Greetings:
I have been concerned with some discussion on the ASA list in the recent period. As one of the founders of the group I hoped that it would not end up at the rhetorical level of much (not all) of talk.origins.
It was clear when we started that there would be sharp debates between advocates of old and young earth positions and the never-ending question of evolution. Intelligent design was sure to create large volumes of discussion. I was concerned that anti-Christian attitudes of some participants might be destructive of the kinds of discussion that we wanted to take place. This has happened to other 'Christian news groups.'
Until recently we have done reasonably well. On occasion, people have admitted that they were wrong or apologized when they went too far. Today, the list of contributors is, perhaps, more narrow than is healthy.
I am more disturbed by the disruptive contributions of one or two non-ASA people who have severe mental problems. Private expressions of concern have had no effect on those with a 'mission.'
Some are asking whether this sort of rhetoric should be part of a list supported by a Christian organization. One person has resigned from the ASA membership in protest. Do we risk failing in 'our mission?'
How should we deal with disruptive participants?
Remember that we are a un-moderated list which allows anyone to join and participate - without censorship.
Jack Haas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 07:58:55 EDT