And although it's obviously an unpopular stance, I wouldn't mind if folks quit dredging up Charity's past "offenses" (for lack of a better word) and hammering her with them. If the past is any indicator, she'll give people plenty more to respond to moving forward (and no Charity - I don't mean that offensively; it's just the board dynamics). It would be nice to see something new discussed.
I will no longer bring up ANY past "offenses" as soon as Charity stops pretending she has particularly clean hands and is in a position to lecture others.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
truth dancer wrote:You have illustrated here one of the "problems" others seem to have with me. I often make comments which include the word "some." Posters often skip over that word and think I said "all." I only said "some" people might still know the Church is true on a subconscious level. I think there are others who don't believe for the reason you said. But the problem is that you think I said everybody. Clearly that is a misunderstanding on your part. And I think a pervasive part of the misunderstanding.
I have encountered the same phenomena on many occasions here (several times in the last two days on another thread), and I was just recently told that I should look inward for the cause of the misunderstanding. After all, if I am frequently experiencing the phenomena, then it must be my fault (or so the reasoning goes). It is just that I don't know how else to phrase the word "some" so that SOME people won't read it as "everybody". ;-)
charity wrote:I started this thread wanting to discuss the difference bewteen what is called outrageous, cruel, etc. for some posters, but not others. That never quite got off the ground.
I have answered Moniker over and over again. I cannot say it any more plainly than I have said, and she keeps putting words in my mouth, demanding what has already been provided, etc.
I am done, too.
I said on the other thread that I accept ad hominems against posters, but it goes overboard when people bring the children or wives (who have nothing to do with what's going on) or other private lives are brought up.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I do not know the specifics of the incidents about which you are writing so the only suggestion I could make for you would be to either bold or CAPITALIZE or BOTH... the word, "some". In addition, you may want to include in a parenthesis a little note saying something like, "not everyone". (I realize capitalizing usually means shouting but I think it may be a way to emphasize a word that requires strong emphasize... maybe this is inappropriate, I'm not sure).
Charity mistakenly assumed I took her statements to mean everyone. When people respond to someone who has suggested some people behave a certain way, they may respond by discussing those people who the statement reflects without explicitly stating that they know the statement does not reflect everyone. I think this is part of normal discussion.
I'm can't speak to your particular circumstance however.
Hope this helps.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Bond...James Bond wrote:I said on the other thread that I accept ad hominems against posters, but it goes overboard when people bring the children or wives (who have nothing to do with what's going on) or other private lives are brought up.
I agree with this! I also don't think sexuality should be used in this forum either. It bothers me that comments about Wade are made all the time. It's rather odd really hearing from posters that the Church has such a problem with homosexuality -- yet, those that routinely like to make remarks about Wade and sneer at him seem to just carry over that mentality after they leave the Church.
I agree with this! I also don't think sexuality should be used in this forum either. It bothers me that comments about Wade are made all the time. It's rather odd really hearing from posters that the Church has such a problem with homosexuality -- yet, those that routinely like to make remarks about Wade and sneer at him seem to just carry over that mentality after they leave the Church.
Those comments are likely caused by the knowledge that Wade use to run a homophobic website wherein he tried to pretend he could "help" gays get cured or something. It was homophobic due to its extremely offensive content, in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. He also went to boards for gay people and invited them to his website. I read those threads, although they have since been deleted, and the folks on that board did not appreciate his offers of "help" nor his offensive website.
I admit this past website of wade's has deeply colored my opinion of him, and permanently prejudiced me against him.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I agree with this! I also don't think sexuality should be used in this forum either. It bothers me that comments about Wade are made all the time. It's rather odd really hearing from posters that the Church has such a problem with homosexuality -- yet, those that routinely like to make remarks about Wade and sneer at him seem to just carry over that mentality after they leave the Church.
Those comments are likely caused by the knowledge that Wade use to run a homophobic website wherein he tried to pretend he could "help" gays get cured or something. It was homophobic due to its extremely offensive content, in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. He also went to boards for gay people and invited them to his website. I read those threads, although they have since been deleted, and the folks on that board did not appreciate his offers of "help" nor his offensive website.
I admit this past website of wade's has deeply colored my opinion of him, and permanently prejudiced me against him.
Yah, I'm vaguely aware of his past with the websites. I've read about his participation and I'm certain his "help" may not have been appreciated. I'm speaking of the posts where certain posters, that are often crass, call him certain slurs that seem over the line. Sometimes they're moved to telestial -- sometimes not.
Don't flatter yourself. I don't expect to overcome your willful ignorance. That is not my intention. You will live your life and you will have wasted your potential in the service of someone else's perverse creativity. That is highly probable if not a fact. I am simply expressing my opinion about the non-arguments of one who represents the worst in the apologetic community. Sorry if you don't like it. Just shrug your shoulders and walk away. I will continue to ridicule your obviously contrived position as long as I wish to. Just ignore me. It'll save you time.
As Dr. Shades says, everyone's voice is welcome here--and so you have free reign to continue embarrassing yourself--whether you are aware of it or not. Once again, I am glad that you are here. You are the very best example of what happens to those who have hardened their hearts and minds, arrogantly claiming certainty about a subjective experience which must be processed through the fallible human mind.
You are helping to lead people away from your church and that, in my mind, is a good thing for a large number of people who will be better off for the leaving.
Am I cruel and intolerant? I am certainly intolerant of pretending that there is a real discussion going on with you. Others apparently enjoy it and I certainly don't wish to deprive anyone of their entertainment. I enjoy it too, but I see one issue in all this discussion: Can a human being be certain that they have communed with a god or the God? The answer is simply--NO. In the equation involving a theoretical, perfect entity and a fallible mortal entity, there is no room for absolute certainty. The equation breaks down on the side of the mortal who still doesn't understand himself much less a theoretical ideal. As far as the cruelty goes I will leave that up to others to decide. I have no patience for those who seek to elevate themselves on the basis of their own subjective experience. If my words seem cruel, maybe it is because the truth hurts.