Who is Wade Englund?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Chap »

stemelbow wrote:I think the misunderstanding is due Old Testament people drawing conclusions about Wade that aren't there. I have been in the same boat. We're both faithful LDS here defending the faith, even Mak as expressed the same frustration. Misunderstanding seems evident among those who keep characterizing me as someone I'm not. This is not my problem, it doesn't seem to be Wade's either. Sadly, its the atmosphere and hostilities that are the normal fare here. But we can change that. We can be better than that. We should. We should at least try.


Having read your posts, and Wade Englund's I have to say that I tend to disagree. Wade really does seem to have problems in writing and communicating clearly, whatever the attitude of his audience. Other LDS posters may elicit strong disagreement on this board, but we hear much less from them about 'how could you possibly misunderstand me so badly' - which is Wade's constant refrain. Even if everybody here was super-polite at all times, I still think his posting style is not suited to an environment where debate is the norm, and clear presentation is essential.

There are times when your own posts are a little hard to understand too - the difference from Wade, I think, is that you could express yourself perfectly clearly if you wrote more slowly and carefully, and took the time to edit your posts before clicking the 'submit' button. With Wade, I think there are other difficulties.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _stemelbow »

Chap wrote:[quote="stemelbow"
I think the misunderstanding is due Old Testament people drawing conclusions about Wade that aren't there. I have been in the same boat. We're both faithful LDS here defending the faith, even Mak as expressed the same frustration. Misunderstanding seems evident among those who keep characterizing me as someone I'm not. This is not my problem, it doesn't seem to be Wade's either. Sadly, its the atmosphere and hostilities that are the normal fare here. But we can change that. We can be better than that. We should. We should at least try.


Having read your posts, and Wade Englund's I have to say that I tend to disagree. Wade really does seem to have problems in writing and communicating clearly, whatever the attitude of his audience. Other LDS posters may elicit strong disagreement on this board, but we hear much less from them about 'how could you possibly misunderstand me so badly' - which is Wade's constant refrain. Even if everybody here was super-polite at all times, I still think his posting style is not suited to an environment where debate is the norm, and clear presentation is essential.

There are times when your own posts are a little hard to understand too - the difference from Wade, I think, is that you could express yourself perfectly clearly if you wrote more slowly and carefully, and took the time to edit your posts before clicking the 'submit' button. With Wade, I think there are other difficulties.[/quote]

Heya Chap,

Why of course you disagree(-;
But if his posts, and mine are so hard to understand then why make assumptions about that which you didn't understand? You blame our inability to communicate on the critics attempted ability to read into our words something that isn't there. If we made some errors in our messages and its so confusing as you say, then seek clarification instead of trying to restate that which you didn't understand. Make sense to me.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Chap »

stemelbow wrote:Heya Chap,

Why of course you disagree(-;
But if his posts, and mine are so hard to understand then why make assumptions about that which you didn't understand? You blame our inability to communicate on the critics attempted ability to read into our words something that isn't there. If we made some errors in our messages and its so confusing as you say, then seek clarification instead of trying to restate that which you didn't understand. Make sense to me.


It is not that Wade's posts are hard to understand because they are meaningless. For instance, he does not say such things as:

'Blue doubts factorize angrily'

In such a case, one would either ignore him, or ask 'what on earth do you mean'. It would be a waste of time to try to guess what he means. The problem is, rather, that if you read something from Wade like (a made-up example):

'I think women are hostile in their attitude to celibate men in their fifties',

it seems on the face it to have a perfectly clear meaning.

However, after you have criticized the proposition that Wade appears to be advancing, he then tells you that you didn't understand him, and perhaps after lengthy dialogue he explains that he meant something else altogether. After a few encounters of this kind, you just give up talking to him - it all takes too long, and you can never get anywhere, since he treats every disagreement with him as the result of some bizarre misunderstanding on the part of his readers.

I do think that if you want people to read what you have written, it is common courtesy to write clearly and accurately. If you can't be bothered to say what you mean, no more and no less, why expect people to pay you attention?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _stemelbow »

Chap wrote:It is not that Wade's posts are hard to understand because they are meaningless. For instance, he does not say such things as:

'Blue doubts factorize angrily'

In such a case, one would either ignore him, or ask 'what on earth do you mean'. It would be a waste of time to try to guess what he means. The problem is, rather, that if you read something from Wade like (a made-up example):

'I think women are hostile in their attitude to celibate men in their fifties',

it seems on the face it to have a perfectly clear meaning.

However, after you have criticized the proposition that Wade appears to be advancing, he then tells you that you didn't understand him, and perhaps after lengthy dialogue he explains that he meant something else altogether. After a few encounters of this kind, you just give up talking to him - it all takes too long, and you can never get anywhere, since he treats every disagreement with him as the result of some bizarre misunderstanding on the part of his readers.

I do think that if you want people to read what you have written, it is common courtesy to write clearly and accurately. If you can't be bothered to say what you mean, no more and no less, why expect people to pay you attention?


I hear ya to some extent. but we all do things like that. We all phrase things that make sense to us when we type thenm out, but don't realize how they come off to the readers. It appears to me that you guys are taking such things too far. We can find a way to communicate appropriately. But it takes a charitable reader and replier--not characteristics found here commonly.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Molok
_Emeritus
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Molok »

It's always great to read these threads where, over a number of pages, four or five people will gratuitously rake one poster over the coals. For some reason, the term 'witch hunt' keeps popping in my head..
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _stemelbow »

Molok wrote:It's always great to read these threads where, over a number of pages, four or five people will gratuitously rake one poster over the coals. For some reason, the term 'witch hunt' keeps popping in my head..


I don't know, its kind of endearing that a thread dedicated to hassle and mock a poster could last 12 pages. If they can get Wade to crack they have won their reward--more miserable hostility for the dude. Is there reason to feel bad for Wade? Nope. he's fine. Its the others I worry about, critiquing his every word, seemingly hoping they can force him out of here with this--he shouldn't be posting here because we don't get him replies. I just shake my head, put a wry smile on my face and say, "these guys". But they seem to be well-respected posters by nearly every one else here. And to think, they hate the MDD posters...
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Chap »

stemelbow wrote:
I hear ya to some extent. but we all do things like that. We all phrase things that make sense to us when we type thenm out, but don't realize how they come off to the readers. It appears to me that you guys are taking such things too far. We can find a way to communicate appropriately. But it takes a charitable reader and replier--not characteristics found here commonly.


I would invite you to try posting incoherently on the MAD board from the perspective of a critic of the CoJCoLDS, and see how gently you are treated after your first few attempts, once they have worked out that you are not there to support the CoJCoLDS. Expecting your opponents to work hard to tease sense out of your posts when you cannot be bothered to write clearly is expecting rather too much.

And, I repeat, you are different from Wade, in that on the whole one can usually work out what you mean, even if one may disagree with it. Wade seems to me not merely to require a charitable reader, but one gifted with extra-sensory perception.

Molok wrote:It's always great to read these threads where, over a number of pages, four or five people will gratuitously rake one poster over the coals. For some reason, the term 'witch hunt' keeps popping in my head..


I suppose that would be because your mental repertoire cannot distinguish between:

(a) Criticizing someone for an actual fault they have committed.

(b) Demanding that some harmless old woman should be burned at the stake for allegedly having made a pact for evil ends with a non-existent diabolic entity.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Molok
_Emeritus
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Molok »

Molok wrote:It's always great to read these threads where, over a number of pages, four or five people will gratuitously rake one poster over the coals. For some reason, the term 'witch hunt' keeps popping in my head..

I suppose that would be because your mental repertoire cannot distinguish between:

(a) Criticizing someone for an actual fault they have committed.

(b) Demanding that some harmless old woman should be burned at the stake for allegedly having made a pact for evil ends with a non-existent diabolic entity.


Lol. That's right! Obviously I'm the stupid one here, that shouldn't need to be mentioned. And yet still, even though the results are different, there is a certain similiarity in the method.
_emilysmith
_Emeritus
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:16 am

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _emilysmith »

In the 70s, a gay man participated in an experiment that involved extreme operant conditioning. He was exposed to pornographic images women and heterosexual intercourse while the part of his brain responsible for positive reinforcement was stimulated.

The next level of the experiment involved him having intercourse with a prostitute while having his brain stimulated.

As the experiment progressed, it seemed to be working. He had an increasing attraction towards women. Of course, he never lost his attraction for men. Essentially, he became bisexual, carrying on an affair with a woman while still sleeping with men.

The unethical aspects of this experiment are widely understood, and I think are obvious to anyone. Wade Englund's attitude and approach highlight many of the unethical aspects, unfortunately.

To demand homosexuals participate in heterosexual relationships, in any form, is to demand that they be unhappy for the rest of their lives. It is to suggest that they do not deserve the same happiness and close relationships that everyone else has the opportunity to experience.

To make attempts, however you disguise them, to deny them equality and fairness, is to demonstrate that you consider them inferior in someway, which makes you a bigot and a hypocrite of the highest order.

Consider the fact that God, if he existed, created them that way, and God does not need you or anyone else meddling in other people's lives.

In other words, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Also, for the consideration of those who think homosexuality is a choice:

"Homosexuality is not purely the result of DNA, since identical twins are not always both gay. However, there is a much greater chance that twins will share the same sexuality. This is fact. More than a few studies have confirmed this correlation.

There is a clear link between certain groupings of genes and homosexuality which clearly suggest that epigenetics are playing an important role. These genes also correlate to female fertility. The more fertile a woman is, the more likely she is going to have gay children. Homosexuality has a stronger link to the mother's side than the father's. Basically, studies have found that homosexual men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side.

As if that wasn't enough, the most obvious demonstration that there is a biological basis is the birth order correlation. Each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%. This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation." To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.

Attraction between two people occurs on a biological level. This has been proven in a number of areas. The nose knows more about a potential mate than any other sense. In this regard, yet another biological basis for homosexuality has been established. Recent research has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. The conclusion is that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level.

But it gets worse for the Christians. More than one study has confirmed that the suprachiasmatic nucleus is larger in size in homosexual men than it is in heterosexual men. In many cases, you can see homosexuality in a brain scan. Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.

Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women. Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies. Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men. The startle response is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women. The list goes on and on like this, clearly, definitively and certainly proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Of course, the factors involved are somewhat complex, but the data can be interpreted no other way. The people who think homosexuality is a choice are all wrong. Thought and behavior are determined by the biology of our bodies and the brain inside those bodies."
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _wenglund »

Chap,

Not that it will do any good to say all this, I have no problem admitting that my writing style is difficult to correctly understand, even far more difficult than most people's.

Howeever, as explained earlier in the thread. My issue isn't with innitial misunderstandings, but:

1) People insisting that I said things that I clearly did not--they read way more into my comments than what is actually there. They aren't misunderstanding what I say, but rather falsely presuming what I didn't say. They put words into my mouth.

2) And more significant, they are beyond being corrected. If people misunderstand what I say, I am fine with that and am happy to clear up the misunderstanding. However, too often when I attempt to correct the misunderstanding (whether caused by me or when words are put into my mouth), many of the good folks here willl have none of it, and hold firmly to and continue to press their false perceptions onto me.

The instance of either one of these two problems is enough to seriously compromise effective communication. Yet, quite often both are in play with various respondents. As such, I have found it pointless for me to continue attempting to have my own say and to speak for myself, and will leave them to carry on both sides of our conversation without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Post Reply