The Rev. Vosper Again

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Say you're in the pool of potential panelists ("PPP" for short). Do you want to be one of the five to make a decision here? Either way, a lot of people will be angry with you.


Edit: Great minds think alike
 
No one is going to agree to be on the panel. There has to be a panel to make a decision. But they can't assemble a panel. But they need a panel because once this process starts, it has to reach a conclusion. But there is no panel to reach a conclusion.

In large groups, lots of United Church people are willing to not stop this process. But they can't get three people to say, "You're fired."

Searching through my old posts, I recalled that it was Lawrence Nyarko and Marg Smith who originally dumped this steaming pile on the rest of Toronto Conference. I wonder how the PPP is feeling toward them now?
 
chansen said:
No one is going to agree to be on the panel. There has to be a panel to make a decision. But they can't assemble a panel. But they need a panel because once this process starts, it has to reach a conclusion. But there is no panel to reach a conclusion.

In large groups, lots of United Church people are willing to not stop this process. But they can't get three people to say, "You're fired."

Searching through my old posts, I recalled that it was Lawrence Nyarko and Marg Smith who originally dumped this steaming pile on the rest of Toronto Conference. I wonder how the PPP is feeling toward them now?
Click to expand...

Maybe people are reminded of the passage: who never questioned the existance of god shall throw the first stone.
 
Mendalla said:
Pretty much. Things in our makeup, the result of past events, learning, etc., that affect our thinking without us necessarily being aware of them.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the denied pits ... eLLe 've thing that is really just a stinking essence to those believing different ... thus divers learning for adepts! MOG the ... brutes wouldn't like Ide to be Mare ... an expression from the far east for a necessary vessel or cup ... at sea they could suffer buoyancy ... there are European parallels ...
 
chansen said:
I wonder why I'm so inclined to actively push back against religion. I'm definitely not built to believe in that for which no evidence exists. I can't even choose to be a Christian, and I'm not the type to join a group because it's popular or expected.

I don't have a history of being religiously oppressed. I wasn't even forced to go to Sunday School. I've always hated it when people are taken advantage of, and I guess that's part of it. I have an overactive sense of fairness, and that gets me in trouble. I also hate saying what everyone is supposed to say, because it's some social norm. And religion is just something you're not supposed to talk about or criticize. I don't understand why, and just like Jesus dying for my benefit, I never agreed to those terms.
Click to expand...

Tis the overwhelming urge to feel right about what you have no idea about ... thus skeptics and Gnostics that bug the people that are sure they know what they don't ... it is rampant among professions because of institutional impressions ... of being impressed with absolute knowledge when a lifetime of experience will give icons of how little we really know about what out there beyond our gravid sense ... a misunderstood desire to screw things instead of consuming with the eyes? Tis a gift that I feel from an alien gut ... or fiord .. a legacy of sorts about old stinkers ... PEWS? Once you see it it is a real down Eire ... depressing as a rabid man in his cups ...

Could lead to comic myths ... like Charlie Brown on proper burning sensations from the great psychologist ... an isolate mine ... as a wormhole in open domains ... hard to see ...
 
paradox3 said:
Do the lawyers for both sides need to agree on the formation of the panel? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

Tis always about protocol and putting common senses out the window about questionable stuff ... a' Gnostic for example! The shore folk believe in no floating thoughts ...
 
revjohn said:
Every court of the Church, if it kept every single piece of correspondence sent to it would be able to produce stacks of angry letters. Sometimes the anger is about the Church doing something that somebody doesn't like. Sometimes the anger is about the Church not doing something somebody wants. Sometimes the anger is about something somebody else did and rather than go after that somebody they come after us.

Once, somebody who thought I should be getting tons of mail about what was going on at WonderCafe.ca did some spectacularly bad sleuthing and sent it to the then President of Hamilton Conference John Hurst rather than to me the current chair of Erie Presbytery. I wouldn't have known about that had John not mentioned it.

John asked if I wanted the mail. I told him I did not. I'm sure it was recycled responsibly.

Neither Hamilton Conference nor Erie Presbytery had jurisdiction over what went on at WonderCafe.ca anyway so the letters were not actionable in any way. I know that John never submitted for Conference to Consider. Now had the letter gone to the Secretary of Erie Presbytery and made a formal complaint about my behaviour here then that would have been an actionable item and I would have made sure that I recused myself from the discussion of response.



Nope. Not really something Conferences tracks because each letter gets judged on its own merit. If the letter does make a legitimate request that the receiving Court has jurisdiction over there may be action beyond a blanket motion saying correspondence has been received for information from the following parties.

The court should not be swayed because of the volume of mail. The court should be swayed by any request that is a legitimate appeal to the court's authority. Swayed to some kind of action doesn't mean that the letter finds any support

One of my last adventures in Erie Presbytery was about a conflict within a congregation. It was my home congregation so I was constantly having to recuse myself simply because I had already formed long and deep opinions about some of the personalities in the conflict. It was a pretty nasty little fight that I honestly thought was long coming. A bully with decades of making life miserable for others finally got a hot serving of the same.

At any rate some of the criticisms made in the letter would have been serious issues if they were true so we had to examine.

It turned out that the complaints were, for the most part, baseless. So it represented a waste of time and energy. Had it not been examined and had it been true that would have been a tremendously huge problem.

Whether anybody else has ever written to Toronto Conference asking for an investigation into the Reverend Vosper's fitness has happened recently I do not know. That Metropolitan didn't is very clear from the text of their letter.



Maybe you aren't trying hard enough? Maybe you are getting soft? But sure blame it on illegal immigrants. Sad.
Click to expand...

I experienced two of these letters being presented t the GIF Committee ... this resulted in a great outpouring of comments about exclusion and inclusion ... leaving some mark on the entire impression. I spoke on looking into the inclusion from outside ... tis an alien story ... a myth to many of the firmly anchored ...
 
Mendalla said:
If I was in that group, I'm not sure I would do it. There's a high probability that you'll lose several months of your life to no good cause and make more enemies than friends. I am quite sure there are better ways to serve the church than jumping into the steaming pile that is the Vosper affair.
Click to expand...

It is a sort of ménage a tois ... something play with and move on to the coming questions on national socialism as non civil?

Some do not believe in the nones side ... too negative to support their rites?
 
paradox3 said:
Do the lawyers for both sides need to agree on the formation of the panel? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I'd think that court-wise this is more akin to the Supreme Court forming a panel to hear a case (in which the lawyers do not have a say) than jury selection (which they do). I'm sure someone with knowledge of the UCCan processes involved can confirm that impression.
 
So they may need a much larger pool of available panelists (PAP)?

There is a joke here somewhere.
 
Mendalla said:
I doubt it. I'd think that court-wise this is more akin to the Supreme Court forming a panel to hear a case (in which the lawyers do not have a say) than jury selection (which they do). I'm sure someone with knowledge of the UCCan processes involved can confirm that impression.
Click to expand...
Would be very interested to understand the process better.

In labour relations, arbitration panels of 3 are common. Labour & management each appoint one arbitrator and the two sides agree on the third member of the panel.
 
chansen said:
So they may need a much larger pool of available panelists (PAP)?

There is a joke here somewhere.
Click to expand...

Cosmological trickster?????? Tis out there somewhere ... ster oidal with what we've done with the gift of grace ... aDonus .. the dark booty of mine ...

Many hate the pits and digging ...
 
paradox3 said:
Would be very interested to understand the process better.

In labour relations, arbitration panels of 3 are common. Labour & management each appoint one arbitrator and the two sides agree on the third member of the panel.
Click to expand...

Except this isn't an arbitration. It's a hearing. They aren't negotiating with Gretta, they are (effectively) trying her.
 
Mendalla said:
Except this isn't an arbitration. It's a hearing. They aren't negotiating with Gretta, they are (effectively) trying her.
Click to expand...
Arbitration is different from negotiation. In labour relations I am familiar with "arbitration hearings".

Here is one definition I found:
At its core, arbitration is a form of dispute resolution. Arbitration is the private, judicial determination of a dispute, by an independent third party. An arbitration hearing may involve the use of an individual arbitrator or a tribunal. ... One and three are the most common numbers of arbitrators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top