Alan,
At the outset, I'll make two comments. I was pleasantly surprised with your overall tone although I couldn't help repeatedly getting the impression that you took my post personally.
----------------------
... you don't go into the nitty gritty details of your topic, but dance around them with nearly meaningless generalities. The generalities are simply your own opinion and interpretation of the events you merely allude to. So for anyone to agree with the main points of your post, they would have to agree with your opinions which lead to the generalities.
I don't go into the details, being satisfied with the generalities, since that is the nature of the post. That is my point. I could easily have been specific, but having the reputation of a "flamer" and "troublemaker" (ask Slayer, wendy, francoise, et al.), I chose not to pick apart the posts of those many hold in high esteem. Considering my belief in my own stated thesis, I don't see much point in that. I felt that making a general statement was sufficient to make the point. It was.
As far as it being my opinion, that's what all of our posts are, correct? Opinion? Even when I write "imo" (in my opinion) in a response on a thread, I almost always do so as a joke. In my very first college course, the instruction was to NOT make such a redundant statement in essays, considering that ALL OF IT IS OPINION. By extension, the rule applies to the posts we make here. But then, I know you already knew that.
For example, you claim that much of what Emyrose said in one post was "unadulterated truth", but this is merely your own opinion, which you implicitly present as established fact. Since I don't agree with your assessments of the three threads you mentioned, I can't agree with some of your opinions in your first post here.
So, since you disagree, you suggest that your viewpoint is the correct one. If so, on what is it based? <rhetorical question> Mine is based on four-plus decades of living within the community about which Emmy spoke, with all that entails (school, work, private conversations, interactions with the family, public officials, grocers, the society at large, etc.). Sorry, Alan... you may be the most 'down' white man alive, but when it comes to describing what life is like as a black person, I know who's opinion to trust, and it's not yours. Forgive me.
As for people posting views and having them listened to, anyone is free to post what they please, within rather wide limits. Similarly, others are free to accept or reject these views and to post their own.
We agree. I never said anything different.
In the view of the community of posters, some gradually come to have respect and others don't. This is because each reader evaluates posts on an individual basis, and each one comes to a conclusion based on experience with other posters.
I cannot speak for what "each one" does. I am under the impression that people are different. As loyal JWs yearn for the 'meat' contained in each new wt mag, many here blindly accept the posts of those held in high esteem. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Thus we find that Maximus has become well respected, and You Know is seen as a clown.
There are other factors at work, some of which support my thesis. Maximus is known as a former district overseer, You Know as a loyal dub. Those factors tend to sway the more weak minded at first blush, even before the first word has been read. People have a tendency to worship other people, but I know you know that already. I'm no fan of YK, generally speaking, but his post to the "ten things" thread was very heartening to me. Not all of Max's are. There are exceptions to every rule, which, again, supports my thesis.
In other words, on a mostly faceless discussion board, your reputation is based almost exclusively on your words.
Not always. People are known to be very impressionable. Tell someone that a certain movie is great, and depending on who says it the responses go from "hey, I'll check it out" to "you're full of shit." This can be seen in voting choices, music, hell... the list is endless.
Then again, you said, "your reputation." Again, I think you support my thesis. You suggest that if one whose rep is high, then it's likely their words will be believed. On the other hand, if someone says that a particular post of Max is full of shit, even if Max is full of shit, few people would have the balls to agree with that opinion. Remember the parable, "The Emperor's New Suit"? ( http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html). The moral of it applies even today, right here. Imo.
Put out a lot of nonsense and you'll get the reputation of Fredhall.
Hey! I LIKE FredHall! btw... what's his 'reputation'?
Put out solid posts that show that a lot of research, thought and good experience is behind them, and you'll get the reputation of Maximus, hawkaw or other solid posters.
I will spare you my opinion on any particular poster (other than Sir Fred), but I'll say this: a person born and raised in Japan will automatically know the culture, the sights, the sounds, the way of life of Japanese people without doing any research at all. While I might do all kinds of research, my knowledge of Japanese would never match theirs. The amount of research I put in would be irrelevant. But even they, if they so chose, could be less than forthcoming.
My personal mode of operation is that JW.com in particular and life in general is nothing but a smorgasboard... I take some from here and some from there and disregard everything else, regardless of the source.
You're quite right that some sources that are generally poor can sometimes issue gems of truth. It's equally true that some sources that are generally reliable can sometimes issue garbage.
You have found the kernel of my post. That is, in a nutshell, all that I was saying.
One must also keep in mind, when evaluating the overall reliability of a source, what the circumstances of the presentation of information are. Does the information appear in an informal email that is hurriedly put out? Or does it appear on a scholarly email discussion list? Does it appear on an informal discussion board like this one, or does it appear in literature that the publishers claim is backed by God?
These distinctions of the source of a bit of wisdom may be important to you and many others, but not to me. I look for truth, genuine truth, wherever it might appear. One of the current, supreme sources of truth I have been blessed with is my 2yr-old. I'm serious. I learn more about life, what's important and what my focus should be (as opposed to what it usually IS), from her than I have from many 'scholarly' books, thoughtful discussions, etc. It's because I'm open to it. Again, my thesis...
After some source of information has established a reputation, it is perfectly normal for people to tend to accept or reject new information based on an already-established reputation. Even though a discredited source might often speak good things, why waste time listening to it unless you have a good reason to?
Uh, without meaning to, I think you support my thesis. I'm aware of the tendency you mention and spoke of it. I just happen to believe it to be unwise to either disregard or accept out of hand ANYTHING, basing my decision of a post's worth solely on who authored it. I think that is one of the pitfalls I see happening on JW.com, and in life.
... why would you doubt information from a source you had already established as reliable... Of course, an intelligent reader will always try to evaluate the reliability of all information that comes his or her way, no matter who says it.
Again, you seem to agree with my original post.
... I long ago established that Farkel was generally reliable... I long ago established that Shelby is unreliable... Emyrose... I gradually concluded... is emotionally infantile
No comment.
When Emyrose and Shelby had a discussion, people didn't just out-of-the-blue decide what reputation each had, and then base their acceptance exclusively on that, but had decided whether each was reliable based on many previous posts and then used that determination along with the latest words to decide which one they would go along with. As usual, teejay, you've inverted cause and effect.
First, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't know what people did back then, unless, of course, you can read minds through your computer screen.
Secondly, if more had been fair and judged that dialog on it's own merits, regardless of earlier perceptions, fairness would have led more of them to different conclusions and different behaviors.
Third, you stated that Shelby was unreliable and Emmy infantile. What made you care which way the dialog went or read it?
Fourth, you may opine that I have 'inverted cause and effect' but I think it's YOU that has it backwards. Otherwise, how could someone like roamingfeline hail Shelby, who you determined as unreliable, as a fine example of her race while denouncing Emmy? You willfully or ignorantly turn a blind eye to the obvious. I could go further, but it's an old argument.
You seem to labor under the mistaken idea that all ideas are equal merely because someone decides to espouse them. Well they are not. Young-earth creationism is a ridiculous idea no matter who espouses it. So is Flat-earthism. So is the idea that Jehovah's Witness leaders speak for God. So is the idea that Shelby speaks for God. I need not elaborate on the evidence for my statements here.
No, I don't labor under any such idea. Quite the opposite. It seems to me that it's YOU that tends to presuppose. You've stated that since Farkel in the past has posted solid information, his latest offering, whatever it is, is likely to be equally solid. I don't do that. Whether it's FredHall or Maximus or whoever, each new post is new to me.
And no, not all ideas are equal. Not all ideas are worthy of consideration, regardless of the source. And, I agree... you need not, should not, will you please not elaborate on these elementary truths that are tangential to MY thesis. Thank you.
Now, if you want to start a good, solid discussion on race relations in America, go right ahead. Take the lead in showing just how such a discussion should go. If you think Emyrose had good things to say but that these were rejected because of her infantile presentation, you have a fine opportunity to set matters straight. You could point out what you think were the good points in her discussion, and remove all stain of having them rejected merely because of who was presenting them. Are you up to the challenge of getting specific? Or will you remain in the sea of meaningless generalities?
The impetus of this thread was my reading over the things Emmy said. She made many fine points. Her words are still available for anyone to read, both in COMF's thread and in my recap where I was specific. Your perception of where this board's interest lies is, like Larc's, flawed. You suggest I post on race relations; he wanted me to post more on Psychology. If I were to start such a thread, not only would there be no posters, my act would serve only as fodder for those who view me as nothing more than a flamer, a troublemaker. Am I up to the challenge? Are you serious? I'm more than able, I just don't waste my time.
As for Farkel's focus on The Watchtower , what do you think this discussion board is all about? Race relations in America? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? This is a real problem for you teejay -- understanding what focus is all about.
I challenged you once before to view the most popular threads here. I do so again. You make erroneous assumptions as to what is important to nearly 3,000 people who are registered to post and the countless number who visit here as lurkers or casual visitors.
As I said to you then, most who post come here for discussion, based on the available evidence. Period. Some of it is JW related but much, if not most of it, is not. A plethora of info into wt related issues is readily available elsewhere, notably Randy's site ( http://www.freeminds.org/). Understanding the focus of the people who post here is YOUR problem. A cursory check of just about any of the pages here will serve to enlighten you of that fact.
Generally, yes, for the reasons I've explained above: People establish their reputations, not out of the blue, but by what they do and say. People with good or bad reputations usually deserve them.
How old did you say you were?
Would you listen to the content of a speech given by a street bum standing on a street-corner soapbox? Probably not.
Probably not? Wrong! Actually, I would. I have. The only impediment would be the lack of time. Otherwise, as I've tried to say, it's my personal belief that universal truth is found in many places, not just a few. You seem to have learned to prejudge people based on what that person's circumstances happen to be at the time or on what they might have said in the past. I'm thankful that I haven't learned that 'lesson.' I hope I don't.
For example, I deeply question the existence of god, yet I will occasionally stop in for a listen to a TV preacher if I happen to run across one while channel surfing on the weekend. Occasionally, I'm pleasantly surprised by what I hear. That's the way I am.
You have your own filters for who you listen to, and I'm fairly sure that you filter out street bums. It's the same anywhere else. You're creating a false dilemma here, teejay.
I hope you are beginning to see that your viewpoint of me needs some adjustment.
Of course I question everything I read, and of course I accept some things that come from the 'right' source. So do most readers of this board.
Again, I wonder if you are really in a good position to speak for "most readers" here.
In practice, I can't go back to basics and research every little thing that anyone says. There isn't time in a day. Further, there isn't any point, except in a small number of things that I deem important enough to spend my time at.
We agree.
Do you question everything that comes your way?
Not everything, but it's rare for me to swallow it down, either, unless there's real good reason.
Do you question if men landed on the moon in 1969? I hope not!
What if I do? Who suffers, and how?
Couldn't it be that the U.S. government has conspired with Hollywood to produce films 'proving' this false claim? No? Why not? Why do you just blindly go along with what these demonstrably lying officials and producers tell you?
Do you deem such a thing impossible? Many people, an entire generation of Americans, have slowly come to the realization that their elected leaders can, have, and will lie if they deem it necessary. If they've lied once, why disparage anyone for having the thought that they could lie a second time, and elaborately? No, I do not blindly follow those that have lied to me in the past.
The fact is that in real life, we accept huge amounts of information based on faith in our life's experiences, which include our opinion about the reliability of what others tell us. When we buy fruit at the grocery store, we accept the implicit guarantee that no one has injected the fruit with cyanide. Why do we accept such things?
At times we have no choice but to accept life as it is. Your analogy of a grocer is inappropriate, however. It is not analogous to our automatic dis/belief of topics on a discussion board or articles in a magazine. I hope you see that. I hope those who are reading this do, too.
We determine who we feel is reliable and who isn't. We do it by reading their words and thinking about them.
The first statement is tenuously true, with a caveat: that past reliability does not insure future liability.
In the second, you have highlighted the axiom that lies at the core of my post: thinking for oneself.
Eventually we form mental filters that let in or filter out posters we know.
Your posting here, to me, suggests that your filters may be out of adjustment. My responding to you suggests that I practice what I preach.
That's just the way human beings work.
Yes, and isn't that a pity.
peace