Ambushed

[_wenglund]

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-

Wade, Lord help me I tried. I responded politely and was met with ridicule and insult. I called him on his poor behavior and was labeled a hypocrite. I think making this place more comfortable for believing Mormons is a desirable and admirable goal. Making it more comfortable for the rude and mocking is not.

I'm perfectly willing to forgive this person's bad behavior. Why would you think otherwise? And if I have behaved badly in my interactions with this person, I apologize. I've already apologized at least 2 or 3 times publicly and in PMs with no response. To me, it's clear that one of us doesn't want a respectful dialogue.

It's not me.

The intent of my comments wasn't to blame (specific or otherwise), but rather to query whether the general approach engaged in here is amenable to the stated goal of attracting believing members here.

I think you would agree that there has been no small pilling-on of "Light in Darkness" over the last several days. And while you personally may not have contributed much, if at all, to the pilling-on (and what little you may have contributed, you at least apologized for--I applaud you for this), you seem to be faulting "Light in Darkness" for what has happened, rather than acknowledging and faulting your fellow participants (if blame is what you are looking for) here for the bad manner of their participation--perhaps inadvertantly making it more comfortable for them to be rude and mocking.

Now, again, I am not saying any of this for the purpose of fingerpointing--particularly not at you (but more for the benefit of the general readership here). Instead, I am simply wishing to point out things to think about that may better assure the success of the stated goal. In other words, were I attempting to attract customers to my store, I may be more inclined to address the pilling-on of my fellow employees/business partners than the behavior of the customer, even were my own behavior somewhat above reproach. And, were I not to want to attract rude and mocking customers to my store, I would think it wise to make sure the general atmosphere of my store wasn't rude and mocking such that a potentially rude and mocking customer may think such behavior is acceptable and desired. Were I unable to affect that kind of change in my fellow employees/business partners, I may consider looking for other partnerships where my goals and objectives may have a better chance of success. Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

What the smart lady said. :-)

I'm willing to engage in cordial conversation as well.

You're so sweet! :)

This is why you have to be on my "man candy" list. ;)

[_Runtu]

The intent of my comments wasn't to blame (specific or otherwise), but rather to query whether the general approach engaged in here is amenable to the stated goal of attracting believing members here.

I think you would agree that there has been no small pilling-on of "Light in Darkness" over the last several days. And while you personally may not have contributed much, if at all, to the pilling-on (and what little you may have contributed, you at least apologized for--I applaud you for this), you seem to be faulting "Light in Darkness" for what has happened, rather than acknowledging and faulting your fellow participants (if blame is what you are looking for) here for the bad manner of their participation--perhaps inadvertantly making it more comfortable for them to be rude and mocking.

I faulted more than Light in Darkness, Wade, though you seem not to have noticed. I don't condone rudeness from anyone. My point here is that it's odd to come into a place and hurl insults and then feel victimized when people respond to the insults with insults of their own. The only difference, as I see it, is that A Light in the Darkness uses less profanity.

Now, again, I am not saying any of this for the purpose of fingerpointing--particularly not at you (but more for the benefit of the general readership here). Instead, I am simply wishing to point out things to think about that may better assure the success of the stated goal. In other words, were I attempting to attract customers to my store, I may be more inclined to address the pilling-on of my fellow employees/business partners than the behavior of the customer, even were my own behavior somewhat above reproach. And, were I not to want to attract rude and mocking customers to my store, I would think it wise to make sure the general atmosphere of my store wasn't rude and mocking such that a potentially rude and mocking customer may think such behavior is acceptable and desired. Were I unable to affect that kind of change in my fellow employees/business partners, I may consider looking for other partnerships where my goals and objectives may have a better chance of success. Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, we're all customers here. And none of us should be rude and mocking. I don't understand why you think I should call out only one side for bad behavior. But in the end, nothing I say makes any difference. So beat the hell out of each other to your hearts' content.

[_Yoda]

Just thought I'd quote it. I'm called a "arrogant prick," a "fundie," a "dishonest little s***," a "enormous, ugly hypocrite, "mindnumbingly stupid," a "slackwit," "dumbass, "jackass," and much more. In the span of a few days no less. Yet, when I merely point out that people are attacking me, I'm accused of having a fantasy persecution complex. Fascinating. The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not...

For what it's worth, I agree that this type of attack is inappropriate. I don't condone it on either side of the aisle.

You did, however, come to this forum with a chip on your shoulder. You made it clear in your early posts that you had preconceived notions about the attitudes of posters here. You made blanket statements about how people thought about issues, and then seemed surprised when they countered your generalizations.

You also ignored my suggestion to take a look at the "Composition of the Board" thread in the Celestial Forum to gain a broader feel for the posters on the board.

I think you will find that if you take things out of "defense mode" and quit addressing every difference with an "everyone is out to get me" type of attitude, you will have a different reception.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to engage in cordial conversation with you, and if we "agree to disagree" on some issues, then so be it.

;)

Wade---I think you missed my above post.

[_wenglund]

I think you will find that if you take things out of "defense mode" and quit addressing every difference with an "everyone is out to get me" type of attitude, you will have a different reception.

I think as a general rule here your statement above is not correct (you and Runtu being the rare exception). The prevailing culture of this board tends to be hostile to "TBM's" regardless of what type of attitude they may have (my own experience in changing my approach and getting no different reception from most here being a case in point).

However, I commend you and Runtu for your efforts in improving interfaith dialogue. You are two of the too few supposed opponents here that I think there is any value engaging with. And, I would advise any believers (including "Light in Darkness") to avoid wasting their time engaging certain other opponents here (Scratch, Beastie, Who Knows, GIMR, Vegasr/Mercury, etc.), and if they wish to continue participating here, to restrict their discussions to the few reasonable and open-minded and respectful critics, and to do so in respectful and thoughtful ways. Otherwise, what is the point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

The prevailing culture of this board tends to be hostile to "TBM's" regardless of what type of attitude they may have (my own experience in changing my approach and getting no different reception from most here being a case in point).

Huh? You changed your approach? Oh yeah, you went from being a major ass, to only a moderate ass.

And your thoughts on our treatment of TBM's is way off. Look at Nehor for example. Has anyone really treated him with hostility?

[_Runtu]

I think as a general rule here your statement above is not correct (you and Runtu being the rare exception). The prevailing culture of this board tends to be hostile to "TBM's" regardless of what type of attitude they may have (my own experience in changing my approach and getting no different reception from most here being a case in point).

I think you're wrong, Wade. We've had some good believing folks come over here without being ambushed. I believe the reason you got the reception you did (and I contributed to it) was because most of us had a past history with you. I'm glad we got beyond that.

However, I commend you and Runtu for your efforts in improving interfaith dialogue. You are two of the too few supposed opponents here that I think there is any value engaging with. And, I would advise any believers (including "Light in Darkness") to avoid wasting their time engaging certain other opponents here (Scratch, Beastie, Who Knows, GIMR, Vegasr/Mercury, etc.), and if they wish to continue participating here, to restrict their discussions to the few reasonable and open-minded and respectful critics, and to do so in respectful and thoughtful ways. Otherwise, what is the point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, Wade, I am up for conversation with anyone, no matter how openminded they are. Yes, we've all had our moments of poor behavior, but I'm not convinced that there's no hope. Heck, Polygamy Porter and I got along just fine when I was a believing apologist way back on FAIR. If we can get along and actually learn to like each other, anything's possible.

[_Blixa]

Wade:

And, I would advise any believers (including "Light in Darkness") to avoid wasting their time engaging certain other opponents here (Scratch, Beastie, Who Knows, GIMR, Vegasr/Mercury, etc.), and if they wish to continue participating here, to restrict their discussions to the few reasonable and open-minded and respectful critics, and to do so in respectful and thoughtful ways. Otherwise, what is the point?

I don't think its a good idea Wade to stigmatize some posters as "not to be engaged." While anyone who posts on any board long enough learns that there might be posters they want to avoid, I think that's an individual decision. And afterall, people can change and someone I might not think worthwhile at one point could later post something useful that I would miss if I were determined to avoid them.

That said, I do think that striving for reasonable discussion in which many people would feel comfortable to participate is a worthy goal. One can be critical and, dare I say, even "angry" without necessarily getting personal.

Of course, I reserve the right to give as good as I get.

[_Yoda]

Wade:

And, I would advise any believers (including "Light in Darkness") to avoid wasting their time engaging certain other opponents here (Scratch, Beastie, Who Knows, GIMR, Vegasr/Mercury, etc.), and if they wish to continue participating here, to restrict their discussions to the few reasonable and open-minded and respectful critics, and to do so in respectful and thoughtful ways. Otherwise, what is the point?

I don't think its a good idea Wade to stigmatize some posters as "not to be engaged." While anyone who posts on any board long enough learns that there might be posters they want to avoid, I think that's an individual decision. And afterall, people can change and someone I might not think worthwhile at one point could later post something useful that I would miss if I were determined to avoid them.

That said, I do think that striving for reasonable discussion in which many people would feel comfortable to participate is a worthy goal. One can be critical and, dare I say, even "angry" without necessarily getting personal.

Of course, I reserve the right to give as good as I get.

Well said! :)

[_Yoda]

The prevailing culture of this board tends to be hostile to "TBM's" regardless of what type of attitude they may have.

I disagree.

The only two posters on the board that consistently have a tendancy to "pounce" on TBM's are Vegas/Mercury and PP.

And, if you engage them in a friendly way, it has been my experience that they will, albeit at times begrudgingly, respond in kind. Won't you, boys? ;)

And, I would also submit that Coggins, on the other side of the aisle, has a tendancy to "pounce" on the critics. Coggins, however, can also be sweet-talked. ;)