i gave my word

by teejay 76 Replies latest jw friends

bigboi

Kent:
Nope. Can you spell mental institution? Could I perhaps suggest that your doctor up the dosage on your meds, Kent?
ONE....
bigboi
teejay

Was,
If memory serves, you are the first person on JW.com with a view of me that might be said to be 'negative' who was also willing to admit that their particular viewpoint may be tainted by something other than me. Thank you. You have again shown yourself to be a fair person. I studied the 'filtering' you spoke of in a psych class recently. "First impressions" and "confirmation bias" are in evidence here on the db, and I've commented on it. Thanks for seeing that as a possible explanation for at least part of your opinions of me.
As to deciding what constitutes "bad behavior", I do think motive plays into the equation. Certainly the same conduct can be judged differently depending on the motive behind it.
Agreed, but motives can never really be fully known, only inferred. When people, even our friends, say something, are there not times when we don't have a clue as to their motives but can only hope for the best?
Ginny created the character "Ginger" so she could have fun with another side of her personality not readily associated with the intellectual side of herself she had previously revealed. Her motives were not to deceive or to mislead anyone, only to play act for reasons of humor.
Agreed. Rochelle (Sunchild) has done the same. She identified her true identity right from the very beginning and signs her Darkchilde posts with "Rochelle" so as to prevent any confusion or challenges of deception. Hopefully Ginny, as "Ginger," did the same thing.
(Weird Al Yankovich has made a fortune doing this...it's called "satire".)
wow. Thanks for your explanation of "satire." The things one can learn on this db! woo-hoo! <this is "sarcasm">
However, if someone created a separate identity for reasons of arguing with themselves or congratulating themselves, that motive would be entirely different, would you agree?
I agree. There is indeed a difference.
I see your point.
Thank you.
To be honest, lots of people besides Farkel had a problem with Emmy.
Whoa. Is that what they call a red herring? I wasn't talking about "lots of people." I have never seen him, Farkel himself, own up to the mistake he made in calling Emmy what he did. Not a, "well maybe I went too far"; not a "I could have used a different word"; certainly not an "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Instead we were witness to two threads written to show why he wasn't really wrong. Recently, he said something equally debasing to someone he considered (and considered him) a "friend" who subsequently let HIM know, publicly, that she was hurt by his remark. From him--silence.
Since then his friends have made exculpatory comments such as "I'm not my brothers keeper"; "Think41 thought it was funny"; etc. Now I hear you saying that "well, you just need to understand." Who cared about "understanding" Emmy? Rather than trying to, did you see those who misconstrued her words (seemingly on purpose), jumped all over her, and then vilifying her in the most scathing of terms? I did.
Why the focus on Farkel? Only because I see comparisons in the watchtower elite and their loyalists and Farkel and his friends--they are crystal clear. In other words, one rightly expects something slightly more advanced from Farkel. Here's what I mean:
In a commentary he wrote--How the Jehovah's Witnesses Diabolize[sic] Former Members--he made this statement of the WTS: "don't examine, and don't criticize anything we say and do, even if it is true." Should anyone, ANYONE or any group, be allowed to stand in such a privileged position? My answer, and Farkel's, is: No. If someone's definition of my position then becomes "teejay has animosity toward Farkel", then I can only say that their defensive behavior mirrors loyalist JDub behavior when they defend the GB. I'm confident that you see my point in this.
But if "behavioral lapses" could be understood, would you then concede that you should reserve your judgment of the man until you have all the facts? Several people have indicated to you that their history with Farkel reveals a different side to him. I've only known him for a relatively short time, and yet I see more than one dimension. Frankly, I have a problem with the language he uses, but I also know there is more to him than meets the eye.
Emmy had/has more than one dimension, also, but other aspects of her life and character were minimized by too many, if they were considered at all. She made several (truthful) statments to Shelby which others seemed to not even consider. Why the double standard? <rhetorical question>
Again, I don't know Farkel. The fact that I have no past history with him has been held against me by more than one of his friends. The only 'contact' I have ever had with him is here, online. Many can no doubt say the same. That being the case, a published, intelligent writer should bear in mind this simple fact: words--his, mine, yours--can have meaningful impact. Sometimes, if not used wisely, they can also injure.
He should be unambiguously aware of that fact from years of life if nothing else, but certainly after experience with and in-depth study and research of one of the most injurious religions ever known. Since that reality, the possibly harmful effects of our words, should be exceptionally clear to him, I would think that he, of all people, would exercise great care in their use and to understand the damage that is done by their misuse. Farkel should be fully aware that the GB's failure to own up to or apologize for its errors has only exacerbated their harm. I should not be the only one to expect to see Farkel as one of the foremost advocates of careful speech, and one of the humblest, most apologetic members of JW.com when his mistakes are pointed out. I see just the opposite. Forgive me.
What I have seen from you, Scorpion, Kimberly and a few others is no less vitriolic.
Vitriolic? Really? I cannot speak for what others have said, but I sure wish you could provide me with examples of MY vitriol. I would settle for your paraphrasing what I said or the thread's topic in which I participated. I'll find my quote. Thank you.
I'm willing to give you the "benefit of the doubt", as your friend Big mentions.
Thank you.
I was sincere when I said I wanted to know what you were about. I hope I have not qualified (in your book, at least) as a sycophant or worshipper simply because I chose to support my friends, even when they sometimes do things I do not completely understand.
I should not have used the word "sycophant." The word does not honestly define Alan and kent (among others) as to their relationship with Farkel. I was wrong to use it, although Farkel DOES have sycophants on JW.com. Several come to mind, but they (the sycophants) are probably not smart enough to provide the link I was looking for at the time.
You are not one... er, a sycophant, that is. <g> You are his friend. I understand the difference. However, based on my upbringing, friends are in a unique position to not only support but help their friends when they see them make mistakes, especially the mistakes that leads to the breaking of another's spirit (as I saw in the case of Emmy). It is not a matter of me "being my brothers keeper," an excuse some have used to justify their silence when obvious wrongs are committed. Support and covering/excusing crude behavior harmful to others are not synonymous. Would I be wrong in assuming that you understand and agree?
peace,
tj
wasasister

Bigboi to Wasasister:
I'd like to ask you a few questions though. Is it right, in your estimation, to support friends that make unfair character assasinattions and insult ppl using the vilest terms imaginable? Is it right to call one poster on improper conduct, yet ignore said conduct from posters that are your friends'?
Bigboi to Kent:
Nope. Can you spell mental institution? Could I perhaps suggest that your doctor up the dosage on your meds, Kent?
Character assasination? Who? What? Huh?
wasasister

teejay
Would I be wrong in assuming that you understand and agree?

You would be wrong in assuming I agree with you at this point. You would be correct in assuming-although I would prefer very little of that sort of thing going on- that I understand what you are saying.
I'm about to enjoy a nice dinner and a movie. Give me some time to research your posts so that I may more accurately address your questions.
Thank you for your time,
Was
Darkchilde

Bigboi,
You've got to make it down here for the Mardi Gras girl! Maybe even the Decadence Festival! What cha say boo?

I would, but I am BROKE! Maybe if I get a great job between now and the end of the year, I'll think about going on vacation to someplace besides my parents' house.
Later,
*Rochelle.
bigboi

Wasasister:
Like, I'm not surprised at all. You managed to totally ignore kent's remark to me, as well as the bogus thread he started. What would your comment be on the second sentence you quoted?
Obviously biased and shameful on your part. As in Kents case, not a character assasination but merely a factual description of conduct on both y'alls part.
ONE....
bigboi
bigboi

Rochelle:
Money need not be an issue. Things may turn around for me sooner than later. If it does I may be able to arrange something. Maybe ol Joel'll come down too, if it ain't too much trouble and if he's never been. Email me and let me know what cha think.
ONE....
bigboi
wasasister

Obviously biased and shameful on your part.

Well, Big, since you've already made up your mind about me, that I'm obviously biased, it will do little good to try to converse with you. I merely pointed out an inconsistency in your posts.
You say you were not attempting to assasinate Kent's character by insinuating he is in a mental institution and needs medication? A "factual description?" No, it isn't. It is your opinion and an unkind one at that. If you were responding to something Kent wrote, then you are no better than he is.
I am fair, and I will continue to call it as I see it.
teejay

Seeker,
As for Ginny claiming to be a man, this I'd have to see to believe. If she really did say that, she was joking. For those of us who know her, case closed. For those of you who don't, your loss.
Bigboi had joked that the "tension" between Ginny and me might be broken by a...tryst, so to speak. Notice this post:
GinnyTosken
Master Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 260
Since: Mar 13, 2001
Jul 1, 2001 10:13:22 PM
Bigboi,
Actually, I'm a man. "Ginny" is just my agent persona.
Big Mean Hairy Hoss
For one who knew nothing beyond what's available in that thread, the revelation came as quite a shock. Read to the end and you'll not find a retraction, explanation, clarification, etc. "She" allowed her 'joke' to stand and I saw no reason to think it was anything other than the truth. Dummy me, eh? What a moron. Won't happen again.
As far as it being my loss, I'll have to take your word for it.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?site=3&id=7178&page=12
wasasister

OK Teejay. I've had my dinner, a nice glass of wine, bagged the movie (where ARE the great summer movies this year??) and have taken some time to read over your past posts.
I included you with Kimberly, Scorpion, and Bigboi, accusing you of spewing vitriol. I really couldn't find anything on the same level as the others mentioned. However, there is a more subtle and insulting tone to some of your writings (again, there's that filter thingy).
Example, you said:
Why don't you give the board some directions to "other threads" you mentioned that support your comments rather than making stupidly baseless allegations. Otherwise, you're a liar. Second, I don't have to do anything to make farkel look bad... he did/does that all by himself, or haven't you noticed? In case you haven't, I'll point you in the direction of a thread or two were even Max has made some interesting comments...
(and)
Why don't you follow her example. Your friend alley cat has. It's the smartest thing she ever did here... goes to show that she's not a complete idiot. What about you?

Not exactly dispassionate, is it? "Liar" and "idiot" are not compliments where I come from.
I suppose what has confused me the most about you, Teejay, is that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to play the Iconoclast. You continue to refer to the "Iluminati" of this board as if it is anything other than a product of a fertile imagination. What is it you are trying to accomplish in regard to Farkel? Do you think he should shut up? Stop posting? Change his attitude? I still don't get it, I honestly don't. If you don't like the guy, don't read his posts. Let others (specifically the famous "lurkers") do the same.
I also feel I should address your reference to what I have begun to think of as "the emmy debacle". As far as I am reasonably able to determine, Emmy did play the race card prematurely. I was very uncomfortable with the actions of both sides of that mess. I stayed out of it for a reason: I don't think any good came of it and I didn't want to get my hands dirty. I still don't.
I hope I have addressed your questions. I assure you, my comments are sincerely intended. I only jumped into this because my friend, Ginny, is not available to defend herself. I would hope you'd do the same for one of your friends.
Regards and peace I guess,
Was

i gave my word

Share this