27 replies to this topic

[spyglass]

Matt, on 23 August 2010 - 07:36 PM, said:

..... At the end of the day, I am held accountable for this forum every days and take a lot of criticism for it. I cannot pass it on to an existing community group as none has the capacity for it.....
Matt

Actually despite what I have said in relation to the suspension of my post I dont criticise the forum overall. It is a great centre for discussion on issues affecting the area and I think everyone who contributes (and virtually all posts are responsible) should be proud of it. I just wish more did contribute.

I do not personally actually care about religion that much one way or the other. It is an illogical anachronism as far as I am concerned. I was seeking to provoke debate. Rather than cause friction within forum members/moderators or whatever if what I said is too much to handle then delete it.

[Matt]

spyglass, on 23 August 2010 - 08:06 PM, said:

Actually despite what I have said in relation to the suspension of my post I dont criticise the forum overall. It is a great centre for discussion on issues affecting the area and I think everyone who contributes (and virtually all posts are responsible) should be proud of it. I just wish more did contribute.

I do not personally actually care about religion that much one way or the other. It is an illogical anachronism as far as I am concerned. I was seeking to provoke debate. Rather than cause friction within forum members/moderators or whatever if what I said is too much to handle then delete it.

I agree with you spyglass and welcome provokation of debate (!)

Will PM you re. your post

Matt

[Sebastian-Smythe]

I seem to have been absent from this post for too long,
however while seeing Matt's side of things and understanding
why, I hope all will realise this forum is world wide. I know
not what the 'offending post' was but historicaly the nave of
many churches was used for the sale of goods, most usually
farmer's bread,eggs,cheese etc.

A return from the future to the past could be a way of
raising much needed brass for your church.

[catbazza]

Wharfedale, on 17 August 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

Like the stones, this seems like something that we need to save and preserve regardless of ones beliefs.

Success, I see they have started working on the spire by the scaffolding that has been erected after raising £33,760.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Was looking at a church I used to live close by - Whitkirk Church nr Leeds - and realised it didn't have a spire but was equally imposing. It still puzzles me why so many congregations wish for something pointed, which takes much to keep repaired, and yet others a quite happy with a flat topped tower. Both Ilkley's Parish Churches have done without steeples since built. York Minster doesn't need one. I can find no suitable reason for a religious building to to have such apart from somewhere to put a lightning conductor or weather vane or both.

[marygill]

Blimey Sebastion you should be asleep in your bed at 03.26 am not taxing yourself with such things!!!

[spyglass]

Matt, on 24 August 2010 - 06:40 PM, said:

I agree with you spyglass and welcome provokation of debate (!)

Will PM you re. your post

Matt

Resurrection of this thread reminds me I have never received a PM from Matt about posts which have offended anyone.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

I've been corresponding with folk in other (earthly) time zones of late so that's why the midnight oil has been burning. But I see your point, pun not intened, still doesn't answer the question of why some churches have steeples and others don't. Perhaps someone out there could give the answer?