Is Mise

I'm not sure that I follow.

What do you call "general discussion"? You can discuss anything you want on OLO by starting a thread. I am not familiar with "more modern sites". How are those sites better for arguing with idiots who remain pigheaded idiots unable to answer your quite reasonable questions? And, why don't you switch to one of these sites where anything goes.

At the moment, I am questioning whether it is worth starting a thread here if a couple of posts are a response to the subject, then the rest gradually decline into disagreements and arguments on other matters totally irrelevant to the subject of the thread, like the one going on between two people now on stuff that most posters are not interested in.

Finally, you know what that poor woman is like, yet you keep provoking her, knowing full well how wound up she is and how unlikely she is to stop.

ttbn,
On modern sites one can start a general discussion without needing approval, if there is no interest then it dies.
More modern sites also have archives where one can access past topics without having to glance through thousands of posts..
OLO is prehistoric in this regard.

Is Mise

OLO, like the subject of this thread - Christianity - is not compulsory; you don't have to use it; you can always go to one of those ' modern' sites you don’t name.

It is reasonable for threads to be approved: it might be why we don’t get real nutters and abusive posters, just some irritating ones, and not many of those.

We can say pretty much what we like, short of foul language and abuse. As for trawling through archives, I couldn't think of anything more boring - about as much fun as two posters pointlessly arguing the toss over nothing but their own egos

ttbn,
I like Christianity and OLO, that’s why I put up with their faults
As just about every site on the Net is more modern than OLO a list would be virtually endless, no matter how fast one recorded the tail end would keep getting away.

I think we need to go back to basics.
Nothing which happens is inherently good or bad, right or wrong.
A change is just something which happens.
It can be a material change or an intellectual change.
We perceive these as 'good' or otherwise, from how they affect us.

Sometimes they are caused by naturally occurring movement, which results from temperature difference.
Sometimes they are initiated by man himself, as he strives to gain some advantage.
These happenings, or changes, usually have a mixture of desirable and less desirable effects.
This is because any change is normally part of a series of changes, which are not all the same.
As the adage says: 'tis an ill wind which blows no good'.

The effect change has will vary with the passing of time.
What seems bad today might turn our to be not so bad tomorrow.
I am reminded here of the man who lost his job at the 'trade centre', and wasn't at work when disaster struck.
That short term disadvantage no doubt saved his life.
And people who miss a 'flight', which is subsequently involved in disaster and loss of life.
Once again, a disadvantage which becomes an advantage?

The above ideas about change are basic concepts, which seem, unaccountably, to be 'religiously' ignored by some.
I suggest it might be wise to do some basic thinking.
It might bring ideas about life in to clearer focus?
It might then become possible to be more accepting and tolerant of the behaviour of others?
And that intellectual change would be an advantage to all?
At least in the short term?

Hi Issy

How's the flood situation out your way, the Namoi River is heading into flood will that affect you. Hope all are safe and well, and things turn out okay.

Sir Paul Horatio Gobbles esq.
KFC MG BMW TNT

Thought I'd give meself a few titles and letters, adds a bit of class you know.