Farewell to all

by Amazing 99 Replies latest jw friends

Tina

Kismmet,please cancel my acct on h20.thank you tina
bitter mango

tina, i just emailed alan about getting ahold of you, but since you are still here, could you mail me, hunny?? please! thanks.
love ya,
Julie

Greetings to all,
Ginny, I welcome your challenge to answer for my words/actions toward Amazing. I claim no magical power to read hearts and minds but I do like to think I have some reasoning ability and the power of deduction. As to your "if you can dish it out, you should be willing to take it" remark, hey when you told me privately of your plan to admonish me publicly what did I reply? I said go for it. See, unlike some, I will never run away from my words, always willing to answer for them. I will either stand by them or admit error and retract. Of course my opinions have remained the same publicly and privately as you can see by our e-mails.
I will be addressing the whole debacle starting with Amnesian's rebuttal thread, which, IMO started off this whole thing and where I came into the picture as well.
Here is Amazing's first remarks regarding Amnesian's post:
:Amnesian: Your post is long, sprinkled with twisting quotes, misrepresetnations, and a self-deluded series of getting yourself off of the hook, while shifting the blame to others, and you make some good points on which I can agree. I will make a new post to you in a couple of days when I have some time to wade through what you have written.
Okey dokey, fair enough. I know I was looking forward to him backing up these allegations as were probably many others.
Then, instead of the promised rebuttal, we get an offer of reconciliation which I will spare the reader of having to drudge through yet again but really must include these condescending *and* contradictory remarks:
:You both are valued and respected posters on JWD, and I appreciate what you have contributed to many discussions. Like most people, I don't enjoy having breaches with people, and would rather find a way to resolve matters and reconcile. I hope that we can reach a point of common ground that works for us all. My goal right now is not so much to continue any debate, but to see if it is possible to reconcile our differences without violating our views.
Now maybe I am reading Amazing's heart here but don't you find it odd that he feels the need to assure them that they and their remarks are valued at JWD but he WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING THEM???? I think it interesting he takes this initial reassuring tone in telling them how valuable they are and then announces he will be completely disregarding all those valued thoughts. He is either lying about how he values those thoughts or feels he cannot address them, wonder which it is?
(Here's the reply we get in the same thread when he is called on his complete dismissal of Amnesian's post. I deduce from this Reconciliation thread that it was a graceful way to side-step the debate)
:Okay everyone, you got it ... my reply is done, I just need to edit it, and will post it tomorrow sometime. - Amazing (note, here he says his rebuttal is DONE)
(This is from the Ok Tina & Amnesian your (sic) on Thanks to Julie thread, which to me reads like Ok Girls Big Daddy is Going to Teach You a Lesson and You Have Julie To Blame, LOL, but I guess that's just me):
:After a couple of days, I finally got some posts besides JT's on my Invitation to Tina and Amnesian. JT made some thoughtful comments as did the others,
Call me presumptuous but IMO the "others" here was added as an afterthought, couldn't be just giving the one positive response credit, that would look bad--I could be mistaken, just my take, read on and see what brought me to this conclusion)
:Except that others felt that Amnesians post was well written, and deserved a full reply, and that my attempt at making Amends was seen as brtushing Amnesians thoughtful arguments aside.
Here we see what he really thought of what the "others" had to say.
:I copied Amnesian's post to my processor, and at 8 pitch Arial, single spaces, 1/2" margins, it came to about 12 pages. My response, to be effective will be much longer. It is mostly complete as it stands, but will require editing. I also may add some other material I feel will help. I will try to post it tomorrow, but as I go over it again, there is a chance I may find more issues the address.
(Interesting, a while back it was already "done" just a little fine tuning. Now he has started to bemoan the fact that it her post is twelve pages long and is "mostly done".)
:The reason I decided to end it by making amends is that I felt that the whole discussion went far out on a limb away from my original intention to have objective discussion of Elder culpability.
Frankly I thought Amnesian's post did some serious addressing of elder culpability issues. True she threw in plenty of commentary but she stayed pretty on topic. So much so that you might notice the many pages that followed also were, for the most part, relevent to the culpability issue.
:I was caught off guard and blindsided by what felt like blind militant tongue lashing in the name of noble passion ... and allegations against me that were wholly untrue, unfair, and in some ways bold faced lies. I began to feel that I was nothing but cannon fodder for a much different agenda ... and I just didn't want to play the game.
Here we begin with the martyrdom. "Caught off guard"?? "Blindsided"?? He seems to have forgotten here that Amnesian's post was a mere rebuttal to words he had already said. This is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the whole thing, play the victim, which he is not. I would go so far as to call it dishonest. Toss in a few more extremely inflammatory words/phrases like "blind militant tongue lashing", "cannon fodder" and his REPEATED allegations of untruths, unfairness and lies and voila! You have a martyr in the making!!! I have seen the allegations (repeatedly)and nothing to back them up yet! I wonder if someone made such allegations against you Ginny, how would you react?
:But, Julie's comments made me realize that I need to take another look at this, and give it a shot. So, give me a little time with this, and I will respond to Amnesians post in its entirety.
Glad I was able to encourage him to at least consider taking the honorable way to addressing the whole thing.
(Replies to comments in his preface thread *I think, hard to keep track of all his threads*)
:How has my ego gotten to me? Amnesian posts 12 looooooonnnnnngggggg pages, and everyone in sight eats it up like candy.
*ROFL!!!* Now we REALLY know what he thought of what the "others" had to say! So anyone who thought Amnesian's post was good was like a stupid child gobbling up candy.
:I post a couple of pages and I am accused of giving my life's story, engaging in egocentricity. Yet not one person has made one single point that demonstrates their claims. I challenge you to demonstrate such a claim. I find it all curious. This is just one of those judgment calls where I have decided to proceed - albeit, with caution.
Well considering all that was expected and really due from him was a rebuttal some of us got tired of his All-About-Me posts. We wanted rebuttal, Amnesian deserved one and we got Amazing's views, progress in personal growth, his philsophies and just about everything BUT a rebuttal. Sorry but this smacks of narcissism to me. Especially considering the fact the he is bewildered why we didn't "eat it up like candy".
(A gracious option for us, who are apparently "asking for it" to just say the word and we will be spared the Amazing rebuttal we have heard so much about)
:Lastly, I have recieved advice from differnt views, all of which I respect, that encourage me to say nothing, or make amends, or make a full blown reply. I tried the former first. It did not achieve any results. So, based on what Julie and Outnfree stated, I changed course to see if that would make a difference. Unless Amnesian, or Tina, or Julie or others ask me to forget it, and move on, then I will do as I promised them, and follow through. - Amazing
By golly I have yet to see that promise fulfilled. So much for Promise Keepers, eh?
:I already said farewell in my apology post to Julie. But many of you may not have read it since it was specific to her.
Another ROFL!!! No, only 571 hits on that post. Was it feared not many saw it or were there not enough "Oh please don't go!!!" replies? Another intersting point on the Apology post to Julie, I have read it several times and did not see an apology anywhere.
Ginny, this guy has put in quite a performance. I urged him to stand up and make his rebuttal and quit whining so much about how long Amnesian's post was. He thanked me for urging him to "try again". I never said try again, I said try. I do not appreciate my words being twisted in order to serve his CYA purpose.
I see allegations not backed up, I see lies about how the rebuttal is done and then the fact that Amnesian's post is 12 pages long and it will take a long time to address (though he'd already claimed it to be done). I have seen him use some of the most inflammatory language in describing Amnesian and her post and some rather snide insinuations about those who were "stupid" enough to think her post worthy of merit.
No, I cannot read the hearts and minds of others but I sure as hell can deduce from their words what they mean to say, no matter how they may try (and often fail) to disguise or sugar coat it.
I have seen Amazing hold grudges (I can point to myself as an example) for the slightest insult for ages. You bruise his ego your ideas are shallow and without merit. If you really bruise his ego you are merely using him as the "whipping boy" for the week or perhaps you are substituting him for an "elder to burn in effigy". (Oh the drama!!)
Call me a judgemental, presumptuous bitch if you like but I see self-pity and narcissism in pretty much all of his posts since Amnesian wrote her rebuttal. He used the words "blind-sided" many times which is very dishonest considering this was no out-of-the-blue discussion/post.
Yep, I stand by my assessment of Amazing's words/actions since Amnesian's posts. I am sorry though to have had to rehash it all in order to defend myself against your public reproval. While my plainspoken style may be offensive to some I would like to think I don't hide behind ambiguity and when I have spoken to someone they know *exactly* what it was I meant to say. Personally I think that to be more honorable than clever ambiguity, inflammatory language or any other manner of insinuation.
Sorry if my addressing what I considered to be very poor behavior honestly and directly has offended you or caused you distress. I merely tried to get Amazing to quit with the tactics and deliver the rebuttal as repeatedly promised. Apparently my efforts failed.
Warm Regards,
Julie, who apologizes for bringing this nasty business to the top again but really felt Ginny's post merited a reply/explanation
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
You are welcome to see a commonality between the "culpability of elders" debate and the "riz vs. Jan H" thread I took part in months ago. If you see some of the very same issues being discussed, that's fine.
I understand that your perceptions may be different from mine.
You are free to like/dislike whatever you wish. People are different and enjoy different tastes – that's to be expected and tolerated. Yet I am quite amused that you see in the boxing analogy a "bias akin to propaganda." You can be very funny sometimes, although I doubt that was your intent. It seems that you are deadly serious, and that makes this opinion of yours all the more outrageous!
You are certainly free to form whatever opinion you wish of my behavior.
Like you, I am primarily interested in issues but I'm also drawn to certain personalities, as personalities play a part in every discussion. The personal equation cannot be totally removed owing to the fact that people discuss issues and our unique personalities tend to show in our presentations. That explains the immense popularity of JT, unclebruce, AlanF, even yourself, as well as others. People enjoy posters who present truths with their own particular flavor and naturally gravitate toward their personal favorites. I am no different. I have my preferences, while still having an overriding respect for truth.
We have something in common then. I also understand that what you believe to be true may not be the same as what I believe to be true.
I am sorry that you are annoyed with my perception that you missed the point of the AMNESIAN/Amazing discussion, but that seemed to be the case. While it's true that you made no mention of "wills, intellect, winners or losers," you did say that you were interested in issues as if that made you radically different from everyone else involved in the discussion.
I appreciate your saying you’re sorry, Teejay, but do you understand why I am annoyed and why I found your way of communicating offensive?
You made an assumption about how I viewed myself. I was annoyed because I felt I had made an effort to show that I didn’t view myself as radically different from everyone else in the discussion.
In the same thread, Amnesian had said:
There are your perspective, experiences and opinions and there are mine. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between our poles or, more likely, perhaps no where near either one of them.
Later in the thread, you said to me:
I think the argument that the accountability factor is equal is false, if not outright disingenuous.
I answered:
I haven’t seen anyone argue that accountability is equal. Like Amnesian, I’m looking for the truth between the poles of Elders 100% accountable – Publishers 0% accountable.
Even though I clearly mentioned at least one other person in the discussion looking for the truth between the poles, you now say that you interpreted my statement to mean that I viewed myself as radically different from everyone else in the discussion.
You initially interpreted my statement in a slightly different way:
Secondly, I can positively ASSURE you that it is more than AMNESIA and Ginny who are looking for truth on this board, whether it deals with this topic or any other. I hope you weren't suggesting, simply because your viewpoint differs, that everyone else was hoping to either cover over the truth or pass along untruth.
Your need to “positively assure” me implies that I think that only Amnesian and I are looking for truth on this board. Not only have you made a nasty implication, but you have also twisted the meaning of what I originally said. “Truth” has a slightly different connotation than “the truth between the poles.” You underscore this connotation with an insinuation that I meant to imply that other people are hoping to cover over truth or pass along untruth.
I answered by quoting my original statement and explained my intent:
If anything, I was trying to emphasize that I don't have a ready answer and am eager to hear discussion.
What I find ironic is that this is the same sort of language Amnesian herself didn’t care for:
Amazing: However, I believe there are some points in this issue you are not correctly seeing for what they are:
Amnesian: I’m trying to continue not being offended, but I really don’t care for the condescension in that.

There are your perspective, experiences and opinions and there are mine. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between our poles or, more likely, perhaps no where near either one of them. But to suggest that yours are the “correct points in this issue” for no other reason than that they are yours is a bit Watchtower-ish, not to mention elder-like in its sexism ---ah, but that’s redundant.
You use this same sort of language with me:
By bringing up what you did, it simply seemed to me that you had missed THE important component of the dialog. I only hoped to clear up your confusion, if that's what it was.
When I don’t share your viewpoint, you often blame me. Ginny is confused, Ginny misses the point, Ginny is delusional. When you present your views, you use phrases like “beyond question,” "no escaping these facts," that it must be "reasonably concluded," that suggesting otherwise is "ludicrous,” and that “nothing could be further from reality.”
First, if I said outright that Amazing's arguments were weak, I am now making a retraction. I don't think I ever said (or even hinted at) such a thing.
In this case, I may owe you an apology. In your boxing analogy, you said, “His obviously weaker game plan exposed.” I interpreted that to refer to Amazing’s arguments. If this was not what you intended, I am sorry that I misinterpreted your meaning.
Amazing had valid points and I DO recall admitting as much. (If you need the quote, I will find it for you.) All I've ever said or inferred was that in my opinion AMNESIAN's argument much more closely reflected my experience as a longtime active member of the WTS and therefore, imo, was the truer of the two.
I understand that you were expressing your opinion. It is understood that we all do that here. It’s pretty easy to accept that different people have different opinions. Discussions become offensive when we go beyond expressing our own opinion to questioning or condemning the perceptions of someone else. The logic that leads to a conclusion can be critically examined without denying a person's perceptions.
As far as whether or not his arguments (or he himself) were "whining and cowardly," I think the record of his behavior speaks for itself. On one of the half-dozen or so threads he authored since the start of this dialog, he posted to the effect that "here I am, still waiting on AMNESIAN and Tina and still no answer" or some stupidity like that, as if he were a pre-teen, standing in his front yard, bat and ball in hand, and no one would come out to play with him. If you thought his sorry, little display was worthy of respect, help yourself. I'd call it whining, but that's me.
Your perceptions of this situation are different than mine, and I can't argue with your perceptions. I can only describe what I saw in the situation and how I interpreted my perceptions. When we share our perceptions, both of us have more information from which to form interpretations.
It came as a bit of a shock when he announced his departure from the board. "Is Julie right in calling him a coward?" you ask. Well, Ginny has her own unique take on events here, so I won't rule out the possibility that YOU see the man's behavior in any other context but I'm thinking you are quite by your lonesome in that regard. It is virtually impossible to read his behavior as anything other than cowardice.
I think you misunderstand me, Teejay. I feel I have no right to judge whether Julie was right or wrong in calling him a coward. Julie must do what she thinks best, just as I must do what I think best. Both of us saw the same events. Each of us interpreted them differently. I can only explain to Julie why I chose to react differently than she did.
He's here and posting, starting his fair share of threads weekly, as long as praise is heaped on him. When the heat is turned on just a little... when someone offers a dynamic challenge to one of his positions... he claims "I'm the only one interested in a debate of issues so I'm leaving" yadda, yadda. Is he THAT weak? I wouldn't know... I don't know much about the man other than what I've been able to gather from his posts, but his actions over the past week to ten days do not speak of his character in glowing terms, if I say so myself.
This is your interpretation of what happened. If you don’t choose to give Amazing the benefit of the doubt, that is your choice.
Answering your above quote bluntly, NO, this has not turned personal although Amazing has attempted to play up that angle for all its worth.
As I said to Julie, I feel it is unfair to assign 100% of the blame to Amazing.
YES, I am more interested in issues. That has always been the case since I got here -- not personalities, not who is a "luminary" as JanH called a certain clique in the riz/JanH thread. I couldn't care less about who said it – the supposed 'status,' of certain posters. While that may now presently be a hot topic here, it's been my (and Bigboi's and DannyBear's) calling card since Day One. I don't give a shit about personalities when it comes to who's telling the truth.
JanH said, “But then again, those who have attacked me in this case aren't exactly the luminaries on this board.” You have interpreted this to mean that there is a clique on the board. Was Jan referring to a clique or was he referring to individuals who, in his opinion, “shine” on the board? You yourself said earlier that you are drawn to certain personalities and that you have perceived that some personalities are popular. Is it possible that this is a matter of individual choice and not evidence of a clique? You say that you, DannyBear, and Bigboi share the same calling card. Does this make you three a clique? Or are each of you forming individual opinions that happen to coincide much of the time?
I am guessing that you found Jan’s statement offensive and reacted strongly to it. Why? I don’t like it because the mention of “luminaries” implies that there are also some dim bulbs on this board. No one wants to be labeled a “dim bulb.” At the same time, I respect Jan’s right to express his opinion in the way he chooses.
Your mention of cliques is also offensive for the same reason. To say that there is a certain clique on the board implies another group of people who are not cliquish and are more fair and tolerant than others.
And NO, I'm not interested in "toppling Amazing from what Julie perceives as a pedestal of high esteem and exposing his sad, self-pity."
Thank you for explaining your intent.
At the same time, I'm not kissing his ass and telling him he's right if I think he's wrong and I'm shedding no tears as he plays his wretched "whoa is me" violin.
Has anyone asked or demanded that you do?
As in the case of JanH, AlanF, Farkel, Kent, et al, I ain't skeered of none of them muthafuckas, the so-called "luminaries", "Brain Trust", Better Poster... whatever you wanna call 'em. Just because someone has an Online Reputation (whatever the hell THAT is) doesn't mean that I will sit by and allow them to pass along misinformation unchallenged simply because of said reputation.
I try to behave the same way. A disagreement could be between the Devil himself and Mother Teresa, and I would still try my best not to let my like or dislike of personalities sway my perception of what actually happened.
Done played that game long enough in my sad, pathetic little life, so while I have voice, from here on out I'm gone use it. If there are those who don't like it, they can put their dislike with fifty cents and buy a cup of coffee.
Your “sad, pathetic little life”? That’s not a violin I hear, is it?
And BTW, if you expect me to behave in a way that is 100% consistent with my principles, guess again. I am human, too, and sometimes react emotionally.
Ginny
A monk asked Zen Master Tosu, “Am I correct when I understand the Buddha as asserting that all talk, however trivial or derogatory, belongs to the ultimate truth?” Master Tosu said, “Yes, you are right.” The monk went on, “May I then call you a donkey?” The master hit the monk with a stick.
If you understand, things are just as they are.
If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
--Zen Buddhist saying
GinnyTosken

Julie,
I welcome your challenge to answer for my words/actions toward Amazing. I claim no magical power to read hearts and minds but I do like to think I have some reasoning ability and the power of deduction.
It was not my intent to cast doubts on your reasoning ability or power of deduction.
My intent was to plead for compassion towards Amazing and to present other interpretations of his behavior.
No, I cannot read the hearts and minds of others but I sure as hell can deduce from their words what they mean to say, no matter how they may try (and often fail) to disguise or sugar coat it.
If you feel you have enough evidence to deduce his intent, that is your decision. I don't feel I have enough evidence to determine his motives.
Call me a judgemental, presumptuous bitch if you like but I see self-pity and narcissism in pretty much all of his posts since Amnesian wrote her rebuttal. He used the words "blind-sided" many times which is very dishonest considering this was no out-of-the-blue discussion/post.
I don't consider you a judgmental, presumptuous bitch. I understand that you have used your own judgment to interpret the events you saw. You've explained why you decided as you did. You have to do what you think is best.
Yep, I stand by my assessment of Amazing's words/actions since Amnesian's posts. I am sorry though to have had to rehash it all in order to defend myself against your public reproval.
I'm sorry it came across as public reproof. With everyone expressing opinions about Amazing's behavior, I considered it only fair that I express my opinion of yours. I tried to do it without condemning you as a person.
Sorry if my addressing what I considered to be very poor behavior honestly and directly has offended you or caused you distress.
I am not at all offended. I did not interpret Amazing's behavior in the same way you did. I've shared my viewpoint, and you've shared yours. We both have more information now. Each of us may form our own opinions.
Ginny
Julie

Hi Ginny,
:It was not my intent to cast doubts on your reasoning ability or power of deduction.
No, I know this, it wasmerely my answer to your question on whether I have the ability to read hearts and minds. Again, no but we all have some reasoning abilities and power of deduction. I have used mine, not that I had to really strain them as to me it was all rather obvious.
:My intent was to plead for compassion towards Amazing and to present other interpretations of his behavior.
I must say I would be very interested in your interpretations of the behavior he displayed that I highlighted in my post. The reason being I am hard pressed to imagine there *is* any other conclusion to be reached for the words and phrases he used much less the unsubstantiated allegations and the lies. Very interested.
Warm regards,
Julie
GinnyTosken

Julie,
I must say I would be very interested in your interpretations of the behavior he displayed that I highlighted in my post. The reason being I am hard pressed to imagine there *is* any other conclusion to be reached for the words and phrases he used much less the unsubstantiated allegations and the lies. Very interested.
Okay. Here you go.
Here is Amazing's first remarks regarding Amnesian's post:
:Amnesian: Your post is long, sprinkled with twisting quotes, misrepresentations, and a self-deluded series of getting yourself off of the hook, while shifting the blame to others, and you make some good points on which I can agree. I will make a new post to you in a couple of days when I have some time to wade through what you have written.
Okey dokey, fair enough. I know I was looking forward to him backing up these allegations as were probably many others.
Amazing asserts that Amnesian's post is "sprinkled with twisting quotes, misrepresentations." The burden of proof lies with him to back up this assertion.
"Self-deluded series of getting yourself off of the hook," is the same sort of phrase that may have offended Amazing himself. If he didn't like it when Amnesian imputed bad motives to him ("unlike you, I do not hide this truth from myself or offer excuses and justifications"), he should understand that she will not like it if he presumes to know her motives. It may be that since Amnesian dished this out to him, he is dishing it back.
"Shifting the blame to others" From my own point of view, it did seem that Amnesian was trying to shift an unfair portion of the blame onto elders. If Amnesian questions this statement, Amazing can offer proof.
Then, instead of the promised rebuttal, we get an offer of reconciliation which I will spare the reader of having to drudge through yet again but really must include these condescending *and* contradictory remarks:
:You both are valued and respected posters on JWD, and I appreciate what you have contributed to many discussions. Like most people, I don't enjoy having breaches with people, and would rather find a way to resolve matters and reconcile. I hope that we can reach a point of common ground that works for us all. My goal right now is not so much to continue any debate, but to see if it is possible to reconcile our differences without violating our views.
Now maybe I am reading Amazing's heart here but don't you find it odd that he feels the need to assure them that they and their remarks are valued at JWD but he WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING THEM???? I think it interesting he takes this initial reassuring tone in telling them how valuable they are and then announces he will be completely disregarding all those valued thoughts. He is either lying about how he values those thoughts or feels he cannot address them, wonder which it is?
When I read Amazing words, they did not strike me as condescending at all. I interpreted his post as a genuine attempt at reconciliation. His statement didn't strike me as contradictory. From what I've seen of Amazing, he is very passionate about his views, and I'm guessing that he is an emotional man. I interpreted his comments to mean that his highest priority was making peace with Amnesian and Tina and that he wanted to put the debate itself on the back burner for the moment.
In the same post, he explains that it was not his intent to be condescending. He asks Tina how he can change his style to so that his tone does not offend. He is careful not to presume to know what Tina and Amnesian are thinking. He acknowledges that he may have retained some of the language from his JW days and offers to modify his approach.
Frankly, I don't know what else the man could have done. If I offend someone, all I can do is explain my intent and ask what I could have done differently.
(Here's the reply we get in the same thread when he is called on his complete dismissal of Amnesian's post. I deduce from this Reconciliation thread that it was a graceful way to side-step the debate)
:Okay everyone, you got it ... my reply is done, I just need to edit it, and will post it tomorrow sometime. - Amazing (note, here he says his rebuttal is DONE)
As I said, I didn't see a complete dismissal of Amnesian's post, nor did I think he was trying to side-step the debate. If anything, I imagine Amazing was trying to follow the principle in Matthew 5:23, 24: "If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and you there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away; first make your peace with your brother, and then, when you have come back, offer up your gift." This scripture was repeated to us again and again as JWs.
(This is from the Ok Tina & Amnesian your (sic) on Thanks to Julie thread, which to me reads like Ok Girls Big Daddy is Going to Teach You a Lesson and You Have Julie To Blame, LOL, but I guess that's just me):
:After a couple of days, I finally got some posts besides JT's on my Invitation to Tina and Amnesian. JT made some thoughtful comments as did the others,
Call me presumptuous but IMO the "others" here was added as an afterthought, couldn't be just giving the one positive response credit, that would look bad--I could be mistaken, just my take, read on and see what brought me to this conclusion)
:Except that others felt that Amnesians post was well written, and deserved a full reply, and that my attempt at making Amends was seen as brtushing Amnesians thoughtful arguments aside.
Here we see what he really thought of what the "others" had to say.
I interpreted it differently. I thought Amazing was still absorbing the shock of such direct criticism, was still feeling very emotional about it, and wasn't quite sure if he wanted to make himself so vulnerable again so soon. I think he was trying to please you and the "others" and do what he felt was expected of him. It wasn't the priority he had chosen, but if you wanted it, well . . .
:I copied Amnesian's post to my processor, and at 8 pitch Arial, single spaces, 1/2" margins, it came to about 12 pages. My response, to be effective will be much longer. It is mostly complete as it stands, but will require editing. I also may add some other material I feel will help. I will try to post it tomorrow, but as I go over it again, there is a chance I may find more issues the address.
(Interesting, a while back it was already "done" just a little fine tuning. Now he has started to bemoan the fact that it her post is twelve pages long and is "mostly done".)
I imagine that each of us invests different amounts of time in posts. I'm too embarrassed to reveal how much time I spend. At least 40% of it for me is the time it takes to think about the issues. When I'm replying, I'll read something, think about it, read it again, think some more, go on, look back, check what was said in another thread, etc.
From what I've seen of Amazing's posts, he is not the type to dash off a quick reply. He is careful about his format and composition. If you take him at his word, he has already given offense when he didn't intend to. I imagine he wanted to be even more careful with the phrasing of his reply.
:The reason I decided to end it by making amends is that I felt that the whole discussion went far out on a limb away from my original intention to have objective discussion of Elder culpability.
Frankly I thought Amnesian's post did some serious addressing of elder culpability issues. True she threw in plenty of commentary but she stayed pretty on topic. So much so that you might notice the many pages that followed also were, for the most part, relevent to the culpability issue.
I interpreted Amazing's response to mean that he was very surprised by the personal issues that got tangled in with the "objective" discussion of elder culpability. Just the discussion of elders alone is not an easy one for any elder, much less when you're trying to absorb criticism about your writing style and accusations that your motive is to excuse and defend your actions.
It's fairly easy to shrug off criticisms when you're not the personal target. It's much more difficult when you feel you're being personally criticized by several people at once.
:I was caught off guard and blindsided by what felt like blind militant tongue lashing in the name of noble passion ... and allegations against me that were wholly untrue, unfair, and in some ways bold faced lies. I began to feel that I was nothing but cannon fodder for a much different agenda ... and I just didn't want to play the game.
Here we begin with the martyrdom. "Caught off guard"?? "Blindsided"?? He seems to have forgotten here that Amnesian's post was a mere rebuttal to words he had already said. This is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the whole thing, play the victim, which he is not. I would go so far as to call it dishonest. Toss in a few more extremely inflammatory words/phrases like "blind militant tongue lashing", "cannon fodder" and his REPEATED allegations of untruths, unfairness and lies and voila! You have a martyr in the making!!! I have seen the allegations (repeatedly)and nothing to back them up yet! I wonder if someone made such allegations against you Ginny, how would you react?
Amazing is describing what he experienced. To him, it felt like "blind militant tongue lashing." Given that by this time Tina has already said to him, "You got spanked bigtime by Amnesian. A little taste of how r/f women have felt eh?" I can understand why he may have interpreted this as "blind militant tongue lashing."
He was caught off guard because he expected an objective reply but received replies that included personal criticisms. He felt that he was being used as "cannon fodder." Who can deny Amazing a right to his own feelings? Those who criticized him can only explain their respective intents. If Amazing is helped to understand what happened and how he may have misinterpreted some of the comments, he will probably calm down and give a more rational reply.
I do not interpret his response as playing the martyr. Amazing was expressing his feelings.
He does mention "allegations against me that were wholly untrue, unfair, and in some ways bold faced lies." Amazing may point out what statements he believes to be untrue and ask for proof. The burden of proof lies with whoever made allegations against him. He may also explain why he thought certain statements were unfair.
:But, Julie's comments made me realize that I need to take another look at this, and give it a shot. So, give me a little time with this, and I will respond to Amnesians post in its entirety.
Glad I was able to encourage him to at least consider taking the honorable way to addressing the whole thing.
I would not interpret it as dishonorable for a person to temporarily or even permanently withdraw from a debate because he recognizes that he is emotionally volatile and vulnerable while discussing this issue. In fact, I would admire such a person for having the wisdom to take care of his own needs.
(Replies to comments in his preface thread *I think, hard to keep track of all his threads*)
:How has my ego gotten to me? Amnesian posts 12 looooooonnnnnngggggg pages, and everyone in sight eats it up like candy.
*ROFL!!!* Now we REALLY know what he thought of what the "others" had to say! So anyone who thought Amnesian's post was good was like a stupid child gobbling up candy.
Well, he doesn't say a "stupid" child.
I have to admit, I wondered myself that the ideas in Amnesian's post were not questioned and challenged more. I think her writing style is brilliant, and I love her razor wit. She explains herself forcefully and clearly and is very persuasive. Still, what about the issues themselves? Do publishers have no power at all? If culpability increases in the WTS hierarchy, does it follow then that men are more culpable than women? Is it safe to make generalizations about the "typical elder mindset"? As Obi Wan Kenobi asks, "Who's more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?"
:I post a couple of pages and I am accused of giving my life's story, engaging in egocentricity. Yet not one person has made one single point that demonstrates their claims. I challenge you to demonstrate such a claim. I find it all curious. This is just one of those judgment calls where I have decided to proceed - albeit, with caution.
Well considering all that was expected and really due from him was a rebuttal some of us got tired of his All-About-Me posts. We wanted rebuttal, Amnesian deserved one and we got Amazing's views, progress in personal growth, his philsophies and just about everything BUT a rebuttal. Sorry but this smacks of narcissism to me. Especially considering the fact the he is bewildered why we didn't "eat it up like candy".
(A gracious option for us, who are apparently "asking for it" to just say the word and we will be spared the Amazing rebuttal we have heard so much about)
I interpret Amazing's comments to be from a man who is still bewildered at the unexpected personal criticism his replies produced. I don't think he understands what went wrong. To ask those who have accused him to offer proof of their claims is a valid request.

:Lastly, I have recieved advice from differnt views, all of which I respect, that encourage me to say nothing, or make amends, or make a full blown reply. I tried the former first. It did not achieve any results. So, based on what Julie and Outnfree stated, I changed course to see if that would make a difference. Unless Amnesian, or Tina, or Julie or others ask me to forget it, and move on, then I will do as I promised them, and follow through. - Amazing
By golly I have yet to see that promise fulfilled. So much for Promise Keepers, eh?
I see a man who is willing to ask for advice and input from his friends. He wants to resolve the personal differences. He posted in an attempt to make things right. This was interpreted as offensive, and the women he had offended did not answer. Amazing still wants to try to put things right, so he is willing to try your suggestion. I get the impression that he is so bewildered that he is willing to try anything to make peace.
I am guessing that Amazing still feels very unsettled emotionally and is not sure if he wants to risk posting again. Given his emotional state, I am willing to make allowances for his not keeping his promise.
Speaking of promises, didn't Amnesian make a promise, too?
Jan 3, 2002 21:42
For those few, however, who may harbor some residual interest in or, at least, curiosity (and who can stand remaining in attendance on JWD until then!), I am still impelled, as promised, to have my own final say---for the time foreseeable anyway---, by Monday (Tuesday, latest) on the bristling topic Brother Amazing submitted for discussion way back on December 22.
If she's posted anything, I haven't seen it. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe things came up at work, things are hectic at home, she's sick, etc.
:I already said farewell in my apology post to Julie. But many of you may not have read it since it was specific to her.
Another ROFL!!! No, only 571 hits on that post. Was it feared not many saw it or were there not enough "Oh please don't go!!!" replies? Another intersting point on the Apology post to Julie, I have read it several times and did not see an apology anywhere.
Usually when people say good-bye, the title says something about good-bye or farewell. I took him at his word--that he thought some people might not have read the post because of the title.
As for the apology post, I thought the apology was implied. He promised you he'd post a rebuttal. He reconsidered and decided not to post one. He is sorry for not keeping his word to you.

I hope this helps you to understand how I reached my conclusion.
Ginny
Julie

Well Gina, I am glad that we have each had an opportunity to see how we arrived at our individual conclusions. I respect yours but fear you are over-generous only in the way that you may get "taken" from time to time by some predatory sort (mind you I do not refer to Amazing or anyone here). Not trying to be Elder-like here , just the seasoned cynic is all.
Thanks for explaining. I still feel confident in my assessment but respect your right to yours. Oh, btw, there has been a couple of replies from Amnesian in some threads and she tells me, via e-mail, her response is imminent, so we will see.
Warm regards,
Julie
TMS

This is probably an inappropriate place to interject my simplistic response, but . . . . .
I have known hundreds of congregation elders.
I can count on one hand those who expressed the slightest disillusionment with the WTBS or awareness that something didn't add up.
Elders have been spoonfed just like the r&f.
If we accept the truism that "knowledge brings responsibility", JW elders are no more responsible than the r&f.
One could argue though as James did that "teachers carry a heavier burden." But when one just recites verbatum what they have read in "Kingdom Service Questions", the "Lamp" or "Organization" book or picked up at the recent Kingdom Ministry School, are they really a teacher or merely a parrot?
TMS
teejay

Ginny,
I'm glad that you accept something that I really thought was a foreign idea to you -- that although my opinions are different from yours, they are still just as valid. Let me explain...
Sometimes on the board your demeanor suggests that if someone doesn't see things YOUR way, then they are missing something and it's your job to enlighten them. I've perceived that in your exchanges not just with me but with others, too. It's as though Ginny sees the issue very clearly, devoid of any emotion or ignorance of any significant truth that bears on the discussion, and you are duty-bound to show the other poster exactly where they are mistaken. Well... know what? My opinions are not better or worse than any one else's and neither are yours. Thanks for acknowledging that.
I agree with you that all anyone does here is bounce around ideas and personal viewpoints. No one here can or does offer Ultimate Truth, regardless of the subject. That explains my personal mission to see to it that everyone be allowed to freely give their opinion and for the bullies to hold their tongue. Every honest opinion is just as valid as every other. I agree with you when you said that, "discussions become offensive when we go beyond expressing our own opinion to questioning or condemning the perceptions of someone else."
Earlier you'd asked me: "Is Julie right in calling [Amazing] a coward?" I gave you my impression that it would be hard to color his behavior as anything but. In reply, you next say that, "I think you misunderstand me, Teejay. I feel I have no right to judge whether Julie was right or wrong in calling him a coward. Julie must do what she thinks best, just as I must do what I think best. Both of us saw the same events. Each of us interpreted them differently. I can only explain to Julie why I chose to react differently than she did.
Pardon me, but I think your response to my answer to YOUR question is absurd. Why ask me a question if you personally feel ANY answer is beyond anyone's "right"? I see gross hypocrisy, Ginny. You were wrong to do that.
Me: [blue]He's here and posting, starting his fair share of threads weekly, as long as praise is heaped on him. When the heat is turned on just a little... when someone offers a dynamic challenge to one of his positions... he claims "I'm the only one interested in a debate of issues so I'm leaving" yadda, yadda... his actions over the past week to ten days do not speak of his character in glowing terms...[blue]
You: This is your interpretation of what happened. If you don’t choose to give Amazing the benefit of the doubt, that is your choice.
I notice that you offer no alternative synopsis of the events as they played out here in living color. I think that's so because everyone who's been around knows the real deal and aren't about to bullshit themselves or anyone else. Everyone but YOU.
I must say that I'm disdainfully amused by your comment about "giving him the benefit of the doubt." I don't have a clue as to what you mean. "Benefit of the doubt" about WHAT? If he'd played it cool... if he'd have done anything but offer pitiful pre-answers to what she said almost two weeks ago... if he'd done anything but played his pathetic candy store violin about how no one (save him) wanted to discuss issues... hell, if he'd just come up missing from the board for a few days... then... THEN maybe I could give him the benefit of the doubt. But the way things played out? Naahh... sorry. YOU give him the benefit of the doubt. YOU close your eyes to what happened. Help yourself.
You said:
JanH said, “But then again, those who have attacked me in this case aren't exactly the luminaries on this board.” You have interpreted this to mean that there is a clique on the board. Was Jan referring to a clique or was he referring to individuals who, in his opinion, “shine” on the board? You yourself said earlier that you are drawn to certain personalities and that you have perceived that some personalities are popular. Is it possible that this is a matter of individual choice and not evidence of a clique? You say that you, DannyBear, and Bigboi share the same calling card. Does this make you three a clique? Or are each of you forming individual opinions that happen to coincide much of the time?
clique (klk, kl¹k) n. 1. A small, exclusive group of friends or associates.
Was Jan referring to a clique? Of course he was. Was he referring to individuals "who, in his opinion, “shine” on the board"? Of course he was. The two ideas are not necessarily in conflict with each other. In this case they go hand in hand.
Was/is there anything wrong with JanH (or anyone else) being drawn to personal favorites? No.
Is it wrong if JanH (or anyone else) thinks that some posters can/should be described as "luminaries", "Quality Poster", "Better Poster", "Board Heavy"? On it's face, No. People have all sorts of ludicrous ideas. I went to highschool w/ a girl who really believed that the world was flat because of a verse in Revelation. I have no problem w/ that.
JanH (and everyone else) is free to gravitate toward and enjoy the posts of whatever posters they choose. It's a free country.
Are Bigboi, DannyBear and teejay a clique? I don't think so. When JanH made a reference to the "luminaries," I believe it was his intent (I could be wrong) to show that certain ones of his liking offered thoughts and opinions that were somehow superior to everyone else's. They represented the height of human evolution. I was never a regular poster on h2o, but from reading several of the perceptions about the atmosphere on the old h2o that was fostered in large part by this so-called "luminous" clique, I am not alone in holding to this view.
There is where you will find a radical departure when it comes to my friends and I. We simply agree very often, not because we are superior (or think we are), but because we have been blessed with our fair share of human decency, honesty and common sense. If the three of us are representative of a clique, it's a clique that consists of quite a large number of the posters here who operate under the maxim of "live and let live." To me, there is a clear difference.
I am guessing that you found Jan’s statement offensive and reacted strongly to it. Why?
Like you, as I mentioned, I respect Jan's right to like what he likes, to opine whatever absurdities he wishes. That's not the only one of his I've read that made me wonder... "what in the hell..." Still, I find the mental process that spawns such thinking about "luminaries" not simply stupid and wrong, but potentially very dangerous because of the damage it can (often does) cause.
To nurture the idea in one's brain that just because something is different makes it better... or just because *my* preference for it makes it better... lies at the very heart of many of the atrocities in human history.
ExJWs (as JWs) lived within a very debilitating environment and have since freed themselves from it -- PHYSICALLY. Yet, I'm continually dumbfounded to observe some of the same behaviors perpetrated by the governing body repeated by those who should know better. Those who were formerly abused (by elders or Wt policy) themselves become abusive. Why? Those who have been personally injured (psychologically, mentally, emotionally) because of elitism, become expert practitioners of it. Why? Those who have personally suffered due to a powerful leadership's intolerant and prejudiced behavior turn around and do the same. Why?
Like I said, I wasn't a regular poster on h2o, but here, when I saw Jan repeat the absurdity on a discussion board, I decided that... "No, I'm not letting that slide by." So, no, I wasn't offended by the opinion, per se, as dumb as it was. I was more appalled that his thought, so elementary and backward, would be potentially very damaging to other people who had suffered enough.
People who think along the lines of "luminary/better poster" etc. are in need of help, imo. How or from where that help comes is a bit of a mystery. If living through the horror hasn't taught them anything, I'm wondering: What will?
And BTW, if you expect me to behave in a way that is 100% consistent with my principles, guess again. I am human, too, and sometimes react emotionally.
No need for me to "guess again." I guessed right the first time.

Farewell to all

Share this