Farewell to all

by Amazing 99 Replies latest jw friends

teejay

You made some valid points, TMS.
I can understand an elder not experiencing disillusionment because of what they hear at the meetings or read in the mags. The articles are harmless and most of it can be explained with scriptural references. If that was all elders had to go on to give them a clue that something was messed up, it would make sense that they never would.
But elders have a book that isn't available to the r/f. They meet with the CO and DO in meetings that are closed to the r/f. At times, they receive odd instructions such as "don't write anything down." It's these events that I'd think would cause an inquisitive curiosity for more elders.
I don't know your status, but you're here and I wonder what happened to bring you here. Others of the shepherding body have posted here and some still do. Why? What finally caused the dissonance that made you want to question, investigate, and finally leave? Must've been something. Whatever it was, it was likely there all along. Not only that, what caused the dissonance is STILL there, others see it and find a way to ignore it.
Peace,
tj
TMS

TJ, you asked:
"What finally caused the dissonance that made you want to question, investigate, and finally leave?"
'93, my son's second reinstatement hearing. My wife was praying in the bedroom. I was pacing the living room floor, beseeching Jehovah, my God. I knew it would be inappropriate to pray for reinstatement, but in view of "And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that, no matter what it is that we ask according to his will, he hears us", I felt that I could ask that the elders deal kindly with our son and, at the very least, show him their genuine concern in him as a person.
My son called. The elders had met with him for about 3 minutes, after he had waited about 45 minutes in his car after the meeting. They simply told him, without any interchange, that not enough time had gone by. He had been out a little over a year, at that point.
In that instant, TJ, something went out of me.
For the next year or two, I dreaded my wife's persistant question for which I had no answer: "Where is Jehovah in all of this?"
TMS
teejay

Exactly.
That's the exact kind of thing I was talking about earlier. Most loyalist JWs will say, "Well, TMS, you don't know what your son's attitude was... more or less suggesting that the elders were totally right and your son deserved exactly what he got.
I wonder about the three men on that jc. They've had meetings like that before... hundreds of 'em, maybe. Meetings out of the view of the r/f. Is it safe to say that not one of them EVER had a twinge of "hey... something's not right here"? I gotta wonder. Never been an elder, but I gotta wonder.
Peace,
tj
p.s. If I may ask you just one more question, what answer did you finally give your wife?
TMS

TJ:"not one of them EVER had a twinge of "hey... something's not right here"?
a twinge, maybe. . . . my wife and I caught one of the elders in front of his home and gently, almost surreally asked a few questions. Although the emotion was seething below the surface, we showed great restraint and spoke in low tones. He was totally tongue-tied. He later told a colleague that we were "too powerful" in tandem and should never be dealt with without backup.
My wife approached another committee member, a man with 40+ years JW experience, former Congregation Servant, etc. She had one question for him: "Do you think our son is wicked?" He refused to answer. He sold his home about a month later and moved to Arizona.
So, TJ, my gut feeling is that, yes, they possibly did feel a twinge of guilt, but, like their mother found it hard to express.
I know, TJ, that I have taken this thread off on a personal tangent, but in an honest answer to your question, if this sequence of events had never occurred, its likely that my wife and I would be driving home from the Congregation Book Study right now.
TMS
dungbeetle

I was so angry over this whole thing, this is the first time I've been able to post since my second 'elders' culpability thread.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18081&site=3
I must admit, reading over Joelbear's post, I got to thinking about the 'black and white' mindset that many of us here on the board came from. I too have to be careful not to fall back into that, and sometimes I have more success than I do at other times.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=19051&site=3
But one thing I know, although the debate started out about JW's and elders and culpability, it ended up being about what people THOUGHT about the issue. I learned a lot about what people felt while they were in this organization.
And mostly I learned I that I was not alone. Indeed, that I had never been alone.
Amazing's behavior disappointed me, too. I admired him very much--- But I still do. After a lot of time (whatever a 'lot' is)out of the org, we can all forget how much damage the Watchtower has done, and we can distance ourselves from that and forget we had anything to do with it. I know some of us (perhaps Amazing too?) got a reality check...."hello..these things really happened, we really had a part in this". He admitted he was surprised by the board's reactions, and so was I.
And lastly, I can appreciate and respect someone and disagree with something they say. I do it to msil all the time! And he to me!!! I can dislike someone and have no respect for them, but be in agreement with something they say.
And really, this multi thread 'discussion' is NOTHING compared to some of the stuff I saw on the H20 archives. And you say that was heavily MODERATED? Yi yi yi...
Can we all just get along? I think we can. I think we do.
In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"
GinnyTosken

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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm so glad you can read Jan's mind, Teejay. I cannot.
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
teejay

I know, TJ, that I have taken this thread off on a personal tangent...
Excuse my French, TMS, but screw the original topic. Never cared much for it to begin with.
I like the way you write and what you write about, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth exJWs be damned. I read between the lines pretty good. Without getting too mushy, I'll say right here that I think you have a fine heart. You can talk about whatever you want.
Do you think in talking to the man outside of his house that you put questions to him that were brand-new to him? Had he never thought about any of them previously? I tend to think that, if not in your son's case then in the case of one of the other cases that he presided over, the questions had come to him. These are the kinds of questions the r/f don't ever have to consider... things that should make the average person take a step back and re-evaluate.
Interesting that your wife asked if your son was wicked. Even more interesting that he could not answer. About the time of my disfellowshipping, there'd been a spate of othes. Within a span of about nine months, seven people were df'd in that congo. Long before I came before the tribunal, the whole thing made me want to puke. Anyway, in one of my jc meetings, I asked the elders if they considered any of them (those who'd been df'd) wicked. They all, everyone of them, said no.
"Then why df them, then?" I don't remember their answer. I guess I was stunned by the "no."
Take care, TMS
tj
teejay

Ginnny,
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.
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.
You: Everyone is allowed free speech except bullies?
Bullies are allowed to voice their opinion respectfully. Bullying will not go unchallenged.
Me: Earlier you'd asked me: "Is Julie right in calling [Amazing] a coward?"
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:
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?
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"?
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.
How is it different? I guess the difference is in the possible (likely?) outcome from having such an opinion. More on that below.
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"?
What damage do you think JanH's thinking causes?
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.
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?
Me: 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.
You: Does Jan think this?
I don't know what JanH thinks about this.
Do you know for sure?
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.
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.
When a person expresses his opinions forcefully, as did Amnesian, does that imply that everyone else must agree?
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. She just happens to be right about this. Imo, of course.
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?
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.
Valentine

Ginny,
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,
"I feel it is presumptuous for me to judge the behavior of anyone but myself" your words.
But then you preceded to do just that. Tina
GinnyTosken

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.
You: Everyone is allowed free speech except bullies?
Bullies are allowed to voice their opinion respectfully. Bullying will not go unchallenged.
Must bullies voice their opinions respectfully? Who decides what is allowed and what is not allowed?
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?"
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?
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.
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:
-----
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"?
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.
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

Farewell to all

Share this