AGuest - if you want to be clear what you are saying say less.
Greetings, dear Qcmbr, and peace to you! I think perhaps it depends on who I wish to be clear TO. Some here understand perfectly what I post; others don't. From my POV, I would have said, perhaps to Dr. Hawking... "I need MORE." That's the difference between me and some others. I am verbose, yes. I admit that. But if one cannot be bothered to read all that I posted in an effort to truly understand what I've stated... I kinda think that's on them. It's the same as with many other things - the Bible, scientific journals, contracts, whatever: either a person wants to read the whole thing... and will in order to try and get an understanding... or they don't and won't.
You make loads of statements which are loaded with what if , maybe and insinuation which is why you get lots of comments back.
Our entire world is loaded with "what ifs, maybe" and insinuation, dear one. Even science. What you're saying is what others have said for years: I/we don't like your STYLE of posting/saying what you post/say. Change it and perhaps we'll listen/get it." If I were concerned with just that faction, I would probably make more effort. But the information I receive behind the scenes is that I am perfectly understood. In this thread as well as others. AND... agreed with. That folks don't post such openly is not my fault. But I won't ask them to - I don't need a "cheering" squad, per se, and I try to always respect others' privacy.
I gave up thinking that tact was useful on certain types of thread since it leads to imprecise comments that avoid critiquing the idea or bias behind the idea. My expectations of and delivery of respectful discussion - I'll say it again - on certain thread types is low. These threads tend to be ones where we get close to discussing a fundamental issue ( this thread was never simply about a tv show which nevertheless I think has been well chewed over). Most threads are great examples of shared empathy, shocked outrage or cheeky humour but there are some threads that are necessarily divicise and will get heated. Entering those threads while investing your personal worlview will bring yourself under the microscope, the trick is to try and avoid responding in a 'don't pick on me' manner.
I absolutely agree, dear Q, with one exception: don't dish it out, if you can't take it. I did feel that someone was "picking" on me... and addressed it by saying "deal with YOUR issues, rather than pointing fingers at what you THINK may be mine." I don't think the one was expecting that.
Just stay on message and let the slights and personal stuff roll.
Yes, you're right. I should have done that. I certainly know that now. Although I DID keep trying to take it back there... as well as CLARIFY what my issues were... and why. I think, though, that it wouldn't have mattered: I made statement comparing science to religion... which I stand by still (they both DO present information to LAYPERSONS similarly). That ticked someone off. He utterly disagrees. So what? People on here disagree all the time. Unfortunately, he didn't restrict his disagreement to what I stated... but started off with insinuations about me personally. Again, I countered with "deal with YOUR issues" [rather than pointing fingers at what you THINK are mine].
It is blowing me away that NONE of you have the cahones to say, "You know, Bohm, even if what you said was right... you DID start off with a funky response, which really wasn't necessary." Nope, can't have that happen... 'cause it's Shelby. We can pretty much say whatever we want about HER... so long as we hide it behind assertions that it's really about what she SAID." Yeah, right...
The more you try to defend and explain yourself the more you dilute your message.
Oh, I'm sorry, dear Q... but that's because I truly don't care any more. I have made myself as clear as possible and, again, my understanding is that more folks understood than didn't... LONG before now. Based on the comments from those who did see the show, very early on, actually.
One of the greatest strengths and uses of an uninhibited forum is that , if you can suppress the pain of getting cherished ideas exposed and handled with disrespect , you can find better ideas or at least gain greater insight. Great thought thrives while drivel dies.
Which is why I asked the things I did HERE. But, of course, it's always... and only... "believers" who have an ulterior motive/agenda when asking questions. Because of the WAY I communicate, I'm automatically "suspect." Which is what I said: it was because it was ME. Anyone else could have asked the same/similar questions... and all would be fine.
To that end, I did learn something: on another thread a dear one responded to another statement by Dr. Hawking that, although paraphrased, was pretty dead on to what he said in the show. The dear one responded to the effect that his statement was "absurd"... and "how could he know?" To be honest, that really is what I was stating... and asking with MY questions... based on what was presented in the TV show. Many statements WERE absurd... and there were things which raised the question: how do you KNOW? And I even asked that.
But again, this was never about my questions. Bohm tried to make it about him and me.... and succeeded, which IS my fault. I've had a lot of time to think about it and while I am still commenting here, I will not allow it to occur again as it was an utter waste of time and board space, IMHO.
Please understand, dear Q: I do NOT "see" this in the way that perhaps you and a few others do. I DO see it, however, as some OTHERS do.
So, I think we should all just agree... that we don't agree. That, as with a great many things, some people see things differently and what occurred here is one of them
With that said, I wish you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,