Are You Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

Hey Angel, sorry Ive only just come on and caught up.
Keep up the good work, you are doing fine :wink:

as I stated on another thread we are all part of the problem and we can be part of the solution if one chooses to be....how we go about it is all part of this threads participation of 'ideas' in a positive collective.

0 Replies

Kiwi,

Well, I'm just glad you're here. I may not be a scholar, a theologist, etc., but I am one danged tough redhead! I don't just quit. Sometimes that's more a curse though! Laughing

0 Replies

hey neither am I Laughing

I'm just a logical thinker...

0 Replies

Ok, I have to at least giggle on that one! Not at you, but because "someone" continually tells me I can't think logically. Laughing

It just made me smile, thanx!

Maybe the rest of the UPN natives are still at work and that's why we haven't heard from them.

0 Replies

No I dont think you are illogical at all...nothing wrong with expanding your mind.

0 Replies

Kiwi,

I would love to talk more with you but, I realize this thread isn't for that reason. I don't have PM privileges as of yet. Would you consider exchanging email addresses?

0 Replies

yep sure, no probs

0 Replies

Got it! I will send you an email so you have mine! Thanx! I look forward to getting to know you better!

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I was just hoping that more would jump in there and just say, "Hey, Frank. You're breaking the law here." It was just a scenario. None of it was real. I don't understand why Frank felt he had to jump in there and wreak havoc. Well, I have my opinions about it though.

A position that won't stand up to examination and challenge is weak. Similarly, a poster that won't stand up to examination and challenge is similarly weak.

Frank thrives on challenge.

Totally nice guy, and/but not afraid to address challenges. Tough debater. Someone to respect.

0 Replies

ehBeth,

Though I respect your opinions of Frank, I do not completely share them. He, just as anyone else in this world, has the right to common courtesies and respect if for no other reason than the fact that he is a human being.

However, he has made it very clear with his own statements that he lives to bash Christians. This, I cannot respect, just as I don't respect the act of gay bashing, racial profiling, etc.

I offered time and time again to hold a civil conversation with him and he answered me with insults, and as I can see by your ...Similarly, a poster that won't stand up to examination and challenge is similarly weak..., statement, you make statements regarding my character (for lack of a better word.)

I would love for you to be part of our UPN scenario. All views are very important. So, please, stick around, but if you do, please remember Law Number 2 and even those that have decided not to become citizens of the UPN are trying to abide by this Law.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I was just hoping that more would jump in there and just say, "Hey, Frank. You're breaking the law here." It was just a scenario. None of it was real. I don't understand why Frank felt he had to jump in there and wreak havoc. Well, I have my opinions about it though.

A position that won't stand up to examination and challenge is weak. Similarly, a poster that won't stand up to examination and challenge is similarly weak.

Frank thrives on challenge.

Totally nice guy, and/but not afraid to address challenges. Tough debater. Someone to respect.

Thank you for that unbiased and unsolicited opinion.

(The $20 is in the mail.)

(Really...I wouldn't stiff ya on this!)

0 Replies

Since I think your number 3 trumps number 2, I think I'll have to decline to join.

Momma Angel wrote:

3. Principles before personalities always applies in any situation.

I'm not about making nice-nice if the argument/principle doesn't make sense. Especially if the balance of your number 3 is to be enforced.

~~~~~~~~

ahh, just spotted Mr. Joisey. I'll pick that up in person.

0 Replies

I am sorry that you have declined, but, part of this scenario is also about making choices, and you have made yours. I thank you for taking the time to do so.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:

When you consider that 3 or 4 people would have a hard time agreeing on a meal if everyone had to eat the same thing, how will society ever learn to get along and tolerate each other.

This is right on the mark, Intrepid: if people can't get along with their spouses or their parents, if people connive and politic in the office, if, in short, in our private lives, we can't even have peace and harmony, it's no wonder that there's no world peace. The only way there can be even a measure of peace is if people agree to abide by certain peace-promoting ordinances/statutes/rules.

For those who seem to be having a hard time "getting" what the goal of this thread is, Momma's purpose is precisely to see if on a mini-scale, folks can peaceably hammer out compromises and curtail their own egos enough to build a workable Mini-Nation. It's not that different from the Town Square concept.

It is a **GAME** with certain rules; if you want to participate, suspend animosities from other threads and simply work with the "givens." If you can not abide by the givens, kindly start another thread where you build a parallel Mini-Nation with your own set of rules. It's that simple.

Kinda like in math, not working with the usual number base, OK Frank?

And Momma, I respectfully submit to the Council that rabble-rousers who've been admonished once, be simply ignored. If you study other threads on this site, you will see that there is a wolf-pack who (after first shredding the "violator" to pieces), use the ignore-mode as their standard procedure for marginalizing those whom they want to squelch. I think it would be an excellent tactic here (minus the shredding part, that is, LOL!).

0 Replies

diagknowz wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Quote:
When you consider that 3 or 4 people would have a hard time agreeing on a meal if everyone had to eat the same thing, how will society ever learn to get along and tolerate each other.

This is right on the mark, Intrepid: if people can't get along with their spouses or their parents, if people connive and politic in the office, if, in short, in our private lives, we can't even have peace and harmony, it's no wonder that there's no world peace. The only way there can be even a measure of peace is if people agree to abide by certain peace-promoting ordinances/statutes/rules.

For those who seem to be having a hard time "getting" what the goal of this thread is, Momma's purpose is precisely to see if on a mini-scale, folks can peaceably hammer out compromises and curtail their own egos enough to build a workable Mini-Nation. It's not that different from the Town Square concept.

It is a **GAME** with certain rules; if you want to participate, suspend animosities from other threads and simply work with the "givens." If you can not abide by the givens, simply start another thread where you build a parallel Mini-Nation with your own set of rules. It's that simple.

You are right, Dias...it is a game with certain rules. And it is being played in an Internet forum with certain rules...among which are that anyone can play.

And MA asked our opinion about the rules..."comments, questions, problems?"

So I talked about the reservations I had about the second of the laws...a law which I not only think will not help to establish this Utopia she is seeking...but would be counterproductive.

And MA, in effect, told me to shut the hell up. Oh, she did it in that sugary bullshyt way she uses rather than being direct and honest like me...but she did it nonetheless. And I responded.

Now...we are arguing....or rather, I am arguing and she is saying she will not respond but has been responding anyway.

So...what is your goddam problem?

Quote:

Kinda like in math, not working with the usual number base, OK Frank?

Okay...but so far, everyone in this thread has violated rule #2 (which I predicted)...and yet I am still taking heat for pointing out that rule #2 is idiotic.

Quote:

And Momma, I respectfully submit to the Council that rabble-rousers who've been admonished once be simply ignored. If you study other threads on this site, you will see that (after first shredding the "violator" to pieces), this is the standard procedure for marginalizing those whom the wolf-pack disapprove of. I think it would be an excellent tactic here (minus the shredding part, that is, LOL!).

Actually...it seems that whenever someone starts making points that are too difficult for you people to deal with...you pretend that you are ignoring that person rather than being honest and dealing with the issue raised.

But...hell...you poor boobs gotta get out of your quagmires best you can.

I love yez all.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Quote:

Totally nice guy......Tough debater. Someone to respect.

QUICK! I need the Heimlich Maneuver!

0 Replies

As much as people want to live up to #2, we have seen evidence that it only takes 1 dissenter to cause people to break that rule. People react to being picked on, yelled at, cussed at, ridiculed and humiliated. In the anonymity and safety of a public forum, people are able to be brave and abrasive without fear of physical retribution. People can only endure so much before they fight back. Yes, even Christians can be pushed beyond the breaking point. It is also evident that friends of that dissenter will jump on his bandwagon, regardless of whether they agree with his bad manners and lack of compassion. They blindly follow a friend However, in this make believe senario, that dissenter would be banished before it got to that point. One bad apple and all that. Soon, all out civil war could ensue. We have to face the fact that some people do not want to consider other people's view and will do as they please regardless of the consequences.

0 Replies

Yea.. I am still lost.......

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

As much as people want to live up to #2, we have seen evidence that it only takes 1 dissenter to cause people to break that rule. People react to being picked on, yelled at, cussed at, ridiculed and humiliated. In the anonymity and safety of a public forum, people are able to be brave and abrasive without fear of physical retribution. People can only endure so much before they fight back. Yes, even Christians can be pushed beyond the breaking point. It is also evident that friends of that dissenter will jump on his bandwagon, regardless of whether they agree with his bad manners and lack of compassion. They blindly follow a friend However, in this make believe senario, that dissenter would be banished before it got to that point. One bad apple and all that. Soon, all out civil war could ensue. We have to face the fact that some people do not want to consider other people's view and will do as they please regardless of the consequences.

There is a hell of a lot more wrong with rule #2 than this pathetic bit of analysis discovers.k But trying to get through to you obviously requires a jackhammer.

Do you suggest that people hold back their opinions because some as shole would threaten to use "physical retribution?"

Any time you want to have a discussion with me in person...let's go for it. I guarantee I will not hold back...and I will do my best to resist your physical onslaught.

0 Replies

diagknowz wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
Quote:
Totally nice guy......Tough debater. Someone to respect.

QUICK! I need the Heimlich Maneuver!

You need a lot more than that!

0 Replies

Are You Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know