase, I'd appreciate it.

    If not, I will simply cut all your posts. Your choice.

    Choose wisely. [​IMG]
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    KJVBT:I have stated it before and ill say it again, you are either 100% for the KJV or you are against it,

    Scripture, please?


    there is no middle ground you either take the other version with their lies and contradictions with the KJV and trust in your "scholastic credentials" to pick "the bible im going to use this sunday" or you accept the KJV as the only Bible for the English speaking people, Gods preserved,infallilble,inerrent Word of God

    Additional Scripture for additional words, please?


    Its not really fair to argue with you anti-KJVers who trust in their brains to get to heaven and have NO support for their position but you started it.

    Actually, it's the KJVO myth that has no support. That's why it's a myth. Maybe you can provide such support, beginning with Scriptural proof for your above statements?


    Have a nice day.

    I plan to, God willing. You have one, too. If ya get too bored, there's plenty of Rucky material on the web.
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You need to learn how to use
    bigger than normal print. The bigger and
    bolder and colorful the font, the more
    true it is. Plain print is wrong,
    bold print is true, large print is truer,
    large red print is truest.

    [​IMG] Praise Jesus [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...