LOL. NO, I had to do the trick to this one too! But I forgot about ‘refresh page’, I was bouncing to another topic and back.

I am having to copy my text and refresh the site and then post. I thought Warren was out to get me!!! LOL!!!!!!

(I’ve been having trouble posting for the past few days and I’ve seen several other responses where people were having trouble. My first thought was a ’site glitch’ but Wayne’s version does sound more incendiary.)

Gene Robinson’s cancellation is a real tragedy. So what if “Focus on the Family” put their spin on it; didn’t activist individuals and groups suggest that it was a secret attempt to set Warren up for much needed ridicule? Such a historic meeting would naturally set folks on all sides spinning–and wondering–and concluding. My hope for the meeting was that it would go on in spite of the flurry and buzz around it and that it would hold to David’s vision. Beyond that, I didn’t know what to expect or hope for.

Warren, I’m sure you and David will discuss further over the next week. I like Ann’s idea of another meeting that remains a secret until after it’s happened. LOL! But some, of course, would diminish its significance since it was ’secretive and closed door’ and some would still worry that you’d add your spin and they’d add theirs in the reporting.

(Note: due to site glitch, I had to switch out of this thread in order to come back and post…just saw the headline that the symposium has been cancelled.)

That misunderstands the objection to the panel. Nowhere did the purpose or subject matter of the panel change. The point made by Robinson and Drescher is that the panel, as originally planned, was going to (1) provide fodder to anti-gay PR campaigns run by Focus on the Family, etc.

Ken,

I understand what you are saying – I can see how groups from all sides and the media would use this for their own promotions – I just wish it didn’t have to be that way. The next time perhaps four great minds can meet anonymously and all this will be avoided.

I think it would send a strong message to the media and opposing groups if the four participants could rise above all the noise on the outside and proceed with what they and the moderator initially planned.

That misunderstands the objection to the panel. Nowhere did the purpose or subject matter of the panel change. The point made by Robinson and Drescher is that the panel, as originally planned, was going to (1) provide fodder to anti-gay PR campaigns run by Focus on the Family, etc., and (2) provide a mainstream platform and thereby lend credibility to marginal or discredited views. (The second objection is more clearly articulated by Drescher than Robinson.)