Wade is posting on the postmorg!

[_why me]

why me's post on the exmo conference was pathetic. It demonstrated a lack of experience with "conferences" in general (of which there are many forms, professionalist and not) as well as utter insensivity to both the obvious and the nuanced at the exmormon conference: for example the lack of homogeneity on many levels among exmormons which makes that conference (as well as RfM, by the way) such a hodge podge---which is a good thing. Furthermore he also misses the important interstices in the program, the places where the truly important things go down: like finding amazing wonderful human beings with which to embark on emotionally deep, immensely satisfying, life-altering friendships.

I wasn't there.

Oh my lord. You weren't even there?

I listened to the conference as posted on their website. And that is the impression that I got.

So how did you know attendance was sparse? Or how the audience received the speakers?

But I did find the format on the audio recording very mormonisk.

mormon-esque?

I can understand following the same format as a sacrament meeting. Apples never fall far from the tree.

Guess I missed the passing of the sacrament.

It sounded as if ten people were in the audience.

Well you were wrong.

Sorry about your grandmother...

gee, thanks, guy.

I made my comments on the MAAD board and churchmouse, the sound man for the conference chimed in with his agreement. The sound quality on the audio was poor. He also explained why the audio made it sound like the audience was sparse.

Churchmouse was in agreement. He also, I believe, agreed with the lackluster performance of the speakers. And if it wasn't him, then it was someone else who was there that agreed with me.

The sacrament was found in the beer and wine that was served. The organizer made jokes of the drinking that went on and wanted volunteers to go to Liquor store to return the unused bottles of wine for the refund.

[_why me]

I just gave the folks at PostMormon fair warning about Wade. I hope they listen.

Wade is not genuine in his attempts to bridge gaps. His only goal is to absolve the Mormon church of all wrongdoing and place blame on former members. That has been his consistent motive here, and I will not let anyone be fooled by him if I can help it!

KA

Like I said previously it may not be in the interest of postmoRFMites to bridge the gap and your post on the postmorg fit the bill. Nice work. Are you happy?

[_why me]

Well, I was willing to give Wade a chance, because he made some reasonable posts on MAD recently. But it didn't take long for his true colors to start peeping through. First, his continual refusal to apologize to KA, and then he talked about "recovering" from Mormonism, using the scare quotes. He just can't help himself. As much as he is trying to dress himself up differently, he's still wade.

I still think it's funny that he believes that to apologize is to mire oneself in the past. Apparently, "healing" goes one way with Wade.

Wade's bluffing. Wade knows the steps of repentence as well as any LDS, especially a member whose gone through a Court of Love. So Wade knows that apologizing for wronging another is a requirement of repentence, which tells me he has no intention of repenting of what he said about KA. And she'll wait until hell freezes over (or charity posts on MDB) for that apology.

Oh, I'm not waiting for an apology, that's for sure. I don't expect one. I do think people ought to know who they're dealing with, so I hopped over to PostMormon to let them know.

KA

So you are a wade expert? Hardly. You and Wade had a run in in cyberworld. It happens. But why destroy something that could have created something good? Personal feelings should not hinder progress.

[_why me]

Well, I was willing to give Wade a chance, because he made some reasonable posts on MAD recently. But it didn't take long for his true colors to start peeping through. First, his continual refusal to apologize to KA, and then he talked about "recovering" from Mormonism, using the scare quotes. He just can't help himself. As much as he is trying to dress himself up differently, he's still wade.

So Wade should apologize? And then of course, after he apologizes to KA, he should also apologize for the LDS church? And after he apologizes for the LDS church, perhaps he can make a public apology for all TBMs.

And then after he apologizes for all TBMs and the LDS, and to kimberly, he can go to the postmorg again and make a public apology there.

But will Jeff at the postmorg apologize to members for calling the church a pedator, and comparing it to a child molestor? I don't think so.

Oh my gosh, the hypocrisy is strong today.

[_harmony]

So Wade should apologize?

Yes, because he was totally out of line to KA. Yeah, that would be it.

And then of course, after he apologizes to KA, he should also apologize for the LDS church?

No, Wade's not responsible for anything the LDS church does, so why would he apologize? It wouldn't mean anything. Wade's like the rest of us, he's only responsible for himself. He only needs to repent of what he himself does. His stewardship doesn't include the LDS church. Any apology from the LDS church should come from the GA's and higher, not one measly member.

And after he apologizes for the LDS church, perhaps he can make a public apology for all TBMs.

Why? What's Wade done to all TBM's?

And then after he apologizes for all TBMs and the LDS, and to kimberly, he can go to the postmorg again and make a public apology there.

If he feels he needs to repent of something he did there, then yes.

You don't seem to know the repentence process very well, Why Me.

But will Jeff at the postmorg apologize to members for calling the church a pedator, and comparing it to a child molestor? I don't think so.

The church? Or Joseph Smith?

Oh my gosh, the hypocrisy is strong today.

What hypocrisy? Wade's? Or yours?

[_beastie]

So Wade should apologize? And then of course, after he apologizes to KA, he should also apologize for the LDS church? And after he apologizes for the LDS church, perhaps he can make a public apology for all TBMs.

And then after he apologizes for all TBMs and the LDS, and to kimberly, he can go to the postmorg again and make a public apology there.

But will Jeff at the postmorg apologize to members for calling the church a pedator, and comparing it to a child molestor? I don't think so.

Oh my gosh, the hypocrisy is strong today.

Wade is attempting to demonstrate that he has changed enough to be able to help exmormons deal with the difficulties losing faith in the church causes. He has a very long history of being insulting. The most recent example of this was his confrontation with Kimberly Ann. In fact, this occurred after Wade claimed he had changed. His insult to KA was extremely offensive, particularly to women. His refusal to apologize indicates that he hasn't changed at all.

And your inability not only to recognize why Wade needs to apologize is classic "whyme" and then turning the request for the apology into an attack, along with your inability to respond to my questions regarding MAD versus postmormon, demonstrates why you are so irritating. Once again, no wonder they banned you twice.

Despite my long, unpleasant history with Wade, I was willing to watch him at postmormon and see if he had changed. He had made a couple of very sensible posts at Wade. But he can't help himself, just like you can't. Change is very difficult, and his behavior at postmormon has convinced me he hasn't changed, except superficially in that he restrains his impulse to personally attack. He hasn't changed in that his fundamental views about why Mormons and exmormons experience conflict entails fixing the blame firmly on exmormons and their psychological difficulties. It's just one more variation of the LDS myth of why people leave the church. Of course he denies fixing blame at all, but his words betray himself.

[_Runtu]

So Wade should apologize? And then of course, after he apologizes to KA, he should also apologize for the LDS church? And after he apologizes for the LDS church, perhaps he can make a public apology for all TBMs.

And then after he apologizes for all TBMs and the LDS, and to kimberly, he can go to the postmorg again and make a public apology there.

No offense, but this is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever said. Wade said terrible things to and about KimberlyAnn. Any decent human being would recognize that Wade should not have done so, and if he is sincere in his efforts to promote good will and understanding, he will apologize. That he refuses and both he and you think that apologizing would be wrong suggests to me that neither of you is particularly sincere in your desires for dialogue. It has not a damn thing to do with the LDS church. It has to do with one guy refusing to do the honorable thing and another guy supporting him in dishonor.

But will Jeff at the postmorg apologize to members for calling the church a pedator, and comparing it to a child molestor? I don't think so.

Who the hell is Jeff at postmorg, and what does he have to do with Wade's unkind comments about KA? If Jeff said something hateful to you, of course you should expect an apology.

Oh my gosh, the hypocrisy is strong today.

I'll say it again. People who treat others with cruelty ought to apologize at the very least. Your self-righteous grandstanding aside, that's what Wade should have done. It's not hypocrisy to ask people to do the right thing. What is hypocritical is making a big scene about "improving relations" while simultaneously refusing to retract hateful remarks directed at another person.

Sometimes I think with Wade it's one step forward and two back. I keep wanting to believe the man is sincere, but this doesn't bode well.

[_why me]

Wade is attempting to demonstrate that he has changed enough to be able to help exmormons deal with the difficulties losing faith in the church causes. He has a very long history of being insulting. The most recent example of this was his confrontation with Kimberly Ann. In fact, this occurred after Wade claimed he had changed. His insult to KA was extremely offensive, particularly to women. His refusal to apologize indicates that he hasn't changed at all.

And your inability not only to recognize why Wade needs to apologize is classic "whyme" and then turning the request for the apology into an attack, along with your inability to respond to my questions regarding MAD versus postmormon, demonstrates why you are so irritating. Once again, no wonder they banned you twice.

Despite my long, unpleasant history with Wade, I was willing to watch him at postmormon and see if he had changed. He had made a couple of very sensible posts at Wade. But he can't help himself, just like you can't. Change is very difficult, and his behavior at postmormon has convinced me he hasn't changed, except superficially in that he restrains his impulse to personally attack. He hasn't changed in that his fundamental views about why Mormons and exmormons experience conflict entails fixing the blame firmly on exmormons and their psychological difficulties. It's just one more variation of the LDS myth of why people leave the church. Of course he denies fixing blame at all, but his words betray himself.

I don't know if wade needs to change. To have a dialogue one does not need to change. But one needs to listen and to understand.

Wade gave it a try. But some of the PostmoRFMites were not interested. They were waiting to siderail the thread. KA did this very well. For some postmos and exmos, dialogue is not on the table. They may have too much baggage or they may not find it in their interest to have exmos and postmos get along. Jeff may be a good example as he equated the church with a molester. Nice words...but uncalled for. For the PostmoRFMites, such electrically charged words keep them in business. Plant the 'evil' words and watch them spread is in their interest.

If wade denies what you are implying, I don't see the problem. He is sincere in dialoging with the postmos. But...there are 30 postmos to one wade. He was behind the eight ball before he even started. The postmorg does not allow Mormons to post..the goal is to validate all the negative feelings that they may have about the LDS church and then move on. Jeff more or less said so himself.

How to dialog with such a site?

[_Blixa]

why me's post on the exmo conference was pathetic. It demonstrated a lack of experience with "conferences" in general (of which there are many forms, professionalist and not) as well as utter insensivity to both the obvious and the nuanced at the exmormon conference: for example the lack of homogeneity on many levels among exmormons which makes that conference (as well as RfM, by the way) such a hodge podge---which is a good thing. Furthermore he also misses the important interstices in the program, the places where the truly important things go down: like finding amazing wonderful human beings with which to embark on emotionally deep, immensely satisfying, life-altering friendships.

I wasn't there.

Oh my lord. You weren't even there?

I listened to the conference as posted on their website. And that is the impression that I got.

So how did you know attendance was sparse? Or how the audience received the speakers?

But I did find the format on the audio recording very mormonisk.

mormon-esque?

I can understand following the same format as a sacrament meeting. Apples never fall far from the tree.

Guess I missed the passing of the sacrament.

It sounded as if ten people were in the audience.

Well you were wrong.

Sorry about your grandmother...

gee, thanks, guy.

I made my comments on the MAAD board and churchmouse, the sound man for the conference chimed in with his agreement. The sound quality on the audio was poor. He also explained why the audio made it sound like the audience was sparse.

Churchmouse was in agreement. He also, I believe, agreed with the lackluster performance of the speakers. And if it wasn't him, then it was someone else who was there that agreed with me.

Whether or not one or a hundred people "agreed" with you still completely misses the point---you are still working within the limited notion of what comprised the conference that you started with: talks.

The sacrament was found in the beer and wine that was served.

This analogy fails given your definition of "the conference" since no libations were served during the talks/assembled audience portion of the event. Nor were they distributed ritually with all partaking. Nor were only men authorized to authorize the food and drink. Rather, these potables were offered under circumstances much like a professional conference, say the Modern Language Association's annual event, during which one finds cash bars and hospitality rooms.

The organizer made jokes of the drinking that went on and wanted volunteers to go to Liquor store to return the unused bottles of wine for the refund.

And what the heck is this supposed to mean? I fail to see how this is supportive of your sacrament analogy or anything else.

Face it why me, you weren't there, but you are making the kind of arguments that one would have had to be there to make credibly. You could, however, argue that listening to a podcast also counts as a kind of attendance, but then you would have to enlarge your understanding of the event beyond the "talks" model you seem glued to.

[_Runtu]

I don't know if wade needs to change. To have a dialogue one does not need to change. But one needs to listen and to understand.

When your idea of dialogue is self-righteous grandstanding, you'd better change if you plan on having real dialogue. Wade may have done a lot of things in his life, but his MO has never been to listen and understand. It's always been to dismiss and criticize people for having had a bad experience with Mormonism.

Wade gave it a try. But some of the PostmoRFMites were not interested. They were waiting to siderail the thread. KA did this very well. For some postmos and exmos, dialogue is not on the table. They may have too much baggage or they may not find it in their interest to have exmos and postmos get along. Jeff may be a good example as he equated the church with a molester. Nice words...but uncalled for. For the PostmoRFMites, such electrically charged words keep them in business. Plant the 'evil' words and watch them spread is in their interest.

I don't hang out over there, so I can't comment on it. I will say that as long as Wade continues to treat KA with contempt, I don't imagine relations will improve.

If wade denies what you are implying, I don't see the problem. He is sincere in dialoging with the postmos. But...there are 30 postmos to one wade. He was behind the eight ball before he even started. The postmorg does not allow Mormons to post..the goal is to validate all the negative feelings that they may have about the LDS church and then move on. Jeff more or less said so himself.

That's exactly the problem. Wade isn't there to dialogue. He's there to invalidate the negative feelings people have about the LDS church. If you don't see that, you haven't been around Wade much.

How to dialog with such a site?

I'm wondering how you're supposed to dialogue with Wade.