Marvin,
There are no innocent reasons for you to say what you have.
zed
The Outing of Faders, and the Epilogue of Sic Semper Tyrannis
by zed is dead 298 Replies latest members private
-
-
UnConfused
Marvin is just trolling. SST's account doesn't suit him so it must not be true I guess, 'cause he's just picking on poor Cedars.
Why anyone would want to be part of that group on FB is beyond me and I can't imagine the trouble they will cause for other fading JW's.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Then what is your point of pointing out that the account seems contrived then Marvin? What is your point?”
UnConfused,
I suppose the point is that we are having a discussion based on an account that sounds contrived for reasons given above.
“Marvin, I was going to take the time to quote mine and show you just what's wrong here and why I respond to you as I do, but it's such a waste of time and energy.
“It's all there. You go on and on about an issue you didn't even understand, and yet you insist on more information to understand a person or an issue.
“You tell us on page 5 here that, in your opinion and/or experience, SST should not have been df'ed. You basically say the whole thing is a lie or missing information that would take BBXB off the hook and blame SST himself.
“People can see the essence of truth in the OP for themselves. Other ex-JW's know that the rules can get in the way for JW elders with an agenda, and sometimes they ignore them.
“Lastly, how can you call anyone "gullible" if you didn't even understand the outing issue or how things don't always go down at judicial committees according to the guidelines and training? Let me know when you have read my body of works so you can stop saying you don't understand.”
OnTheWayOut,
I wish you would quote whatever it is that’s got your ire up toward me. When asked to explain myself I do so. This is how I treat others and it’s how I expect to be treated myself. To me it’s rude to do otherwise.
I don’t think I misunderstand the issue and have not said otherwise.
My failure of understanding was of why some participants have responded to me as they have, and in zed’s case a failure to understand the person. The latter is starting to unfold. I’m still not sure of the former.
When we start speaking of incidents in terms of “essence of truth” we are beginning to transpose notions onto those incidents. That’s a big mistake in trying to understand an incident. We end up making it what we want it to be rather than finding it as it is.
Because JW elders have been known to do kooky or self-serving things does not mean the account of SST is one of those instances.
I have refrained from saying the SST account is a lie because I don’t have evidence for that assertion.
I have not refrained from asserting the account sounds contrived for the reasons I offered, all of which are easily verified. I’ve also been forthright in response to questions challenging this assertion of mine.
I’ve not suggested BBXB should be let off any hook that it rightly belongs on. I’ve said this in plain straightforward language.
“There are no innocent reasons for you to say what you have.”
zed,
You mean, none you will let yourself imagine, want to hear, or even bother to inquire of and then discount. Right?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
I don’t want this discussion to spin into harshness.
When I return to the discussion I’ll respond to substantive inquiries and comments.
Until then, to be sure I feel no ill-will to anyone here. I only want good outcomes and happy life for all.
Marvin Shilmer
-
UnConfused
Marvin,
In case you really aren't just being obtuse.
You jumped in to defend Cedars and on the 2nd page proceeded to imply that Cedars was trustworthy, because you were familiar with his body of work, but that Zed was not - nor SST - because you aren't familar with their body of work. (Also in that post you listed it was possible that SST was lying.)
OTWO called you on this and explained that he had a solid body of work for you to review and that he believed Zed and SST.
You minimize your friend's actual real life actions by questioning the victims. You do so based on the "body of work" comment. It's offensive. It makes you look like a jerk.
Meanwhile not unlike Cedars your protests sound contrived.
Your "body of work" over several threads I've seen you post in show you to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang , a troll ( / ' t r o? l / , / ' t r ? l / ) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, [1] by posting inflammatory, [2] extraneous , or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally [3] [4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response [5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. [6]
-
slimboyfat
I think we all know what is contrived on this thread Marvin.
-
still thinking
Mistakes were made..Marvin
Dont go there Marvin...that has to be one of the most controversial things you can say. That comment is usually reserved for lying politicans. But you could be right...maybe it does apply to the ex leader of an organisation that scewed up and refused to listen to people until the damage was done.
I've got a suggestion for cedars....this book should be on your reading list. Then you might finally get what people are saying to you.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
UnConfused,
Thanks for your kind reply. It explains a lot.
This topic is of injury caused by a second party. It includes accusations of that second party. It does not matter who the second party is. Reducing harm is at the heart of this discussion. I think we all agree that less harm is better. Nothing reduces harm like good communication, which means understanding individuals including the language they use to communicate. Hence my attempt to better understand participants in this discussion.
Please forgive my numeric response; it’s for no purpose other than keeping my thoughts and responses organized for communicative efficacy.
1. My posting on page 2 is neither a defense of Cedars nor a dissing of Zed. Why persons want to see it otherwise I don’t know and can’t control, accept that I can ask questions of why persons hold the view they do in order to clear up misunderstanding. In this case, you misunderstand.
You attribute motives to me that are non-existent. I don’t have some special relationship with Cedars, and I have no particular disregard for Zed. The only difference from these two in my mind is I’ve had opportunity to get to know Cedars because when I seek substantive discussion with him I get substantive discussion from him. On the other hand, when I’ve tried substantive discussion with zed I rarely (if ever) get back anything resembling substantive discussion. This reaction is odd to me given this forum is for discussion; hence presumably participants are here for engaging discussion. If I thought zed was some braindead boob I’d not bother to try and understand him/her. Because I think zed is an intellectual resource is why I want to understand him.
2. I do not know that SST has lied and have not asserted this. I’ve only asserted what I have evidence for, which is that the judicial committee event sounds contrived. I gave reasons for this and have answered questions asked of and comments made toward those reasons. So far there’s been no serious challenge as though given reasons are not wholly viable, not to mention probable.
3. I believe what OnTheWayOut conveyed is that zed’s body of work is to be found in his participation as a member of this forum. I agree with OnTheWayOut that zed has a body of work here. But that’s also the problem because when I review his work in this forum I’m left wondering what he’s about because, from my perspective, a large part of that work is how he responds to straightforward questions I’ve presented about views he’s expressed. More often than not the response I get is quipping, sarcasm or personal attack. It’s as though zed does not want to be understood, and he’s as much as said so in this very discussion. This is one reason I’ve said recently that his body of work is taking shape for me to better understand him. Hence my question was asked to know whether zed had some extra-JWN body of work I could look to for understanding. I guess that was not understood.
4. Minimizing anyone’s actions is not something I attempt. Rather, my attempt is to examine accusations in order to find what is supportable and what, if anything, is embellishment. This is a good approach. It is not an attempt at minimizing.
5. I don’t know what you mean by my “protests.” I’ve asked for information for sake of better understanding of people’s actions and accusations. Primarily I do this by asking lots of questions. In this case you kindly responded by answering a question posed and for that I’m grateful. It helps to understand why you say some of the things you have.
6. Several times you’ve labeled me as a troll. My participation within this community is the same today as it’s always been. But, insofar as I can recollect, only since the BBXB episode have participants made accusations like this of me. I’ve not changed. My methods of interaction have not changed. I ask specific questions today like I’ve always done, and I point out when those questions are left unanswered, again as I’ve always done. It makes no sense to me that this is understood as disruptive or otherwise inflammatory. Dousing a question is as easy as providing a rational and verifiable answer.
Finally,
One aim of mine is to lessen harm where and when I can. There is more than enough suffering in the world. I don’t want to add to it. Outing persons who’re guilty of no crime is an abomination! I know this pain. I’ve experienced it firsthand. I neither defend nor condone the outing of ex-JWs.
Another aim of mine is also to help people where and when I can. This includes questioning accusations made of people in my community to examine the veracity of allegations. This should not be understood as minimizing anything. It should be understood as attempt to get to the bottom of what is valid, what is unverifiable, and what is embellishment.
Many thanks for taking time to share what you have. Whether we agree is not so important. But communicating for sake of better understanding is important. That’s what makes a community.
- Willful outing of faders is harmful, immoral and unethical. In some cases it might even be criminal, even if it’s unintentional. It should be reacted to accordingly.
- Unintentional outing of faders is equally harmful though not necessarily immoral or unethical. It should be reacted to accordingly.
- Willfully minimizing any outing of faders is, in my book, immoral and unethical. Outing causes needless harm, and needless harm should never be minimized.
- Persons who make public accusations should answer publicly when questioned of those accusations. To do otherwise is immoral and unethical.
Marvin Shilmer
-
UnConfused
Assuming that you are being sincere you should look at the affect your posts often have in threads. You have done the opposite of what you claim you want to do here. You're smart, you should be able to figure out why.
I believe you are back tracking and playing dumb though.
I'll try to ignore your posts in the future, but will point out to you that you are acting like a troll if that is what you appear to be doing.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
UnConfused,
I have no reason to be anything other than sincere in my participation with JWN.
We can be honest and we can be fair. We can’t make people like or love us.
I don’t tend to coddle adults or doddle around, and I never avoid hard questions. I always answer for my own actions, which includes things I say/write. In my mind that’s helping people as far as you can on a discussion forum. In person I take additional measures to help where I can and alleviate pain where I can.
I don’t see adverse effect of things I’ve said/written. I see adverse effect of things attributed to what I’ve said/written.
Your direct responses to my questions and comments are most appreciated. If you have any questions of things I’ve said please feel free to ask. If there is a corner I need to be painted into, that’s the way to do it. Asking precise questions helps everyone get to whatever bottom is in need of reaching.
Marvin Shilmer
