DannyBear,
You said:
As to who are included on this list, I will simply say this; anyone who by their comments, demeans another's intellegence, uses subtle inuendo words, dismisses idea's or concepts as worthless, creates impression that his/her view is the only conclusion to the matter, QUALIFIES for the list. imo.Those who seem to delight in parsing every word/sentance, in some kind of combative 'high school' debate format, drawing attention to every word, every error, every perceived slight, also qualify imo.
It appears to me that you qualify for your own list.
You perceived a slight coming from Seeker. While you didn't mention Uncle Onion directly, you appeared to categorize either him, Mulan, or both as "the self proclaimed learned among us" and qualified the comments as "little digs." Uncle Onion was only offering his impression of Springmeier's book; you may then decide if it is worthy of your consideration, depending on how much or how little you value Uncle Onion's opinion.
You don't seem to care for anyone who demeans the opinions and intelligence of others, yet you say to Ozzie, "So all you self promoting, ego maniancs, with a little 2cents of opinion, think about that before you go casting ass'perstions on what someone may decide is credible to consider, or not." If this isn't innuendo and dismissive, I don't know that is.
I don't consider this an argument, DannyBear. I am simply trying to understand exactly whose styles you find offensive and why.
I don't like put-downs either. When I see them, I consider it juvenile behavior, no matter who does it. When I see this, it tells me that they either have no solid evidence to offer and so must resort to name-calling, or that they are too lazy to produce the evidence.
Take Kent's response:
Hmmmm. Fritz Springmeier isn't a person I will trust all that much. I guess he's got plenty of time now. He's in jail for drugs, isn't he?
Ad Hominem. Attacking the character rather than the ideas. In my book, a meaningless argument. I think Kent is still in "The Rebel" stage of development. Still, I think his presence here is valuable. For people like me, who were always "Pleasers," Kent is the shadow side of our old personality. I don't feel the need to go quite so far as he does, but his antics sometimes give me courage to speak up, even when my stance goes against what is popular.
Kent also gave me courage when I was emerging from the JWs. If Jehovah was going to strike any apostate dead, surely it would be Kent Steinhaug. Yet, he lives.
You may not personally care for 'a parsed word for word, endless back and forth, technical debate,' but this is an essential part of critical thinking skills that help us unravel the JW errors and any twisted thinking that comes our way in life. You like cooking, which leads me to infer that you are probably a more intuitive person. Cooking is not my forte because I approach it as a chemist, weighing and measuring and worrying. Each of us has different strengths to offer here. Your intuition and concern that everyone has a say is as valuable as technical debating skills.
There appear to be similarities between Russell's teachings and the beliefs of the Masons. Does this prove that Russell was a Mason? No, it is circumstantial evidence. Does it prove that Russell was influenced by the Masons? Again, it's circumstantial evidence.
That's how I read this thread. I appreciate Ozzie sharing his information, and I appreciate reading the other comments, too.
Ginny
