Spectrum's Updated Commenting Policy Goes Into Effect Monday

I wonder if Spectrum actually thinks that its articles are what brought the masses to the website. They weren’t. Reading the blog is what brings many of us here. The articles were more like ice breakers to get the discussion going. I wonder if people who rarely post on the blog (like me) can still go to the lounge and just read the posts even if we can’t participate since we haven’t reached the higher clearance level.


Don’t leave yet.

@JaredWright you can’t have @plobdell3 go. Tell us this is not so.



I spoke to a friend of mine about the changes here, and she was most upset. While she doesn’t post, she loves to browse the comments, and is often enriched by being part of this community even if she finds she can’t put her thoughts into print. It makes other people think about issues they haven’t thought about before.

Watching Roy’s memorial service, I was impressed, even more, that we should keep the discussions flowing; and include those who, for one reason or anther, don’t join in actively participating. I think we’re making a mistake here by becoming seclusive rather than inclusive. Maybe, instead of making the “Lounge” a chat room, we keep things as they are, and provide another section where we’re able to converse with the writers in a more substantive way - and, OK, one comment per article, if that works better.


I agree with you.

The articles serve as a stimulus to get the conversation going. I think the board needs a psychiatrist and a psychologist, the likes of @GeorgeTichy, as members to “get real.” Otherwise, the online Spectrum will degenerate to “Jeopardy.”

Are you listening @JaredWright?


Joseph, You are so very right. I know of quite as few people who follow the discussion part and find camaraderie there. It is perhaps, a better place to find new information, and input from a variety of people.


Was it because we were programed was asked with a question mark. It should have been stated because we were programed. With age comes the ability to step away, to reflect on change, and most importantly the ability to recognize how programming takes place.

Probably many on this site are comfortable with objective self reflection. During the mid 60’s through the mid 80’s programing was a very effective tool especially on children and young people. Fear of punishment and fear of rejection drove many underground with their ideas and their participation in the Church. While attending college a small group of professors held secret meetings which they were careful about who could attend. Jobs were on the line if they were discovered. At one of these meetings, a professor sat down at a piano and began playing a frequently sung song in most SDA churches. He changed the words slightly to say, " Our faith is built on nothing less than Ellen White her righteousness." Another student like myself at this meeting was offended and reported what happened to those in authority. Punishment was swift and in some cases severe. For years after this story circulated many folks talked in very hushed tones. So programing continued in our K-16 institutions and at the core was both fear and punishment . I’m sure there are stories like this in many places.

A lot has changed since that time period and thanks to places like this programing is less effective. But there still exists elements that hinder many from spending time in study for them selfs, from feeling safe asking difficult questions, and from embracing the simple John 3:16.


It seems to me that as an organization grows larger in self-importance and finances they always find ways to create new rules to manage others. The organization assumes the attitude, “Father knows best.”

Perhaps this is why the legislature in Nevada only meets every other year, to minimize enacting new laws.

What’s is wrong with voluntarily requesting individuals limit their posting? I guess trust is old fashion?

One SDA site did not like my my posted opinion, although my language was temperate and kind, they deleted my comment because it was not their version of theology. So…what’s next for good-old Spectrum? More management, oversight, control with a list of insiders and non-conformist?


A single passage can have several meanings or interpretations, and, therefore, uses without contradicting each other, necessarily—it’s too bad that so much of our ideology comes down to a “either/or” situation. Miller and White were not the first nor alone in their interest in nailing down specifics and finding a reliable map into the future; Freud and Jung were not alone, nor the first, to practice dream psychology. Looking for deeper human truths in this kind of literature does bring out possible new understandings—dreams are not usually intentional. @elmer_cupino and @GeorgeTichy should weigh in on dream theory and give us some direction on interpreting John the Revelator’s visions as though they were the dreams of a contemporary person. Maybe it’s a matter of his chewing one too many of the wrong mushrooms—he must have been very hungry wandering around Patmos.


Actually there is no big change happening, it’s just that we moved to another address. Other than that, I don’t see any change at all.


Right. Everyone should be able to read all the comments. Everyone should be able to make comments wherever anyone can.


Does the Lounge have a “shut door”? @GeorgeTichy


Ooh, good question. Better get in quick.


Here’s the link to ‘trust levels’ describe by Discourse …

All we see in our profile is names … the ‘level’ numbers don’t show …

0 (New) → 1 (Basic) → 2 (Member) → 3 (Regular) → 4 (Leader)

Based on our participation, we are recognized with a new (level of) status. This is all explained nicely in the link above.

@Jared will do us all a favor to lay out the way we all progress up the levels. And Spectrum has or could customize the requirements … and should probably.

@JaredWright, give this man a star! Or at least a pass into hea… er, the lounge.

Trust The Process.

You can either get there from the pulldown beside your logo in the upper right corner Edit: or at the bottom under the list of most recent posts. This last is only visible from inside the Lounge. Sorry.

I am tempted to think that someone came to their senses and realized the foolishness of the attempt to hide the “discussers” (those who discuss) from the “complainers” (those who don’t tolerate discussion). :innocent:

1 Like

As well, one may go to the main page and using the (often labelled all categories ) pulldown underneath the Spectrum logo and select the Lounge from there.

…and life at Spectrum goes on…

The Lounge is for people who are willing, able, and likely to stray from the essence of the posted article; that’s a good thing—those remarks are best kept in the back room. Think of the front web page as the “front room,” as some Americans call it, or the parlor and the “lounge” exactly that: the den, the “family” room. I don’t know that “complainer” are the issue some people think they are: I think Spectrum wants an adult, well-behaved group of people adding to highly visible postings. As much as I admire and enjoy Central European cuisine, for example, and know where the certainly best American ice cream is, or think that whoever holds his theology because of a traumatized childhood, those discussions are lively ones best kept in the family. And then, we have someone who opined that “white” people should be procreating more lest the others take over our nations. Do we really want that kind of remark a public one? And, probably, opinions about church leadership belong in the back room, too. I enjoy a forum that allows me to express my opinion about those people, but I really don’t want them readily available to those who are looking for trouble to give Spectrum and the AAF (it’s dicey enough, as it is). This is a nation of free speech, but that’s not Spectrum’s mission; providing a forum where interested readers and writers have that kind of “free” speech is a reasonable solution to that problem. I think that the notion of “caving” to “complainers” is a bit adolescent. And it’s THAT kind of remark—the one I just made—that the Lounge is for. It’s not even 9:00 AM in Roseville, or wherever Spectrum’s IT people are, so we need some patience.

1 Like

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for your response.

I wasn’t raised SDA. I joined at 24, left at about 50. So, my comments come from a different perspective than many on here. I have an observation, which has baffled me for a very long time.

Your story, along with many, many more like them, has been a source of consternation for me for a long time. Here goes…what I don’t understand, is why so many (most?) seem to think that this kind of behavior is normal, or just a part of life. Speaking from my life experience as a non-SDA, more years than not, I have never seen such underhanded, deceptive behavior as I saw, and continue to see in Adventism. Honestly, I saw far more really bad behavior in the SDA church, than I ever saw any where else, and I’m not just talking about a church situation. It seems very systemic to the denomination.

The only thing that I can conclude is it seems normal on some level. Or, the programming has convinced SDA’s that every one and every other church is worse.

Please don’t think that I’m trying to be mean or “bashing”. SDA’s are nice and sincere people. And, I’m not saying that, on the flip side, every where else is perfect.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone. I’m just presenting a POV of an outsider, then insider, now outsider again. I care about the SDA people, but the system is troubling, and I think fundamentally flawed.