Who is Wade Englund?

[_Baker]

Take it as a compliment that your personality and circumstances are sufficiently intriguing as to warrant such attention!

That is kind of you to say, and a positive way for me to look at it.

However, my question wasn't intended to envoke sympathy, but rather to test the capacity for honest introspection on the part of those giving me the bizarre kinds of attention. I am trying to find out if some of the good folks here are in the least bit aware of their rank hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It ceases to be a fair playing field the minute that you connect your online identity with your real identity.

[_wenglund]

You also forgot his phase where he described apostates critics of Mormonism, especially atheists and agnostics, as having an authoritarian personality (and fundamentalist).

Yes. Indeed, many of this class are famed and famous, as individuals, and as a class, for such characteristics.

Secular humanism is, after all, a modern secular gnostic religion, having various schools, factions, and cults. Many are deeply authoritarian, some are nihilistic, and others are fundamentalist in nature (environmentalism, multiculturalism, radical feminism etc.), tolerating no deviation from rigid doctrinal orthodoxy.

What makes this so interesting is that they can so easily see this in others (some times mistakenly), but are so blind to it in themselves. They view themselves as the bastians of open-mindedness and acceptance, but in practice, they are hyper-intolerant of differing points of view. That is why we often find the most bigotted among us who presume to be the innocent judges of bigotry. Fascinating. And, I believe in its own way, this thread is a microcosm of this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Baker]

What makes this so interesting is that they can so easily see this in others (some times mistakenly), but are so blind to it in themselves. They view themselves as the bastians of open-mindedness and acceptance, but in practice, they are hyper-intolerant of differing points of view. That is why we often find the most bigotted among us who presume to be the innocent judges of bigotry. Fascinating. And, I believe in its own way, this thread is a microcosm of this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who is "they"? Some offensive subset? There are without doubt those who become militant in their open-mindedness to the point of becoming entirely closed-minded, but the above reads like a gross generalization.

[_EAllusion]

Wade calls gay men vain, catty, gossipy, self-centered, abusive, promiscuous, overly dramatic, and unfaithful in an explanation for why he finds character traits of gays repelling.

People point out this is bigoted of him, which it is. Wade, of course, reacts by getting up on a cross and lamenting how he is being persecuted and starts accusing others of being hypocritical bigots for daring to criticize his nastiness. He suggests that people refuse to allow homosexuals to be criticized simply because they react to his obstinate prejudices with appropriate offense.

Awful Wade. Just awful.

I think I'll end on a quote from good old Gadianton talking about a popular fundamentalist author's reaosning :

Well now ain't he brilliant? I contemplated self-refuting statements as a child absent any formal instruction like I'm sure many others of average intelligence have. But I can imagine a hayseed chewing acolyte rising off his front lawn parked couch in a bustle of excitement, nearly spilling his moonshine all over chapter 2 of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and reading McDowell's startling discovery aloud by tobbacco stained index finger to cousin Billy Bob with some commentary like, "What er he's sayin is that if you gonna believe in toleratin' everybody, then somebody up and gonna be intolerant but ya'all gotta tolerate them to! Hee Hawww! Those city folk don't think of nuttin!"

The principal of the school McDowell cites, probably not thinking some barefoot God-fearin chirstians who were lookin to exploit their tremendous insight in every and any situation they could force into it, neglected to spell out the fact that tolerance as a virtue does not commit one to believing that everything must be tolerated.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also, is anyone else struck by the contrast in finding people posting anonymously, yet who are driven to publically bashing the real me, but also intent on delving into the details of my real personal life?

I find this telling on a number of levels. I mean, isn't the reason some of you are posting anonymously is so as to avoid the very thing you are doing to me here--not that I mind one way or another?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So.... I guess this means you won't be elaborating upon the circumstances surrounding your Church Court?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Perhaps Mr. Englund could enlighten us? What was his issue, and how, exactly, did a Court of Love create the mechanism through which he stopped being a repeat offender?

V/R
Doc

[_Baker]

Also, is anyone else struck by the contrast in finding people posting anonymously, yet who are driven to publically bashing the real me, but also intent on delving into the details of my real personal life?

I find this telling on a number of levels. I mean, isn't the reason some of you are posting anonymously is so as to avoid the very thing you are doing to me here--not that I mind one way or another?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So.... I guess this means you won't be elaborating upon the circumstances surrounding your Church Court?

It probably won't live up to your wet dreams ...

[_stemelbow]

Seeing all the hostilities people have focused on Wade I wonder if this thread will ever die. Its a shame so many here are in to this type of stuff. Without it, we'd be much better off.

[_wenglund]

Seeing all the hostilities people have focused on Wade I wonder if this thread will ever die. Its a shame so many here are in to this type of stuff. Without it, we'd be much better off.

It is all my fault. If you don't believe me, ask EA. He will rustle up a self-serving caricature as justification, which will garner unanomous concurance from the expanding panel of judgementalists.

The good news is, things like this thread are only harmful if one takes it seriously and gives it a care. It really is deserving of neither. In fact, you do all of us perpetrators a favor by chaulking it up to an innocent bit of raucous fun. For my part, I would have no problem meeting any one of them in person and smiling and giving them a big freindly hug.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

The good news is, things like this thread are only harmful if one takes it seriously and gives it a care.

Yeah, I quickly skimmed though most of this thread (it does bring back some fun memories), and if there's one obvious fact to be gleaned, it's that Wade "you're all a bunch of neanderthals" Englund doesn't care about it at all.

I mean, anyone can see that, right?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-