Wade Has Been Reinstated at MA&D

[_wenglund]

I find it fascination, though, that the respective theories focus, ironically, on ME, as though my actions are about ME, rather than about YOU. Yet, were you to look carefully at my posts, they, for the most part, are not about ME, but about YOU--though many of YOUR posts are about me. In other words, the evidence doesn't fit your respective theories. As such, you are left to self-delusionally speculate and imagine your respective theories are correct in spite of the evidence to the contrary. And, that, ironically as well, is because you don't want this to be about YOU. There are few things you fear more than the light shining on the real YOU (or more correctly your irrationally low sense of self)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually Wade, a close perusal of your posts shows a somewhat narcisstic fascination with yourself. Your theories about us. Your sacred beliefs. Your church. Your your your your your... endlessly your posts are only concerned with you. Ego-centric individuals such as yourself can be readily found on MAD. You're a good match for them, you non-banning notwithstanding.

What do you say we test your perception against mine? We can do so in the following way: I will start a thread specifically devoted to what I believe are cognitive distortions in the minds of some here. In otherwords, the subject of the thread will be YOU good folks, and not me. Let's see if I am able to keep my end of the discussion focused on YOU without mentioning me (beyond my signitiure), and let's see if you are able to keep your end of the discussion focused on YOU without mentioning me?

Deal? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I agree that we may reveal much about ourselves in what we write--though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "more a reflection of the writer than what is written". But, Socrates apparently distinguished between the reflection and what is written. The discussion thus far (at least my part in it) has been about the latter, not the former. What I have written has, for the most part, been about others, whereas, ironically, what they have written to me has, for the most part, been about me--as the posts specifically to me on this thread invariably demonstrate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well duh - this thread is about you.

Will you accept my challenge to harmony above as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Will you accept my challenge to harmony above as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think that'll work. Since the thread will be about what you believe, it wouldn't be fair to keep you and your beliefs out of it.

How about this wade: You're an asshole. Now, you can't talk about me when you respond. ok?

[_wenglund]

Will you accept my challenge to harmony above as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think that'll work. Since the thread will be about what you believe, it wouldn't be fair to keep you and your beliefs out of it.

If YOU are capable of making the obvious and critical distinction between the subject and author, then it can work. (By the way, please note who YOUR post above focused on, and what that says about YOUR capacity to met the challenge.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

If YOU are capable of making the obvious and critical distinction between the subject and author, then it can work. (By the way, please note who YOUR post above focused on, and what that says about YOUR capacity to met the challenge.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, you just talked about me in your response. You lose, too bad.

Now, lets play again. You're an asshole. Let's see if you can respond without talking about me.

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for clearing this up, Wade. But something is amiss in your story. I clearly saw, when reading your old posts, that you were listed as "banned." Did I misread the postings? Or have the moderators been pulling your leg? Moreover, if you were never banned, this proves what I said earlier: your lectures to everyone about people other than critics being banned has turned out to be a total crock. If you were told, six months ago, that you weren't technically "banned," then your comments to Kevin and myself over on MTT were dishonest. You misrepresented yourself, Wade. Not very nice.

I held out no hope that you would correctly understand things. And, so, I wasn't disappointed when you didn't (actually, it fully expected and quite predictable). I am fine with leaving you with your misperceptions, particularly since your mind is closed to change anyway. You, like many of your fellow teeth-gnashers, need to view the opposition as a crock and dishonest. It is your dillusional way of protecting your unwittingly dysfunctional self-perception. Again, enjoy the fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But you *were* dishonest, Wade! Why not set a good example by apologizing? Do you want to try and explain how what you did was perfectly kosher, out in the open, and straightforward?

I don't need to explain it to the reasonable and open minded because they would already understand that there wasn't the least bit of dishonesty or crockery, obviously. And, it doesn't do any good to explain it to the unreasonable and closed minded for reasons already explained.

But, I don't expect you and others here to understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What "reasonable and open minded", Wade? Who are these people? Do they even exist? Or is this pretty much like your bogus, phantom "Mr. D" rigamarole?

Face it: you were dishonest, and you owe me and others an apology. You have been called to repentance.

[_wenglund]

If YOU are capable of making the obvious and critical distinction between the subject and author, then it can work. (By the way, please note who YOUR post above focused on, and what that says about YOUR capacity to meet the challenge.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, you just talked about me in your response. You lose, too bad.

YOU apparently lack the capacity to accurately grasp the simple and obvious conditions of the challenge, and thus ironically misdirected YOUR judgement about who supposedly lost, while unwittingly underscoring the point of the challenge. Very good!! ;-)

Now, lets play again. You're an asshole. Let's see if you can respond without talking about me.

Okay. It would help ME if I were given more specific details and reasons behind that assesment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

YOU apparently lack the capacity to accurately grasp the simple and obvious conditions of the challenge, and thus ironically misdirected YOUR judgement about who supposedly lost, while unwittingly underscoring the point of the challenge. Very good!! ;-)

What? I wrote this earlier:

How about this wade: You're an asshole. Now, you can't talk about me when you respond. ok?

So, apparently, it's YOU who lacks the capacity.

Okay. It would help ME if I were given more specific details and reasons behind that assesment.

Well, lets look at the definition:

a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person

Stupid for believing in the fraud that is the church.
Incompetent for your lameass interpretations/applications of cognitive distortion.
Detestable for your condescending/holier than thou approach on this board.

Based on my interactions with you, you are the definition of asshole. So, what do you think?

[_wenglund]

Okay. It would help ME if I were given more specific details and reasons behind that assesment.

Well, lets look at the definition:

a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person

Stupid for believing in the fraud that is the church.
Incompetent for your lameass interpretations/applications of cognitive distortion.
Detestable for your condescending/holier than thou approach on this board.

Based on my interactions with you, you are the definition of asshole. So, what do you think?

I think for ME to be convinced that that is what I really am, I would need more than accusations. I would rationally need to have specific and reasonable examples presented to ME as well as reasonably demonstrated that the examples of ME actually fit the stated definition.

I think I can, strictly for the sake of argument, and by way of modeling, continue to meet this challenge of talking just about me for the remainder of this thread, and in terms of the specified criticism of me. I do so because I am not averse to honestly and open-mindedly considering personal criticism of me. I think I am benefited when I listen and thoughtfully consider feedback. I often wonder to myself if I am alone here in that way of thinking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Okay. It would help ME if I were given more specific details and reasons behind that assesment.

Well, lets look at the definition:

a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person

Stupid for believing in the fraud that is the church.
Incompetent for your lameass interpretations/applications of cognitive distortion.
Detestable for your condescending/holier than thou approach on this board.

Based on my interactions with you, you are the definition of asshole. So, what do you think?

I think for ME to be convinced that that is what I really am, I would need more than accusations. I would rationally need to have specific and reasonable examples presented to ME as well as reasonably demonstrated that the examples of ME actually fit the stated definition.

I think I can, strictly for the sake of argument, and by way of modeling, continue to meet this challenge of talking just about me for the remainder of this thread, and in terms of the specified criticism of me. I do so because I am not averse to honestly and open-mindedly considering personal criticism of me. I think I am benefited when I listen and thoughtfully consider feedback. I often wonder to myself if I am alone here in that way of thinking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I gave you examples. You just didn't like them. Shocker.

Ok, so you're not convinced that you're an asshole. What a surprise.

Hey, I'm not convinced of your interpretations/applications of cognitive distortion. What a surprise.

It's just too bad that you weren't able to challenge my assertion, and hopefully change my mind. I guess we'll leave it at that then. Oh well.