Greetings to all,
Amazing Ex, I say you presume too much in that you assume that Amazing's "points" (what points?) hit a soft spot and some of us are on the defense. As you and Ladonna need to know, not all of us were JWs hence we don't have those old soft spots to deal with. Have you read the threads dear or are you simply reacting to what you've been told about them? You may note I merely came in intially to say that Amnesian made some rebuttals to Amazing's comments (her "blind-siding" post was merely a rebuttal), Amazing alleged dishonesty on Amnesian's part (and pay close attention here dear, this is where *I* come in), and then disappeared. When he re-appeared he seemd to have everything *but* his rebuttal. I merely urged honesty and forthrightness in reply. We have yet to see such. Tell me, do you approve of someone coming in saying "Liar!" and then not backing such up? How would you feel? If this person making these allegations promised they would back this up soon would you not expect him to keep his word and do so? This is what I have been asking him to do but it seems he cannot.
Patio, IF Amazing had just not replied at all to Amnesian's post that would be *almost* acceptable (though it would look a bit cowardly) but the reason a reply is pretty much required is *because* of the comments he *did* make about it. Kind of like pleading the 5th. Once you start talking you cannot go back and plead the 5th anymore. Besides, I think Amnesian's post opened new frontiers in discussion here, far from beating something to death. All that's being beaten to death here is Amazing's fanfare-style prep for rebuttal, which apparently, after all this, we won't be getting anyhow.
Amazing Ex, you said:
Amnesian- In your 12 page post I see inteligence, wit, passion, anger and, yes, ego. Should I conclude that you are egocentric? Or should I realize that your passion and/or anger emphasize a 'normal' ego?
See let me illustrate the difference here. Yes, we all know full well that Amnesian's post was 12 pages long (Amazing has been dragging that cross about the board for days). Amazing has submitted several pages since then. Her post has kicked off an incredible discussion regarding several important, been-kicked-under-the-rug-far-too-long issues, up to it's 6th page now I think (?). Amazing's posts amount to an offer of reconcilaition on *HIS* terms and much bluster about how he's *going* to address it all and a great deal of talk all about HIM. He seems to be rather puzzled as to why his posts all about him, his philosophies and his growth have not drawn the sort of response the thought provoking post by Amnesian has. Yes, Amazing has his redeeeming qualities, we all do. However I guess all the posters here do not think that Amazing and his redeeming qualities are riveting enough to go on for 6 or 7 pages.
Do you see the differences in the content of the posts? Can you?
Lastly, no I do not think an ex-wife or a daughter can have an unbiased view of a man. I know my dad was just short of a God in my eyes and I would be rather unable to see his faults (if he had any ). Sorry but you and she will never qualify as unbiased character references about Amazing. It is human nature and that is unchanging.
Regards,
Julie