The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Debate: "Three Views on Hell: Introduction"

Johnny, change your avatar, bro! I can’t read your comments because I’d have to look at it if I did. :frowning:

+1 w/Cindy. Even I don’t use the related “Picardasplode” jpg except for humorous posts where no one really has to read them. (I voluntarily took it down shortly after I posted it in a review thread for a book; the only other place I’ve put it is in a dry technical reply to how to get the forum engine to upload attachments, to try to add some humor to the process–and I feel kind of bad about that!)

I realize the famous Scanners headasplode screenshot reflects your temper/attitude at even considering ECT or anni to be true, but surely that doesn’t apply to every post you’re going to make (and have ever made) on the board?? :confused:

At least switch over to the Toht facepalmelt jpg, which is partially obscured by a hand. :wink:

Meanwhile, my comments on TKJ’s introductory position are still at over 1800 words; which is trimmed down from over 2000, but I’m still trying to get down to 700. Unsure if I can, though: most of that involves short paragraphs about his scripture references, which I want to go into more contextual detail about.

[tag]DisposableSoul[/tag], do you have an idea of how long the rebuttal entries should be?–keeping in mind there will be two entries from each of us, one for each other side?

wish i could have an avatar pic. i can’t seem to shrink anything down to the required size though smashes head against wall, resulting in Johnny’s pic

I think I’ve missed something. I was not aware of any plan to do responses on Nick’s blog, constrained to a particular word count. I have a response to TKJ’s post pending review by our editor at Rethinking Hell, and it’s very long. That was how I planned to respond, and how Joey Dear plans to respond to Jason’s essay.

If Nick (DisposableSoul) wants a sort of formal response format at his blog, limited to particular word count, I’m sure Joey and I can do that, but they will be brief summaries of our longer responses at RH, to which we’ll no doubt link.

Ugh! Jason! That’s at least as bad! :frowning:

CL, I had the same problem – very frustrating. I did an on-line search for an avatar creator and that’s how I got my avatar. I’d have to search again to find it if I wanted to do a new one, though, and it’s been so long, long ago I probably wouldn’t even find the same one, but I’ll bet you’d find a good one if you do a search.

Jason, it was my understanding from what DS said earlier that your responses could be as long as you like. That said, if you want people to read them (not just the devoted few here), you’d do best to keep it to under 1000 words. You can always add short comments. People, even people who will read WHOLE BOOKS of really boring stuff off-line will not typically read more than 1000 words on-line. And that’s pushin’ it.

I used to write for a little local paper, and for a pottery magazine (how-to) and of course they had limited space. I always felt I should charge more for fewer words because writing long is e-a-s-y, but writing short and still saying what you want to say takes a lot of work. For philosophical/theological stuff, it’s even harder, I think, but probably worth it.

Love to all (even the melting/exploding/shrinking head people. :wink: )

Chris (Theopologetics),

I’m not sure there was a “plan” per se, but Nick (DS) wrote in his introduction to the debate:

This was in regard to comments posted on the three threads of his blog, I think (based on a Q&A I had with him earlier in the thread), and he does go on to say he “may add a follow up post to this series, offering links to various responses by the contributors.”

However, he also calls what he’s doing a “series”, so I didn’t want to presume he wasn’t thinking of posting followups directly to his blog as the next entries in the series (rather than only providing links to longer followups elsewhere).

Thus my ping to him about wordcount, just in case.

Well, I wanted to cushion the request with something funny along the same line. :slight_smile:

How about these?

I think the “series” was the three essays, but I could be wrong. Joey and I should be able to post shorter, 1000-word comments at the blog, linking to our fuller responses at RH.

:laughing: Jason, you’re hilarious. Love the horse :wink: but yes, I “approve” any of the three you posted. :ugeek:

OK, I wrote a condensed version of my longer RH blog post, that comes in just under 1,000 words. As soon as the RH post is published (it’s pending review by our editor), I’ll submit the condensed version to Nick to publish at his blog.

Thank you so much! That means a lot!

thanks Cindy! that was the ticket!

Rosy Boa! :smiley:

Malaysian blood python :wink:

Ah man . . . my friend in my old home town has a rosy boa, but I guess it HAS been maybe ten years or more since I’ve seen it. Pretty anyway – pretty snake. I love how their skin reminds me of flexible glass; so intricate and perfectly made. Amazing. :slight_smile:

God makes amazing creatures :smiley:

I notice you put blood pythons in the plural there, CL! Wow!

I like Johnny’s new avatar, too, btw. :slight_smile:

Okay, I’m at 2032 words for my response to TKJ’s argument; next, trim to 1000 in case Nick wants to post an abbreviated version.

Whoa. Log out for a day. . . .

Write as much as you want, and send me a condensed version for me to post. I will link the longer article in the post. That work for everyone?

My bad about not seeing this sooner. :wink: