Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_rocket]

Hello,

I have to say; and I admit it is very bizarre, but this Mr. Englund is one of the most... Strange persons I have ever witnessed post on the Internet. I am not sure if it is clear to others, but this individual is clearly Homosexual and at odds with his own state.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Antishock, you pretentious twit -- I thought you admitted in the past to being macaroni. No?

Not that there is anything wrong with it.

[_harmony]

Hello,

I have to say; and I admit it is very bizarre, but this Mr. Englund is one of the most... Strange persons I have ever witnessed post on the Internet. I am not sure if it is clear to others, but this individual is clearly Homosexual and at odds with his own state.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Please do not make assumptions about Wade being gay. Gays have enough problems dealing with their own issues, without Wade being closeted with them. And they aren't strange. Wade, however,... well, you may be right there, but I don't assume that to be true either. He's just the lone citizen of Wade World, and it's entirely possible that he's just lonely and used to talking only to himself.

[_wenglund]

It's as if nobody on the board (well, critics anyway) understands English except Wade. Hell, nobody understands anything except Wade, apparently.

It is not uncommon for the fundamentalist-minded to illegitimately project their inadequacies onto the general population of groups such as this. While it is true that there is a disproportionate number of people here who are comprehension challenged, there are those with whom I have yet to have much if any problem communicating. Shocking, I know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It is of some comfort to be thought odd by the bizarre. It is kind of like being thought upside-down by the upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, earlier on this very thread, in direct response to me asking for an example of “nit-picking”

Wade, let me, probably vainly, help you understand how this post of yours reads. Since I, apparently erroneously, believed that your reply was at least partly connected to the example I had offered on this thread – the only example up to that point, by the way – I was not the “intelligent reader”, and that was my “chosen nature”. In other words, my “chosen nature” is not “intelligent”.

I think this little exchange explains quite a bit about the nature of interacting with Wade. I have no idea why this is so, but I do know that Wade seems oblivious to how his own posts “read”. Combine this with his frequent refusal to defend his assertions other than with a statement that others do not understand him due to their questionable intelligence, fundamentalism, the new favorite “closed-mind”, or lack of spiritual development, and you have the sum of the state of affairs in Wade-world.

Beastie, not that you need to be told this or are the least bit willing to listen, but on the off-chance...please...at all cost, do not take that frightful step and reach beyond the safe confines of your own thoughts by venture to consider alternative ways of reading what I said. In particular, protectively build an impregnible barrier to any clarifications from the author and broach no tolerance of anyone else who may get it...and all this so as to avoid the one thing that you may find most catostrophic to your way of thinking--i.e. that you are ever wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_AlmaBound]

You could have made your post a lot more succinct by just saying this:

--consider alternative ways of reading what I said.

--i.e. that you are ever wrong.

Plain and precious, that.

[_wenglund]

You could have made your post a lot more succinct by just saying this:

--consider alternative ways of reading what I said.

--i.e. that you are ever wrong.

Plain and precious, that.

Precious indeed...but inadequate for conveying the entirety of my point.

It also won't prevent people from miraculously seeing what isn't written nor intended to be written, nor will it prevent some readers from thinking they know better than me what I said and meant.

Again, to correct these problems would require shifting the lense of criticism from the author to the mis-readers, and the mis-readers can't, for the life of them, let that happen.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_AlmaBound]

Precious indeed...but inadequate for conveying the entirety of my point.

Clearly, the entirety of your point is to convey the essence of the juxtaposition of the obvious as portrayed in the elegance of simplicity, at least when compared to the simultaneous collusion of one or more thoughts, or rather the sublime convergence of those thoughts when applied to the rather limited medium with which we have to work.

Am I right?

[_wenglund]

Clearly, the entirety of your point is to convey the essence of the juxtaposition of the obvious as portrayed in the elegance of simplicity, at least when compared to the simultaneous collusion of one or more thoughts, or rather the sublime convergence of those thoughts when applied to the rather limited medium with which we have to work.

Am I right?

No. Obviously!

But, your misreading does provide an unwitting object lesson that confirms my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_AlmaBound]

No. Obviously!

But, your misreading does provide an unwitting object lesson that confirms my point.

I had anticipated that - to which I might say that while I was rather witting in doing so, I reserve certain limitations as to that which I actually said, though I won't commit to actually having said anything, which of course I did not so do.

However, when I did say what I didn't say, it was certainly witting when I did or did not do so.