Are we equal...?

by DannyBear 118 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Prisca

  larc,

  Since you haven't read the AlanF debarcle, then you will be oblivious to most of the gist behind Danny's words, and also Kismet's most recent thread. Quite frankly, you haven't missed much by not reading the recent flame wars threads. I think those 3 threads have been an ugly blot on Simon's board.

  By naming Norm, I was not implying that he acts in the same way as AlanF. I haven't seen that kind of behaviour from him, as far as I can recall. AlanF has named him in recent threads as a friend of his. My mentioning of Norm is not to say that Norm acts in an elitist manner towards others. If he has, like you larc, I may have missed it.

  As I said in my last post, elitism is not due to being intelligent or due to writing complex essays etc. It is the attitude of some ex-JWs towards others they consider inferior to themselves that demonstrates elitism. If you had read AlanF's comments you would have understood what I am talking about.

  And never was I implying that you larc, was an elitist. I have read your posts, and I know you to be a caring and funny man, regardless of your higher education. You could have as many PhDs beside your name as you like, yet you treat your fellow humans with respect and dignity, regardless of their aducational or intellectual background. Very rarely have I ever seen you lose your cool or insult a poster for disagreeing with you.

  But it is when certain ex-JWs expect special treatment because they perceive themselves as being superior to other ex-JWs, that they are acting elitist. When they act like this, it is similar to the GB expecting higher praise and honor because of their being "the faithful and discreet slave". We now realise how foolish it was to treat a group of imperfect men as something special. The same goes for any man or group of men on this DB who use the same tactics.
• 

  DannyBear

  Thanks for all of your comments.

  Some of you understood the entire context of what I was trying to get across, other's stumbled over word's.

  Even though still relatively new to this medium, the most glaring stumbling block to real communication between two or more parties, is imo the ability to isolate text, or a more descriptive term, 'parse' text and words.

  Alan displayed a perfect example of what I refer to. He clued in on one statement made in my treatise, he labeled my statement as my 'main premise'. Well hello, was that my main premise, no it was not. Yet his entire commentary was based on his selective parsing.

  This method of reviewing poster's comments is used daily here. Instead of reading a post for the complete thought or expression, every word and phrase is analyzed for a weak spot, or possible contradiction, deviation, of a prior stand taken by the writer. Thus alowing the prognosticator(in this case Alan) to predict or assert that the entire message is unworthy of consideration.

  It is almost predictable, that those who have been around a long time on the net, are sure to use this method of response. It is like they have been programed to isolate, reverse, or even change the 'premise' of the original author's words, then to cement their unfair parsing, they throw in a condescending 'your thick', 'dummy', 'stupid' to antagonize the author, or make his response emotional, so that the real issue's, the real intent of the writer, is lost in the shroud of emotional fighting.

  This method is very effective,it side tracks real conversation, it stymies real peace and understanding between those who see things from a different perspective. In other words it turns every comment, every premise into a debate format.

  I try to utilize paragraph response to poster's, I try not to parse words or phrases, and address what I think I hear from the author. It makes me laugh, when I see the frustration of those used to tearing words apart. It makes their job hard, often they just realize it is not worth all the work, and finally just reply with thier take. And isn't that the whole idea of sharing our thought's. It is a much better way of having a true discussion. No body has to be proclaimed the winner, no body gets to chalk up coup as to how many 'questions' were left unanswered, insult's applied. Just a give and take. If conclusions come from the conversation, all the better, but everyone walks away with their dignity and unique perspective in tact.

  Danny
• 

  AlanF

  Prisca and DannyBear, your predictable non-responses to my reasoned comments are typically moronic -- no facts, just a spewing of gut feel nonsense. You rarely fail to miss the meat of posts, because you're too concerned with what you merely think people mean rather than with what they actually say. You try to read between the lines, and more often than not, you blow it. Your last comments, DannyBear, are just another way of saying that you don't read what people say to understand what they actually say, but try to read between the lines to see what you'd like them to say.

  DannyBear's 'theory' is entirely based on his claim that certain posters blow their own horns, and that certain posters claim that certain other posters are worthy of special consideration. DannyBear's claims are lies, pure and simple. Why? Because they are false, and he knows they're false. They're false because he has no facts to back up his claims. Neither of you morons has posted a single fact to back up DannyBear's lies.

  So, Prisca, how is it that you can back up a liar? Perhaps because, as certain people have told me privately, you're a likeable simpleton. I can see what they mean, because in all of your commentary, you present no facts, only your moronic opinions.

  And you, DannyBear, you're a thoroughgoing hypocrite because you lie through your teeth, and then pretend to take a moral high ground. You're too full of yourself to see your hypocrisy.

  Really, what we see here is a prime example of intellectual insecurity in action.

  The most sinister thing about this insecurity and hypocrisy is that it mimics the techniques of the Watchtower Society to damn its critics without having to be held legally responsible. A number of Watchtower articles have described how 'apostates' think and act, and have tied all sorts of nastiness to the notion of 'apostasy'. In the view of The Watchtower, all 'apostates' are not only fighters against God intellectually, but are moral degenerates as well. So when a JW is told that a great exposer of Watchtower lies like Ray Franz is an 'apostate', he or she automatically thinks that Franz is an adulterer or child molester or whatever, and the Society has accomplished its goal even though it never directly mentioned Ray Franz. Of course, we who have read and understood Franz's books know exactly who The Watchtower is talking about in its condemnatory articles. The technique of damning by implication is quite effective -- but only with simpletons.

  AlanF
• 

  DannyBear

  Alan,

  Could it in fact be Alan, that what I said, did in fact describe your methods?

  If what I said was of worthless content, a lie, why did it arouse your ire? Maybe you saw yourself, perfectly described, even if you deny it, your emotional and vidictive reply belies differently.

  So cackel on Alan. You no longer impress me on iota, I don't even consider the source anymore. You show yourself, everytime you post.
  I will not climb down to your level, at any provocation.

  Danny
• 

  Simon

  DannyBear, I enjoyed your post - I was thinking of something similar myself but you put it better and got the point across ... to most of us anyway

  AlanF. I respect and enjoy what you write normally but can you not see what you just put?

  First you say that no one is elitist and then in the next sentance you call prisca a 'likeable simpleton' who has 'moronic opinions'.

  Based on recent posts and claims of hacking computers and threats to post personal information I would not throw insults like 'simpleton' and 'moron' about.
• 

  tyydyy

  Great post Dannybear,

  As usual some people just don't get it. They ask for proof constantly and then when you show it to them they just start calling you names.

  TimB
• 

  bigboi

  WoW.

  Simon<--------------Rocks!!!!!!!

  ONE.....

  bigboi

  "it's like the one thing we all have in common is that we
  got played by a cult and a bunch of old men and no matter what it will
  always be a part of us no matter how much we distance ourselves from it"~ Ghostquote
• 

  AlanF

  Simon, I go by facts. These people I have addressed here do not. They make dark insinuations about me and my friends, and everyone knows exactly who the insinuations are about, because from time to time the same people have made outright statements along the same lines. When called upon to present facts, they bluster and call down evil upon anyone who dares to challenge them to present facts.

  Do you, Simon, see any actual facts from these people? Do you see anything in DannyBear's post and Prisca's comments except false insinuations? If you do, then please point them out. If you can actually point out some facts, I'll change my opinion. Otherwise I will continue to point out that people who tell lies and cannot back them up are morons. What else would you have me do? Accept that lies are truth?

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  DannyBear, I just found out that you spent five years in jail for child molestation. I'm going to spread that all around the Net and I'm going to hound you until you admit it.

  AlanF
• 

  DannyBear

  Alan,

  LOL. But I do think you should have run that one by Dave, for possible exclusion, in the area of being the least bit funny.

  Simon let this little post stand....it display's Alan's true nature.

  Danny