Ambushed

[_Mercury]

Are you a "bright" Beastie? Praytell, can you define for me what counts as something "natural" without simply tautologically defining whatever it is that you think exists as natural? What'makes something supernatural?

Bright is a silly, arrogant term for a variety of reasons, but the one that gets me is the obvious attempt at associating intelligence with their position followed by the dramatic denials.

Yes, because the title "prophet, seer and revelator" is a way of denoting humility.

Asshat.

[_Who Knows]

I'm confused - Mercury? Is that VegasR?

[_Yoda]

I'm confused - Mercury? Is that VegasR?

Yes....Vegas requested a name change when he reached his 1000 mark on posts and became a God.

;)

[_beastie]

I guess I should point out, at this point, that I am not Ray. Watching you fly off the handle while making transparently false claims about me is nice to demonstrate both your character and your ability to form sound judgments, but it is a little cruel. I just think you should step back and think about how little you used to become so sure of your false conclusion. Your desires plainly biased you. That's how you were able to quickly explain away the fact that I'm more literate than Ray . Isn't confirmation bias one of your bugaboos too? Don't you like to wax about how you know you are just as susceptible to it too when attempting to criticize poor believers and all our failings? Well, nows a chance for some self-reflection.

Do I think people leave the Church for a variety of reasons? Sure, though it is sad when they abandon the truth for error. Do I think many apostates are angry? Clearly so. But I am not a substitute for Ray and whatever spats you have had with him. You'll have to find a different punching bag for your issues and the nonexistent anger you have over them.

You're more literate than Ray? Ray writes for a conservative Aussie magazine, which I'm assuming requires a modicum of literacy and control over style. Yes, your style is different than the style Ray normally uses, but the underlying content and interests are quite similar.

If you are not Ray, then you have been channeling him, and perhaps deliberately. Of course it is possible you are not Ray and I am mistaken.

Regarding the "anger" issue - why is it that some individual immediately project "anger" onto negative statements? I can count on one hand the number of times internet exchanges have actually made me angry. This isn't one, nor was I angry at Ray's latest performance. I found it disturbing, vulgar, and sad.

I suspect that people who read "anger" into any criticism or negative statement tend to feel a lot of anger themselves.

[_wenglund]

I just poked my head in to see how things were going here.

If, as some of you have intimated, you are interested in encouraging the participation here of believing members of the Church, I wonder how well that object may be met in the way "Light in Darkness" is being treated on this thread?

Granted, I understand that old habits die hard. But, I am hard pressed to find even the slightest change in repelling behavior on the part of some, if not most, posters here.

Could I have been wrong about your intents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

I know you generally don't analyze the repelling behavior of those on "your side", but I suggest you do at least a brief perusal of TLITD's own repelling behavior, beginning with his very first post:

I gather than in these quarters, my thread title is likely to be met with rolled eyes and hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces.

His condescension continues unfetter from there on.


Can you imagine if a critic posted on MAD with this tone from the first post on? He/she would be banned within days.

[_guy sajer]

I just poked my head in to see how things were going here.

If, as some of you have intimated, you are interested in encouraging the participation here of believing members of the Church, I wonder how well that object may be met in the way "Light in Darkness" is being treated on this thread?

Granted, I understand that old habits die hard. But, I am hard pressed to find even the slightest change in repelling behavior on the part of some, if not most, posters here.

Could I have been wrong about your intents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, your psychobabble schtick is getting old. Do you have anything else to contribute?

[_Runtu]

I just poked my head in to see how things were going here.

If, as some of you have intimated, you are interested in encouraging the participation here of believing members of the Church, I wonder how well that object may be met in the way "Light in Darkness" is being treated on this thread?

Granted, I understand that old habits die hard. But, I am hard pressed to find even the slightest change in repelling behavior on the part of some, if not most, posters here.

Could I have been wrong about your intents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, if he hadn't been rude and insulting from the start, he probably would have been better received. Or didn't you notice that about "A Light in the Darkness"?

[_wenglund]

I just poked my head in to see how things were going here.

If, as some of you have intimated, you are interested in encouraging the participation here of believing members of the Church, I wonder how well that object may be met in the way "Light in Darkness" is being treated on this thread?

Granted, I understand that old habits die hard. But, I am hard pressed to find even the slightest change in repelling behavior on the part of some, if not most, posters here.

Could I have been wrong about your intents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, if he hadn't been rude and insulting from the start, he probably would have been better received. Or didn't you notice that about "A Light in the Darkness"?

Hi Runtu,

I am grateful that you bucked the trend, and didn't respond to my innocuous query with hostility.

I don't know about you, but I didn't notice that the tone of "A light in the Darkness" was any more harsh than most on this thread, and perhaps even less harsh than some. And, given the disparate odds of people on this thread who were for vs. against what s/he had to say, I think her/his response was quite mild in comparison--though perhaps I may be biased in my perceptions.

Even still, were s/he the one who was hoping to encourage the participation here of believers, then my taking into consideration her/his behavior would have made sense. But, as far as I know, that is not what he was encouraging. Rather, from what I had gathered (and I could be wrong), this was the objective that many veterans of this board had in mind, and that is why I thought it pertinent to look at whether their behavior on this thread would lend itself to accomplishing that objective, or do just the opposite.

Now, if it were me, and were I wishing to attract people to my store, so to speak, I would be less inclined to look at the customer's behavior, and more inclined to look at my own or my fellow busnessmen. In fact, with the stated goal in mind, I may even be inclined to be more forgiving of the customers' behavior than I would my own. But, that may just be me.

Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Now, if it were me, and were I wishing to attract people to my store, so to speak, I would be less inclined to look at the customer's behavior, and more inclined to look at my own or my fellow busnessmen. In fact, with the stated goal in mind, I may even be inclined to be more forgiving of the customers' behavior than I would my own. But, that may just be me.

Make sense?

I see that the examples of condescension I shared with you were useless. Oh well.