Second: Check how easily you come up with a narrative in which the man is the one rationally expoundng and the woman is the irrational and overly-emotional interloper. Just mark it out in terms of oppositinal pairs: male/female, rational/irrational, speaking/bitching, public/private, serious event/doing laundry...
No kidding Talk about inadvertantly revealing too much information....
Well, wade is the guy and KA is the woman. Who did what to whom on the postmorg?
why me wrote:Beastie, you seem to understand that the husband was making a public speech against the wife. I meant no such thing. The husband was just making a speech as wade is doing on postmo. Then suddenly the wife enters the thread and curses the husband (wade). This is what I meant. KA's post was uncalled for. It just showed that she has a chip on her shoulder. Instead she should work out her problem with wade on a person to person level. No reason to let others see the dirty laundry.
I see it more as a "warn your neighbor" kind of thing, at least on KA's part.
You know I try not be snarky and personal here, but honestly why me I don't think you can read. First, beastie was suggesting you re-imagine the scenario you sketched out. She understood your post, you didn't understand that she was asking you to reverse the roles.
Second...I was making a point well beyond the extraordinarily literal one you think I was making (and I thought my students were literalists!). In other words, I was pointing out something beyond the KA/Wade dimensions of the thing to show that your whole way of (literally) seeing it is both limited and problematic (sexist).
And thirdly, you always seem to reply by doing no more than just reiterating your original point--you never seem to even register any comment/criticism/observation made by anyone else. For someone who seems to prize dialogue this is tragic.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:You know I try not be snarky and personal here, but honestly why me I don't think you can read. First, beastie was suggesting you re-imagine the scenario you sketched out. She understood your post, you didn't understand that she was asking you to reverse the roles.
Second...I was making a point well beyond the extraordinarily literal one you think I was making (and I thought my students were literalists!). In other words, I was pointing out something beyond the KA/Wade dimensions of the thing to show that your whole way of (literally) seeing it is both limited and problematic (sexist).
And thirdly, you always seem to reply by doing no more than just reiterating your original point--you never seem to even register any comment/criticism/observation made by anyone else. For someone who seems to prize dialogue this is tragic.
Really, why me is a lost cause in this regard. Really! Nothing works. Leave him be sitting on that fence dealing with his hemorrhoids and fear of repenting to his bishop and just have fun with him. Like I do. He doesn't seem to mind and it isn't frustrating that way.
Trust me. It is a no go.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Blixa wrote:You know I try not be snarky and personal here, but honestly why me I don't think you can read. First, beastie was suggesting you re-imagine the scenario you sketched out. She understood your post, you didn't understand that she was asking you to reverse the roles.
Second...I was making a point well beyond the extraordinarily literal one you think I was making (and I thought my students were literalists!). In other words, I was pointing out something beyond the KA/Wade dimensions of the thing to show that your whole way of (literally) seeing it is both limited and problematic (sexist).
And thirdly, you always seem to reply by doing no more than just reiterating your original point--you never seem to even register any comment/criticism/observation made by anyone else. For someone who seems to prize dialogue this is tragic.
I saw no need to reverse roles. My take on KA interfering in the thread was simple: she wanted to be a spoiler. I saw no other point. And that was my point. I saw no need to reverse roles.
I understand more than you think. I know that there is a lot of pain out there. And yet, I don't see it to be justified and yet, I can accept it. I have no idea what wade did to KA. My point was that it should not have appeared in that thread the way it did. That was my point.
I would have the same opinion regardless of the gender roles. Let the postmos and Wade discuss it out. If one wants to post a thread leave out the personal comments about Wade and join the conversation. That is my second point.
Blixa wrote:You know I try not be snarky and personal here, but honestly why me I don't think you can read. First, beastie was suggesting you re-imagine the scenario you sketched out. She understood your post, you didn't understand that she was asking you to reverse the roles.
Second...I was making a point well beyond the extraordinarily literal one you think I was making (and I thought my students were literalists!). In other words, I was pointing out something beyond the KA/Wade dimensions of the thing to show that your whole way of (literally) seeing it is both limited and problematic (sexist).
And thirdly, you always seem to reply by doing no more than just reiterating your original point--you never seem to even register any comment/criticism/observation made by anyone else. For someone who seems to prize dialogue this is tragic.
Really, why me is a lost cause in this regard. Really! Nothing works. Leave him be sitting on that fence dealing with his hemorrhoids and fear of repenting to his bishop and just have fun with him. Like I do. He doesn't seem to mind and it isn't frustrating that way.
Trust me. It is a no go.
I have repented to my priest. No need to go to the bishop, although it would be interesting to see what would happen. At this stage I have no fear. It would not change my standing in the LDS church at all.
What happened on the postmo? Wade is posting his comments and postmos are responding. Suddenly KA enters the field with a personal comment about wade and her interaction with him, plus a few negatives about wade. What help was that to the conversation? No help. And what was the point? No point except to taint the conversation.
Blixa wrote:You know I try not be snarky and personal here, but honestly why me I don't think you can read. First, beastie was suggesting you re-imagine the scenario you sketched out. She understood your post, you didn't understand that she was asking you to reverse the roles.
Second...I was making a point well beyond the extraordinarily literal one you think I was making (and I thought my students were literalists!). In other words, I was pointing out something beyond the KA/Wade dimensions of the thing to show that your whole way of (literally) seeing it is both limited and problematic (sexist).
And thirdly, you always seem to reply by doing no more than just reiterating your original point--you never seem to even register any comment/criticism/observation made by anyone else. For someone who seems to prize dialogue this is tragic.
I saw no need to reverse roles. My take on KA interfering in the thread was simple: she wanted to be a spoiler. I saw no other point. And that was my point. I saw no need to reverse roles.
I understand more than you think. I know that there is a lot of pain out there. And yet, I don't see it to be justified and yet, I can accept it. I have no idea what wade did to KA. My point was that it should not have appeared in that thread the way it did. That was my point.
I would have the same opinion regardless of the gender roles. Let the postmos and Wade discuss it out. If one wants to post a thread leave out the personal comments about Wade and join the conversation. That is my second point.
KA's warning about Wade tainted the conversation.
Why Me, I AM a member of PostMormon and have made, over the past several months, almost three hundred posts there. I've met several of the posters in person. How could I NOT warn people I consider friends of a wolf in sheep's clothing? Wade's treatment of me exemplifies his attitude toward ex-Mormons, and the posters there needed to be made aware of Wade's hypocrisy. He is not genuine in his efforts to bridge gaps between Mormons and ex-Mormons. He is disingenuous.
If my posts keep anyone from getting involved in frustratingly futile conversation with a hypocrite with dubious motives, then I'm well pleased.
I think I edited your point down to its most salient feature.
I also can understand people taking KA's side. I have no problem with that. It comes with the feelings of comradeship among the exmos.
I think that wade is now making headway over there and I am glad to see it. If anyone from here wants to take part in the conversation they are more than welcome but please don't get personal about wade and the experiences with him. It does not add to the discussion.