okay fess up: whats your handle mean?.
my handle: mindchild comes from computer scientist and futurist dr. hans moravec: who wrote the book, the future of robot and human intelligence which is a book about when we will be able to construct machines capable of human intelligence and raises the possibility of uploading ourselves (every thought we ever had) into an android body much superior to the human ones we have now.
i entertain the hope that not only will i live long enough to see this happen, i will transfer myself (the complete essence of what is me) into a body of my own choosing and become immortal if i so choose.
My real first name is Gina. When I joined H2O, there was already another Gina on the board, and I didn't want to be confused with her, so I chose "Ginny" instead. I have fun with these "gin" derivatives, and have also posted as "Ginger" here.
"Tosken" is Norwegian for "the cod" and is a word they use to call somebody a blockhead, a fool, or an idiot. I figured it would be a constant reminder not to take myself too seriously.
Ginny the Fool
(dont let the title scare or piss you off.
stay with it to the end---even if it takes you a while---and then, if you wish, by all means get pissed as you wanna be.
(final edit, thursday, january 10, 2002, 11:00 a.m. pst, usa).
Outnfree,
I thank you for the link, but ignoring AMNESIAN’S distinction, to my mind, makes the rest of your argument flawed.As I see it, elders who "know" is a subset of elders in general. Whatever I wrote about elders will also apply to elders who "know."
Ginny
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Teejay,
I am not usually at home at this time on a Saturday afternoon. Today I am.
Until now, I hadn't intended to answer you. You said:
I do not know your intent and frankly, do not trust your intent.If you do not trust me when I state my intent, we have no basis for meaningful communication.
Whether or not you had just cause to be angry, I can't say. I CAN say that in the matter of your 'gender joke' I (and Bigboi) had just cause to be deceived... even angry. You say that "your stance on that issue was ridiculous" but what you will apparently never see nor own up to is that my "stance" regarding your gender was based entirely on YOUR WORDS !Event: Ginny says, "Actually, I'm a man. 'Ginny' is just my agent persona."
Event: Ginny says, "Actually, I'm a man. 'Ginny' is just my agent persona."
Interpretation: Ginny has told a lie.
Feeling: Angry and indignant.
Response: Confronts Ginny about her bad conduct.
Event: Ginny says, "I have a confession. I'm also Englishman and Tina."
(from http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18727&site=3#231064 )
Interpretation: Ginny has told a joke.
Feeling: Amused.
Response: Laughs.
I made a false statement, and you [Bigboi] and Teejay got a wrong impression. It appears to me that both you and Teejay feel that someone needs to take responsibility for this wrong impression. Who is at fault? Who is liable?Please accept responsibility for your own interpretation, Teejay, and stop trying to shift the blame onto my shoulders.I felt that my false statements were presented within a context that would give the careful reader cues that I was making a joke: "Ginny is just my agent persona," "Big Mean Hairy Hoss." In all of my posts previous to the one in question, and in all of my posts since, I have always referred to myself as female.
I realize that there are people in this world who need a "Liquid is very HOT" warning on a cup of coffee. I do not write for them. I do not plan to use joke disclaimers in my posts. I trust that anyone who wonders whether I am joking or being serious will ask. I feel that my liability in this case is very small.
Please think about your share of the liability. Did you read the surrounding context of my statement? Did you think about the connection between my being a man and my secret agent persona? Did either of you ask me afterwards if I was serious or joking? The only hint I received was your, "Ginny, That is sooooooooo wrong!!!" which I thought had a double meaning like, "That is soooo bad!" (Jive is not one of my fortes.)
As soon as Teejay made it clear that he literally thought I was a man, I explained the truth. It was then that I learned that you, too, literally thought I was a man.
Should I apologize? If so, for what? For making a joke? For the inability of some of my readers to read the surrounding context and understand? I do not feel it is wrong to make jokes, and I will not apologize for that. Nor do I plan to adjust my humor for the literal-minded. If you read my posts, please do so at your own risk.
from http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18727&site=3#231064
That was: I *always* knew that they said more about YOU -- who/what you were/are -- than they ever could about ME.That's exactly how I feel about your posts, too, Teejay.
I know who I am. You don't. Your disparaging comments had no weight or validity because I knew you were speaking from ignorance -- your ignorance. Other factors were also at play I understood, but never did real truth or a harmony with the facts/reality as to the kind of person I am stand as any kind of support for what you said. For that reason, I could continue (and HAVE continued) to participate on this forum with you without malice, often doing so one on one. (be quiet Bigboi!... you know what I meant!)When you speak about me, you are also speaking from ignorance--your ignorance. I, too, have tried to participate on this forum without malice. I try to be compassionate and understanding, yet very firm. I am human, and sometimes I am not civil.
I find it interesting that you seem to nearly brag (MY opinion) that you didn't apologize because... well... you weren't sorry. Interesting. It's one thing to adamantly refuse to say "I'm sorry" when new information shows us that a long held viewpoint has been right all along. It's quite another to show a staunch refusal to apologize when you make comments meant to injure (as you say was YOUR goal) or make comments that injure by mistake. I would think that when emotions settled and we looked back on it, we'd be happy to volunteer an apology.I have learned how little lies snowball into big ones, Teejay. I firmly believe that the most dangerous lies are the lies we tell ourselves. If I am not honest with myself, I cannot be honest with others.
When I look back on my behavior and consider the circumstances and what I knew then--my perceptions, knowledge, and understanding--I feel no regret. If I were back in the same situation again, knowing only what I knew then, I would do the exact same thing. To say, "I am sorry," would be a lie, and I do not like to lie, even to preserve social relations. I don't like to pretend and would rather be direct and straightforward. Anyone who cannot accept the truth from me is not the kind of person I want for a friend anyway. This is why I like Tina so much. She may not always "season her sayings with salt," but you never have to wonder where you stand with her.
It's simply the right thing to do. I thought everyone knew that.Neither you nor Prisca can decide for me what is right or wrong. I must answer to my own conscience.
Comic/writer/actor Steve Martin said: "An apology? Bah! Disgusting! Cowardly! Beneath the dignity of any gentleman, however wrong he might be." Is that how YOU feel? Is it beneath you, disgusting or cowardly to say "I'm sorry"? If that's how you feel, you need to adjust your thinking. We all make mistakes... even Ginny.Sure, I make mistakes, and I try to freely admit them. I try not to take myself too seriously. On the other hand, I will not accept an unfair burden of blame just so that you will feel better.
A stubborn resistance to do what others know is right does nothing to build esteem.I try to judge for myself what is morally right. I do not feel compelled to do "what others know is right."
Last, you said that your opinion of me has changed because now you see redeeming qualities. I submit a second unassailable truth: I HAVEN'T CHANGED. The only thing that has changed about me is your perception.All of the same can be said about your perceptions of me. One difference is that I hope to be constantly growing and changing. In fact, my opinion of you has changed yet again since I last posted. The redeeming qualities I mentioned have been outweighed by your judgmental attitude, your need to blame and shame others, and your pettiness. Once again, from what I have seen of your behavior on this board, you disgust me.
You and I have no basis for meaningful communication, Teejay.
Ginny
If you understand, things are just as they are.
If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
--Zen Buddhist saying
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Teejay,
Tomorrow morning I must be at work at 5:30 a.m. Before I go, I choose to spend some time with my son, do laundry, and clean up my apartment.
At this moment, I am in no mood to deal with your nonsense. If I choose to deal with it at all, I will deal with it after I return from work on Monday evening.
Ginny
(dont let the title scare or piss you off.
stay with it to the end---even if it takes you a while---and then, if you wish, by all means get pissed as you wanna be.
(final edit, thursday, january 10, 2002, 11:00 a.m. pst, usa).
Amnesian,
I made my first foray into the wide ol' worldly world when I was 17. I left home to go to college.
During the first semester, I felt like a kid in a candy store. Until then some of the strongest influences in my life had hammered me with the idea that to think freely at all was to be elitist and rebellious. At college I could dip my toe into the dangerous realms of art history, philosophy, and Shakespeare's bawdy puns.
I made straight A's the first semester, but became depressed during the second semester. I’m rather ashamed to admit this now, but I went to college largely because a boy I loved, Tom, was going there, too. My conception of college life was largely formed by black-and-white movies and books from the 1950's. I imagined that once I was far from the punitive influence of my father, Tom and I would date, go steady, and I might even get pinned.
Things didn't turn out as I had imagined. He, too, was enamored of freedom and didn't want to be confined to dating just me. I didn't take this well, to say the least. I saw myself as a martyr. I had sacrificed my family, my beliefs, and even my hope of everlasting life to be with Tom. My beliefs filtered my perceptions, and when I realized that I wasn't Tom's only love, I saw only ugliness, emptiness, and futility in my life at college. I fell into a black hole of depression.
By February, I wanted to die. Actually, that’s not exactly true. My pain was very real, but a part of me wanted the drama of Greta Garbo playing a lingering Camille. I wanted to be Ralphie from A Christmas Story, returning home blind after terrible suffering from parental soap poisoning, yet long-suffering and generous towards those who had caused him such pain. Tom's older sister and I were close, and she had been writing to me. That winter my letters were full of sadness, disappointment, complaints, and whining. She listened patiently for a long while, but finally wrote back in a very firm tone, "Surely you are existential enough to know that you are responsible for your own shitty feelings." What a slap in the face! I didn't even know what "existential" meant, but I knew why I was unhappy--it was all Tom's fault!
I whined some more to my roommate. I told her I wanted to die. Her patience, too, was thin. "If you really want to die, why don't you do something about it? Just do it or check yourself into a mental hospital." I chose to go to the hospital, and she drove me there.
I expected that the therapist and I would talk about me, me, me, and my pitiful life. She did, but she was also concerned with the burden of guilt I had loaded on the backs of my friends--mostly Tom. How dare she suggest I unburden them! They deserved every ounce of guilt they carried. "You must release them from this guilt," she said. I didn't understand and didn't want to release anyone, but I'd always been one to obey authority figures. Tom joined us for one of our sessions, and I accepted responsibility for my own choices and took some of the guilt back upon myself. Well, at least I said that I did.
It took many years before I fully understood what Tom's sister had said, "You are responsible for your own shitty feelings." I am also responsible for my own choices.
What has any of this to do with your post? In “To: Borgfree / Elder Culpability, ” Lee Elder posted:
I think we have to respect the choices that other elders make. In the end, we all accept the natural consequences of our choices. I see nothing to gain by second guessing others in this regard and hope that others don't judge me for way the I handled my situation. I did the best that I could, as I'm sure you did too.You responded by saying:From http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17880&site=3
Boy, LE, do I ever disagree with this.The fault in your argument is that no one can make a choice that affects only himself as the chooser. Even if I am a hermit living up in the mountains alone, my choices will affect others. With every breath I breathe in, I have used up oxygen and emitted carbon dioxide. If I build a fire, eat food, or take a shit, I have affected the environment and have affected others. If I am a conscientious person, I will consider the effects my choices will have on others when I decide what to do. At the same time, I must distinguish between what matters lie within my control, within my influence, within my concern, and those matters over which I have no influence at all. Stephen Covey discusses this principle in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Alcoholics Anonymous recognizes this principle in their serenity prayer:This kind of reasoning can only be justified when one's choices affect only him as the chooser. That's not the case with elders. These men stay in the business of judging others---their hearts, their motives, their intentions, no less!--- and affecting the very course of our entire lives but are not to be judged by us? Rubbish!
GOD, grant me the serenityEach of us makes choices that affect others. According to your reasoning, each of us deserves to be judged by the same standards of “justice” you outline for elders.
to accept the things
I cannot change,
Courage to change the
things I can, and the
wisdom to know the difference.
I understand that you have been trying to make a distinction between elders who “know” and those who do not. As I mentioned in the other thread, there are many nuances of knowing and awareness, which is why I posted this link:
http://jbe.la.psu.edu/6/harvey991.htm
If you want to have an objective discussion of elders who “know,” please define your term. In what exact sense do you mean “to know”?
Since so much of this discussion has bled into considering the actions of all elders, I am ignoring your distinction and will consider all elders, not just those who “know.”
Of what do you accuse elders?
These men stay in the business of judging others---their hearts, their motives, their intentions, no less!If you’ve been following the “Farewell to All” thread, you will see that many of us are guilty of the business of judging hearts, motives, and intentions. You have done it yourself when you pretend to know Amazing’s motivation and intent and condemn his behavior. If elders are guilty, so are you.
You may think, “What I’ve done isn’t that serious. I have just expressed my opinion forcefully. Amazing may choose to accept my criticism or shrug it off. I’m just one person giving my opinion on a discussion board. It’s not like I’m holding a gun to Amazing’s head or anything. I’ve told him what I believe to be true, and he can choose either to accept my criticism and grow from the experience, or he can choose to ignore my opinion completely.”
But what if Amazing doesn’t have a strong sense of self? What if he doesn’t completely trust himself and his own perceptions? What if he believes that his heart can be treacherous and wonders if he is deceiving himself? Not only have you expressed your opinions of Amazing, but several other posters have backed you up. Seeker agreed 100% with your last post and this one. I’ve always known Seeker to try to make fair and unbiased decisions. His opinion would influence me. JanH is known to value logic. He totally agrees with what you say about elder culpability. That opinion would influence me, too.
Amazing weighs all this and decides that so many people can’t be wrong—he must be the sort of man you describe, even if he can’t see it himself. Amazing becomes depressed and eventually commits suicide. Would his suicide be 100% your fault, Amnesian?
Each of us has the ability to make choices. Each of us chooses based on our perceptions, interpretations, beliefs, and whatever experience we’ve had up to that moment. Our beliefs will filter our perceptions. Our perceptions and beliefs will determine our interpretations. Each of us will make the best choice we can with the knowledge we have at that moment.
Your opinions will have power over Amazing only if he gives them power. You have control over what you say and how you say it. You do not have control over what Amazing will think or how Amazing will react. You may cause him harm; you may cause him good. Each of us can cite strong influences in our life. Unless we are children, we are responsible for our own choices.
How do elders get the power to judge others? Followers choose to give them power. What influences them to do this? Beliefs. How do they learn these beliefs? From friends, family, or someone who knocks on their door. Followers make a choice to subject themselves to the power of the Watchtower Society. In the case of children, their parents make this choice for them. Who is ultimately to blame? The person who makes the choice. “Who is more foolish—the fool or the fool who follows him?”
It is as unfair to try to judge elders collectively as it is to try to judge Jehovah’s Witnesses collectively. Each person has his own motives for remaining one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and such things can’t be judged by what appears on the surface. Even during the Nuremberg Trials, specific charges were leveled against individuals. Each individual had to answer for his own conduct.
Each elder made choices based on what he knew and understood at the time. An elder may have sat on 100 judicial committees without having once cast a vote towards disfellowshipping someone. The elder can only control his own behavior; he cannot control that of the two other elders, nor can he control whether a person chooses to subject himself to a decision by a judicial committee. Only the elder himself will have enough information about his perceptions, interpretations, motivations, knowledge, and understanding to fairly assess his behavior in each personal interaction that occurred during his time as an elder. I dare not judge anyone except myself.
Accepting the responsibility of being an elder may increase the likelihood that you will influence others, but this is not certain. An elder in a small congregation may influence fewer people than a very persuasive publisher. I also think it is important to remember that elders are only one factor among many that influence people to remain Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our experiences vary, and each of us will rate the factors differently. Here’s how I rate the influences in my life as a jw:
Father 15%
Mother 5%
Other Family 5%
JW friends 15%
Elders 5%
Circuit Overseers 0%
District Overseers 0%
JW literature (who is responsible?) 20%
Bethelites
Writing Committee
Governing Body
Those who pay for literature and make donations
My desire to please 5%
My desire for simple, easy answers 5%
My desire for immortal life in utopia 5%
My lack of critical thinking skills 15%
My innocence, naiveté, and gullibility 5%
None of us can know how much influence we will have on others. Sometimes just one word, phrase, or event at the right time can alter the course of our life. Painful events can sometimes help us grow and understand. Seeker and JanH cannot control how much influence I allow them to have in my life; only I can.
Whether inside the organization or out, each person may examine his own heart, motivations, intents, and behavior. Anyone who tries to dictate to another person what is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, has crossed a personal boundary. In my opinion, none of us has the right to decide these things for anyone else. We may express our opinions. If we feel we are right, we may risk affecting the life of someone else by trying to influence him. If we are trying to influence with integrity, we will try to help the person make better choices by deciding freely for himself. We will present information in a fair and unbiased way. We will not try to coerce with fear, guilt, or shame.
Your post is beautifully written but it frightens me for the same reasons that political speeches and propaganda scare me. It sounds very good and fires up the crowd, but the ideas at the core are bad. I have to wonder if you’re doing yet another experiment to determine how folks are affected by persuasive language.
You condemn Amazing for being condescending and chauvinistic, but are just as condescending towards Amazing and chauvinistic towards men. Since you interpreted Amazing’s posts as dishing out this sort of stuff, perhaps you felt it fair to dish it back.
When Amazing creates new threads, that is interpreted to mean that he want to see his name up in lights. What does it mean when you do it?
When I see you use phrases like “wicked elders” and “trusting innocents,” my bullshit detector goes on red alert. Life is not that simple, and I know of no adult who is completely wicked or completely innocent. Somerset Maugham wrote:
I had not yet learned how contradictory is human nature; I did not know how much pose there is in the sincere, how much baseness in the noble, or how much goodness in the reprobate.You say that your intent is to be a friend to Amazing and help him “re-evaluate some things about yourself and your view and treatment of women.” When I read your post, I get the impression that you want to shame and humiliate Amazing and are grossly violating his personal boundaries:
Consider: How is it that at the first sign of a significant flare-up that has you at center stage, your concern is not to remain here---tough it out in the interest of continuing to try to “help” these many hurting, confused, abused, and broken ones who come here daily, some hourly, looking for whatever balm there may be for their bruised and battered souls and psyches---but to save yourself from the discomfort of a little verbal sparring?Consider: Amnesian withdraws for as long as she wishes before she deigns to return to a debate. When she does, she charmingly brushes aside those ideas she does not wish to address in her post. “Such antics would bore AMNESIAN and AMNESIAN does not wish to bore, unnecessarily, or be bored, at all.” Amnesian is allowed to choose to save herself ‘from the discomfort of a little verbal sparring” and may choose when she wishes to reply. Amazing is given a false dilemma—he may choose to be a man of conscience who stays to bind up the broken-hearted or he may selfishly bail and abandon the innocent folks here on the discussion board. Amazing’s “widdle feewings” are unimportant “compared to the lifetime of agony some are enduring.” Never mind that if Amazing doesn’t put on his own oxygen mask first, he can be of no help to anyone else anyway.Sure, bail if you want, but in doing so, concede what we both will know to be the real reason. That you have no conscientious concern for what may become of innocent folks when they are abandoned by “good elders.” What you care about is yourself and the fact that your widdle feewings were hurt for a comparatively scant few moments---compared to the lifetime of agony some are enduring. You leave these folks because it no longer satisfies you and your post-WTS quest for Ps.
Shame on you for ever having come in here promoting such a blatantly fraudulent claim over these past few weeks.
Oh, dear. Does this mean that because I am a regular presence on this discussion board that I should feel guilty while I am away during my working weekends? Dare I take a vacation? Two weekends ago, a poster was suicidal, and I was not here to help. Should I feel guilty? Should people rely on me to get their needs met?
I am sure that Amazing has his faults. All humans do. If you want to take Amazing to task for his personal behavior, do so. I wish you would do it in a calm, caring, and reasonable way. I cringe to see you trying to load him up with this excessive burden of guilt and toxic shame and consider your behavior cruel and inhumane.
Ray Franz felt a moral obligation to speak out. He chose when and how he did it. Please allow Amazing to make the same choice.
This is from Healing the Shame That Binds You by John Bradshaw:
Toxic Shame
No responsibility; lack of power; failure of choice; incapacityHealthy Shame
Limited power and responsibility; power comes by knowing limits
In an earlier post, you said that, The average JW has no power. Zero. None.
If the average jw has no power, it is because the average jw has chosen to give it away. Each adult is ultimately responsible for his own choices. No one else is culpable.
Ginny
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Bigboi,
Ginny and Teejay/ Sittin in a tree/.....heheheheheheLiar, liar, pants on fire!
Ginny
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Tina,
Im not going to get into the issues right now.But I will say one thing.I asked you via email if we could discuss it there.I was not up for a dissection,yet you ignored my request anyay,You wrote to me and told me what you'd prefer. If you read your e-mail to me again, you'll see that you made mention of other factors, but not your emotional state.
I did not ignore your request. I carefully considered your preference and weighed it against my value for fairness, my value of loyalty, my own preferences, and my need to be true to myself. Neither of us are shy about dissecting the behavior of others on the board. I feel both of us should be held to the same standards we use for others.
With what I knew at the time, I made the best decision I could. Had I known that you were grieving on the anniversary of Frank's death, my choice would have been different.
"I feel it is presumptuous for me to judge the behavior of anyone but myself" your words.Yes, I have formed an opinion of your behavior. As best I could in my post, I tried to describe the behavior I observed without condemnation.
But then you preceded to do just that.
I value you tremendously as a friend, Tina. I'm right there along with Englishman in admiring your feistiness. I wholeheartedly agree with UncleBruce when he says, "At least Tina comes to the aid of people hurting. At least Tina puts her cards on the table. You always know where you stand with that girl." I understand that you are as as passionate about the people you love as you are about the people you dislike.
My intent has been to show I care.
Ginny
"Love isn't about pansies and daffodils. Love is hard core. It doesn't float around and make your life all pretty, it puts you to the test." --Beth Orton
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Teejay,
I erred in saying that "all opinions are valid." That was an obvious mistake. What I meant to say is that it is a valid argument that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. You are right with your analogy about those whose opinion differs about the shape/structure of the earth. One is clearly right, but both have the freedom to hold an opinion, even if it's wrong.I agree with you that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even if it's wrong.
Me: 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.Must bullies voice their opinions respectfully? Who decides what is allowed and what is not allowed?You: Everyone is allowed free speech except bullies?
Bullies are allowed to voice their opinion respectfully. Bullying will not go unchallenged.
When I see one person bullying another, I don't like it. Like you, I want to challenge bullies. I have no control over what a bully says or how he says it. What I can do is mirror back the same style he uses to communicate with others. I can also challenge any faulty arguments he presents.
Sometimes bullies may present solid logical arguments. What can I do then? I can express my feelings. "When you call me a dummy, I feel insulted. Was that your intent?" It's a sad fact of life that some people do deliberately insult others. On a discussion board like this, such behavior is exposed for everyone to see and goes on record. Each of us can make an individual choice about whether we choose to communicate with people who deliberately insult others. Each of us can voice our opinions about behavior we consider demeaning or unfair. Each of us can decide whether to make allowances for such behavior because of the person's circumstances or emotional state.
Me: Earlier you'd asked me: "Is Julie right in calling [Amazing] a coward?"My intent was to try to understand your focus and intent in the discussion of Amazing and elder culpability. When I quoted your words from another thread, you were correct about my intent, "I think you were hoping to point out an inconsistency between what I said there and what I've said here." I did see an inconsistency and wanted to hear your explanation.You: Are you sure, Teejay? I looked back at my posts and can't find where I asked you any such question.
On page two, you asked:
quote:
-----
Your analogy fosters black-and-white thinking and says that "Amazing's" arguments are weak, whining, and cowardly.
Which is it, Teejay? Is Julie right? Has this turned into a personal thing? Are you more interested in the issues and arguments, or are you more interested in toppling Amazing from what Julie perceives as a pedestal of high esteem and exposing his "sad, self-pity drenched saga"?
-----I concede the point that perhaps you didn't ask me the question I thought you did. The paragraph break may indicate a change of thought. Instead of asking me if Julie was right about amazing being a coward, you were asking if Julie was right about... hell... I don't know *whatK* were you asking about. Either way, it's a moot point. You asked me if Julie was right and when I answered (essentially an "I don't know... ask Julie"), you reply by saying that YOU "have no right to judge whether Julie was right or wrong." If YOU have no right to "judge," then why ask me MY opinion?
When I read your explanation, I understood you to mean that your intent was to focus on issues, not personalities. Julie followed up to say that things had indeed turned personal. Julie can't speak for you, and I would have ignored her comment except that you posted a quote from Julie's post that contained personal remarks about Amazing. I interpreted your posting this quote to mean that you agreed with what Julie had said. Again, this seemed inconsistent. So I asked again.
Perhaps I could have phrased my questions more clearly:
"Which is it, Teejay? Does Julie correctly express your intent when she says this has turned into a personal thing? Or do you correctly express your intent yourself when you say you are more interested in the issues and arguments? If you are are more interested in an objective discussion of issues and arguments, why did you quote Julie's remark?
I wanted to hear your explanation so I would have more information from which to form an opinion. Maybe there's something I missed. Maybe there's something I didn't understand. Once I hear your explanation, I will form an opinion. I may also express my opinion of your behavior. I will also keep in mind that my opinion is just that--my opinion. I very well may be deciding with incomplete evidence. I may have used faulty reasoning to reach my conclusion, even if I can't see it. I will respect that you may not agree with my opinion, and must do what you think best. I will hope that sharing our opinions has made each of us a little wiser.
"Judge" is a fat word with many meanings and nuances. I wish I'd chosen a better word, but I can't think of one that exactly suits what I want to say. I associate judging with my life as a JW and think of it in terms of condemnation and punishment, treating someone harshly, without tolerance for their own beliefs.
I feel I have a right to form my own opinions, and a right to express them. I don't feel I have a right to dictate the choices anyone else makes in their life. I don't feel I have a right to speak authoritatively about anyone else's motives and intents other than my own. I don't have a right to determine how other people should behave. I don't have a right to dictate to anyone else what is right and what is wrong, what they should do, or what they must do. In this sense, I will not judge.
As I said, JanH is welcome to hold whatever idea he wants. If he sees certain posts as brilliant and certain posters "luminous," I have no problem with it. I simply regard the opinion that some here are intrinsically better posters, luminaries... however you want to say it... I put view them in the same light as those that say the earth is flat.I respect your right to your opinion, Teejay.
quote:I was working from your guess about JanH's intent: "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." I also said, "Let's suppose you are right [about JanH's intent]," so this is a theoretical case.
-----
Let's suppose you are right. Is JanH mistaken to think that some people's thoughts are superior to others? Are some people's opinions superior to others?
-----You are saying something other than what JanH actually said. He never said that "some people's thoughts are superior to others." Are you making that inference? In the meantime, what do *you* mean by "superior"?
You're smart to ask me to define my terms. Dictionary definitions usually work well for me:
superior
1 : situated higher up : UPPER
2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance
3 : courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or disheartening)
4 a : greater in quantity or numbers <escaped by superior speed>
b : excellent of its kind : BETTER <her superior memory>
This is only part of the definition, and there's still a lot to choose from. We've discussed this before, and I think you understand that often words themselves get in the way of communication. If you're thinking of "superior" in sense number 2, and I'm thinking of "superior" in sense number 4, and we both assume we're thinking of the same idea, we're going to have problems.
I can tell you that I don't like the idea of "higher rank" because I don't like hierarchies. I don't really like the idea of "importance" because each of us decides what is important to us. I was thinking more along the lines of quality and excellence, but even that is subjective.
As I see it, JanH can tell me what he thinks is excellent and of highest quality. I am free to look at the same thing and say, "I think that's a piece of shit."
What damage do you think JanH's thinking causes?
If he forms opinions about quality and excellence, his thinking does no harm at all.
Let's suppose that JanH meant what you said he meant... that certain opinions are, not truer but "superior" to others. Those who adamantly believe that aren't far removed from denigrating opposing views, denouncing them as less valid, worthy, worthwhile. They may take the step of expressing the wish to see such views not allowed in (removed from?) the discussion and may persuade others to share their view.
All of the things you describe can happen.
Is it wrong to denigrate opposing views? Are some views less valid, worthy, and worthwhile? Sometimes it's difficult to separate our ideas and arguments from our sense of self. I can point out faulty logic in your argument and still value you as a person. I must keep in mind that what I think is true may not be true, and beware of the hazards of dogmatically deciding what is valid. Worth is an arbitrary judgment and differs from person to person. It is not my place to decide what is worthwhile for anyone else.
The next step might be to ridicule, not just the idea, but the person who holds it. That person's entire personality might be called into question, as might be their thoughts on every issue they comment on. On a discussion board, hurt feelings could result when none should have been. It *is* a discussion board where people come to exchange ideas, not a board to see whose posts/ideas are superior. Fortunately, none of this has EVER happened on JW.com, right?
This can happen, too. When we bring our thoughts to a discussion board, I feel that there is an implied agreement than anyone who wishes may comment and question those thoughts. If I don't like being questioned, I can choose to stay away from discussion boards.
We are all human and react emotionally sometimes. In your family, at work, on a discussion board, wherever you encounter other people, there is a risk of hurt feelings. When it does happen, I accept reality. I don't expect that it shouldn't happen.
I don't know AT ALL, let alone "for sure." I only know that he spoke of board luminaries. Looking back, I wish you had been there to ask him to explain what he meant. It was a side issue at the time, but it did seem to explain some things.
Well, next time you will be there to ask him what he meant.
Has he said that everyone else must agree with his opinions?
Perhaps he has. (Who knows what JanH might say in a state of delusional grandeur. I wouldn't rule it out. <----- joke.) All I know is that *I* haven't heard him say it nor read where he said it. JanH can say some funny things sometimes, though.
Yes, he can. I don't agree with everything JanH says. From what I know of his character, he doesn't expect me to.
No. Strong, well articulated opinions can be as wrong as soft, poorly articulated ones. Right or wrong, people are free to agree with whomever they choose. AMNESIAN can be less forceful, less eloquent, and still be right. It's not her command of the King's English that makes her argument so compelling.
I agree wholeheartedly.
She just happens to be right about this. Imo, of course.
She may be. If I see compelling evidence and arguments, I may be persuaded.
No, and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth please. I never said that Jan's THINKING was elementary and backward. What I said was that his opinion about board luminaries was. Nice try.
You said, "I was more appalled that his thought, so elementary and backward, would be potentially very damaging to other people who had suffered enough." Substituting "thinking" for "thought" was careless of me. It was not my intent to twist your words. I could have worded my reply more carefully: Have you considered offering him a strong logical argument to prove that his thought that "those who have attacked me in this case aren't exactly the luminaries on this board" is elementary and backward?
I will guess at your thoughts, Teejay. I am nearly certain that I offended you when I said, "For those who have met me, you are quite a laughingstock, Teejay." I was angry when I wrote it, and my intent was to offend and vent my feelings. At the same time, I made a statement I believed to be true, and I was willing to stand behind it. Your stance on that issue was ridiculous to those who had met me. They were laughing. I offered no apology because to say "I am sorry" would have been a lie. I was not sorry. I felt I had patiently and repeatedly tried to explain myself to no avail.
I'm also fairly certain I offended you when I said, "“I . . . patiently wait to see these redeeming qualities, but plainly stated, based on what I've seen of you on this board, you disgust me.” This statement expressed what I truly felt at that time. I was angry, and I chose to use strong words in expressing my opinion.
You interpreted my statement to mean that I thought you had no redeeming qualities. I answered:
Please read my statement again, Teejay. I carefully worded it because I have never known anyone without some redeeming qualities. I also understand that there are facets of your personality others may know and love that I may not have seen on this board.
I did not offer an apology because I was not sorry.
From what I've seen of you on the board since then, I gather that you are a man who wants to do what he believes is right, no matter what others think of you. My opinion of you will not sway your actions.
That said, I want you to know that my opinion of you since then has changed. I now see redeeming qualities, and you no longer disgust me. I have seen that you are tenacious and stand up for what you believe in. You admit when you are wrong. You care deeply about your friends and family and want to protect them.
Please accept my opinion for what it's worth.
Ginny
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
Teejay,
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...I do not believe that all opinions are equally valid, Teejay. If you think that I said that, please provide a direct quote.
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.If this is how you perceive my behavior, I cannot argue with your perceptions. I must examine my own intent with every post I make. If other people misunderstand my intent, I can try to explain if I care.
Well... know what? My opinions are not better or worse than any one else's and neither are yours. Thanks for acknowledging that.I didn't acknowledge that. If you think that I did, provide a direct quote.
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.Everyone is allowed free speech except bullies?
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."Perceptions are different from opinions, Teejay. Not all honest opinions are as valid as every other. Some people are of the opinion that the earth is flat. They honestly believe this. Is this opinion as valid as an opinion that the earth is round?
Earlier you'd asked me: "Is Julie right in calling [Amazing] a coward?"Are you sure, Teejay? I looked back at my posts and can't find where I asked you any such question.
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.Please check again, Teejay. I did not ask you that question.
Me: 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...I offered no alternative synopsis because as I see it, the whole exercise is fairly absurd. You and I can guess until doomsday about what Amazing's motives were for posting. We can interpret his behavior in a million different ways. Only Amazing knows why he did what he did.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.
If I'm the only one who believes that Amazing may be sincere, I can live with that. I would rather be fooled occasionally by an insincere person than wrongly judge a sincere one.
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.I will, Teejay. If you want to judge based on circumstantial evidence, you help yourself.
b]clique[/b] (klk, kl¹k) n. 1. A small, exclusive group of friends or associates.I'm so glad you can read Jan's mind, Teejay. I cannot.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.
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.Why is it ludicrous for JanH (or anyone else) to think that some posters can/should be described as "luminaries," etc.? How is this different from your describing a post as "brilliant"?
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.I think we're agreed that only JanH knows his intent. You are guessing. Let's suppose you are right. Is JanH mistaken to think that some people's thoughts are superior to others? Are some people's opinions superior to others?
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'm not going to comment on this for now. I would rather explore the questions about JanH to see in what way he is different from you and your friends.
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.If you answer the questions above, we can take a close look at the mental process that spawns such thinking. What damage do you think JanH's thinking causes?
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.Does Jan think this? Do you know for sure? Has he said that everyone else must agree with his opinions? When a person expresses his opinions forcefully, as did Amnesian, does that imply that everyone else must agree?
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?This bothers me, too, Teejay. People who condemn elders for trying to read minds and judge hearts are often quick to do the same.
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.JanH is a man who values logic. Have you considered offering him a strong logical argument to prove that his thinking is elementary and backward?
Ginny
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.. i was planning a long farewell statement because i have a number of things i want to share, but decided i would do that in private if anyone wishes.
you can reach me at [email protected].. i chose to leave for a number of reasons, and some stated on my last post.
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:Amazing asserts that Amnesian's post is "sprinkled with twisting quotes, misrepresentations." The burden of proof lies with him to back up this assertion.: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.
"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: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.: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?
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)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.: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 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. - AmazingBy 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 21:42For 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
