Thomas wrote:ehBeth wrote:That whole episode was pivotal in my reconsideration of my personal religious thinking.
Momma Angel was an authority for you on what religion is all about? Enough so that she changed your personal religious thinking? I'm speechless, and that's saying something.
I cannot understand why you have interpreted this post of Beth's in the way you have, Thomas. Or are you being ironic?
I asked Administration if I could do it. They changed it for me.
There's something really unnerving about a winking bloody Wabbit and a blinking bloody cat one atop the other.
Sorry dlowan, that was in response to BVT's question about the name change.
Blimey, Arella, I really do not think you need to apologize for posting on a message board!
That was meant to be a light comment...funny...because it does look funny.
Arella, I sometimes get bowled over by how you can apologize when you have done nothing wrong, but remain clearly unaware, really at the core, when you have.
But I suppose it is all just human nature and something one notices when others do it, but not when one does it oneself!
Actually dlowan, I thought the thread with that video of that woman from Wife Swap and my explaining to others how I thought they probably saw me was telling them all I did understand how they felt. There will always be those that do understand and those that don't.
I know full well how it affected people. That's why I posted that thread with that video. I told them that I realized that's what they saw in me.
I'm just tired of it. It was months and months ago. It was over. I haven't done it again. I even went back there and told them to not come here. I said I did it. I apologized for doing it.
Yeah...it's not like I want to pursue it....thing is stuff you still post sometimes tells people you don't, really, get it....or you kind of get it for a while, then don't again, because habitual ways of thinking resume, I think.
Happens all the time, you're no orphan in that. Where I notice it most in my life is in explaining stuff like why therapy cannot proceed in some situations to child welfare workers...you spend ages and ages explaining, and you see understanding dawn, then they go away, and a few days later it is as if the conversation never happened. I have no doubt that we all do it to greater and lesser extents...and the more different from ours the POV being explained to us, the more likely we are to lose our real, deep sense of it, I think.
It was just so jarringly odd to see that apology.
Perhaps it is from you feeling so beleagured, and that you are being pursued pretty obsessively and...well, I won't characterize the pursuit further.
Just one word about that...you do not have to read every post directed at you in this forum, you know. You really don't.
Sorry I said anything.......this whole thing is like a weird vortex that can just suck you in if you do not consciously stay out.
dlowan,
When I posted that thread with the video in it, I meant every single word in it and I still do.
End of story. Thanx for your taking the time to explain to me. It is greatly appreciated.
You let someone on A2K influence your faith? That was exactly what Bear said to me a couple of weeks ago when I finally admitted I was rethinking my beliefs, Thomas. It's not that simple. I'll explain from my point of view, which is likely different from ehBeths.
It's not this one person, the A2K group of non-believers or even the A2K Christians. It's a combination of things over the past five years, which a couple of others have brought up. And, of course it all ties into my earlier question of why so many respond to this one poster as they do.
I didn't really have a reason to question my beliefs before. As I've stated elsewhere on these forums, I was raised with the examples of very good Christian extended family members. I have a strong base and a good understanding of Christian teachings. Those teachings in many ways contradict what is currently going on in this thread, this forum, the US and the world.
I didn't give over the Christian label, allowing the radicals to prevail. I came to my senses and realized after 9/11, many Bush statements/ actions, and comments on this forum from both Muslims and Christians that it was all pretty self centered and ruiness to mankind and the planet. Not to mention, it all started sounding pretty silly what with the seven virgins or swarms of locusts. (Which to choose? Which to choose?)
What I was getting at earlier in my questioning was that I think many of us project our political leanings, disgust and disagreement with the war onto MA / AM because she appeared on this forum as one of "them." You know, the ones taking over our government, manipulating news, twisting the truth and saying it's all for the glory of god. She admitted to supporting Bush, voting in a way that would be in keeping with her beliefs, and recruiting people from another forum to come with their armor to defend... blah blah blah. She appears meek, timid and childlike, not knowing when to apologize, when to admit the truth or when to recognize her own attempts at manipulation, which for some makes her easy prey.
Are we attacking Momma Angel? Or, are we disgusted with the group she represents?
I still think we all grow at our own pace. That's why I've held my tongue on many ocassions on these threads, and now will return to doing so again. I just think we all need to be honest in our motivations, just as we are demanding of MA/AM. Then move on, as Snood has done.
It's just a forum. It's just life.
Wow, Squinney. Fascinating post (mainly, for me, re your faith)
It would be great if you felt able to post more about that...perhaps on a less contentious thread?
snood wrote:Lash wrote:snood wrote:
And for the record you are a bald faced liar in suggesting you were just trying to "help" by finding the posts you thought to smear me with.
Snood. <sigh> I think you may be the only one here who didn't pick up on what I meant.
So funny how you twist stuff. I'm "the only one" saying anything about it because you directed a lot of invective at me.
So funny how you don't grasp basic words. You don't comprehend the content of a post. I didn't say you are the only one saying anything about it. I said you are the only one who didn't know that I wasn't being literal about trying to help you.
You are actually disingenuous or just plain lowdown enough to think that no one notices how much attention you have given to trying to put me down at every turn?
I'm sure people have noticed that when you ask for proof of something you've done, I have popped up with it. I think now they may have noticed that you arre creating windmills to fight. Why don't you stick with what I've said, rather than make crap up?
You stepped in to several discussions over the last two weeks that you had no interest in at all,
Who gets to decide I didn't have an interest in them? You?
except another chance to try to rub my face in something. You're doing what you so viciously run around here accusing Arella with.
Nope. I didn't go to another site, trash this place, and lie about it. As a matter of fact, to a great detriment to myself, I am being completely honest.
Lying about your motives.
What is my lie?
You have the gall to try to lecture me about what would be the proper reaction to your attempts to smear. "Just admit it, and go on." Bullschitt, Lash. You're very obviously full of a lot of things that ain't sunshine and hope. You just drip with it.
Ad hom.
You keep attacking Arella long after everyone else has had their fill - because you "hate what she did"? Who died and made you God? [/color]
In your religion, do you have to be the god to tell people what you think? Doesn't that make you god?
Yes, I wanted you to have to face what you had said both times. It was like the Gary Hart challenge. "I dare you to find me having an affair"... and when they do... "Hey, that's my private life!!" Don't issue the challenge if you can't accept the result.
You're so full of schitt you squeak when you type.
A snoodism= a mangled attempt at pseudo-corn-pone humor. In order to qualify as a snoodism--it can never be funny.
You just wanted me to face what I did. Do you realize how you sound? who the hell do you think you are - the group conscience?
I'm the one who brought you the posts you asked for.
You need to clean up your own act, and stop beeing the big bad police of everyone else. [/color]
You need to clean up your own act, and stop beeing the big bad police of everyone else.
You acted as though you hadn't sneered--or you couldn't comprehend why someone would say you're sarcastic. I very simply brought the posts you were asking other people to bring. I can't smear you by showing your own posts, snood.
Well, if and when I get around to posting all the nastiness you've regaled us with, remember that its for your own good, and that its all in the spirit of "helping".
Did I ask you to provide me with instances of sarcasm or sneers? You did that.
Call it what it was. Your motive was just to continue to hurt me - as long, and in as many ways as you can. Why can't you just own that?
My motive was to show you what you asked to see. It's not as complicated as you make it seem. And, actually, I can see why you'd rather think it's some big long-term conspiracy. That removes you from all responsibility.
An expert on responsibility, are you? You have a lot of your own bullschitt that you are obviously not facing.
That's always possible.
Why didn't you just say-- Well damn. I did sneer.
Because I didn't, and the person you said I sneered at said he didn't take it that way. Why do you think you are my judge?
You asked someone to show you anywhere you sneered on the thread. I did.
Why can't you admit you have a sick kind of hatred for certain people that you can't stop yourself from parading for all to see?[/color]
I respond to posts.
I would have respected that a bit, and it would have ended there.
Your respect or approval have less than zero meaning. And I will fight you until you leave me the hell alone.
If you can't tolerate being shown facts, don't ask for them.
Why don't you just admit it, snood? All I did was meet your challenges.
Why don't you admit your won bullschitt? All you're doing is exposing how mean and petty you really can be.
Ad hom.
You are wrong about me in a lot of ways, but I expect that you have no interest in knowing that. For some reason, it is easier for you to maintain the level of (insert word here equalling a pungent mixture of disgust, and dismissal) that characterizes every exchange we have.
I respond to your posts.
You rack your brain to find ways to rub my face in your perceived "mistakes" and character flaws. And I'm not the only one who sees you doing it, Lash.
I respond to your posts.
I'll spend an afternoon sometime digging up all the nasty insulting invective you've heaped on several people - which by the way you probably are sanguine in the knowledge that they all deserve.
You will never catch me being anything but a bit humilated by the calibre of comments that I've made.
And there we see your glaring hypocrisy in all its ugliness - we won't "catch" you being anything but "a little humiliated" for all the verbal vomit you've heaped on people, but you set yourself up as God Almighty herself when you're demanding "accountability" and "responsibility" and better apologies from others.
I claim responsibility for what I say, and I'm in no position to demand anything from anyone.
You can go straight to hell, Lash.
You Christians have a tendancy to order people there all the time, eh? Talk to me about your spiritual experience, snood. It was so uplifting. Snood and god. Big buds. Losing your temper a bit, are you...? Wanna hit somebody?[/color]
I've gone back several times over the years, and reread. I certainly do regret many of my comments. I usually apologize in private if I think I should. I am not under any delusions about who I am, what I do, and what many people may think about it. I am thankful beyond measure that since my husband died, I have felt a increase in my self-control, and I am becoming, bit by bit, less horrified with my manner of interaction.
Well whoop de frikkin do. You're "becoming less horrified" by your own ugliness.
I'm glad to at least recognize it, which is far more than you and your purple throated boob do.
That does exactly bupkus for those you so gratuitously shyt on.
I must say--it's never gratuitous. Of course, you probably didn't mean gratuitous. I'm sure you've been burning up the Thesaurus, as usual.
that's really striking a blow for personal responsibility.
Yes it is, actually. The first step to taking responsibility for one's actions is to admit they have done something. You and your "I said I apologize, but I didn't do anything" buddy in Christ may want to ponder that.
When Arella or I have said that we have considered our words and actions, that hasn't somehow seemed good enough to get you off our frikkin backs.[/color]
The matter with her was never settled. There is no matter with you. I just respond to your posts. Recently, they've all been statements I wanted to respond to--so I did. Do you respond to what you want to respond to?.
But, hey, knock yourself out.
As I said, I'm not gonna hurry to find all your garbage. I know its there. When I have the time and inclination to play your stupid game, I'll do it.
I don't think anyone here refutes that it's there. I know I don't. But, if it will help you in some way--I think you should.
I have had no other motivation to address your posts or acknowledge your existence except that which you provided by coming after me so vociferously.
I have responded to your posts.
And I'd just as soon ignore you, but you haven't been graceful or wise enough to let things drop.[/color]
Wouldn't that mean this last post or yours means YOU'RE not graceful or wise...?
Really. I think if you read more closely, you can avoid a lot of this.
I may have to take a couple weeks to read through all this stuff.....
But, I do seem to be reading a lot of the same words.
I think the short answer is ....Yes, she can make many people see red !!
Repetition helps some people with comprehension.
I'm hoping it will sink in.
snood wrote:Msolga, I would like to know what you think of Arella's 'proof'.
As I just said on the other thread, snood, I was sent a link containing a
The page cannot be displayed message.
For the record, I do not claim to be a Christian. I have defended Christians on these threads, and other people of any faith at all (except for Satanists - sorry), but I do not profess myself to be a Christian.
If anyone needs a label, I guess theist is as good as any.
dlowan wrote:I cannot understand why you have interpreted this post of Beth's in the way you have, Thomas. Or are you being ironic?
To start with a very broad generality: I am a firm believer in
Sturgeon's Law, which states that "ninety percent of everything is crud". In the A2K context, Sturgeon's Law predicts that ninety percent of all arguments made on any side of any debate are crud. That turns out to be pessimistic, but a quick overview of our Religion and Politics threads reaffirms the basic idea.
My attitude is that it is fundamentally pointless to let these 90% influence my thoughts on any subject. If I did that, I'd be atheistic one millisecond, then flip into deism the next millisecond because I met the next atheist idiot, then flop into agnositicism because I meet the next born-again Christian. This is madness. Of course, there are people who have changed opinions I'd held quite strongly -- joefromchicago and Debra_Law come to mind first -- but they have all been very solidly in the 10% group.
That's why I was astonished to see ehBeth's opinion of Christianity swung by a poster who is just as firmly in the 90% category.
(Full disclosure: the author of this post is an elitist, arrogant sonofabitch, who therefore belongs to the 90% category.)
Thomas wrote:dlowan wrote:I cannot understand why you have interpreted this post of Beth's in the way you have, Thomas. Or are you being ironic?
To start with a very broad generality: I am a firm believer in
Sturgeon's Law, which states that "ninety percent of everything is crud". In the A2K context, Sturgeon's Law predicts that ninety percent of all arguments made on any side of any debate are crud. That turns out to be pessimistic, but a quick overview of our Religion and Politics threads reaffirms the basic idea.
My attitude is that it is fundamentally pointless to let these 90% influence my thoughts on any subject. If I did that, I'd be atheistic one millisecond, then flip into deism the next millisecond because I met the next atheist idiot, then flop into agnositicism because I meet the next born-again Christian. This is madness. Of course, there are people who have changed opinions I'd held quite strongly -- joefromchicago and Debra_Law come to mind first -- but they have all been very solidly in the 10% group.
That's why I was astonished to see ehBeth's opinion of Christianity swung by a poster who is just as firmly in the 90% category.
(Full disclosure: the author of this post is an elitist, arrogant sonofabitch, who therefore belongs to the 90% category.)
My point is that I think you are misconstrueing the post to imply Beth was directly influenced by MA's arguments in any way.
But, not being Beth, I am only adding to the crud by discussing it further, since it is such stuff, in my hands, as dreams are made on.
In other words I, too, am guessing.
