I thought it was hilariously apropos, considering Amazing's announced departure before AMNESIAN was allowed to respond to the seven threads he started over the issue. I couldn't help but notice the glaring absence of any comment from you of that fact. Interesting.
I am interested in issues, Teejay, not in the personalities involved. I trust adults to settle personal differences between themselves without my meddling.
What's sad to me is that we're back to some of the very same issues raised in the JanH vs. Riz discussions. I dislike your boxing analogy for the very same reasons I disliked your "Epilogue."
Your boxing analogy is biased and akin to propaganda.
What some (including you and Amazing) seem to have mistakenly seen in the ensuing dialog was a test of wills and personal intellect, thinking that the debate took on a personal equation with AMNESIAN "winning" and Amazing "loosing" [sic].
I can't speak for Amazing. I clearly stated what I saw and am annoyed at your presuming to tell me what I seem to have "mistakenly" saw. I made no mention of wills, intellect, winners or losers; my focus was on the battle mentality itself:
From what I see, the issue at the heart of this is getting muddied by the battle mentality--Amazing vs. Amnesian, elders vs. rank and file, men vs. women, etc.
You assured me that I totally missed a crucial point--that this discussion wasn't about individuals but about the relative power (and the responsibility/culpability that is connected with it) of various members of the WTS. Now Julie tells me that your statement no longer applies--"subsequent posts from Amaing [sic] . . . changed all that though.
You assure me once again that "nothing could be further from reality" than an Amazing/Amnesian connotation, yet you use Amnesian and Amazing figuratively to represent two sides of an argument, presuming that posts by others were intended to show support/agreement for one side of the argument or the other. (I hope you did not include me in these "others." I clearly stated that I was looking for the truth between the poles.) 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"?
It was not my intent to take Amazing's side in all this. I tried to wave all of the personal stuff away when I posted to the "Exposing Elders" thread. I was slow to join the thread because I disliked the personal issues tangled up in it. I shared my own viewpoint and perspective, hoping to add something to the discussion. When Amazing posted to say that I had expressed his sentiments exactly, I was surprised. My views and Amazing's on other subjects have been more likely to clash than to agree.
I don't like name-calling. To assume you know the intent and motivation of any person other than yourself is a cognitive error. If a person explains his intent, I feel civility demands that I take that person at his word unless I can offer proof to the contrary.
I realize that I can only choose my own behavior--not yours or Teejay's. Each of you must do what you think best in this situation. If you truly value objectivity, personalities won't matter in the discussion of elder culpability.
P.S. This is a working weekend for me, and I need to give sleep priority over JW.com. I won't post again until Monday evening at the earliest.
Når katten er borte, danser musene på bordet.