[valinors_sorrow]

This is an experiment. Here is where I hope Part II of the discussion from the "Sex Addcition" thread can continue unhampered by concerns or restraints other than the usual rules of the site.

[Krs]

Nice one :)

[Starman]

Citing relevant scripture does not constitute topic change.
Citing irrelevant scripture does.

[talaniman]

Hey get back to the original thread, I'm not that good at copy/paste!:cool: :rolleyes:

[valinors_sorrow]

The topic did change and dramatically so, especially if you look at the nature of them. (And this has nothing whatsoever to do with quoting scripture or any other material either - we are all free to quote whatever we wish, heavens!)

It began as a request for information on solving a very personal addiction. Solutions of all kinds were offered by many people and I presume the asker looks them all over and chooses what he sees fit to chose.

It morphed into a different topic that was essentially a debate about which solution between only two was better. It did not have many people posting (which is often typical for debates) but instead was more like a ping pong match between two people. Although it may be generally related, its difference is great enough to be noticed if only by who is posting.

I contend that debates are fine as long as they are created as debates. We have plenty of threads here doing just that. And this thread here is an example of that. But I also suspect that if my original question was (and I say this lightly, okay?) "hijacked" by a debate, I would not be particularly happy about it. My impression would be that the debate may shut off or delay other comments that would be directed to my original question.

Additionally, the whole thing was shades of that old contentious topic "You posted a wrong answer" and frankly we all know where that went!

If we are to honestly examine what works the best with addictions (sexual or otherwise) I can tell you from empirical data that prayer alone or changing life circumstances (like marriage or moving) are both pretty low on the solutions list. It is important to understand addiction for what it is and the best source of that information are the addicted people themselves. In the US, 12-step programs are still recognised as top contenders, like it or not, for arresting addiction. It is very hard to argue against words like "I am an addict and here is what I did." And since those means of help were already posted on the original thread, I saw no need to add further comment, i.e. add to the debate.

At times I have wanted to engage in debating someone over their answer here but the more I think about it, the more inappropriate it seems to that thread, that asker. I usually conclude its not worth the effort of starting a new thread. Sometimes I conclude it is and start a new thread. Like this one. LOL If the debate takes off, it takes off and if it dies on the vine, c'est la vie! But at least I have honoured the concerns of the original asker of the question by not running my debate roughshod right over their thread. And that is simply good forum manners, I think.

What do you think?

[Starman]

I did not offer marriage or prayer or a combo alone as the solution to all sexual addictions. I am well aware that sexual bad habits sometimers follow people into marriage. That's why I included links to non-biblical counselling services. I agree that if the thread becomes a venue for debate then it's function of providing answers for the original question is ruined. I did not mean to contribute to any deviation actually. I was simply responding to gripes regarding my answer. I guess that the complainers didn't notice that I also included links to non-biblical counseling. Although it's like you said, there is no prohibition for citing scripture here.


BTW

My comments on prayer were responses to questions I was being asked by someone who had offered prayer as a solution to the addiction problem. Next time time I'll answer such questions via a private message in order to keep the thread on track.

[talaniman]

If you've ever noticed no matter the subject at times the threads do get side tracked, sometimes there is nothing more to add or the comments get personal. This should be no big deal and personal attacks are really not called for and there is a remedy for that just click inappropriate post. However I think that starting a new thread to get back on the subject is very confusing as you lose the many good posts of the original. Actually the mods are supposed to let us know when we are way out in left field and lock the post from there. Not to bruise feelings, but just clear things up a little:cool: :)

[valinors_sorrow]

If you've ever noticed no matter the subject at times the threads do get side tracked, sometimes there is nothing more to add or the comments get personal. However I think that starting a new thread to get back on the subject is very confusing as you lose the many good posts of the original. Actually the mods are supposed to let us know when we are way out in left field and lock the post from there. Not to bruise feelings, but just clear things up a little:cool: :)

I like to think there is a threshold of tolerance for the offtrackness, allowing for some... but the one I made a comment to has no less than six exchanges in a row between two members on a new topic that arose out of the old one - that seems a bit excessive? Its not hard to say "lets go discuss this over here instead"...

And I wasn't advocating starting a new thread to get an old one back on track, but rather to give a viable new topic the breathing room it deserves...

And its not just up to the moderators to consider starting new threads when a great new topic pops up in an old thread - go look at the Right To Bear Arms thread and what happened with Odd Food Combos as a splinter thread :)

Me too 'bout clearing some things up!