Ambushed

[_Yoda]

A Light in the Darkness is not Ray. He/she has stated that he/she is not Ray, and I am willing to take him/her at his/her word.

A question for you, Light, however, if you care to answer.

Are you male or female?

The reason I ask is that it really helps engaging in conversation and "seeing" you as a real person.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi, Will. For the record, I did not call you "an enormous, ugly hypocrite." I said that if you are Ray, which seems possible, then you deserved that particular title. Also, for what it's worth, I have been called an awful lot of ugly names as well, by DCP no less. Do I also find it "fascinating"? Well, yes, I guess I do!

More accurately, you concluded I was Ray then called me an ugly, enormous hypocrite under the presumption I was Ray. Now my name is Will. Can I be Phinneas tomorrow? I've always liked that name.

You know, I like the name Phin[n]eas, too. It has a nice ring to it, especially if your surname consists of a single syllable.

:
I think you're right, Beastie. {That I am Ray} Of course, this means that Ray is an enormous, ugly hypocrite. He went on for pages, deriding us for using anonymity, and now, he is using it himself, trying very hard to avoid answering simple questions about his MAD handle, etc. It is amazing that he's able to live with himself.

Notice that you aren't talking hypothetically here. You are saying that I am Ray.

No, I said that I thought Beastie's assumptions were correct. However, you have now clearly stated that, in fact, you are not the poster known as Ray A. Since my above statement says, quite clearly, that Ray "is an enormous, ugly hypocrite," you can't very well attribute the insult to yourself. Sorry, old chap.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Sorry, old chap.

So when you said, "he is using it himself, trying very hard to avoid answering simple questions about his MAD handle, etc," were you referring to Ray or me?

[_Who Knows]

I would hope that more people would visit here and that we all would commit to being more hospitable to people of all faiths and perspectives. I certainly think it's possible. For what it's worth, Wade, I think just about everyone here considers you to be a valuable contributor to the board.

I don't know that I would agree with your perceptions, but it is kind of you to say. I do, though, share your hope, which is why I continue to participate here--at least with those who have demonstrated a willingness and capacity for hospitableness and productive dialogue.

The problem is, is that Wade's making it out to be a religious issue - ie., all TBM's are treated with hostility regardless of their attitude. But that's simply not the case.

It's not the temple recommend that gives rise to hostility, it's the attitude.

[_wenglund]

No one has been truly hostile. PP and Mercury can be abrasive but I think they're both fun if you take them the right way. On the whole I like these boards and prefer them to FAIR....maybe it's more fun being a minority ;)

I can appreciate and respect your perspective. In fact, when I first started posting again on this board over half a year ago, I was determined to approach things here with the same perspective in mind, and determined to have "fun" with PP an Mercury and others through playful banter and light-hearted verbal joisting.

However, over time I recognized that what I was doing in jest, they were doing and interpreting in earnest, and things tended to escalate out of control.

What's more, I figured that by taking that approach I may have, at best, inadvertantly reinforced bad behavior, and at worse, unwittingly condoned or encouraged religious bigotry.

Since then, I have tried to engage those two in healthy, friendly, and productive interactions, but to no avail. The same is true for others here, though certainly not all.

But, that may just be me. You, on the other hand, may have better luck with them than I had, and if so I wish you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

But, that may just be me. You, on the other hand, may have better luck with them than I had, and if so I wish you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We'll see.

[_Blixa]

I think "verbal mine field" is not that inaccurate a description, especially compared with "sewer" and "cesspool." Either way its no "walk in the park," but I'm not sure I'd want it to be entirely: critical exchange needs a different metaphor than strolling, I think.

The anonymous nature of much internet exchange, coupled with the "sound byte" communication fostered by quick emails, IM-ing and back-and-forths on BBS's encourages the flaming bon mot as the dominant internet rhetorical trope. I think that produces the "minefield" tendency of a lot of online discussion. Which is another way of saying I explain some of what goes on here as more determined by material conditions than individual's intent---but then you should know that I'd take that line, Wade ; )

[_Runtu]

I think "verbal mine field" is not that inaccurate a description, especially compared with "sewer" and "cesspool." Either way its no "walk in the park," but I'm not sure I'd want it to be entirely: critical exchange needs a different metaphor than strolling, I think.

The anonymous nature of much internet exchange, coupled with the "sound byte" communication fostered by quick emails, I'm-ing and back-and-forths on BBS's encourages the flaming bon mot as the dominant internet rhetorical trope. I think that produces the "minefield" tendency of a lot of online discussion. Which is another way of saying I explain some of what goes on here as more determined by material conditions than individual's intent---but then you should know that I'd take that line, Wade ; )

I agree wholeheartedly. I said before that I thought the level of personal animus here was no different than that on MADB. And the difference between MADB and RfM is one of degree, not of kind. That earned me some serious wrath over there. But I still believe it's so and for the reasons you mention. It's a function of the way we communicate, and it would be no different if we were talking about politics, cars, or knitting.

[_Mister Scratch]

Sorry, old chap.

So when you said, "he is using it himself, trying very hard to avoid answering simple questions about his MAD handle, etc," were you referring to Ray or me?

Let's play "quid pro quo," ALitD. You tell me your MAD posting handle, and I'll tell you whom I was referring to.

[_Bryan Inks]

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

It is no more arrogant than the president of the United States referring to himself as the commander and chief of the United States armed forces.

Ummm. He doesn't. The Constitution does. Minor difference, but a major flaw in your comment.