TTOC

[MG 2.0]

Seems to me that, instead of ignoring a comment you don't want to respond to, responding with "TTOC" is like saying "look at me - how christian I'm being by not retaliating."

But that's just me.

The funny thing is, many years ago when I noticed that MG was becoming more nasty in his responses, and suggested to him that it wasn't a good example of the teachings he claimed to follow, his reply was that the people he was being unpleasant to deserved it - his retaliation was somehow justified.

If only he had quietly turned the other cheek from that time forward.

Anyway, here we are.

Yes. What's interesting to me is that the quote from Res Ipsa that I posted earlier came from a year old thread where RI tried, for dozens upon dozens of pages, to talk openly with MG about his style of posting. He basically agreed with you, but in his typical way, decided to really dig into the issue. It's quite a fascinating thread.

MG's first appearance in that thread was actually due to a mod moving his post from another thread where it was deemed a derailment! And for the usual reasons-he invoked his brand of religion in a factual discussion, insisting that his position of belief trumped all others, especially any positions held by the godless (who are therefore less than him, a conclusion he states regularly.)

One of RI's first comments in that long discussion went right to the heart of the matter:

...MG, this is exactly what happens when you superficially throw out concepts without understanding them. When you invoke constructionism, you forfeit any claim to any access to objective truth. Full stop.

You cannot claim superior access by invoking God, or the promptings of the spirit.

The entire LDS notion of access to the divine through promptings of the spirit is a social construction by the LDS community, starting with its founder and continuing through today. If you perceive something as a prompting of the spirit, that’s because of the socially constructed notion that what you are perceiving comes from some external source as opposed to any other internally generated feeling or emotion.

Constructionism does not include an escape hatch for believers. You're in exactly the same place as the rest of us. Any argument you make to the contrary can be dismissed out of hand as special pleading.

When you tried to carve out an exception for knowledge from a source other than humans, you confirmed exactly what Gadianton observed upthread...

For completeness, one of the things Gad observed was:

...I see you're back as disingenuous as ever, and not having learned anything...

Thanks for bringing up previous discussions. I appreciate that. Why? Because, again, as I've brought up many times there is a natural barrier/divide between believers and non-believers.

There just is.

There is no getting around it EXCEPT if believers are able to value the position of a nonbeliever (in God or in the restoration) and the non believer is able to value the position of the believer. Both need to show and demonstrate respect and patience with those that we strongly disagree with. You and I both know that neither one of us will 'come over' to the other's position.

That's a given.

I didn't agree, at all, with Res Ipsa's position.

That's OK.

We can see the world and what constitutes truth/logic from varying/different positions.

Personally I'm tired of spending the time and energy dealing with a very few members of this board who just can't let things go. Seemingly they want to 'convert' me to seeing things their way. That I am at fault. That I am mistaken. That I am this or I am that. That my motives are questionable, etc.

I've said a number of times, and truthfully so, that I know who I am...and it's not the caracature that some might like to paint.

That's what I'm done with. I'm not going to feed into the machinations that might be expertly initiated and carried out with precision in order to trample my good name and/or my motives and beliefs.

You can believe or not believe what you want...but please do not continue your trolling my posts and essentially put a stop to what could have been an interesting discussion and end up poisoning the well.

I'm not going to play that game even though I've fallen prey to some of these machinations in the past.

As another poster said, it would be nice to come to a place where we are not rehashing old grievances, warranted or not, and move on.

That's what I would ask of you.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It's Deja vu all over again.

Yes it is.

Unfortunately.

But on my end...I'm done with that. Thus, my expressions in the OP. I'm the only believer crazy enough to participate here (!) and I need to change the way I interact with critics on this board.

When I say 'TTOC' I'm simply saying that I'm willing to have the critic have the last word in regards to what I see as a deteriorating situation that is becoming contentious and I don't want to feed into.

Not interested. TTOC. Or other terminology that is syntactically synonymous will be my response to some folks here and there. It's for my own good and sanity!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

It's Deja vu all over again.

Yes it is.

Unfortunately.

But on my end...I'm done with that. Thus, my expressions in the OP. I'm the only believer crazy enough to participate here (!) and I need to change the way I interact with critics on this board.

When I say 'TTOC' I'm simply saying that I'm willing to have the critic have the last word in regards to what I see as a deteriorating situation that is becoming contentious and I don't want to feed into.

Not interested. TTOC. Or other terminology that is syntactically synonymous will be my response to some folks here and there. It's for my own good and sanity!

Regards,
MG

So I have two questions.

1. Why not just stop responding? Why the need to draw attention by saying that you’re going to stop responding with a self generated coded message that people are supposed to know that it means you’re stopping responding? Just stop responding.

2. Why the need to announce TTOC within conversations and discussions that you’re not a part of (which you’ve already done)? That’s like going up to a group at a party who are already engaged in a conversation and just rudely butting in with “I’m not interested in this discussion”. I mean, what type of person does that?

[Chap]

So I have two questions.

1. Why not just stop responding? Why the need to draw attention by saying that you’re going to stop responding with a self generated coded message that people are supposed to know that it means you’re stopping responding? Just stop responding.

2. Why the need to announce TTOC within conversations and discussions that you’re not a part of (which you’ve already done)? That’s like going up to a group at a party who are already engaged in a conversation and just rudely butting in with “I’m not interested in this discussion”. I mean, what type of person does that?

It's a way of saying "Don't think that the fact I don't reply to the claims made in this thread shows that I don't have a really effective answer that would skewer all you anti-Mormons. I do - but I just can't be bothered to tell you what it is, and anyway you probably wouldn't understand. So there."

[MG 2.0]

Yes it is.

Unfortunately.

But on my end...I'm done with that. Thus, my expressions in the OP. I'm the only believer crazy enough to participate here (!) and I need to change the way I interact with critics on this board.

When I say 'TTOC' I'm simply saying that I'm willing to have the critic have the last word in regards to what I see as a deteriorating situation that is becoming contentious and I don't want to feed into.

Not interested. TTOC. Or other terminology that is syntactically synonymous will be my response to some folks here and there. It's for my own good and sanity!

Regards,
MG

So I have two questions.

1. Why not just stop responding? Why the need to draw attention by saying that you’re going to stop responding?
2. Why the need to announce TTOC within conversations and discussions that you’re not a part of (which you’ve already done)? That’s like going up to a group at a party who are already engaged in a conversation and just rudely butting in with “I’m not interested in this discussion”. I mean, what type of person does that?

Number 1... That's the way I want to do it.

Number 2...There may have been a few instances where there may have been a poster that posted between me and a previous post I was not interested in continuing or feeding into. Sometimes posters might interject something before I respond to another poster and I may simply tack on the 'TTOC' to the latest post. I'll make a point of being more precise in order to alleviate your concern.

I'm not interested in taking this small point/conflict any further on my end.

In fact, as I said up thread I would be happy if this thread simply dies at this point.

We'll see.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So I have two questions.

1. Why not just stop responding? Why the need to draw attention by saying that you’re going to stop responding?
2. Why the need to announce TTOC within conversations and discussions that you’re not a part of (which you’ve already done)? That’s like going up to a group at a party who are already engaged in a conversation and just rudely butting in with “I’m not interested in this discussion”. I mean, what type of person does that?

It's a way of saying "Don't think that the fact I don't reply to the claims made in this thread shows that I don't have a really effective answer that would skewer all you anti-Mormons. I do - but I just can't be bothered to tell you what it is, and anyway you probably wouldn't understand. So there."

Not true.

Not interested in on this point of controversy (in your mind) that you would like me or others feed into.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Regards,
MG

[IWMP]

[IWMP]

I wish he would disengage, if by that you mean simply express his opinion. It's when he combines his opinion with disparagement or ugly innuendo, or even outright bigotry about the character and lives of anyone that he perceives as believing differently than him, that the trouble starts.

Res Ipsa called these types of his remarks "passive aggressive process comments." His advice about that is well worth another read:
[holding added.]

STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE — THEY’RE OKAY.

[I Have Questions]

So I have two questions.

1. Why not just stop responding? Why the need to draw attention by saying that you’re going to stop responding?
2. Why the need to announce TTOC within conversations and discussions that you’re not a part of (which you’ve already done)? That’s like going up to a group at a party who are already engaged in a conversation and just rudely butting in with “I’m not interested in this discussion”. I mean, what type of person does that?

Number 1... That's the way I want to do it.

But you’re contradicting your own stated purpose. You said you wanted to disengage and save posting time. The most effective way to achieve that is to simply stop engaging. End of. So this is more to do with your need for attention. Hence why you started this thread. To draw attention.

Number 2...There may have been a few instances where there may have been a poster that posted between me and a previous post I was not interested in continuing or feeding into. Sometimes posters might interject something before I respond to another poster and I may simply tack on the 'TTOC' to the latest post. I'll make a point of being more precise in order to alleviate your concern.

Nah, you just rudely butted in so people would notice you.

[MG 2.0]

I think my purpose in starting this thread has been served. I will now bow out unless there is something I find interesting and not simply combative.

Otherwise there might be a few responses of "TTOC" or "not interested"...or simply, "not true".

Thanks,
MG