The WORST church social media presence

2»

Comments

  • Sipech wrote: »
    My own church (not the over-arching body; the individual congregation account) blocked me on Twitter. After about 3 months, they unblocked me and someone muttered something about not knowing how that had come about.

    Trouble is, the ownership of the account was left to someone who, to put it mildly, is not all that tech-savvy. For example, on that person's own account, they will tweet something and them immediately retweet it themselves.

    O dear. Just goes to prove, yet again, that one needs to be careful - and fairly tech-savvy - to utilise social media for church porpoises!

    Hence, perhaps, our slowness in setting up such an account (or FB page) at Our Place. If someone with proven ability came forward, and offered to sort it, we'd probably be delighted, but...

    I seem to be, by default, Our Place's computer geek. That is to say, I can edit our 'A Church Near You' website with relative ease (and, in all fairness to the much-maligned C of E, the free-to-use ACNY facility is improving all the time), and I can download music for hymns etc. onto our laptop PC for use at services if our organists are n/a. (My fellow-Reader ensures that licences are valid and up-to-date, before anyone asks!).

    I (and all the other members of the ministry team and PCC) frequently use e-mails to contact each other, but I do accept that more could be done to use social media to publicise services/events, or to invite comments/questions.

    It's just that bridge too far away from my personal comfort zone, but YMMV.

    IJ

  • stetson wrote: »
    I think for a lot of people, roughly those who came of age before the 1960s, innuendo is okay, but explicit portrayal crosses the line.
    Agreed - think of George Formby. And the master of innuendo, Kenneth Horne, was the son of a congregational minister (who wrote "Sing we the King who is coming to reign" and also became an MP).

  • @Stetson etc al.

    Yes, of course I could imagine what the parishioner was getting at - it was formal but not stuffy.

    I was just amused at the turn of phrase.

    @Zacchaeus, if you've been to boring, dry and unpleasant inductions, have you ever been to a 'vibrant' one?

    Lol - vibrant is not a word that I would usually associate with licensing services
  • Well, if an Underground/Tube line happens to be beneath the church....(as long as it's not the much-delayed London Crossrail - you've got another year to wait!).

    IJ
  • Might be of your organ has a good strong 32-foot bass stop on it ...
  • Some church people are touchingly innocent/naive. I distinctly remember reading a circular from a parish some 30 years or so ago, saying they were looking for a priest 'with a "hands-on" approach'. That raised one's eyebrows, even then.
  • The UK version is 'pheasant plucker.'

    'Fig plucker' doesn't plucking scan.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I think for a lot of people, roughly those who came of age before the 1960s, innuendo is okay, but explicit portrayal crosses the line.
    Agreed - think of George Formby. And the master of innuendo, Kenneth Horne, was the son of a congregational minister (who wrote "Sing we the King who is coming to reign" and also became an MP).

    And, so wikipedia tells me, uncle of Ronald Gordon, Bishop of Portsmouth 1975-1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Gordon
  • i didn't know that - fascinating!
  • The UK version is 'pheasant plucker.'

    'Fig plucker' doesn't plucking scan.

    Is the fig plucker the US version or the David Cameron version?
  • Ha ha ha!

    Stetson's Canadian.

    Moose?

    No, that wouldn't scan either ...
  • i didn't know that - fascinating!

    Come to think of it, Julian and Sandy had a friend called Gordon, didn't they, who I'm sure spent a lot of time in Portsmouth...quite a prophetic coincidence! :smiley:
Sign In or Register to comment.