Ray's comments to Wade

[_harmony]

So Bro, what I have underlined above is the best anyone could ask for in an adult-to-adult, peer-to-peer discussion. OTOH, what you bracketed, and the words that I skipped, where you refer negatively to Ray, and exclude youself, seem somewhat arrogant & completely uncalled for. They are incongruent with your projected nobility, serving only to sabotage your seemingly good-intent. I hope these observations will be helpful...

Warm regards,

Roger :-)

Roger, have I told you lately that I think you're the BEST?

[_Roger Morrison]

Harmony said:

Roger, have I told you lately that I think you're the BEST?

Thanks Sis! Ya sure know how to make an old-guy feel gooood.

Roger :-)

[_Ray A]

I should be hitting the sack, but couldn't go to sleep straight away, so decided I'd probe Wade's comments some more.

This is Mormon Discussions, Wade, not the Reconciliation and Arbitration Commission. It's a debate board, not a therapy board. It's where people with different opinions clash, not play. I don't come here to find out about the Dalai Lama's secrets to a happy life, or how to improve my already quite contented life off the board. You're hitting the wrong buzzer. Try again. I'm quite happy in real life, and this board is only a hobby.

Also, I think your own apologists could do with some of your advice too. Selek could do with some of your "how to move on from heightened resentment" advice, for example. So could a number of LDS posters here.

But "move on" from what Wade? Have you known this board to be anything other a place where strong opinions clash?

You write:

My primary purpose in participating here is not to argue differences of opinion or to try and change people's minds--though from time to time I will offer my own perspective for consideration.

Then why are you trying to change my mind about how I feel? If I feel it's wrong to teach as history as book I consider not to be history, and I call teaching it as history absurd, and possibly dangerous in the long term (for reasons I've already given), is there something wrong with that? You're acting like I need major therapy just for doing what all posters on message boards do. It's almost corny, what you're trying to do, instead of still not directly addressing the subject comments of the thread. I come here for debate, sometimes heated debate, and next I know is that I'm on Wade's psychologist couch getting tips on how to tame my opinions with Enos for Discussion Board upset, or "how to move on with the aid of anti-historicity laxatives".

Do you do this to your Mormon friends on MADB? Or do you only bring the psychological drivel here? I don't want your psychology Wade, only some answers to my questions and comments, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I'm just amazed at how this has turned around from a "comments" thread from another thread, to a minute psychology session on me.

Get back to my original points, or give it away. I don't need any more Dale Carnegie sessions.

Must now be time for bed.

[_wenglund]

Get back to my original points, or give it away. I don't need any more Dale Carnegie sessions.

Fine. It was worth a try. Nice talking to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

Fine. It was worth a try. Nice talking to you.

Best of luck luring others to your couch, Wade.

[_wenglund]

Hi Roger,

I appreciate your kind words. However, I am wondering if you could clarify the following:

..OTOH, what you bracketed, and the words that I skipped, where you refer negatively to Ray, and exclude youself, seem somewhat arrogant & completely uncalled for. They are incongruent with your projected nobility, serving only to sabotage your seemingly good-intent. I hope these observations will be helpful...Warm regards,
Roger :-)

What do you propose that I should have included about myself so that my comments would not have struck you as arrogant and called for--and this particularly given that you included nothing about yourself while saying these negative things about me.

I kindly asked for harmony's assistance, but she seems disinclinded to go beyond leveling the "toxic" accusation and making unwittingly ironic references to motes and beams.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Fine. It was worth a try. Nice talking to you.

Best of luck luring others to your couch, Wade.

It will take more than luck since I have no couch to supposedly lure people to, nor do I have an interest doing such.

But, I wish you well in interacting with the straw man you keep constructing of me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Roger,

I appreciate your kind words. However, I am wondering if you could clarify the following:

..OTOH, what you bracketed, and the words that I skipped, where you refer negatively to Ray, and exclude youself, seem somewhat arrogant & completely uncalled for. They are incongruent with your projected nobility, serving only to sabotage your seemingly good-intent. I hope these observations will be helpful...Warm regards,
Roger :-)

What do you propose that I should have included about myself so that my comments would not have struck you as arrogant and called for--and this particularly given that you included nothing about yourself while saying these negative things about me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade, I don't "propose" that you should have included anything about yourself. Rather I'm suggesting that you need-not-have-included the aspersions re Ray's "toxitity". The first of which you bracketed--seeming they might have been an after-thought?? The other, as I sensed it, is not underlined in a sentence that otherwise is underlined. Read that again. Maybe it will make more sense?? Maybe not, I often don't make a lot of sense :-)

Wade, I meant nothing negative about you. (You actually impress me very favourably.) My questioning comment was simply your choice of words that singled out Ray & reflected negatively towards him exclusively. Those served no constructive purpose what-so-ever. IMSCO...

I'm not sure what you might have expected me to include about myself???

Are you still Kayaking? I Sail--generally solo. I imagine the feelings evoked--peaceful yet at times VERY challenging; being quietly with Nature ("God"); watching sun-rises-and-sets are experienced similarly and somewhat therapeutically an escape. For me anyway;-)
Enjoy your day...

Warm regards,
Roger :-)

[_Trevor]

It will take more than luck since I have no couch to supposedly lure people to, nor do I have an interest doing such.

But, I wish you well in interacting with the straw man you keep constructing of me.

I applaud you on your attempts at cleverness. At least you try.

[_wenglund]

I have one last thing to say before closing out my side of this thread.

My interntet acquaintance with Ray has gone on for nearly a decade now, and the primary impression I have taken away from the experience is that Ray is a man of uncommon depth of character and strength of conviction. He stands fearless for what he believes regardless of how others may take his views. He has an admirable work ethic and a keen mind--particularly on matters philosophical. And, when chance would have it, I was pleased to fight in the arena of ideas along his side.

While he doesn't discuss his family much, from what little he has intimated I have gotten the sense that he has a strong and abiding love for them, and is fiercely protective and devoted. It is to them that he has dedicated his life and wants nothing more than for them to be happy. No higher charge may be committed to men, and Ray shoulders that responsibility in and exempliary way.

Now, I could go on and on noting the positive qualities that I have observed in Ray over the years, but this should suffice for now. As the season fast approaches where we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace and the epitomy and embodiment of love, I thought it might be best to end this brief exchange on a positive note and in a spirit of gratitude and appreciation. I say this not so much to be nice, but because that is how I genuinely percieve Ray, and I just wanted him to know that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-