To The Folks

by Farkel 175 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  StinkyPantz

  First of all I want to say that I really like AlanF, but I disagree with his synopsis of Teejay's words. What I got from what he said was this. It's fine to read another's words and gain incite from them as he did with Franz' book. His problem though, was that some people adopt this new person's ideas (Farkel & AlanF) and stopping thinking for themselves. These same people feel the need to defend their "cult leaders" at every avenue and believe almost everything they say. That's what I got from Teejay's words. . maybe I'm wrong.
• 

  teejay

  I invite all posters who are not members of Teejay's imaginary cults to step forward and be counted! -- AlanF

  Consider me counted. -- wasasister

  Wasa,

  Are we to take your quick response to Alan's call as an affirmation that I am right about those with a cult mindset? It sure looks that way. The only one other than Alan who spoke of any teejay cult was Riz, and she was JOKING. Maybe you missed Rizzy's humor? To obey Alan as you so quickly did, denying membership in a non-existent organization, is ... uh... interesting.

  The idea that one can learn something from others, to stand - as it were - on the shoulders of those who have gone before, and yet not be a cult member is quite reasonable. To suggest, as TeeJay has, that we depend on gifted writers and talented thinkers and cannot gain independence without them is absurd.

  The bolded part? Please show us where I "suggested" that. Thank you.

  I left JW's quite on my own. After leaving, I still had doubts about their teachings and whether or not I was going to fry at Armageddon. Reading the works of Ray Franz, AlanF, Farkel, Norm, and Randy Watters, I came to grips with my own beliefs. I am in their debt for helping to free the chains of my former self, but I am certainly NOT a cult member.

  Then this is not about YOU, is it?

  This argument about Farkel's perceived insults is equally absurd. If your self-worth is so tied up in another's opinion of you, you need help. If you have confidence in who and what you are, the term "dipfuck" or "bloodsucker" should not matter one bit.

  So, if someone is offended by the names Farkel (or someone else) might call them, it's THEIR problem. Is that what you are saying, Wasa? Blame the victim? You wouldn't be excusing discourteous behavior, now would you? If I right here and now called you a ... and a ... and that your momma was a .... would you be offended? And if so, would that be a sign of YOUR LACK OF CONFIDENCE? Please answer. I'd like to see it.
• 

  teejay

  No, SP, you aren't wrong. Your simple synopsis is exactly what I meant. Not that hard to understand, really. Thank you.
• 

  StinkyPantz

  You're welcome Teejay.

  Alan, please don't hate me. .
• 

  AlanF

  Teejay said:

  : Sheesh, Alan! Why use fifty words when five thousand will do, eh?

  In this case a sound byte doesn't cut it. But perhaps you only think in sound bytes.

  : You well know that I am up to the task of matching your five-thousand-word ad hominem treatise with one of equal length

  You might put out five thousand words, but it is highly unlikely that a lot of them will make sense.

  : but the crux of the matter can be summed up briefly, so why don't I just do that ?

  Yet another vain attempt at reasoned discussion. In fact, the matter cannot be summed up briefly. That's proved by the fact that you completely missed the point of my post. You failed to comment on my complaint, because you know it's valid and it proves what sort of person you are -- small-mindedly jealous. You're bringing up the same old shit you've been spouting for years. Besides, whether brief or lengthy, you would still miss the point. Proof: you missed the point of my first, short and sweet post.

  : One of the telling differences between a cult member and one who's free is that the one who is free is able and willing to confront the "leader" (for the lack of a better term) with any and all indiscretions.

  Duh.

  Here is where your 'reasoning' falls down: A cult member cannot confront the cult leader, but it does not follow that someone who is afraid to confront someone else is a cultish follower of the object of fear or that the object of fear is a cult leader.

  Your 'reasoning' can be put in the following form:

  All cult followers don't confront "leaders", and some people on the JWD board don't confront "leaders", therefore, those "some people" are cult followers.

  Your 'reasoning' is a classic fallacy known as the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. The website "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies" (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ ) gives an illustration of the fallacy, and explains why it is a fallacy:

  "All Russians were revolutionists, and all anarchists were revolutionist, therefore, all anarchists were Russians.

  The middle term is 'revolutionist'. While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionist, they may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that anarchists are otherwise the same as Russians in any way."

  Note the virtually exact parallel with your own fallacy.

  : As I said to Gumby, more than a few will see Farkel (for example) verbally abuse a fellow poster, and rather than call him on it, characterize the abuse as witty or clever.

  That's not my problem. I did not comment on it. I commented only on your ridiculous assertion that certain people on ex-JW boards -- in particular, this one -- are 'cult leaders' and that some are 'cult followers'. You failed to address my point.

  You could easily have made your point without resorting to insulting the intelligence and spirit of virtually every poster on this board. But you saw this as an opportunity to strike out at those you are jealous of.

  : Your repeated reference to Ray as my god was an interesting ploy.

  I'm glad you saw that it was a ploy. But it was a ploy with a purpose: it proves that you're able to discern fallacious reasoning when you put your mind to it, but not when you don't. In particular, in this case you let jealousy get in the way of sound reasoning. And this comment is not a ploy.

  My ploy was so transparent that even you could see it, and by the way, it employed several fallacious arguments including ad hominem and undistributed middle.

  Nevertheless, the main point I made is that your claims about 'cult leaders and followers' on this board insult everyone and are thoroughly ridiculous and reprehensible.

  : One who didn't know you better would have expected more from you. Thankfully, I know you better. It's sad that you couldn't have come with a stronger argument, but that you didn't is not entirely surprising. Not to me, at least. I've seen your weak arguments on more than one occasion. Remember? Drowning men do tend to catch at straws.

  Now that you see what my ploy was, try going back and seeing what the real point was. Or must I simplify it to the point of a sound byte? Note that I interspersed valid arguments with those from the ploy.

  Whatever, I'll just do it: I am not a cult leader. Farkel is not a cult leader. No one follows me. No one follows Farkel.

  Do you understand?

  As for the rest of your comments, I don't care one whit about your opinion of Farkel, any more than I care about his opinion of you.

  AlanF
• 

  larc

  Teejay,
  
  First off, let me say that I like you, as I think you know. We have shared many phone conversations and e-mails. With that said, I think you are way off base on this one. I think you have a hostility towards people who reach any kind of prominence, and I think this clouds your judgement. I don't think there are any Cults here. I like AlanF, Kent, Norm, Amazing, Farkel, Ray Franz, Jim Penton, and, by they way, you. That does not make me a cult follower of anyone. It makes me a friend of some really good people. So, Teejay, just shut the fork up. You are looking silly with your rant.
• 

  Robdar

  Hmmm,

  It seems to me that Farkel is Farkel. He is highly intelligent and a passionate person. Most artists are passionate. He shouldn't have to apologize for being who he is. None of us should have to. We all add our own flavor to this board.

  I like Farkel's flavoring. I also like TeeJay's flavoring and AlanF's and Stinky's. Very yummy, very satisfying.

  It's all good, yall.

  Robyn
• 

  teejay

  Your repeated reference to Ray as my god was an interesting ploy.

  I'm glad you saw that it was a ploy. But it was a ploy with a purpose: it proves that you're able to discern fallacious reasoning when you put your mind to it,...

  Thank you. As your post was made up mostly of fallacious reasoning, finding it was fairly easy.

  My ploy was so transparent that even you could see it, and by the way, it employed several fallacious arguments including ad hominem and undistributed middle.

  Uh... I know.

  Nevertheless, the main point I made is that your claims about 'cult leaders and followers' on this board insult everyone and are thoroughly ridiculous and reprehensible.

  They do not insult "everyone." My point, as SP so succinctly put it, is that SOME PEOPLE have exchanged one leader for another. Don't tell me that you universally rule out that as a possibility for all people everywhere. Do you?

  Now that you see what my ploy was, try going back and seeing what the real point was.

  No, YOU go back to see what MY point was and let's then try this again. Perhaps then you can offer a relevant comment.

  Whatever, I'll just do it: I am not a cult leader. Farkel is not a cult leader. No one follows me. No one follows Farkel. Do you understand?

  The point isn't whether you're a leader of a cult. That was NEVER the point. The point is that some people seem to have exchanged the gb for others of the ex-JW community and those who do that will never really be free. Now, do YOU understand? Will you ever?
• 

  teejay

  Larc,

  First of all, let me say that I like you. I like Zazu better, but who doesn't?

  Whether or not I have hostility towards people of prominence is not the issue. (An ad hominem, BTW.) What's at issue is the mindset of SOME PEOPLE who seemed to have exchanged one set of leaders for another. In the case of those for whom that is true, all I said is that they will never really be free until they rid themselves of that way of thinking.

  With the "worship" that some seem to afford him, also at issue is Farkel's constant (not to mention increasing) use of terms while addressing others that are offensive. Of the people you mentioned (AlanF, Kent, Norm, Amazing, Farkel, Ray Franz, Jim Penton), the only ones I've ever had a problem with are those that have done what Farkel did – needlessly and callously address others with abusive terms. You might agree with Wasasister and excuse such behavior, given all the good that he's done in the past, but please allow me to hold a slightly different viewpoint.

  Now, I will follow your advice and shut the fork up.
• 

  AlanF

  DannyBear said:

  : ***Teejay is dead wrong and a liar to boot***

  : Well excuse me Alan. I simply don't see it that way.

  Well that's your lookout.

  You need to choose better underdogs to defend, Danny.

  : I happen to agree with his analogy of 'cult' in reference to the way certain member's of this board and other's turn a blind eye towards abhorent behaviour's displayed by those he named.

  Well you're dead wrong. You may consider such behavior reprehensible, and you might even give some reasoning as to why that's so, but equating it to there being 'cult followers' and 'cult leaders' on this board is patently ridiculous. See my above post to Teejay for an explanation of the fallacy.

  : I don't care how much someone has done or will do, in behalf of any good cause.....when that individual consider's himself above the norm....it's time to start knocking the pedestal out.

  No argument there.

  : Do you really believe that TJ thinks there is an organized cult of Farkelites or Normites?

  Up to this point I could only take him at his word, i.e., he equated the "Cult of AlanF" with the "Cult of Farkel" with the "Cult of Charles Taze Russell or the WtB&TS". Since the latter are real entities, I could only conclude that he really believes his equation. If not, he's a liar any way you cut it. If you can't see why that is grossly insulting to me and to pretty much everyone on this board, then I can't help you.

  After writing the above, I noted another of Teejay's responses. He stated outright:

  "I strongly believe there *is* a Cult of AlanF, a Cult of Farkel, a Cult of JanH, and a cult of kent..."

  So now what do you think of this worthless underdog, Danny?

  : HS says he went over the top......to me the analogy worked. It drove home a very real observation about the dynamics of these boards.

  Well you're wrong. Some people may very well hold the opinions of certain posters in too high esteem. That is far from making them 'cult followers'. The analogy is ridiculous.

  That said, the sad fact is that by far the majority of human beings are followers. They are for any number of reasons, including laziness, getting tired out, being morally stupid, not being cut out for leadership, and so forth. Most of us on these boards once fell into these categories. The fact that we got out of the JW cult proves that we abandoned the "follower" mentality. I think that the percentage of "followers" on these boards is much lower than in the general populace, simply because of how we had to fight against great odds to leave the cult. So when I see insulting comments from the likes of Teejay -- and you know that I don't single him out on this issue -- I see red because it insults everything that we ex-JWs stand for. Do you understand now?

  AlanF