TOLERANCE

by Frenchy 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Focus

  > I think the appearance of the now infamous Danielle gives us reason for pause. I admit that at first
  > I took her at face value which is what we are all supposed to do.

  > I don't think this person was trying to make fun OF us as much as he/she was trying to have fun WITH us.

  > I think that Danielle taught us an important lesson...perhaps some of us are as guilty of intolerance as the
  > very entity that is responsible for our presence here. I know that I found myself wanting to jump in and refute
  > her arguments although I was standing in a long line to do so. It's so very easy to unintentionally make an unwise
  > remark but it's not right to deliberately make caustic and bitter remarks even if we are bitter inside.

  While I am sure comely "Danielle" would be flattered at these noble motives being thrust upon her, peruse:

  >>> http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm?msgboard=25212130276676&msg=41964969356077

  from which I quote:

  "And on the third day, God said:
  "Let there be div(D)=Pf, div(B)=0, curl=-dB/dt, curl=jf+dD/dt."
  Love
  Prominent Bethelite.
  Postscriptum: I apologize to the kind-hearted souls at Jehovahs-Witness.com who served as unwitting beta-testers for my posting mechanism. Danielle sends her warmest greetings
  Examples of FINE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM "THE SLAVE":
  "We need not here repeat the evidences that the 'seventh trump' began its sounding in A.D. 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of trouble" {WT Nov 1880 p1}; "masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" {WT May 15 1970 p315; also WT Oct 1 1970 p604}; "If heaven were made the receptacle of the heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and INFANTS, it would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a pandemonium .. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never formed characters [not] fit companions for saints" {WT Oct 15 1896 p245} Fine JW WisDumb!"

  This may also serve:

  >>> http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm?msgboard=25212130276676&msg=36413230642694

  for any who assumed Danielle looked like a bunny girl they met in a casino.

  Simon, I have just noticed that you have (inadvertently?) blocked access to j-w.com from one of the most popular anonymizing proxies.

  --
  Focus
  ("John The Boptist" Class)

  Edited by - Focus on 15 February 2001 9:20:12
• 

  waiting

  hey badboy,

  Waiting - in your last statement above you mentioned that Gloria (or anyone for that matter): "COULD HAVE BEEN REAL".

  Personally I fail to see how anyone posting here (or anywhere) could not be REAL but you seem to have a more restrictive definition of the word.

  Well, I'll be the first to admit that a real someone is behind most every poster. FredHall - that one is questionable, however.

  But, are they real personalities telling a semblance of truth to us? Presenting themselves as who they are? Like you, for instance, are you a boy? A bad boy? Perhaps you're a 50 year old woman - like me. Perhaps I'm a man. Perhaps Danielle and Gloria are men, men who post here and on other boards - just having a little fun.

  As long as persons don't get hurt by their fun - guess no big deal. But it's like any other joke, it can go wrong. And when people respond to an impersonation with an earnest comment - well, it just sits oddly, don't you think?

  waiting
• 

  thinkers wife

  Frenchy,
  I am so glad you brought this up. Tolerance is of the utmost importance. I think for the most part, it is shown on this board. But once in awhile, I think some are a little harsh.
  For instance, there is a post where a person named Anthony has asked some questions. Now I agree he is a bit preachy, but I see nothing wrong with directly answering his questions. And I see no need to be sarcastic with him.
  And to address the situation with Gloria and others like her who are still active, I think we need to be careful about how much information we dump on them all at once. Each person needs to act on their own doubts and assumptions and IMO, we need to give them the space to do that.
  TW
• 

  JAVA

  waiting,
  

  And when people respond to an impersonation with an earnest comment - well, it just sits oddly, don't you think?

  
  Yes, I find that not only odd, but dishonest. I don't mind helping someone with real issues they are struggling with, but have no time playing householder for the recreation of others! If folks have a need to play "let's pretend," I suggest attending the next JW assembly.
• 

  Frenchy

  Subject for discussion:
  1) What's wrong with someone coming off as Danielle and having a little fun with the board? So we were fooled at the very first but it soon became obvious what she was doing. Magicians fool us all the time and we are entertained by it. Danielle's posts went beyond being just entertaining. Whatever her motives were, they made us react. They made us think. Which is better to mean well and cause harm or to intend mischief and end up creating a situation that makes people look deeper into their hearts.
  2) A person posts under two different names. Who is to say that one of the names is ‘real' and that the other is ‘fake'? How do we know which poster is really "real"? How do we know that either is ‘real'? This medium allows us the rare opportunity to display different facets of our personality.
  3) It seems that Gloria and Danielle had a substantial effect upon us. Neither extorted anything from us or caused any harm or pain. Both made us think along slightly different lines than we normally do.
  I understand what JAVA is saying about feeling that perhaps it's a waste of time talking to a ‘fake' personality. However, how do we know that these questions and/or comments are not real? Real to the ‘real' person behind the alternate personna as well as to the many who lurk as well as post here? How do we know that perhaps it is only through this alternate personna that the ‘real' person can express the depth of these questions? Would those same questions and comments have the same effect coming from a poster that is ‘recognized' and categorized?
  Food for thought. Comments?

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  JAVA

  Frenchy,
  

  1) What's wrong with someone coming off as Danielle and having a little fun with the board? So we were fooled at the very first but it soon became obvious what she was doing. Magicians fool us all the time and we are entertained by it. Danielle's posts went beyond being just entertaining. Whatever her motives were, they made us react. They made us think. Which is better to mean well and cause harm or to intend mischief and end up creating a situation that makes people look deeper into their hearts.

  
  I enjoy being entertained by David Copperfield because I know it's entertainment, and I'm a willing particpant. I didn't take part in the Danielle posts, but was part of the Gloria thread. If the Gloria thread was a hoax (I don't know if it was or wasn't) I make no apologies for not being entertained. I make no apologies for feeling like I've been had. As to the hoax causing me to look deeper into my heart, it does--I wonder why waste time posting for someone's entertainment? I can search deep into my soul without using a pretense, and believe others can, too. When wanting entertainment, I'll buy the ticket and enjoy the show.
  

  2) A person posts under two different names. Who is to say that one of the names is ‘real' and that the other is ‘fake'? How do we know which poster is really "real"? How do we know that either is ‘real'? This medium allows us the rare opportunity to display different facets of our personality.

  
  Unless we're talking about a multiple-personality disorder, I think we're playing games with "real" and "fake." No, JAVA is not my real name, but on DB most people pick a tag to identify comments coming from that person. As JAVA, I'm not limited in displaying "different facets" of my personality. It's really not necessary to use a different identity to play the Devil's advocate.
  

  3) It seems that Gloria and Danielle had a substantial effect upon us. Neither extorted anything from us or caused any harm or pain. Both made us think along slightly different lines than we normally do.

  
  I disagree. If Gloria was a hoax, she/he extorted sympathy, and something I treasure; my time. Did this cause me harm and pain; no, however the next so-called Gloria that starts a thread might mean I'll hit the Delete button instead of posting--that's a shame because the next Gloria might be real.
  

  I understand what JAVA is saying about feeling that perhaps it's a waste of time talking to a ‘fake' personality. However, how do we know that these questions and/or comments are not real? Real to the ‘real' person behind the alternate personna as well as to the many who lurk as well as post here? How do we know that perhaps it is only through this alternate personna that the ‘real' person can express the depth of these questions? Would those same questions and comments have the same effect coming from a poster that is ‘recognized' and categorized?

  
  The fact that a question is asked or a comment is given makes them real. The motivates behind questions and comments are also real; objective to the one speaking or writing, and subjective to the one responding. All of this enters into how we communicate. My subjective response is altered if I'm thinking, "Is this person real or using a alternate personna?" I don't believe we need an "alternate personna" to express the depths of our souls, or to ask questions we don't normally ask. Alternate personnas create environments that are not healthy or lasting in real relationships. I don't believe that formula changes because we're using computers and the Internet as a means of communication.

  These comments are not an attack on the post from Frenchy. They reflect my beliefs and feelings on the "Subject for discussion" and the questions Frenchy put to the group.

  ---JAVA, counting time at the Coffee Shop

  Edited by - JAVA on 15 February 2001 16:6:45
• 

  Simon

  I think what matters is the motive.
  If people have genuine differences then that's fine and healthy.
  When people are just out to waste other peoples time and pretend to have aviewpoint that they don't really hold to then that isn't.
  What they argue could be the same thing though.
  I think that people become negative towards others when it's clear that people aren't for real.
• 

  Grunt

  Call it what you want, to me it is lying. I post here as "grunt" that is becuase I was a grunt. I have posted other places under other names but all have the same personality and views, mine. Everything I say here is true. I don't change names, I just don't say the name if I don't want it said. Every thing I say, every experience I give is real and honest. If someone is going to indulge a fantasy they need to say so, set it off with "once upon a time" or give some indication such as, "What if?" or "I wish." Anyone telling something or asking something that is fraudulent is a fraud. I am not a fraud. I try to avoid frauds, con men and cults. The Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization are a fraud, in my opinion due to the things they have said about being a special servant with special knowledge setting out food that is needed sent straight from Jehovah. That is a lie and has been proven to be a lie with each "Tack" they have had to take and reversal in position they have had to make. From saying that doctors started epidemics to sell drugs, to saying vaccinations were pus that caused sexually transmitted diseases and all kinds of other ailments to painting all clergymen as despicable and to be looked down on. It is a lie. It would be better for the world if they, the ones at the top of the Watchtower Heap in Brooklyn, came out with honest admissions instead of coverups. They are liars. If you claim to be a woman and are a man, you are a liar. If you claim to be whatever, and you aren't, you are a liar. To perpetrate this lie on caring people is wrong and selfish. Much like those who call in bomb threats to schools, I guess they could say, "There was no bomb so nobody got hurt, what's the big deal?" To me they are reprehensible. To me all liars are.
• 

  ianao

  [/quote]Call it what you want, to me it is lying.[/quote]

  I agree 100% with you there Grunt. I prefer to know that I am talking to an actual person, and not a fabrication.
• 

  waiting

  Hey Simon,

  I think what matters is the motive.

  I agree completely. But who determines the motive? Do you know my motive in this post right now? No. We are a semi-trusting group here - and we try to follow Frenchy's thought on "tolerance." But to tolerate is an assumption that we are talking "face to face," with our only credibility being our words and thoughts put forth.

  My motive may be very unorthodox, even deceptive. It may to be to have fun, it may be to confuse the issue, or another person. It may be to help others to see the truth - but should deception be the way to truth? Isn't that what repels us from the WTBTS?

  I think that people become negative towards others when it's clear that people aren't for real.

  Another true statement. What is real on the web? Our thoughts, our identities we put forth as ourselves, and our words. If I came here pretending to be a man, a CO for instance, and could talk like him, keep the act up, and people liked me, valued my insight and opinions and I shared my history with them, would I be harming them if they found out? Maybe not, unless they'd been deceived before. Would they be happy at my deception? I don't think so.

  If people find us hypocritical, or deduce we're not being straight, or real, with them - they have a right to react with a real feeling of indignation.

  Deception continues to work only as long as the other person doesn't find out they've been deceived.

  waiting