Is this church campaign ethical?

[David B]

http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/mosaic_5963___article.html/area_signs.html

The discussions have potentially eyebrow-raising and ire-raising titles such as “Why You Should Be an Atheist Instead of a Christian” but actually are intended to “creatively and aggressively try to show (people) that God loves them so much that even though they are still sinners, Christ died for them!” in the words of a letter from Mosaic Church Pastor James Ross

Looks a bit like deception to me.

David

[Barefoot Bree]

Can this be true? A man of God practicing deception? Say it ain't so!

[Lisa0315]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

[David B]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

So you'd be OK with me starting a forum called 'Why you should devote yourself to Christ' in order to proselytise Atheism?

David

[Lisa0315]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

So you'd be OK with me starting a forum called 'Why you should devote yourself to Christ' in order to proselytise Atheism?

David

Yep, I sure would. Again, clever marketing. You would bring in a bunch of outraged Christians.

[miss djax]

then you won't mind my new fat free chocolate cookies loaded with butter. or perhaps my new free guide to making a million dollars. its free, but you'll have to give me 100 bucks before i can share it with you.

there's a difference between creative and lying. this is lying.

i don't get why lying for jesus somehow makes it ok and 'creative'.

[Lisa0315]

then you won't mind my new fat free chocolate cookies loaded with butter. or perhaps my new free guide to making a million dollars. its free, but you'll have to give me 100 bucks before i can share it with you.

there's a difference between creative and lying. this is lying.

i don't get why lying for jesus somehow makes it ok and 'creative'.

I solidly do not agree. The deceptions you describe do not immediately reveal that the title was an attention-getter, a headline, a marketing aid.

But, if you think it is false advertising, go ahead and sue.

As I said earlier, I would be just as impressed if it were an atheist recruitment.

Lisa

[miss djax]

then you won't mind my new fat free chocolate cookies loaded with butter. or perhaps my new free guide to making a million dollars. its free, but you'll have to give me 100 bucks before i can share it with you.

there's a difference between creative and lying. this is lying.

i don't get why lying for jesus somehow makes it ok and 'creative'.

I solidly do not agree. The deceptions you describe do not immediately reveal that the title was an attention-getter, a headline, a marketing aid.

But, if you think it is false advertising, go ahead and sue.

As I said earlier, I would be just as impressed if it were an atheist recruitment.

Lisa

i'm not sue happy, so that is beside the point.

but it is precisely the problem that they don't immediately reveal the title is as you put it 'an attention getter'. you're supposed to go there, and then find out a bunch of fundamentalists are there to 'save' you and argue against you that no, indeed, its not ok to be an atheist.

to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.

i don't advertise art openings by saying 'yummy cake' just to get people there and surprise - its the photographs of robert mapplethorpe ;)

[Lisa0315]

then you won't mind my new fat free chocolate cookies loaded with butter. or perhaps my new free guide to making a million dollars. its free, but you'll have to give me 100 bucks before i can share it with you.

there's a difference between creative and lying. this is lying.

i don't get why lying for jesus somehow makes it ok and 'creative'.

I solidly do not agree. The deceptions you describe do not immediately reveal that the title was an attention-getter, a headline, a marketing aid.

But, if you think it is false advertising, go ahead and sue.

As I said earlier, I would be just as impressed if it were an atheist recruitment.

Lisa

i'm not sue happy, so that is beside the point.

but it is precisely the problem that they don't immediately reveal the title is as you put it 'an attention getter'. you're supposed to go there, and then find out a bunch of fundamentalists are there to 'save' you and argue against you that no, indeed, its not ok to be an atheist.

to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.

i don't advertise art openings by saying 'yummy cake' just to get people there and surprise - its the photographs of robert mapplethorpe ;)

Different product, different marketing technique. If people had become apathetic towards art in general, you might do something extravagant to bring it back to people's attention.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Another thing...it is also about competition. Going to church has a lot of competition. On Sundays, you have golf, sleeping in, football, and picnics with the family at the beach.

So, if your art store had many competitors, what would you do, and how far would you go to get new customers and retain the old ones?

Lisa

[miss djax]

I solidly do not agree. The deceptions you describe do not immediately reveal that the title was an attention-getter, a headline, a marketing aid.

But, if you think it is false advertising, go ahead and sue.

As I said earlier, I would be just as impressed if it were an atheist recruitment.

Lisa

i'm not sue happy, so that is beside the point.

but it is precisely the problem that they don't immediately reveal the title is as you put it 'an attention getter'. you're supposed to go there, and then find out a bunch of fundamentalists are there to 'save' you and argue against you that no, indeed, its not ok to be an atheist.

to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.

i don't advertise art openings by saying 'yummy cake' just to get people there and surprise - its the photographs of robert mapplethorpe ;)

Different product, different marketing technique. If people had become apathetic towards art in general, you might do something extravagant to bring it back to people's attention.

Lisa

ah the meat of it :D on every major campaign ive ever worked on the first portion is to assess exactly why people have become apathetic to the medium/message/or what have you.

to me, the lying in this campaign doesn't spark discussion in a positive way, but rather it speaks to confirmation bias about why people's asses aren't in the seats in the first place.

[Lisa0315]

i'm not sue happy, so that is beside the point.

but it is precisely the problem that they don't immediately reveal the title is as you put it 'an attention getter'. you're supposed to go there, and then find out a bunch of fundamentalists are there to 'save' you and argue against you that no, indeed, its not ok to be an atheist.

to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.

i don't advertise art openings by saying 'yummy cake' just to get people there and surprise - its the photographs of robert mapplethorpe ;)

Different product, different marketing technique. If people had become apathetic towards art in general, you might do something extravagant to bring it back to people's attention.

Lisa

ah the meat of it :D on every major campaign ive ever worked on the first portion is to assess exactly why people have become apathetic to the medium/message/or what have you.

to me, the lying in this campaign doesn't spark discussion in a positive way, but rather it speaks to confirmation bias about why people's asses aren't in the seats in the first place.

Could be. Let me see what the preachers in my family think about such a tactic. That would be an interesting perspective. They may be shocked by it, actually. But, then, the big joke on my uncle...the church bought lights and they are very contemporary. That nearly gives him a heart attack each and every time it is commented on. In Independent Baptist circles, contemporary = sin. :D

Lisa

[David B]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

So you'd be OK with me starting a forum called 'Why you should devote yourself to Christ' in order to proselytise Atheism?

David

Yep, I sure would. Again, clever marketing. You would bring in a bunch of outraged Christians.

It's not something I would chose to do.

But then, there is a lot of clever marketing I find lacking ethically.

Lacking belief in any sort of God, I suppose there have to be other things to find value in, and one of those, in my case, is truth.

Truth doesn't seem to me to be much valued by Christian churches - wasn't there something in the Bible either attributed to, or actually written by, Paul which justifies lying for Jesus?

David

[tjakey]

Since there is no god, aren't all religious campaigns deceptive and unethical?

[Lisa0315]

So you'd be OK with me starting a forum called 'Why you should devote yourself to Christ' in order to proselytise Atheism?

David

Yep, I sure would. Again, clever marketing. You would bring in a bunch of outraged Christians.

It's not something I would chose to do.

But then, there is a lot of clever marketing I find lacking ethically.

Lacking belief in any sort of God, I suppose there have to be other things to find value in, and one of those, in my case, is truth.

Truth doesn't seem to me to be much valued by Christian churches - wasn't there something in the Bible either attributed to, or actually written by, Paul which justifies lying for Jesus?

David

Well, there is a passage that is always referred to as lying for Jesus, but that is not what it means. Here is the passage I think you are referring to.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. This passage always makes for lively discussion. :D

[David B]

Since there is no god, aren't all religious campaigns deceptive and unethical?

Not if they are sincere, I think.

This one, on the other hand, was clever marketing:D

David (makes mental note to use the term 'clever marketing' in the same sort of way that Churchill used 'terminological inexactitude')

[Lisa0315]

Since there is no god, aren't all religious campaigns deceptive and unethical?

Not if they are sincere, I think.

This one, on the other hand, was clever marketing:D

David (makes mental note to use the term 'clever marketing' in the same sort of way that Churchill used 'terminological inexactitude')

STFU! :evil: :notworthy: :dunno:

[JamesBannon]

Heh, "terminological inexactitude" was one of Churchill's better contributions to parliamentary language. :D

[Lisa0315]

Heh, "terminological inexactitude" was one of Churchill's better contributions to parliamentary language. :D

It is a perfect Fail slogan. Put up a picture of George W with "Terminological Inexactitude. You're Doing It Wrong" :evil:

[tjakey]

Sincere equals ethical?

[David B]

Sincere equals ethical?

No, but I think sincere does imply not deliberately deceptive.

David

[DMB]

I think it is an example of not very brilliant selling of snake oil.

[MrFungus420]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

Breaking one of the Ten Commandments in order to bring people to the worship of God. And you don't see any problem with that level of hypocrisy?

Hmm, I guess that lying for Jesus is a great examples of Christian morality...

[MrFungus420]

Sincere equals ethical?

No, in this case, since it is going directly against one of God's rules, it is both unethical and hypocritical. Not that those qualities have ever seemed to upset most Christians...

For example, notice Lisa defending and applauding this bearing of false witness.

[Lisa0315]

Oh, pahleese! It was cleverly done.

Lisa

Breaking one of the Ten Commandments in order to bring people to the worship of God. And you don't see any problem with that level of hypocrisy?

Hmm, I guess that lying for Jesus is a great examples of Christian morality...

Bullshit. More like an example of double-standards...It would be funny and brilliant if it were an atheist campaign. I seriously doubt anyone will admit that though. Wait, though, I will not forget this topic, and one day in the future, I will test it and prove it to you.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Sincere equals ethical?

No, in this case, since it is going directly against one of God's rules, it is both unethical and hypocritical. Not that those qualities have ever seemed to upset most Christians...

For example, notice Lisa defending and applauding this bearing of false witness.

You do not know the law nor what bearing false witness means.

In the Jewish law, if a Jewish man were accused, two witnesses must be called to verify the truth of the accusation. To bear false witness was breaking a commandment. Indeed, the two witnesses who were called against Jesus were breaking a commandment.

Now, that is not to say that lying is not a sin, but that is not in the ten commandments either.

However, lying is not a clever advertising trick. Lying is stating something false without ever having any intention of telling the truth. In this case, it is immediately apparant to those who attend or read that it was a clever advertising trick.

Otherwise, we need to be suing Geico for claiming that cavemen can purchase insurance, Budweiser for showing singing frogs, and all women who have had breast implants should be thrown into prison.

The hypocrisy in this thread is not on the part of the Christians in the subject, nor the one posting.

Lisa

[Criada]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

[Barefoot Bree]

Whether or not "bearing false witness" means simple lying aside, there is a term for this kind of advertising: bait and switch.

You advertise one thing to get the people in the door, only to present them with a completely different product.

And that, my dear, IS illegal.

[David B]

Whether or not "bearing false witness" means simple lying aside, there is a term for this kind of advertising: bait and switch.

You advertise one thing to get the people in the door, only to present them with a completely different product.

And that, my dear, IS illegal.

And, IMV, unethical.

Illegal and unethical don't have an exact correspondence, but there is, I think, a correlation there.

David

[Lisa0315]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

Good point, and this is why you are a better Christian than me.

Lisa

[Tenebrae]

The link doesnt work for me. My thoughts if a campaign involves fear, or not being upfront and honest about whats being marketed, I think its unethical and down right stupid and not to mention not a truth worth having

[Criada]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

Good point, and this is why you are a better Christian than me.

Lisa

Rubbish. :hug:
I am just pointing out what it should be.. I am certainly not living that way, nor, at the moment, am I even sure that I would call myself a Christian. But.. the language lingers.

[Lisa0315]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

Good point, and this is why you are a better Christian than me.

Lisa

Rubbish. :hug:
I am just pointing out what it should be.. I am certainly not living that way, nor, at the moment, am I even sure that I would call myself a Christian. But.. the language lingers.

Language lingers...boy, a'int that the truth!

I still stand by what I said, though. God looks at the heart. I have a bit of bitterness and anger in me. Love is often one of the last things I think about as evidenced in my posts on this subject. The fact that your posts are still about love evidences that your maturity in Christ is greater than mine. Regardless of what you are dealing with right now...When you come through it, you are still going to be levels above me on the heart scale.

Lisa

[miss djax]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

Good point, and this is why you are a better Christian than me.

Lisa


hey wait, isn't this essentially what i said on the first page?


to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.

[Lisa0315]

Personally I wouldn't support such a campaign... if the gospel needs us to trick people into taking it seriously, then perhaps we need to re-examine how we are presenting it and how we are living it.
The claims of Jesus are extra-ordinary enough not to need this kind of pseudo-truth to recommend them.. if Christians start to live the radical and extreme love that Jesus actually preached, people will be interested, without the need for fancy packaging.
Unfortunately, we rarely do so.

Good point, and this is why you are a better Christian than me.

Lisa



hey wait, isn't this essentially what i said on the first page?


to me, tho, i'd see the address listed in the flyer/ad/whatever and figure out it was another lame attempt by the church, this church, any church, to coerce people to go and then surprise, surprise, its stacked with people there to love bomb you into converting.

if they felt there message were so compelling they wouldn't feel the need to lie to get asses in the seats.




Yes. Sometimes, though, the speaker of the message, and the prior relationship with that person speaks louder than the message in of itself. No offense to you whatsoever intended. It is just that if Criada speaks, I listen.

Lisa

[miss djax]

Yes. Sometimes, though, the speaker of the message, and the prior relationship with that person speaks louder than the message in of itself. No offense to you whatsoever intended. It is just that if Criada speaks, I listen.

Lisa

but when i might speak, its crickets, then???

remind me what the point might be in discussing things with you, if i'm not someone you might read and take at face value? is there some secret internet handshake or club membership i'm missing here? if i hit a post count you'll take me, or anyone else seriously as a poster and maybe read what i have to say and respond in kind?

but for a few trolls now and again, in general i try to take posts in the spirit they are written, which should be to engage in friendly convo and hopefully learn some stuff along the way. it's unfortunate that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Lisa0315]

Yes. Sometimes, though, the speaker of the message, and the prior relationship with that person speaks louder than the message in of itself. No offense to you whatsoever intended. It is just that if Criada speaks, I listen.

Lisa

but when i might speak, its crickets, then???

remind me what the point might be in discussing things with you, if i'm not someone you might read and take at face value? is there some secret internet handshake or club membership i'm missing here? if i hit a post count you'll take me, or anyone else seriously as a poster and maybe read what i have to say and respond in kind?

but for a few trolls now and again, in general i try to take posts in the spirit they are written, which should be to engage in friendly convo and hopefully learn some stuff along the way. it's unfortunate that doesn't seem to be the case here.

It is human nature and there was no offense intended. I did read what you had to say, but it simply did not penetrate. I was too busy arguing. If you get angry at that, then, it does not take much.

I mean seriously. If Per said something on evolution and repeated in different words something I had said, would you not pay more attention to him than me?

I am sorry and that should be enough. I didn't have to admit to it. I suppose I could have just given some bullshit reason why your post and Criada's were different in my mind. I am pretty straight-forward. If I were a game player, would that be better? I don't think so.

Lisa

[miss djax]

Yes. Sometimes, though, the speaker of the message, and the prior relationship with that person speaks louder than the message in of itself. No offense to you whatsoever intended. It is just that if Criada speaks, I listen.

Lisa

but when i might speak, its crickets, then???

remind me what the point might be in discussing things with you, if i'm not someone you might read and take at face value? is there some secret internet handshake or club membership i'm missing here? if i hit a post count you'll take me, or anyone else seriously as a poster and maybe read what i have to say and respond in kind?

but for a few trolls now and again, in general i try to take posts in the spirit they are written, which should be to engage in friendly convo and hopefully learn some stuff along the way. it's unfortunate that doesn't seem to be the case here.

It is human nature and there was no offense intended. I did read what you had to say, but it simply did not penetrate. I was too busy arguing. If you get angry at that, then, it does not take much.

I mean seriously. If Per said something on evolution and repeated in different words something I had said, would you not pay more attention to him than me?

I am sorry and that should be enough. I didn't have to admit to it. I suppose I could have just given some bullshit reason why your post and Criada's were different in my mind. I am pretty straight-forward. If I were a game player, would that be better? I don't think so.

Lisa

you're not helping yourself, here, lisa. who's arguing? i'm discussing. perhaps it might be easier for you to see that if you read what people wrote. how do you expect to get to know what someone might have to say on any particular issue to form an opinion about them at all if you dismiss them out of hand?

thanks for the clarification in the brush-off, tho. i'm the 'you' in the per-lisa analogy because you just assume i don't know what i'm talking about. gotcha.

back to the thread -

it's a bait and switch, puck's right. unethical as all get out...

[Lisa0315]

but when i might speak, its crickets, then???

remind me what the point might be in discussing things with you, if i'm not someone you might read and take at face value? is there some secret internet handshake or club membership i'm missing here? if i hit a post count you'll take me, or anyone else seriously as a poster and maybe read what i have to say and respond in kind?

but for a few trolls now and again, in general i try to take posts in the spirit they are written, which should be to engage in friendly convo and hopefully learn some stuff along the way. it's unfortunate that doesn't seem to be the case here.

It is human nature and there was no offense intended. I did read what you had to say, but it simply did not penetrate. I was too busy arguing. If you get angry at that, then, it does not take much.

I mean seriously. If Per said something on evolution and repeated in different words something I had said, would you not pay more attention to him than me?

I am sorry and that should be enough. I didn't have to admit to it. I suppose I could have just given some bullshit reason why your post and Criada's were different in my mind. I am pretty straight-forward. If I were a game player, would that be better? I don't think so.

Lisa

you're not helping yourself, here, lisa. who's arguing? i'm discussing. perhaps it might be easier for you to see that if you read what people wrote. how do you expect to get to know what someone might have to say on any particular issue to form an opinion about them at all if you dismiss them out of hand?

thanks for the clarification in the brush-off, tho. i'm the 'you' in the per-lisa analogy because you just assume i don't know what i'm talking about. gotcha.

back to the thread -

it's a bait and switch, puck's right. unethical as all get out...

Sorry, but you need to toughen up here. I have not done anything to you except admit that there are certain special people like Criada that are going to always make me think just a bit harder. It is not an insult to you. It is a compliment to her.

My analogy was also not an insult to you, but to demonstrate the human nature of these things. I am sorry if it hurt your feelings.

Garnet is another of those people that I am going to re-evaluate my stance on any issue solely because of my respect for her. TheBear is another. It is not a Christian vs Atheist thing. It is a history of knowing these people and valuing their opinions on things.

It is kind of when you are a teenager, and you listen to your friends more than you listen to your parents. Your parents may say the exact same thing, give the exact same advice, but you simply are already tuned to disagree with them.

Before you posted, I had already taken a side and was prepared to defend it. So, it takes a post that is either devastatingly to the point shocking me to my senses, or coming from someone that I have a prior history with to make me consider changing my position.

Lisa

[lex]

James Ross's words are those of a Madison Avenue Monkey. Truth, ethics, and standards
play no role in rounding up customers. Wether its christ or krispy kremes, bait and switch
marketing will extract money from the gullible.

In the long run, preachers like Ross are a boon to atheists.

[miss djax]

It is human nature and there was no offense intended. I did read what you had to say, but it simply did not penetrate. I was too busy arguing. If you get angry at that, then, it does not take much.

I mean seriously. If Per said something on evolution and repeated in different words something I had said, would you not pay more attention to him than me?

I am sorry and that should be enough. I didn't have to admit to it. I suppose I could have just given some bullshit reason why your post and Criada's were different in my mind. I am pretty straight-forward. If I were a game player, would that be better? I don't think so.

Lisa

you're not helping yourself, here, lisa. who's arguing? i'm discussing. perhaps it might be easier for you to see that if you read what people wrote. how do you expect to get to know what someone might have to say on any particular issue to form an opinion about them at all if you dismiss them out of hand?

thanks for the clarification in the brush-off, tho. i'm the 'you' in the per-lisa analogy because you just assume i don't know what i'm talking about. gotcha.

back to the thread -

it's a bait and switch, puck's right. unethical as all get out...

Sorry, but you need to toughen up here. I have not done anything to you except admit that there are certain special people like Criada that are going to always make me think just a bit harder. It is not an insult to you. It is a compliment to her.

My analogy was also not an insult to you, but to demonstrate the human nature of these things. I am sorry if it hurt your feelings.

Garnet is another of those people that I am going to re-evaluate my stance on any issue solely because of my respect for her. TheBear is another. It is not a Christian vs Atheist thing. It is a history of knowing these people and valuing their opinions on things.

It is kind of when you are a teenager, and you listen to your friends more than you listen to your parents. Your parents may say the exact same thing, give the exact same advice, but you simply are already tuned to disagree with them.

Before you posted, I had already taken a side and was prepared to defend it. So, it takes a post that is either devastatingly to the point shocking me to my senses, or coming from someone that I have a prior history with to make me consider changing my position.

Lisa

toughen up. right. i seem to remember hearing people say that on another board. you're still missing my points.

[Pendaric]

Talking of unethical church campaigns, anyone remember the Family of God and Flirty Fishing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirty_fishing)?

[DMB]

I had happily forgotten that until you brought it up, Pendaric. I'm not particularly grateful!