by teejay 30 Replies latest jw friends
Alan,
Even though I don't agree with about half of what you profer here, I must commend you on thing.
I believe this is the first critique post, you have written, wherein
you have completed your thoughts, without calling into question the author's intellegence, sanity, or worth (almost couldn't include this one, but give you the benefit of the doubt).
I say you are improving, so much nicer to read. In fact I might just start reading some of your work on a regular basis.
Thanks
DannyBear
Well there, DannyBear, I suppose I should be flattered that I have about half your approval. Note, though, that this is far from the first "critique post" I've written that is free from explicit callings-into-question of "the author's intellegence, sanity, or worth". Your saying so is more a reflection of your failure to read my posts than of their content. Had you read all of my posts since I came onto this board (not to mention more than four years' worth of posts on the old H2O, plus years of posts on other forums), you'd have seen that my treatment of people like teejay is but a tiny part of my writing style.
Your attitude is actually nicely illustrative of one who rejects teejay's main point, namely, that each comment, viewpoint, and opinion should be made to stand on its own merits, regardless of its source.
Your negative views on my profferings would hold far more weight if you could manage to say something definite, instead of a wimpy "I disagree".
That said, I've certainly appreciated your posts on your family history with regard to Rutherford. Don't let irritation with prickly people like me stop you from going full speed ahead to publicly reveal useful information.
AlanF
Alan,
Thanks for the response.
Since I've only been around the whole internet thing, since January of 2000, and on a very hit and miss basis, so there is a limited picture presented to me regarding individual poster's.
Alan not everyone has the time to draft, edit, research each post they offer. In my case, it is in fact almost impossible, due to work and other personal matter's. So every time I see post's like yours, pressing to the point of dictum, that individuals be judged by every word and phrase profered, it smacks of 'tunnel vision'...'if I can do it you should to'. To me words of wisdom, words that make an impact, often come couched in poor grammer, misspelled, or even at times garbled, but due to the sincerety and honesty of the thoughts expressed, hold pure gold.
In other words to adopt the theory, that you espouse, would (even if unintentional) seriously limit the reader, from giving serious consideration, to what the author is saying. Kinda of similar to my apparent oversimplification of your entire body of works. I judged your work, based upon what I observed at H20 and here, from this limited basis, I concluded that Alan rarely if ever, completed his thoughts without knocking someone down. This is not my style, I don't care to adopt it, or to see anyone abused by this method. So the reason for my comments.
The reason I don't often parse, and highlight, or offer specific comments in posts, is for the very reasons I have outlined above. Over and over I have seen it happen here, and at H20. Once the cut and paste starts, usually endless or seemingly endless back and forth,
'well take this', 'well here's right back at you'....time often fruitless, wasted. When a simple response indicating agreement or taking exception would suffice.
Thank you for extending the friendly hand, to encourage my comments relating to our common history. This offer indicates to me, that I may have judged Alan to harshly, I appreciate the comment Alan, I know I have stepped on your toes in the past, and on the toes of some of your friends. So for you to offer these kind remarks, is a very good indicator of who you are.
I hope I have made myself clear, with no ambiguity or animosity evident, for it was in that spirit I replied.
Danny
Dig this Danny. No one has criticized JT that I have seen. His grammer is bad, his spelling is bad, his formating sux. His thoughts on the WT experience are pure gold: words of wisdom, words with impact.
I don't think I've ever seen Alan criticize one of his post.
Danny, you are kind to a fault. So kind, you aren't really kind anymore. You are just another apostate, not anyones E-night in shining pixels. Just like Alan. Alan, however, happens to be nothing short of amazing in his abilities to cut through words to the thoughts behind them, and apply beautiful truth finding logic to those thoughts. He is really, really good, world class I've-never-come-across-anyone-better good, and if you don't read his work, you only hurt yourself.
Sorry for the butt-kissing Alan, you had no idea I felt this way did you, lol. Don't let it go to your head; you still shouldn't take up for assholes when they are being assholes.
Sorry, Teej... and may you have peace...
But... the Watchtower NEVER 'tells the truth'. It may indeed QUOTE him sometimes, and quote truthful statements, but it NEVER 'tells' the truth. That is why along with its companion, the Awake!, dear one, although it has horns 'LIKE a lamb'... it in truth 'SPEAKS... as a dragon.'
Uh, are in 'disagreement' on this and thus at opposite ends of the spectrum with no 'hope' of meeting in the middle and agreeing? If so, well, I must then say... 'so be it'.
Peace to you, Teej... to time indefinite.
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
Shelby?
I got you down...
So far it's two in 'the Wt is Never Right' column...
Ok, DannyBear, let me tell you a few things. I've been on the Net, one way or another, since 1992. Among the very first things I encountered was a ripping to shreds on the Usenet forums talk.origins and talk.skeptics of the WTS's ridiculous 1985 Creation book. At that time I was as naive and thin-skinned as are many people who show up on forums such as Simon's board today. I posted a number of things defending my pro-creation views, and I was quickly and unceremoniously disposed of. I learned from it. I learned about the arrogance of ignorance. I learned that a lot of people know a hell of a lot more than I do. I learned that to display the arrogance of ignorance is to invite amused or irritated or angry comments from people who really know their stuff. In short, I learned a bit of humility in the face of people who knew a lot more than I did. I view this as a good learning experience.
As years passed and I met many more people, I posted huge amounts of information about the JWs on various Usenet forums. I met our infamous Norwegian contingent. In early 1994 JanH was still a JW and was defending the JWs online. He soon came around, to my great surprise. Later he met Kent and Norm, and eventually I became friendly with them and learned much from them. Today I count all of these men among my closest friends. They taught me not to be afraid of expressing controversial ideas. So I'm not.
In view of these things, I'm of the opinion that to give in to silliness is extremely counterproductive. Of course, to be sure of what "silliness" is, you have to be pretty sure of yourself. I've done enough research that I'm fairly sure of myself most of the time. I can cite solid references for most of what I write, since I usually carefully refrain from making the mistakes that got me fried on Usenet back in 1992. How many posters can be fairly sure that they can cite solid references to back them up? Not too many. Some people might think that my statements here are arrogant. They are not. They are simply a statement of what I have demonstrated many times -- I can usually back up what I say.
As for others' posts, I certainly don't expect them to be perfect in grammar and other such relatively small matters. I've learned through my own stupid mistakes, and some stupidly callous comments, not to expect that. How many times can you remember that I took a whack at another poster merely for that? I do on occasion, but only when they first show that they don't overlook such minor matters by other posters, and focus on such trivial mistakes only to disrupt the discussion.
The story is rather different with content. Content is everything, and I expect it to be correct. It may well come expressed with poor grammar or spelling, but if expressed clearly enough to be understood, most posters, including me, will ignore trivial 'problems'. However, if the thought itself is expressed unclearly, so that any number of understandings can be gleaned, or if the writer cannot express his thought clearly enough to convey his actual thought but conveys something else to various readers, then one can hardly expect his readers to understand anything but what he wrote -- even if what he wrote is not what he wanted to say. People are not mind readers and what you say in a written forum ought to be what you mean. If you can't do it, then get some help or shut up. It's that simple.
The point is simple and as old as time: say what you mean and mean what you say.
If you can't do it, you can expect all kinds of flack.
I understand what you're saying about the possibly endless back and forth that comes from "cut and paste" type responses to postings. However, you have to realize that it's often not possible to respond properly without doing that. Unless you specifically quote what someone has said, they will often reply that you've misquoted them. This is done by dishonest or stupid posters, but it's pretty easy to figure out early on who is who. The tedious and perhaps 'wordy' cut-and-paste style of reply has its place. One figures out quickly who needs such a reply and who can deal with a freer style.
I want to convey to you as clearly as possible that my motives in posting on this board, and my motives in general, are to enhance clear thought in every sphere. I detest the arrogant, obfuscatory style of Watchtower writers and of Fundamentalists generally. You'll not find many postings from me that don't jibe with this theme. This is also true of people, including people on this board, that I count among my friends. I hope that you'll think carefully about what I've said. I'd be very happy to talk to you on the phone sometime so you'd see for yourself what I'm about, just as many others have done.
AlanF
To Shelby:
Of course the Watchtower Society sometimes tells the truth. Actually, it usually tells the truth. If it didn't, it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. Like other screwy religions, it's a mixture of truth and falsehood, good and bad, mixing 90% truth with 10% screwiness.
Unfortunately, while you appear to be quite sincere, you're also as screwy or more so than the screwiest of Watchtower leaders. I know that my words are wasted on you, but know that I hope that some day you'll be cured.
I know enough decent JWs, including Bethelites, to know that applying the screwiness of the top leaders to them is unfair. Unfortunately, to date they have not figured out a way to depose the current leaders and turn their religion into what it ought to have been all along.
To SixofNine:
You're completely right about JT. Several years ago I stupidly and completely misjudged him because of small deficiencies in presentation, and I'm very sorry for that. I learned a lesson. JT is one of the most astute observers of the Society I have ever seen. Words of gold, words of wisdom, words with impact -- that's JT!
So, Six, please do kick my butt when I get out of line!
AlanF
Six,
I get your message.
I guess you have noticed my almost unrelenting emphasis, on one issue as of recent.
Yeah I was getting so tired of all the nasty, attack dog mentality displayed around here, that I made a conscious decision to vocus all the attention possible, on this issue. Common courtesy, common decency and respect for each other. Thats it in a nutshell.
I think that the subject has been fairly well discussed to the point of exhaustion now. Not much more can be said. Larc one of the victims of this lack of common decency, kinda of capped off the whole exercise, with his wise remarks. Iam tired of rehashing and rehashing, obviously you are.
But when you make comments based upon my discussion with Alan, it a whole different matter. There is some history between us that goes back to H20, which you may or may not, have been privy to. So although your perception is warranted and noted, what Alan and I are doing now, is airing some 'laundry between us' that has stifled communication between us both. So it is a good thing, as far as Iam concerned, not a rehash or me trying to further, what you perceive as my being 'to kind' cause.
Yes Alan has an outstanding ability, to write concise and informative material. Yes he can cut to quick, on many matters. How I have perceived his presentation on fairly consistant basis, has until his reply to Tj, always seemed to be filled with arrogant, put downs. Now if you did not see those things, its ok, you were able to overlook them, or perhaps agreed with him, never the less his style put me off, making it hard for me to pay attention. Simple no big deal.
So when Alan opened the dialoug between us, I have tried to explain why. This is good eh?
Danny
Yes, this is good.
