Hell yes?

[pianoguy]

Can I ask who chose the featured book for today (Hell, yes!)? It looks rather exclusive and extremely narrow-minded.

 

"Every other religion is wrong."

"God sends good people to Hell."

"Homosexuality is a perversion."

"Evolution is a myth."

"God is ultimately responsible for suffering in the world."

"Husbands are to lead their families."

"America is a Christian nation."

 

Is this the image that enotalone wishes to project?

[EQD]

wow what a book.

[pianoguy]

Those things you've quoted are not the positions of the book's author; they're myths he wishes to dispel. Read the whole review.

 

Actually, yes they are the author's views. I did read the whole review. That's what I thought initially as well.

[Brittney2008]

Those things you've quoted are not the positions of the book's author; they're myths he wishes to dispel. Read the whole review.

 

hmm thats not what it seems like to me..

 

"Seven outrageous truths you can still believe . . . And why

 

"Every other religion is wrong."

"God sends good people to Hell."

"Homosexuality is a perversion."

"Evolution is a myth."

"God is ultimately responsible for suffering in the world."

"Husbands are to lead their families."

"America is a Christian nation."

 

In Hell? Yes! Dr. Robert Jeffress issues a bold wakeup call to all believers-from college students to grandparents-to stop apologizing for and start proclaiming the tough but essential truths that Christians have historically embraced. And he provides the finest biblical, scientific, and historical evidence needed to defend these core beliefs in a culture turned hostile to God's truth

 

The core beliefs he seems to be talking about are the quotes above. Sounds like OP was right on.

[kamurj]

pianoguy books listed in "featured book" are selected randomly by software.

 

Most, if not all the books you will find here are from very respected publishers. The whole section acts like a library, you pick and read what you want, enotalone's work is to give you the information. thereforeeee, what you will find and read there has nothing to do with enotalone's image.

[Aleadragonhawk]

I find it odd that a book which touches on subjects that get threads deleted here at ENA is advertised on it.

[Brittney2008]

I find it odd that a book which touches on subjects that get threads deleted here at ENA is advertised on it.

 

You raise a very good point.

[Brittney2008]

thereforeeee, what you will find and read there has nothing to do with enotalone's image.

 

I think it has a lot to with ENA's image,after all the book is advertised on ENA's website...even if it is chosen at random there should be some discretion on the books featured.

[LostInMyThoughts]

It's changed now (at least for me).

[DN]

I find it odd that a book which touches on subjects that get threads deleted here at ENA is advertised on it.

There are books dealing with all sorts of contentious issues in public libraries that are available for members to borrow. But just because you can borrow a book on, say, 'Creative Cursing' doesn't mean you won't be ejected from the library if you start quoting it out loud.

[LostInMyThoughts]

Also, I think what kamurj is saying (or I missed his point), is that the book recommendations aren't really tied to ENA. I believe they are recommended by Amazon, based on the fact that this site is sort of a internet self-help forum, kind of like Google's Adsense does. Click-throughs generate monies that go to pay for the server.

 

No one at ENA is actively picking these books. It's like those generated banner ads that use to be here a while back. It was an ad for some hemmoroid cream or something.

 

This, of course, is all speculation on my part.

[kamurj]

OK, lets try one more time. Number 1 enotalone does not advertise those books. It will very much list any book it covers from publishers I have agreement with. That would not cost anything to the author or the publisher. For those interested to purchase the book it will provide a link to link removed, amazon, the publishers website...

 

As for having books on subjects that are prohibited on forum, that is true but we did not make that decision, the community did. I would love to host discussions on religion, politics but if 99% of them end in flaming and fights we don't really have a choice there but to close those topics.

 

For controversial materials and the image of enotalone; I think this is not an issue, the example of library in the previous post covered it. eNotAlone lists "A Million

Little Pieces Controversy" by James Frey, should it be removed from here and libraries because it turned out the author exaggerated his experience and half of the book is fake? I don't think so. Does Peter Arnett's interviewing of Bin Ladin make CNN a terrorist organization or effect their image? It is just an information, prepared and presented to you, you chose what you think about it.

 

About the book not being on the front page now, it will automatically refresh its front page about once an hour based on the material it has.

[pianoguy]

There are books dealing with all sorts of contentious issues in public libraries that are available for members to borrow. But just because you can borrow a book on, say, 'Creative Cursing' doesn't mean you won't be ejected from the library if you start quoting it out loud.

 

That's not a valid similie. If the library picked for a "book of the week" a book on creative cursing, that would negatively impact my view of that institution.

 

I think somebody raised a valid point that if I were to come to this forum and discuss such issues raised in this book, it would most likely get banned.

 

I think it's naive to say that a "featured book" featured on your site's main page does not impact people's view of your site. If you honestly don't care about the image this projects, that is your perogative as the owner of a site, but I think it's a bit naive to suppose that this doesn't impact how people view your site.

[pianoguy]

Number 1 enotalone does not advertise those books. It will very much list any book it covers from publishers I have agreement with. That would not cost anything to the author or the publisher. For those interested to purchase the book it will provide a link to link removed, amazon, the publishers website...

 

That's what advertising is. Advertising is defined as providing a platform whereby publicity is achieved for a product, usually with the intent of selling. The product can be books, or ideas, or whatnot. Having a "featured book" is a fantastic way to advertise something- libraries do this all the time.

 

I am not disputing your right to advertise products- your site needs to make money somehow, and I think that's a great way to go about it. However, what you advertise as a very direct impact on how people view your site.

 

The fact that you do not select what is advertised on your site does not absolve you of this responsiblity. Ultimately, what goes on your site is your responsiblity, the fact that you are allowing a third party to select these advertisements is your perogative, but you must be conscious that this will come back and reflect on your image. If this is not important to you, that is your decision.

 

In this particular case, having an advertisement for a book that is widely mocked, and could easily be considered homophobic, reflects very badly on the respectability of this site. The book was very prominently featured.

 

For controversial materials and the image of enotalone; I think this is not an issue, the example of library in the previous post covered it.

Again, I think it's naive to suppose that this doesn't reflect on your image.

 

eNotAlone lists "A Million

Little Pieces Controversy" by James Frey, should it be removed from here and libraries because it turned out the author exaggerated his experience and half of the book is fake?

I don't know what the book is about, but I'm willing to wager that it doesn't advocate homophobia and religious intolerance. If it does, I would support removing it from enotalone's featured book column.

 

Does Peter Arnett's interviewing of Bin Ladin make CNN a terrorist organization or effect their image? It is just an information, prepared and presented to you, you chose what you think about it

 

CNN is a widely respected news organization, enotalone is not. It is silly to compare what CNN does as a form of "advertisement" for Bin Laden's views. I don't think you can seriously argue that featuring a book on your site's main page is not a form of advertising.

 

I am not faulting the moderators for what happened, but I think you need to think and consider more seriously about the message you are sending through your advertising. If you don't care about what message this sends, that is fine, but if you do, you need to reflect on what type of image it is that you want to project.

[kamurj]

I was not comparing enotalone's reputation to CNN! I can not impose my views on the media that use different enotalone's channels; books, articles, forum. If that was the case the forum for example would need to make drastic changes.

[pianoguy]

I was not comparing enotalone's reputation to CNN! I can not impose my views on the media that use different enotalone's channels; books, articles, forum.

 

As I said, what goes on your page is your responsiblity, and you need to accept that responsibility. What you are doing is simply allowing a third party to use your site for advertising. At the very least, you need to choose a third party that you trust completely. You need to understand that everything that goes on your website comes back to reflect on you, not the third party, unless you somehow make that distinction very clear to people who visit your site.

 

If that was the case the forum for example would need to make drastic changes

 

Perhaps that's something to be considered. This is dependent on to what extent you care about your image.

[melrich]

I find it odd that a book which touches on subjects that get threads deleted here at ENA is advertised on it.

 

I can definitely see your point. This has been raised many times before and we have tried to clarify it many times but I'll try again.

 

We are not against religious or political discussion. We are not against beliefs or persuasions.

 

The only reason we don't allow those threads is becasue of the flaming that always ensues.

 

It's not the subjects we have an issue with, it's the behaviour of the members who particpate in those threads. The stance is against the flaming, not against the subjects themslelves.

[HellFrost666]

 

 

 

Is this the image that enotalone wishes to project?

 

I was wondering about that myself... especially considering this site doesn't tolerate anything remotely close to a religious discussion/debate.

[DN]

That's not a valid similie.

Yes, it is. You are just choosing not to accept it in the same way that you are dismissing out of hand all the other responses to your point. That is your right of course, but you are still missing the point that kamurj made i.e. these issues would be allowed for discussion on this forum were it not for the fact that the threads always degenerate into flaming. It was not the subject nor the discussion that was the issue - it was the manner some people chose to debate.

[pianoguy]

Yes, it is. You are just choosing not to accept it in the same way that you are dismissing out of hand all the other responses to your point.

 

I am not "dismissing" anything out of hand. Please do not misrepresent what I am trying to discuss. I am not trying to be contentious about this issue.

 

That is your right of course, but you are still missing the point that kamurj made i.e. these issues would be allowed for discussion on this forum were it not for the fact that the threads always degenerate into flaming. It was not the subject nor the discussion that was the issue - it was the manner some people chose to debate.

 

Apparently I misinterpreted your simile- I assumed that you were talking about the original discussion, which was referring to the advertisement about the offensive book. I am not here to discuss ena's policy on religious debate, that is for another thread. I still think your similie is faulty, but it isn't pertinent to my main point so I am not going to discuss that here.

 

My point, in a nutshell, is this: ena ran an advertisement for an offensive book, and we either need to apologize for what happened and take steps that something like this doesn't happen again, or we need to plainly admit that we do not care that such ads may run on our site.

 

I know that somebody is going to respond with "but I can't control Amazon!!!!" to which I would refer them to my previous two posts.

[kamurj]

My point, in a nutshell, is this: ena ran an advertisement for an offensive book, and we either need to apologize for what happened and take steps that something like this doesn't happen again, or we need to plainly admit that we do not care that such ads may run on our site.

 

That is not going to happen pianoguy. This is a library if you like a book read it, if not find another one.

 

Amazon has nothing to do with any of the issues discussed too, I work directly with the authors and publishers.

[melrich]

ena ran an advertisement for an offensive book,

 

Acording to you.

 

Should we also remove all threads that offend someone? According to who?

[pianoguy]

That is not going to happen pianoguy. This is a library if you like a book read it, if not find another one.

 

Ena isn't a library, but if it were, even libraries show some discretion over what books they choose to feature. It's one thing to have an offensive book on the shelf, it's another to put a sign on it that says "featured book of the week" and then have a positive review of it.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if an offensive book were featured, with a review that was something like "helpfully shows the context of racist American thought...." etc etc. But to feature an offensive book with a postive review is irresponsible, and I know of no librarian that would sanction such a thing.

 

This is a pretty straightforward issue, I'm not sure why people are getting so defensive about this. Do people feel the book was not offensive?

[pianoguy]

Should we also remove all threads that offend someone? According to who?

I wasn't talking about threads, I'm talking about the advertisements.

 

I never said that we should remove everything that's offensive to everybody. I'm merely asking that some discretion be shown in what we choose to feature, and that we consider how this reflects on us as a site.

[melrich]

I wasn't talking about threads, I'm talking about the advertisements.

 

Where do you see the difference? Either something is offensive to someone or it is not whether an ad or a post.

 

Look I get that occasionally things come accross media we enjoy that we don't like, whether it be newspapers, TV, blogs or internet forums. Does that mean the site itself or the members of the site or the site owners are in tune with those philosophies?....I don't think so.

 

In fact I would say we are giving more tacit endorsement to threads and topics we allow here than we are to software generated adverts that may appear on the front page.

 

Kamurj cannot be expected to review every book that is cycled through here. He also cannot expect publishers to discern what they may think is appropriate for this site or not appropriate.