The QuiverFull! Digest FAQ
Notice: Before you post a message to this digest or before contacting the moderators with a question. Please read this document in it's entirety
0. How do I
post a message? 
Assuming you've subscribed, just send mail to qf@quiverfull.com.
(Mail from non-subscriber addresses may be deleted or returned.)
IF YOU POST PERSONAL INFORMATION, DO SO CAUTIOUSLY. This digest is
published around the world and permanently archived. Anything you say may
become public knowledge and may resurface in the distant future.
1. How do I
interact with the digest software?
A program monitors our e-mail and automatically responds to certain
commands from you. This gives you control over your subscription without
involving the moderators. You may send e-mail containing the following
commands in the "Subject:" field of your message to qf@quiverfull.com. Use
only one command per message. Include the % (percent sign) in your
command or it won't work. Put the command in the "Subject:" field (not
the body) or it won't work.
COMMAND EFFECT
------------ -----------------------------------
%subscribe Requests a subscription to the mailing list. YOU MUST
QUALIFY for a subscription by providing additional
information in the body of your message. See "How to
Subscribe" on the Web site for instructions. The moderators
will not accept unqualified subscription requests. The
Reply-To address of your message will receive the
subscription; you cannot subscribe a different address. If
approved for subscription, you will begin receiving digests
in a day or so.
%unsubscribe Un-subscribes you from the mailing list.
%help Sends you this FAQ.
%private Sends your message directly to the moderators for their
personal attention, bypassing the digest and further
automatic processing.
------------ -----------------------------------
If you send an ordinary message like "subscribe", "please sign me up", or
"unsubscribe me" to the digest, we will simply remind you to read and
follow the above instructions.
To change the e-mail delivery address for your subscription, send a post
from your NEW e-mail address with the command "%subscribe" in the SUBJECT
field. If you can, unsubscribe from the old address by sending a post from
the OLD address with the command "%unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT field.
2. Can I get
copies of previous digest?
We're not able to manually answer requests for individual back-issues,
including recently missed issues lost in e-mail trouble. This will change
if we upgrade the software to handle automatic requests with something
like a %get command.
You can e-mail a friend you know on the digest, asking them to forward you
a copy of a missed back-issue.
3. What makes
my post worth reading?
What's in it:
--Good content is what's most important: encourage, inform, exhort.
--Be careful and earnest. Don't engage in idle chat or impulsive
thoughts. Respect the attention of hundreds (if not thousands!)
of listeners. How would you speak to a large auditorium filled with
such a crowd?
--When responding to a previous post, re-quote only the minimum text
necessary to recall the issues (three lines or less), and identify who
you are quoting.
--Speak in scriptural references, rather than speculating.
--Write something original, heartfelt, and specifically for us.
Don't cross-post something you've sent to another list or newsgroup.
Don't copy or forward material from others.
--Personal testimonies, anecdotes, poetry, jokes, etc., are welcome IF and
only if you wrote them and they relate to our topics of interest. Do
not use someone else's material.
--Provide an accurate subject in the subject field.
--Good style, spelling, grammar, and composition are polite and respectful.
We understand that such abilities differ, but show your best effort.
How your post looks is important:
--Separate paragraphs with blank lines.
--Do not use HTML or photo attachments; these will be stripped out.
--Use a signature to simply identify yourself, not to make more comments.
4. How other
are the digests published?
At least three times a week and as often as daily. It depends on the moderators' available time, the
number of posts coming in, and Internet traffic.
5. Can I receive
a post individually rather than in digest form?
No. Currently the digest is only published as a moderated digest.
6. Do you have
to have a large family to subscribe?
No. The size of your family is not the real issue. The real issue is,
are you obeying God? Do you believe that He ultimately controls the womb,
in both His precepts and decrees? If you believe this, and live
accordingly, then you share the "quiver full" conviction.
God doesn't give everyone children, and certainly not an equal number of
children to all families. We have no "minimum entry requirement" in this
regard. We also welcome young married couples (who haven't had time to
bear many children), older couples (who are past childbearing age) who
are in accord with our principles, and couples who have repented of
a past surgical sterilization.
You might have arrived at QF convictions subsequent to being surgically
sterilized, or after reaching an age where childbearing is over. You are
still very welcome.
7. Where can
I find some good books on the subject?
See our bibliography on our Web site:
http://www.quiverfull.com/biblio.html
8. What if my question's been answered
already?
Many topics have indeed been covered. But there are always new
subscribers, and longtime subscribers with new insights. And we all need
encouragement in the same areas from time to time. If you express your
personality and experience, even old questions will be newly interesting.
It is prudent to just read the digest for a few weeks, perhaps responding
to existing topics, before you attempt to start a new thread of discussion.
This will give you a better feel for what is appropriate.
9. A moderated digest? What's that?
Quiver-Full! is unlike almost all other Internet forums: The moderators
carefully select what is published in each digest. Moderation helps
filter out the advertising, idle conversation, wandering topics, and
pointless controversies that degrade most Internet forums. This
cultivates a discussion which is concise, direct, and rich in content
regarding our chartered purposes. It is worth reading, and worthy of your
effort writing.
Quiver-Full! has grown in subscribers to the point where we must be
strictly selective about what is published. Without this editing, the
digest quickly becomes overly long and the discussion too off-topic to
maintain the focused interest of our readers. Many readers do not
understand this, and think that the digest is an informal chat among a few
friends, where casual thoughts and drifting topics are of interest. The
temptation to post off-topic comments is strong, if only because there is
so little off-topic material allowed, that you know your off-topic post
will get a lot of attention. But you must appreciate the effort of
producing a specialized publication to a large circulation. If off-topic
material is allowed to dilute the chartered purposes of the digest, then
subscribers lose interest, and less topical material is posted, and in the
end, the publication loses both circulation and content.
10. How do
you decide what to include?
Ask yourself two questions when you write a post:
1. Does this post directly and *uniquely* relate to large families or
obeying God in childbearing, in a manner consistent with the charter?
2. Is this the best forum for this post or is there another that would
be more appropriate?
The QF Digest began because there are certain topics of common interest
or which have unusual "angles" for full-quiver families, such as:
Theology: the fruitfulness mandate, providence in conception.
Family matters: child-rearing in a large family, parenting in middle-age, adoption
Divisions: dealing with critical relatives, a spouse who disagrees,
unsupportive churches and denominations, neighbors, the government,
comments (good or bad) from strangers, defense against enemies
(feminists, zero-population zealots, eugenists)
Physical matters: pregnancy, nursing, sexuality, infertility, reversal
of sterilization, miscarriage, natural spacing, harms from
contraception, health risks/benefits of bearing many children
Fellowship: encouragement, prayer, introductions of newcomers, finding
neighboring subscribers, testimonies of QF persuasion, pregnancy and
birth announcements, consoling illness and bereavement, sharing
photos and personal Web sites, external news of QF import, poetry,
humor
The day-to-day matters: housing, food, furnishings, clothing, budgeting,
moving, living on one income, schooling, pets, children's spending,
restaurants, vacations, entertainments, pastimes, taxes and tax
preferences, anecdotes
We need personal encouragement from our fellows in similar situations, and
many of us get this only from those we know through the digest. There are
certain aspects of these issues that need to be addressed (and here's the
operative phrase again) *as they relate to large and growing families* or
*as they relate to those seeking to obey God in childbearing*.
Some topics seem to quickly wander from our purposes as a group. For
example, a topic might start out well as nutrition for multiple
pregnancies but then turns into herbal nutrition for pregnancy, then turns
into herbal nutrition, then turns into growing herbs. Eventually, we're
moderating a Hints-from-Heloise group called
"growing-houseplants-God's-way."
It's cozy to have general Christian fellowship. In person, we would talk
about a variety of things, whatever we like. But in an e-mail forum, the
channels are narrow, although they reach very far. Thus we impose the
discipline of permitted topics and moderation.
We seek a quiet dignity and order amid the raucous, worldly fray of the
Internet. Quiver-Full! is a polite forum. We have a "dress code" of
sorts. The Internet is a shabby place, and we ask you to "wipe your feet"
and "close the door" when coming inside.
11. Why are
posts edited, returned for revision, or outright rejected?
Oh, lots of technical or netiquette reasons! And a few serious ones.
The value of a moderated digest is that the information is selected. If
little was ever rejected, there would be no need for a moderator. So you
should not let a returned post hurt your feelings. You should consider
why it happened and understand how to avoid it. You should not criticize
the moderators, or start private debates with them, because of these
policies or an application of them.
Here are some of the reasons:
a. Your post is "off-topic", by far the most common reason we omit
posts. After some years, we've accumulated an unpublished list of
topics that wander into outer space, lead to pointless controversy, or
just have little or nothing to do with the purposes of the digest. In
the interest of tone, quality, and peace, the moderators reserve the
right to subjectively omit posts. This *does* *not* *mean* we don't
like your ideas, that your post wasn't well written, or that we think
you are stupid. Many topics are important and worthy, yet do not
belong in Quiver-Full!
Always try your idea against the questions at the start of question
#9 above before writing a post or sending it in.
Sometimes posts contain both on-topic and off-topic material. In such
cases we may edit your post, by removing the off-topic portion(s) and
retaining the rest, rather than rejecting it outright.
Don't assume that because an off-topic post appears in a digest that
everyone is permitted to jump in. Off-topic items do appear
if for no other reason than merely being overlooked.
If you have a well-written, but still off-topic post, it would
certainly be welcome for publication somewhere on the Internet. For
example, if you were to post about floor coverings, the Usenet
newsgroup misc.consumers.house has a wealth of expertise and interested
listeners available.
Do not presume that a widely-read publication like the digest would
make a good place to broadcast off-topic ideas. Do not think that
everyone will "just skip over it" if they're not interested. One of
the reasons the digest is widely read is because it is focused,
concise, and free of distractions. Diluting the content with
extraneous topics ultimately spoils this fineness and drives away
readers.
Good publishing, even on the Internet, is not about shoveling out all
possible content and letting readers pick what they want. If that were
true we'd just mail everyone the entire Web every day and "just let
them skip over what they don't want". Nor is it about "freedom of
speech". That freedom begins and ends with our charter, which is
a contract between the readers and contributors, administered and
enforced by the moderators.
"Aha!" we sometimes hear. "You are allowing a discussion on off-topic
thread X, so why can't I start on off-topic thread on Y." One must
appreciate that ongoing discussions drift, and often they drift far
from their topical moorings, but very gradually, so that a clear
off-topic leap never occurs. But the presence of such a gradual
slide is not a justification to start another off-topic thread.
b. The address that you sent your post from, isn't on our list of
subscribers. To the list moderation software, this makes you a
"stranger" and your post automatically "bounces" (that is, gets
returned or deleted).
Post from the e-mail address where you receive the digest.
Don't use a spouse or business account (unless you also subscribe
there).
c. You didn't include a thoughtful subject, tsk, tsk. If you just hit the
reply button you will get a meaningless "Re: DIGEST #XXXX" subject.
This makes the digest index hard to read and will make your
contribution hard to index later. It is also a flag that you may have
inadvertently quoted the whole previous digest while posting a reply.
Edit the message to include a thoughtful "Subject:". Use the same one
as others are using for the same item of discussion; then your response
will be indexed with the others in the archives, and your wisdom will
be available as a benefit to many others in the future.
d. Your post ended with a long signature, street address, or phone
number, perhaps appended automatically by your mailer software.
Embellished signatures are a bit of "Internet culture" which clash with
the style of the QF digest. Keep your personal signature to one, or
perhaps two or three, genuinely informative lines, no more, like your
real name, your city, or your Web site URL (if you have one). Anything
longer than that is too much. Adorning your signature with bars or
pictures made from characters is trite and clutters up the digest. A
short Bible verse is OK, but change it each time or it will seem trite,
too. "Bumper sticker" and other cute slogans are inappropriate.
Remember that you are contributing to a long digest which is assembled
from many contributors and published to a very wide audience. Unlike
your personal correspondence, hundreds of people must sort through your
words, and your brevity and directness are crucial. Every word should
respect the audience and not be redundant or automatic. Every ten idle
words become ten thousand in publication.
Your signature must be just a signature: the "who" and "where" of your
authorship. Do not repeat incidental information like your spouse's
name, your family size, your state of mind, etc. Such details should
be in your introductory post, or you may cite them in the body of your
message if they are somehow particularly relevant to your point.
Keep your signature elementary. Do not misuse it to slip in text that
otherwise would be rejected. Express your thoughts in the body of your
message.
If someone needs your street address or phone number, send it to
them directly. Don't put that information in your signature
(or in a post, for that matter).
Don't repeat your e-mail address in your signature or in the body of
your message. The digest will already show it in the "From:" heading
of your post.
e. Your post does not appear consistent with the minimal doctrinal
standards stated on the charter page of the Web site:
a. Belief in the Trinity: God the Father, the Son of God Jesus Christ
and the Holy Spirit.
b. The inerrancy, sufficiency and authority of the Holy Bible as the
only inspired word of God.
c. The atonement for our sins by Jesus Christ for those who believe.
d. The sanctity of marriage expressed only in a monogamous lifelong
relationship between one man and one woman.
We rarely see problems with (a), or (d).
We often receive posts apparently in conflict with (b), where people
claim that God is giving them truth or counsel beyond what is in the
Bible, such as through feelings, "being led", circumstances, strange
coincidences, voices, visions, "fleeces", "God told me", "God moved my
heart", or prayer. Many people use such language without understanding
the conflict it presents to the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
We would rather have you exhort and encourage from God's word alone,
which we believe is sufficient for our guidance. It usually isn't
difficult for a contributor to rewrite a post to conform to this
policy. We don't mean to exclude anyone with a gentle disagreement in
this area, as long as this area of contention remains subdued in the
public discussion.
We have also encountered some oblique questioning of (c) related to
advocacy of an "age of accountability" for infants, but since that is
mostly off-topic it hasn't been an ongoing problem.
It should be clear that our doctrinal positions come from a
theologically conservative, Protestant point of view. If you hold to
something very different, you will need to subdue your opinions if you
wish to participate, just as we try to be tolerant and welcoming.
The point here is that these seemingly simple articles can have
far-reaching implications. Subscribers are often unaware of these
implications or unaware of the historic controversies in the church
surrounding these doctrines.
f. You sent copied material like a broadcast message, joke collections,
inspirational stories, or a-child-is-dying tales of crisis. Or, you
sent an original message, but one which you cross-posted to other
forums like newsgroups or other mailing lists.
Digest readers earnestly want to read what *you* have written
*yourself* just for *us* on our special topics of interest. Can you
send us something original that won't be found elsewhere?
g. Your post responds with only a short sentiment like "Amen" or "thanks".
If that is all you care to say, send it privately to the contributor
instead; it means more that way. On the other hand, if you have
thoughts elaborating on WHY you agree, DO post them. A daily digest is
not conducive to a chat-style conversation, so write posts that are
thoughtful, substantial, and which others can think about and respond
to. It is the substance of this kind of exchange between us that best
expresses fellowship in this medium.
If someone else's post hurt you in some way, consider responding
privately. If the issue warrants a public response from you, then
explain your reaction, instead of just sounding off.
h. Your post quotes material which is too lengthy or which could cause us
legal trouble. Most often we're concerned about copyright infringement
in this regard. Short quotations should always be fine.
Rewrite your post so that it doesn't include lengthy quotations.
Summarize in your own words, or give just the reference to another
publication (like a book or Web site). For items like your favorite
poetry, you must provide a copyright release from any third parties
involved.
i. Your post contains ribaldry. This can happen inadvertently because the
culture is continually inventing new naughty words that we adopt
naively. We're not squeamish or prudes (medical and sexual discussions
get very frank sometimes), but neither do we want a coarse tone.
Rewrite your post in a more genteel tone.
j. Your post contains a commercial solicitation or a plea for donations.
The Internet has lately been infested with inappropriate commerce.
The digest should be a quietly spiritual forum, free of the bustle
of advertising and selling. We seek a haven from worldly noise that
distracts us from our holy conversation.
Many contributors have a business or profession that constitute a large
part of their respective identities. One line of signature to
publicize this is OK at the end of genuine posts. Any more and we send
you a bill for advertising (just kidding). But do keep it to one line
if it's commercial.
"Commercial" activity for this purpose includes home businesses and
even items you are selling casually; in short, anything involving trade
of goods, services, or money. Some personal Web pages purport to be
noncommercial, but still try to sell something or contain advertising
banners selling things at other sites. If you promote such a page,
even if it is your own, we still consider it commercial for the
purposes of this policy.
If you refer to a Web site or other resource that you own or benefit
from, use language that discloses that relationship, or keep it within
your signature. We consider "nondisclosure" promotions less than
honest. They taint your referral with a suspicious air.
Pleas for donations to individuals or causes, or collections for gifts
to or relief of fellow subscribers, are not authorized by the
Quiver-Full! charter, and are not appropriate for the digest.
We regret that even some things like prayer requests regarding personal
financial or household difficulties can fall into this limitation.
For this reason, you should avoid mentioning your personal financial
difficulties.
k. You're trying to make money off your friends in Quiver-Full!
Examples of such posts would be a chain letter, easy-money scheme,
multilevel marketing recruitment, Internet coupon/discount
trading/sharing, make-money-by- or (solve-world-hunger-by-) Web-surfing
schemes, and any of the other petty frauds popular on the Internet.
Sometimes valued subscribers get involved with such silliness, so it
happens.
Useful Web sites on this topic:
http://www.quatloos.com (Financial scams and frauds exposed)
If you are mercenary enough to try to chum up traffic for a Web site on
Quiver-Full! so you can make money from banner advertising: we brook
no such subterfuge.
Bulk e-mailing to addresses you've harvested from the digest is a
serious affront to both the moderators and the subscribers, as well as
a copyright infringement. We know whenever someone tries this because
the list is seeded. So don't try.
l. You're a phony subscriber sending spam. Go away. We already canceled
your subscription and put you on a list of banned addresses without
further notice. Tough, eh? But then you wouldn't be reading this. So
we won't waste any more words on that.
m. The moderators happened to be overworked and cranky lately, and your
post required some kind of manual effort on their part.
Try again later.
n. The digest is down while the moderators are on vacation. You should
get an automatic response giving an explanation of what happened and
what to do about it, like "try again later."
o. Your post refers to broken URLs.
Check all your URLs before putting them in a post. We will not
knowingly accept dead links. There's no point in you citing them
just so hundreds of people can be frustrated.
p. Your post strongly promotes "alternative medicine" or strongly
criticizes "mainstream medicine".
Giving and taking medical advice over the Internet is a very difficult
and complex issue. We are not opposed to discussing medicine or
informing others about alternatives. But neither do we want to provoke
controversy with (or outright promote) medical ideas that aren't proven
to be safe and effective. Nor do we want to promote the illusion that
you can skip a physician's diagnosis by soliciting advice from those
who have had similar cases.
We believe that the licensed medical profession is dedicated to
scientific judgments about safety and efficacy, despite the occasional
errors and blind spots. We reject extreme views such as: the
mainstream "system" is inherently evil, or intends to harm us for the
sake of profits or to protect against malpractice, or suppresses
alternative, "natural", or "herbal" treatments that are safe and
effective.
In 1994, the US Congress and President Clinton barred the FDA from
regulating "dietary supplements" (chiefly, herbal remedies, even though
these are not food in the usual sense) with the Dietary Supplement and
Health Education Act (DSHEA). Such products now meet no legal
standards for safety, effectiveness, purity, or contents. Herb
merchants now have a legal loophole to make unsupported, often false,
medical claims. A flood of such publicity has corrupted the popular
understanding of medicine, and these ideas regularly appear in posts to
the digest. In extreme cases, anti-Christian philosophies such as New
Age thinking or post-modernism are the basis for attacking scientific
medical knowledge. It sounds as if the two sides of this controversy
are speaking different languages, with only one based on evidence and
critical thinking.
Since the moderators aren't themselves medical doctors and don't have
time to investigate alternative claims, they screen posts by relying on
authoritative scientific standards like the _Merck Manual of Diagnosis
and Therapy_ (http://www.merckmanual.com) and _Griffith's 5-Minute
Clinical Consult_ (http://www.5mcc.com).
We may accept posts that simply give your own history ("I tried X for
my Y complaint, and my Y went away), or that make tentative suggestions
for alternative medicine. Those expressing alternative views naturally
tend to be vocal, while following conventional views doesn't often
excite comment because it's so, well, conventional. Expressions of
paranoid fears, crusading against "the system", or horror stories
designed to poison the well of modern medicine are not welcome.
If your post is returned for this reason, you can either tone down your
claims and resubmit the post, change it to refer your readers to
another forum where alternative medicine is promoted, or forward it to
another forum altogether.
A related problem involves posts which solicit medical advice from the
general readership. This puts the moderators in the difficult position
of having to review unlimited responses varying from expert knowledge
to downright cranks. There is also a dilemma that many such questions
are either too minor to be on-topic, or are so serious that bad advice
ought not to be published, either. Publishing each and every opinion
is not the goal of this digest. However, if you can cast your question
in such a form as to bring out a medical issue of peculiar interest to
QF people, rather than sound like someone who wants free advice to
avoid the need for a medical doctor, then you have a much better chance
of having it published.
Useful Web sites on giving or taking medical advice:
http://www.hcrc.org Health Care Reality Check
http://www.quackwatch.com Quack Watch
q. You're losing your temper.
Controversial topics aren't necessarily "off" topics, but you might
lose your temper in the heat of a controversy. We talk about deep
things in Quiver-Full!, and occasionally emotions and language get too
strong. Silly quarrels have also occurred. In such cases the
moderators may act as a "referee", pulling apart two boxers in a
clutch.
You should either tone down or take your quarrel "outside".
r. [Your defective mailer added an HTML copy to your plain text.
Turn off HTML in your mailer! Microsoft Outlook has annoyed the world
and made trouble for our digest by turning on this obscure mis-feature
by default. In Outlook, select the menu Tools+Options, then the "Send"
tab, and set "Mail sending format" to "Plain text", not "HTML".]
(This problem has been obviated by our newer software which filters
out the problematic formats. But it's still a good idea to turn off
HTML.)
s. Your post contains a factual error, or is suspect in that regard.
It is easy to post casually without checking facts. If you make an
error that is relevant to your point, we might catch it and return your
post for correction. For example, you might mis-attribute a quotation
or give the wrong name for a medicine.
Correct your post and resubmit it. Don't let your feelings be hurt.
t. Letter-writing or petition-passing campaigns are usually off-topic.
You should write your friends privately if you have a worthy cause that
deserves this kind of drum-beating action. If you're not willing to
make that effort privately, and expecting the digest to do it for you,
then it might be wise to re-evaluate how dedicated your convictions
are.
We may occasionally make an exception if a particularly QF issue is
urgently at stake.
u. You're posting about housekeeping (cooking, recipes, sewing, cleaning,
laundry, diapers, home decorating, furnishings, etc) during a time when
posts are too frequent on such topics.
We permit a small amount of discussion of these mundane matters in
their relevance to running a large household. Since they are not
really the "heart" of our Quiver-Full! concerns, we do limit the volume
in any given digest. There are plenty of Internet forums specializing
in these topics, where you will likely have a better-informed
discussion anyway.
v. You misquoted or poorly paraphrased a Bible verse.
Using verses is good, but be careful if you do it from memory. We
prefer you give Bible quotes verbatim, using quotation marks and a
verse reference. Your application will be more authoritative, and your
readers can look up the text for additional study. Paraphrasing from
memory can be dangerously inaccurate.
w. You are disparaging someone, or revealing very private information.
Be especially careful when discussing third persons. Your words will
be sent literally around the world and will persist forever, and you
cannot control who reads them, now or in the future. Scary.
We are especially unwilling to allow the digest to advertise your
personal discord. Do not send posts critical of your spouse,
even if he or she is not a Christian believer or not a QF advocate.
Be careful in discussing child-rearing that you do not disparage your
children. Speak respectfully of your extended family and your church.
Cloaking critcisms in "prayer requests" is no excuse.
Publicizing private information about third parties may also be
disparaging. For example, don't use the digest to discuss family
secrets.
Be careful in debates with other subscribers. Debates can turn
into personal attacks rather than well-grounded discussions.
Don't respond in kind if you are the victim of acrimony.
Please don't refer to an unborn baby as an "it". Such use of the
neuter pronoun is jarring to the pro-life sensibility.
x. Your post is in some "loud" typographical format.
We commonly make typographical changes to keep a consistent
presentation in the digest: reflowing paragraphs, lower-casing WORDS
that YOU MIGHT be trying to emphasize TOO FREQUENTLY with all-caps,
remove ellipses ("..."), removing rows of asterisks or hyphens, and
generally any format that tries to be distinctive from other posts or
which uses a distracting style. Much of this task is handled
automatically by our software, but some of it can't be, and we don't
like being "janitors" when we should be moderating content. Changing
such presentation formats does not alter the substance of your text.
We want you to attract attention with good prose, and not with
typographical style.
y. You got scooped on some news by another subscriber.
You might post to report some item of news. Others may have already
made similar posts, but before you could have seen their posts in a
digest. We will omit repetitive or redundant posts in such cases.
z. Your post involves popular, controversial teachers, like the Ezzos or
Bill Gothard, who are for or against QF principles.
Let's leave the distant personalities out of our discussion and stick
to the issues.
aa. Your post asks for a personal reply by private e-mail
Asking for private replies is sometimes appropriate, but usually it
isn't. When conversations are deliberately drained into private
exchanges, then the vitality of the digest suffers. The digest is not
primarily an introduction service for the purpose of hailing others off
into a corner where the rest of us can't benefit.
We're not saying you shouldn't make new friends from the digest or
exchange private correspondence with them (that's why we include e-mail
addresses in posts), just that you shouldn't impolitely use the digest
to broadcast private invitations.
Asking for private replies on something off-topic is itself off-topic
(see above).
ab. Your post pertains to matters of a local interest only.
The digest is a world-wide publication. Asking such an audience for
for local information ("what's a good church in West Undershirt,
Wyoming"; "who's a good doctor in ...") isn't appropriate. Consider
how almost everyone (hundreds, if not thousands) of readers will be
needlessly distracted. Consider that if even a small proportion of
our subscribers posted such requests, we would all have nothing
else to read. It also seems that these questions rarely get the
answer hoped for.
ac. You asked an open-ended question that will likely generate a flood of
replies, where virtually everyone is compelled to "check-in".
Many questions, some of them even good ones, provoke too many responses
or "cast the net" too broadly. Once, in a running thread that went on
for weeks, one after the other subscriber gave an inventory of personal
habits (movies watched, teetotaler or not, clothing styles). This was
purportedly a celebration of the diversity of QF lifestyles, but each
such post seemed to provoke a chain reaction of several more
self-descriptions, ad infinitum. The thread was certainly interesting,
but the conclusion had to be simply, "Wow, there are lot of things that
don't matter to being QF," to which the natural response is, "Why are
we trying to enumerate the universe of things that don't matter".
Try to frame your questions so as to provoke a focused, limited, and
on-topic response. Don't ask, "Who likes ice cream? What flavor?"
And absolutely do not post any question which demands a response from
all subscribers ("Where is everyone from?").
ad. More stuff is added to this list all the time.
12. What are
these "[MODERATOR: ...]" comments interspersed in posts?
That's the moderators speaking on behalf of the charter or the
interests of the subscribers as a whole.
The moderators of the digest have two main duties: (1) To receieve
prospective posts from contributors, and then accept, reject, trim, or
return-for-revision those posts; and (2) To guide and clarify the digest
text by interspersing comments as needed. When commenting in the digest
next to someone else's post, the moderator(s) will identify their separate
comments with a "[MODERATOR: ...]" bracketing, so as to avoid any
confusion over who is speaking, a contributor or a moderator.
13. A post says to "Reply by e-mail
privately." Why? How do I do that?
This means that the contributor of the post (or sometimes the moderators)
want any replies not to go the digest, but directly back to individual
contributor. Look at the top of the particular post you're reading and
observe the "From:" line's e-mail address of the contributor. If you want
to reply, compose a new e-mail message, entering that address as the "To:"
recipient. You can type the address in by hand, or go through the
clipboard cut-and-paste method to avoid errors.
Be careful you don't impolitely invite private replies. See question
9, section aa, above.
14. So many things seem to be off topic.
Can't I solicit pricvate e-mail to take them up?
Well, that's also off-topic, isn't it? There are usually better ways to do
this, so we discourage it. If you want to converse about an off-topic
matter, the best ways are to use another forum that covers that topic, or
to invite subscribers you know personally via private e-mail (not a post
broadcast on the digest). We don't inhibit private conversations, but the
digest is not a "hailing channel" to enlist a quorum for non-QF subjects.
On a few occasions, discussions that wandered off-topic in QF have been
redirected through the digest to other forums.
15. Are all Quiver-Full! subscribers
alike? Barefoot moms in denim jumpers?
No. Some bear children at home, some at a hospital (and some in the car in
between). Some homeschool, some don't. Some are Calvinists, some are
Arminian, some don't know, some just don't say; most are Protestant
christians in keeping with our doctrinal standards, although there a few
Roman Catholics. Some eat whole-earth foods, some eat chocolate and Big
Macs. Most are from the USA, but many are elsewhere. Some women wear
just dresses, some wear pants. For some couples both spouses are QF
minded, for others only one is, and still others are seeking and want to
learn more. Some have adopted, some have only children they've borne.
Some are country mice, some are city mice. Some use the real Internet,
some use AOL.
16 Do you believe people should have
as many babies as possible? That contraception is never permissible?
That is a very leading question. What we promote is obedience to the Lord
with regard to having children. We believe "birth control" usurps God in
His providence from multiplying or limiting our children.
Fertility and fecundity, while blessings from God, are not ends in
themselves. Quiver-full convictions are not a "prosperity gospel"
with babies substituted for wealth. We would oppose intervening efforts
of a healthy couple to speed up conception, such as deliberately limiting
nursing or using drugs, which would seem to be interfering with God's
providence and design. Another example would be a hypothetical medical
technology to delay menopause, if it were to become available, which we
would oppose for the same reason.
There are many difficult ethical questions about Quiver-Full! principles.
Some hold that medically treating infertility is wrong and that
infertility should just be accepted as a manifestation of God's will;
others feel that infertility is an illness that should be medically
treated. Another perplexing question is whether we should conceive
children in cases where there is a likelihood of miscarriage or other
harm. If pregnancy will certainly demand a medical intervention such as a
caesarean section, is the duty of childbearing diminished? Such "hard
cases" involve deep issues of life and death.
There would seem to be no simple answers to such questions, and the digest
does not dictate a position on such finely-divided distinctions. These
are often the subjects of lengthy discussions and debates.
17. Where
can I get a copy of the book "A Full Quiver" by Rick and Jan Hess?
See Quiverfull Resources on the Web page.
18. Can I
subscribe from free e-mail services such as Juno, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc?
Yes, but there are minor problems. For example, Juno will not deliver the
digest to you if it exceeds some rather small size (about 20 pages or so,
technically 64K bytes, which they could also change any time). Lately the
digest has grown to this size once a week or so. These "free" services
also paste a tacky billboard on the end of your posts that the moderators
must painstakingly edit off by hand. Think of a bumper sticker getting
stuck on your car every time you park somewhere. This can make a lot of
work for the moderators and consequently the digest quality can suffer.
The costliest trouble with these services is the time the moderators
expend just *explaining* the inevitable technical problems to subscribers
asking, "what went wrong, where's my digest!". These services are
not really "free" because of such overhead, despite the "easy-to-use,
easy-to-sign-up" appeal. We recommend you use real Internet access and
e-mail if you can afford it, although we'll understand if you can't. In
many locales, public libraries or other institutions offer free e-mail
without these limitations.
The free e-mail service described at:
seems to be the best available right now. You can read e-mail from the
Web or download it to your own PC mailer software. This does require that
you already have an Internet connection, however, so it's not like Juno's
free dial-up email service.
19 I don't
check e-mail very often, but when I do, I'm missing some digest.
Your service provider probably imposes an e-mail "quota" that is reached
when you don't download your mail very often. Once your mailbox is full
(perhaps with old issues of the digest), later digest issues "bounce"
(don't get delivered at all). As a result, when you finally connect and
download your mail, you will not have gotten delivery of the most recent
issues.
Although we usually receive a notice from your service when your mail
bounces, we cannot possibly afford to chase down such problems: about 1
percent of our list members experience a transient delivery failure on any
given day. If you're really stuck with a problem we will try to help if
you send a %private e-mail message.
The only solutions are to either check your mail more often, or use a
different service that doesn't impose a quota.
20. I had
an e-mail problem that was fixed, but now I get no digest at all.
Send another %subscribe. If your digest e-mail bounces often enough, or
your service provider says your account is closed, you are automatically
unsubscribed. We have no way to know if and when your service is
restored. If you have flaky Internet service like this, there's really no
way for us to solve the problem of automatic unsubscription, short of
recommending you find a better provider.
21. Can I
get an e-mail virus from your digest?
Almost certainly, no.
We format the digest strictly and deliberately as plain text, because we
want the digest to be readable everywhere on any system. Only plain text
does that.
The software which assembles the digests has several walls that bar
anything but plain text from getting through. (1) It accepts no posts
except those in plain text, and (2) It has no capacity to produce anything
but plain text in the digest mail piece. So even if someone were to post
a viral attachment, and even if it were to escape the the notice of the
moderators (they are obvious with the UNIX-based mail reader), and even if
it were to somehow slip into a digest, it would simply appear as some
gibberish text that wouldn't be interpreted as an attachment by your mail
agent when you received it.
Concern about e-mail viruses, however, are probably best addressed by
prudent behavior on your part as a recipient rather than expecting clean
mail from everyone. You can't guarantee you're not going to get a nasty
attachment someday from someone. In short, just don't open attachments
unless you know what they are and who they're from; and use a mail reader
that won't open them without warning you first.
22. What is
your policy on subscriber privacy and solicitation?
We have a strict privacy policy:
Your e-mail address as a subscriber will not be disclosed to the digest
until you submit a post or introduction. Thus you can "lurk"
(subscribing without a public introduction, reading the digest, and not
posting) and not have your subscription address published on the digest.
Once you post, your e-mail address will appear in a "From:" line with
your post, and others have access to it.
Subscriber lists may not be harvested from digests to be used for
spamming. The lists are seeded to detect such use. Please forward any
spam messages traceable to Quiver-Full! harvesting to the moderators.
We have a strict non-solicitation policy:
No commercial advertising appears on our Web site, the digests, or
other Quiver-Full! publications. This includes e-mail addresses which
are from domains which are primarily for recruitment; we bowdlerize
such domains if they appear in your e-mail address.
23. I have
a web site; will you link to it from your web site?
If you are a subscriber, we will link to your individual family page
or photo so that other subscribers can get to know you better.
If your site is educational or commercial (in a way related to our
charter) we may (repeat, may) maintain a link. We also link to
non-subscriber sites with educational or commercial purposes related to
our charter.
In any case we expect you to first establish a reciprocal link to our site
before requesting a link on ours. We will check your link before we set
up ours.
For links to commercial Web sites (see above for our strict definition of
"commercial", which may include your family pages), we further require
disclosure on the site itself of ownership, including current street
addresses and phone numbers. It is helpful if you also describe who you
are, what your facilities are, how long you have been in business, etc.
Many people want to run a home-based business, which we wholeheartedly
support, but also try to appear to be something different.
Maintaining commercial links is not a priority for us, and unless you're a
loyal subscriber, we won't bother unless you have something hard to find
that isn't available otherwise, like a rare book in our bibliography.
24. Who owns
Quiver-Full?
Your own individual posts belong to you as the author, and you retain the
copyright on them, although you implicitly grant us permission to publish
them in the Quiver-Full! Digest (e-mail, archives, CDs, in print, etc).
The digest as a compilation, the quiverfull.com domain name and Web site,
and the compilation of subscriber addresses, all belong to the moderators,
who hold these assets in trust for the benefit of the subscribers pursuant
to the goals of the Quiver-Full! charter.
25. Why are the Quiver-Full! Digests
copyrighted? Can I print out the digest to read and show my friends, or to
keep? Can I forward it to friends?
You need permission of the respective owners to make copies. This is to
protect you (a subscriber and author of posts) and the moderators (who own
the list itself and the compilations of posts). Authors and list owners
throughout the Internet have learned the hard way that they need to
control copying and publication of their works. If not, your posts or
your e-mail address might be used without your permission for purposes you
don't like, or even abused. A copyright can be used to enforce the rights
of the subscribers and the moderators to control how the digests are
copied and published, both on the Internet and in tangible forms like
discs or printed copies. This is especially important due to the
sensitive and personal nature of the digest topics. Strictly speaking,
the copyright notice on the digest issues is not necessary to secure the
copyright, but it does give notice that we are diligent in this regard.
Subscribers may make copies of individual digests for their own personal
use or one printed copy to keep or to circulate among friends without
e-mail. Re-publication is prohibited.
26. How did Quiver-Full! start? What
is the history, and who are the principles?
Steve and Beth Jones of Tuscaloosa, Alabama USA were the original
moderators and visionaries. They published digest issue #1 on July 11,
1995 to 12 charter subscribers they located through Internet newsgroups.
With issue #1343 on October 15, 1999, the moderatorship of some 400
subscribers passed to Richard and Holly Kinch of Palm Beach County,
Florida USA. In June, 2001, with issue #1774 to 1130 subscribers, the
moderatorship again changed to Paul and Bethany Vaughn of Brentwood,
Tennessee USA.
You may locate the current list owners through an Internet whois query on
the domain name quiverfull.com.
27. How do
you produce and deliver the digest?
The original moderators did it "by hand" at first, and later used a
Windows program called SVList. Both of these methods are hideously
time-consuming, and neither were very flexible as to digest style or
content, so we re-implemented the digest. Mailing lists are a classic
Internet application, and UNIX is THE system for automating the task.
Efficient management allows us to concentrate on good content and
subscriber service, instead of technical matters or rote processing. For
now, we have kept the textual format of the old SVList digests.
Here's a "guided tour" of our current facilities:
We use a PC running Linux connected to the Internet via a DSL modem which
provides a static IP connection to the Internet. Within the moderators'
household (mom and dad, 4 children, a business, and a home-school) are 4
PCs and on an 10-baseT Ethernet LAN using Linux IP Masquerade,
allowing us to all work together and access the Internet. We
use our own sendmail server for outgoing mail, including delivery of the
digest. We still use an outside ISP to receive and store incoming digest
mail, which is then transferred frequently via fetchmail to our Linux
system. The Web site is virtually hosted at a separate ISP.
We run home-grown software (shell scripts, procmail recipes) under Linux
to (1) receive incoming mail, (2) route posts, (3) process commands, and
(4) make up the trial digests. Using telnet we can manage this from any
PC in our LAN or even away from home. We review new posts using a Linux
mail user agent several times a day and approve or redirect each post.
Approved posts arrive in an internal digest mailbox awaiting assembly into
a trial digest. At issue time, we trigger the software to produce the
trial digest, which we then edit by hand to produce a final version. We
dispatch the final version either with sendmail from our Linux machine or
from the ISP's machine. On a good day we can produce a 64 KB moderated
digest with less than an hour's effort. On a bad day we don't do much
else. Once we've dispatched an issue, the e-mail routing and delivery
over the Internet to all 1200+ subscribers takes from several minutes to 4
hours to complete.