by IslandWoman 46 Replies latest jw friends
Gravedancer,
I am not excluding anyone.
But tell me, does hitting the ball while Dad pitches in the back yard equate with playing in the Major league?
There is a giving, an all or nothing, that for many of us comes with baptism. We said "yes", to giving our lives and our children's lives to the cause. No one but us can really know what that means, what it feels like, and how it hurts after we wake up!!
IW
Mr Larc,
"Readers digest" response from me since you wish to keep it simple:
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. Agreed
So, then why try and silence Julie because she only studied for 18 months? You might not be trying to do so, but that was certainly appears to be the original intent of bringing this up.
Go back and read the post with Amazing, its apparent I was defending Amazing - not Julie. I just do not believe it is right to "minimize" her opinions or experiences because we were baptized or in the truth for longer or had more gruesome experiences...don't you agree? If you do, then what is the issue?
IW,
Obviously different folk had different depths of experience...so what?
From the first post in this thread:
I repeat, you have not lived as a JW. You have not raised your child as one, you have not had to sign a virtual death warrant for your child by refusing blood!! You have not had to die as many of us have had to die.What was the intent? To make Julie shut up? To make her think her opinions count less? Please elaborate...and ask yourself as you do what the logical conclusion is to whatever you say.You have not walked as we have walked!!!
GD
Mr. Grave,
Let me summarize some points I have already made.
1. I was addressing IW's premis, which I agree with.
2. I never, ever tryed to shut up Julie, nor will I argue with her on the subject of her perception of Amazing versus my opinion, because it is pointless. I think she is biased, and I am sure that she thinks I am.
3. New material: whether you defend Amazing or Julie, is of no concern to me. Not because of you personally. I think the whole dialogue between the two of them is boring, and I don't keep track of who defends who. On a side note: I think that both of them are behaving like children.
Gravedancer,
You have the right to think what you will.
I had no intention of making Julie "shut up". I know that Julie will say what she wants to say. I do the same. That is all that is going on here.
Opinions and Counter opinions.
IW
Well Good Morning there Island Woman!!
Glad to see you caught my post to you. Interesting you should go for the Amazing MO of start your own New thread. Easier to dismiss all that was said in the old one if we start a new one though isn't it?
Well as I am sure you at least read the thread (a safe assumption seeing this one from you here is proof enough) and perhaps you were able to notice that indeed I did concede to Amazing (I think) that no, in fact I didn't get sucked into the cult and didn't spend a lot of my time schlepping mags etc. Point conceded.
What you fail to address is the real reason I brought out the whole matter to begin with. I was participating (though barely at the point you addressed me) in a heated debacle regarding Amazing and his behavior. This is the sort of behavior that is universal dear, and I recognized it and called him on it. Having been or not been a JW had nothing to do with recognizing certain behaviors. In fact, perhaps I am better able to recognize it since my mind isn't all clogged up with that JW-personality nonsense. I think, basically, in the post that I included in my thread to you you basically inferred ignorance on my part and your tone told me, basically, since I haven't *actually* been "there" I had no business participating. That is what I took from your words, that is why I called you on them.
Like I said though, disregard the original and it's soooooo much easier not to address the points, isn't it? That's another thing I missed by not being a JW. All these wonderful methods of duck and dodge. Well I suppose I could learn it in Washington just as well.
Either way, nope, never been a JW and everyday I read horror stories that make me realize how fortunate I am! But know this, many of your JW experiences are shared by people throughout the world so you have no and/or very few exclusive claims on your sufferings/experiences. Sorry.
Thanks to all who brought a little bit of reson to this thread GDW, you make fine points about the matter. Like this:
>MY point is that Julie has been told, in so many words, to "shut-up, be quiet, you don't know what you are talking about", etc" when she has expressed an opinion that was not accepted by a "born in, raised in, an adult in", JW. A sort of "coup de gras" in order to end a debate. I have been here, on this board, for six months, and I have seen it several times.
Oh yes dear, you are so right. That was the whole reason I took issue with IW's post. She was offering me a glass of shutthehellup while inferring I had no right to speak on these matters anyway. We've seen it before, we'll see it again.
Julie, who will take Seeker's fine advice and leave this as my only offering
P.S. Except to say to Larc, You must be joking. I have no reason to have dialog with you and would prefer you stopped pretending to understand anything about me, thanks.
hmmm...
Julie's allowed to start a new thread directed to Island Woman, but Island Woman isn't allowed to start one of her own. Because she did, IW is accused of behaving like Amazing (as if that was a real insult, anyway.....)
Island Woman says that she is not telling Julie she can't participate on this forum. Julie says that IW is. Julie must have some kind of psychic powers to be able to read IW's mind better than IW, even when IW directly stated that she was not telling Julie to shut up.
Hmmm.... [8>]
IW,
Just wanted to ask what the reason for this is?
I repeat, you have not lived as a JW. You have not raised your child as one, you have not had to sign a virtual death warrant for your child by refusing blood!! You have not had to die as many of us have had to die.
Has Julie ever claimed to have been a JW? Has she ever protrayed that she was one? Has she always been open and honest about her purpose here and the old H2O?
I have not read all of the threads that this one pertains to. I guess that is why so many insist that new threads not be started and if there is any unfinished business then it should contain reference to the original. I will say this though, I see nothing in your post that has not been stated already by Julie. If there is more to this then please explain. Because standing on it's own merit...it looks like you are telling her that she has no place here.
wendy
You have not had to die as many of us have had to die.
ROFL! Um, just asking, but who are the "us" included in that sentence, and were any of them involved in the typing of it? If so, were they the ghosts of those who died?
Or did you mean that others among JWs died, and you witnessed it, but didn't actually experience death yourself (which is why you were able to post the question)? Hmmm...that would seem to totally undercut your argument though, wouldn't it?
Prisca weighs in,"hmmmmmmmm....
" Julie's allowed to start a new thread directed to IW,but IW isn't allowed to start one of her own. Because she did,IW is accused of behaving like Amazing(as if this was a real insult anyway....)"
prisca
I don't know why you insist on being such a simpleton.Yes,Julie started a new thread to IW because the post IW wrote her was buried in a thread that had died and was much better off left for dead anyway.IW's post to Julie in that thread was rather off topic(which I think the topic was again,Amazing :>) IW could have merely answered the post addressed to her.Why didn't she? yet another case of spot-light-itis??????? Must be an epidemic.......
Prisca barks," IW says she is not telling Julie she can't participate on this forum.Julies says that IW is. Julie must have some kind of psychic powers to be able to read IW's mind than IW,even when IW directly stated that she was not telling Julie to shut up."
Re-Read the post from Julie,prisca.
She says that is the message she took from the original post.I don't see her claiming to read minds,just words.
Just because it took IW 50 words instead of two(shut-up) doesn't change what she was trying to say.The post Julie took the trouble to include in her thread addressed to IW,that which IW decided to disregard,start anew,forget old inferences and then hope they are all lost in the wash. :>
It looked like this method only worked on you,which is not surprising.Nowhere did I see Julie actually say IW is trying to forbid her from posting.Quit trying to manipulate the words of others.You have enough to do with getting your own out coherently.
It looks like many here seem to feel IW was trying to shut Julie up,at least AT THE TIME of her original post,maybe even now. perhaps,like some,Amazing reminded her(IW) of warm fuzzy feelings for Daddy and couldnt take someone pointing out daddys warts. Seems a lot of that going around...............
You ended with 'hmmmmmmmmmmm....'
I can only hope this indicates you are going to try your hand at some actual thinking................
Tina-who is wondering why she is trying to break this down for someone who suffers from terminal'dont get it'.
Todays Affirmation:
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
