The last time I'm going to talk about FAIR/MAD

[_wenglund]

I realized this week that I have never forgiven some of the people on MAD for the way they treated me, and I realized I needed to do that. But I also knew I had done and said things to them and about them that I needed to apologize for. So, I went over there and registered this morning and posted an apology in the Intro section. I think I can finally put that part of my life to rest.

I'm not going to post over there (on the off chance that I am not immediately banned, the mods need not worry about it), and I'm not going to post about MAD or the people who post there anymore. It just has to end for me. And it ends now.

Good for you!!! We all should be so bold, healthy, and foreward thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

All I am going to say is that I said some unkind things about specific posters over there that I regret and that I apologize for. I'm not sure I would say anyone was cruel or contemptible, but I am still mystified as to why things happened the way they did. I'm just saying I need to move on and forget about MAD. For whatever reason, I don't fit in there and am not welcome, so why worry about a situation that is unlikely to change? The only thing I can do is forgive them for what I consider bad behavior and to apologize for my own bad behavior.

[_Yoda]

All I am going to say is that I said some unkind things about specific posters over there that I regret and that I apologize for. I'm not sure I would say anyone was cruel or contemptible, but I am still mystified as to why things happened the way they did. I'm just saying I need to move on and forget about MAD. For whatever reason, I don't fit in there and am not welcome, so why worry about a situation that is unlikely to change? The only thing I can do is forgive them for what I consider bad behavior and to apologize for my own bad behavior.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown! ;)

It's their loss and our gain. And I'm with Kimberly Ann....There are plenty of mean women on this board who have got your back. ;)

[_Yoda]

Man, what do I gotta do to get to your man candy list?

Hmmmm....I'll have to think about it. Come by for your shock collar fitting and we'll see how things go from there. ;)

[_wenglund]

That is the kind of thing I find damn near unforgiveable.

Yeah, I'm with Blixa on this one....if anyone should be apologizing, it should be some of the MAD posters who treat people like sh*t, and then act like their sh*t don't stink.

Honestly unless I really missed some terrible thing he wrote I don't (or haven't) see(n) any slights by runtu that warrant apologizing for.

I am heartened to see yet more people eschewing the ill-treatment of others. However, I would think it would ring less hollow if the eschewing, itself, didn't contain ill-treatment, and those doing the eschewing would have attempted to put their own house (or discussion board) in order--this is particularly important point to good folks like Beastie.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I would think it would ring less hollow if the eschewing, itself, didn't contain ill-treatment, and those doing the eschewing would have attempted to put their own house (or discussion board) in order[.]

This discussion board is in order.

[_Blixa]

Wade, here's the thing.

I agree with you and disagree with you on this point (the eschewment of ill treatment of others, both on this board and off). But in detailing, explaining and arguing for my disagreement, my words could be construed as more "ill-treatment."

For example, I take issue with your singling out of beastie and if I wanted to explain why that is, I would have to recycle much about recent Ray A back-and-forths to demonstrate the difference I make between "offense" and "defense" in that unpleasant episode. And somewhere in there I would be clearly labeling some things "contemptible."

Moreover, I also think there can be moments in rigorous critical debate that can be (mis)interpreted as personal insult, at the same time that there is an obvious level of ad hominem personal insult that I don't think many would fail to recognize.

So my point is this: It strikes me that you think these things are more "clear" in practice than I do. Thus I don't think "the problem" can ever be completely eradicated to everyone's satisfaction.

That doesn't mean that we all can't continue to try for a level of civil discourse. Or that I would never find it useful when someone pointed out to me where I fall short. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if it's all that useful for you to keep making the same point about this over and over.

Let's all just keep trying and see where that gets us after a while.

[_wenglund]

Wade, here's the thing.

I agree with you and disagree with you on this point (the eschewment of ill treatment of others, both on this board and off). But in detailing, explaining and arguing for my disagreement, my words could be construed as more "ill-treatment."

For example, I take issue with your singling out of beastie and if I wanted to explain why that is, I would have to recycle much about recent Ray A back-and-forths to demonstrate the difference I make between "offense" and "defense" in that unpleasant episode. And somewhere in there I would be clearly labeling some things "contemptible."

Moreover, I also think there can be moments in rigorous critical debate that can be (mis)interpreted as personal insult, at the same time that there is an obvious level of ad hominem personal insult that I don't think many would fail to recognize.

So my point is this: It strikes me that you think these things are more "clear" in practice than I do. Thus I don't think "the problem" can ever be completely eradicated to everyone's satisfaction.

That doesn't mean that we all can't continue to try for a level of civil discourse. Or that I would never find it useful when someone pointed out to me where I fall short. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if it's all that useful for you to keep making the same point about this over and over.

Let's all just keep trying and see where that gets us after a while.

Your point is well taken.

I think we all would agree that there are agreeable and disagreeable ways of saying the same thing, and thus there can be reasonable treatment or ill-treatment in the way one says the same thing. In short, it is not so much what is being said, but the way it is being said--though what is said can at times and unavoidably amount to ill-treatment.

There are also issues that warrant consideration, and a proper time and a place to consider them.

And, I think that at least you and I and some others here would agree that it is preferred to strive for agreeable/reasonable treatment rather than disagreeable/ill-treatment, as well as pick our battles and reserving our efforts for things that have at least some chance of affecting positive change.

As long as that is the direction things in general here are headed, I am fine with that--though I see no harm in offering an occasional word of mild constructive encouragement.

It is just that there are those here and elsewhere who, like me in the past, seem disinclined to be reasonable in their treatment of those of opposing views, though at times ironically expecting reasonable treatment in return. I have, of late, attempted to restrict my constructive encouragement primarily to them (at least those who seem somewhat open to having meaningful and valued interactions with me), because I believe they stand to benefit the most therefrom.

For what it is worth, what I have found works for me in drawing a more "clear" distinction, in practice, between reasonable and ill treatment, is the Golden Rule.

Another factor I consider when striving to gain clarity, is to carefully and thoughtfully attempt to gleen intent. If the commments strike me as constructive and seem intended to edify all parties and improve interpersonal relations, then it is likely that the comment will be viewed by all sides as agreeable and reasonable treatment. However, if the comments strike me as destructive and seem intended to slam and denegrate, or have little chance of affecting positive change, then it is likely to be viewed by all sides as disagreeable and ill treatment.

Granted, there may be those on both sides who are hyper-sensative, and may overreact to whatever is said, and thus make others offenders for even the most benign of words. And, I think it wise for all parties to be vigilant in introspecting to make sure that we do not fall prey to such hyper-sensativity. I know that I have made a concerted effort in that regard, and given how little I have been disquited by the not infrequent harsh rhetoric extended towards me here (less in the recent past than months ago, though still with too frequent occurance), I think I may be doing quite well. The benefits in my doing so have been welcomed.

Does this all make sense?

As for my singling out Beastie, it had nothing really to do with the conflict between her and Ray, nor did I intend her specifically to be the object of my constructive encouragement (though I wouldn't rule her out). Rather, it was in regards to her frequent advise to me over the last several months about taking my message to my own before taking it to my supposd opponents, which advise I was simply passing on to others here with attributuion to her.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

Thanks for the response, Wade. Your comments do clarify for me some points in your earlier post.

Here's to fruitful discussions!

[_KimberlyAnn]

Wade, here's the thing.

I agree with you and disagree with you on this point (the eschewment of ill treatment of others, both on this board and off). But in detailing, explaining and arguing for my disagreement, my words could be construed as more "ill-treatment."

For example, I take issue with your singling out of beastie and if I wanted to explain why that is, I would have to recycle much about recent Ray A back-and-forths to demonstrate the difference I make between "offense" and "defense" in that unpleasant episode. And somewhere in there I would be clearly labeling some things "contemptible."

Moreover, I also think there can be moments in rigorous critical debate that can be (mis)interpreted as personal insult, at the same time that there is an obvious level of ad hominem personal insult that I don't think many would fail to recognize.

So my point is this: It strikes me that you think these things are more "clear" in practice than I do. Thus I don't think "the problem" can ever be completely eradicated to everyone's satisfaction.

That doesn't mean that we all can't continue to try for a level of civil discourse. Or that I would never find it useful when someone pointed out to me where I fall short. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if it's all that useful for you to keep making the same point about this over and over.

Let's all just keep trying and see where that gets us after a while.

Your point is well taken.

I think we all would agree that there are agreeable and disagreeable ways of saying the same thing, and thus there can be reasonable treatment or ill-treatment in the way one says the same thing. In short, it is not so much what is being said, but the way it is being said--though what is said can at times and unavoidably amount to ill-treatment.

There are also issues that warrant consideration, and a proper time and a place to consider them.

And, I think that at least you and I and some others here would agree that it is preferred to strive for agreeable/reasonable treatment rather than disagreeable/ill-treatment, as well as pick our battles and reserving our efforts for things that have at least some chance of affecting positive change.

As long as that is the direction things in general here are headed, I am fine with that--though I see no harm in offering an occasional word of mild constructive encouragement.

It is just that there are those here and elsewhere who, like me in the past, seem disinclined to be reasonable in their treatment of those of opposing views, though at times ironically expecting reasonable treatment in return. I have, of late, attempted to restrict my constructive encouragement primarily to them (at least those who seem somewhat open to having meaningful and valued interactions with me), because I believe they stand to benefit the most therefrom.

For what it is worth, what I have found works for me in drawing a more "clear" distinction, in practice, between reasonable and ill treatment, is the Golden Rule.

Another factor I consider when striving to gain clarity, is to carefully and thoughtfully attempt to gleen intent. If the commments strike me as constructive and seem intended to edify all parties and improve interpersonal relations, then it is likely that the comment will be viewed by all sides as agreeable and reasonable treatment. However, if the comments strike me as destructive and seem intended to slam and denegrate, or have little chance of affecting positive change, then it is likely to be viewed by all sides as disagreeable and ill treatment.

Granted, there may be those on both sides who are hyper-sensative, and may overreact to whatever is said, and thus make others offenders for even the most benign of words. And, I think it wise for all parties to be vigilant in introspecting to make sure that we do not fall prey to such hyper-sensativity. I know that I have made a concerted effort in that regard, and given how little I have been disquited by the not infrequent harsh rhetoric extended towards me here (less in the recent past than months ago, though still with too frequent occurance), I think I may be doing quite well. The benefits in my doing so have been welcomed.

Does this all make sense?

As for my singling out Beastie, it had nothing really to do with the conflict between her and Ray, nor did I intend her specifically to be the object of my constructive encouragement (though I wouldn't rule her out). Rather, it was in regards to her frequent advise to me over the last several months about taking my message to my own before taking it to my supposd opponents, which advise I was simply passing on to others here with attributuion to her.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, everything you wrote smacks of hypocrisy. Since you see the lack of harsh rhetoric being directed at you as an indication that you've come a long way in communicating more effectively, let me direct a little "harsh rhetoric" at you now so I can shatter that false illusion. There may be some folks here who think you're helpful or have good intentions. I don't. Based on my past interaction with you, I have concluded that everything you do is based on one agenda: to absolve your beloved Mormon church of any wrongdoing and instead assign fault or blame to the very people who were and are harmed by it.

A while back I posted my thoughts on a YW lesson I had as a girl. It included no personal attacks toward you or anyone else on this board, yet that didn't stop you from launching them, unprovoked, at me. You disagreed with my perspective on a lesson which you were never taught. You were never a young woman being told "licked cupcakes", or girls who had premarital sex, were gross. But your utter and complete lack of personal experience didn't thwart you! No. You posted that my perceptions were false. You called me a hysterical feminist. You said that I gave women a bad name and declared that if I would just act more loving that more love would be returned to me. Just how do you know how I behave toward my family and friends, many of whom happen to be Mormons? You don't know. I go out of my way to be kind and loving and tolerant of them, and many of them extend that same goodness to me. How dare you assume that I act otherwise?

In my perspective, you are a condescending, assuming, psycho-babbling hypocrite with an agenda. And yes, I've looked inside myself and that opinion is exactly what I found. Hopefully this post will accomplish something positive - you shutting up. Somehow I doubt it.

The hysterical, unloving feminist with false perceptions who gives women a bad name,

KA