Maklelan - A romantic incentive

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Troll level: over 90000

In other words, "I know you are but what am I?!?" Again, well crafted.

That pretty much sums up what you've been doing the last 7 pages.

[_Sanctorian]

I guess you took my statements as an invitation to increase the speculation about me.

That's right, all we have is speculation. You could end all that, but you choose not to.

I don't understand why people here are so uncomfortable with someone not fitting nicely and neatly into the little boxes they've whittled out for the Church and the dynamics associated with its existence.

Besides being speculation on your part that people are "so uncomfortable", all we have is our own experiences within the frame work of the church. Psychology is not your strong point, but I find it naïve on your part that you can't see how you do not fit the general mold of the membership. You're on a damned critical board of the church for Christs sake. What are you hoping to accomplish?

[_maklelan]

That's right, all we have is speculation. You could end all that, but you choose not to.

In other words, you're threatening me with continued speculation about the intimate details of my personal life unless I provide what you want? That's the kind of rhetorical blackmail this thread has turned into? What about the fact that you could also end all of this by just dropping it?

Besides being speculation on your part that people are "so uncomfortable", all we have is our own experiences within the frame work of the church.

And you (plural) constantly tell me that yours (plural) is the only legitimate experience within the Church, and that mine is incomplete, uninformed, skewed, biased, etc. My own experience must always be filtered through yours (plural) so that it does not threaten the conceptualization you've (plural) constructed. I'm not speculating, I'm drawing a conclusion based on years of observation and some few explicit admissions.

Psychology is not your strong point,

I guess if you say so.

but I find it naïve on your part that you can't see how you do not fit the general mold of the membership.

I acknowledge that I don't fit the general mold. My issue is with the assumption that I must be made to fit one of the few molds you (plural) have developed.

You're on a damned critical board of the church for Christs sake. What are you hoping to accomplish?

I'm hoping to provide some objective and informed perspectives for those reading who don't know any better.

[_SteelHead]

Sanctorian, you asked Mark said no.... Why is it hard to respect his boundaries?

[_Sanctorian]

In other words, you're threatening me with continued speculation about the intimate details of my personal life unless I provide what you want? That's the kind of rhetorical blackmail this thread has turned into? What about the fact that you could also end all of this by just dropping it?

It's not blackmail. If you refuse to answer questions, you have to assume people will fill in the blank on their own.

And you (plural) constantly tell me that yours (plural) is the only legitimate experience within the Church, and that mine is incomplete, uninformed, skewed, biased, etc. My own experience must always be filtered through yours (plural) so that it does not threaten the conceptualization you've (plural) constructed. I'm not speculating, I'm drawing a conclusion based on years of observation and some few explicit admissions.

Of course it's the only legitimate experience and must be filtered through my (plural) experience. It's our own. Just like yours is your own which makes it legitimate to you. We are also drawing conclusions based on our years of observations. It goes both ways. You want your experience in the church legitimized without acknowledging that someone else has an experience different from yours.

I acknowledge that I don't fit the general mold. My issue is with the assumption that I must be made to fit one of the few molds you (plural) have developed.

If we have erred in which mold we have placed you in, you have every opportunity to rectify that.

I'm hoping to provide some objective and informed perspectives for those reading who don't know any better.

How saintly of you.

[_Sanctorian]

Sanctorian, you asked Mark said no.... Why is it hard to respect his boundaries?

Because he comes on every thread and calls us all naïve, uniformed, wrong in our accusations towards the church and its leadership. If he wants to drop his rhetoric, he'll get left alone.

[_maklelan]

Because he comes on every thread and calls us all naïve, uniformed, wrong in our accusations towards the church and its leadership. If he wants to drop his rhetoric, he'll get left alone.

That's not true at all. I comment on very few threads, and I agree with criticisms almost as much as I disagree. If I see something that's naïve, uninformed, or wrong, though, I'm going to point it out. Some people are guilty of that more than others. I don't see why extended speculation about intimate details of my personal life is the necessary response.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

If I see something that's naïve, uninformed, or wrong, though, I'm going to point it out. Some people are guilty of that more than others.

It's nice to know the board has a self-appointed judge to decide what is wrong, naïve and uniformed.

Thanks, Mak.

[_maklelan]

It's nice to know the board has a self-appointed judge to decide what is wrong, naïve and uniformed.

Thanks, Mak.

Right, because no one else here judges the claims of others. I'm the odd man out.

Hey, remember that time you openly lied about being a bishop going on a trip to Israel with DCP, and then you used his accessing of the CDOL as a smokescreen to keep attention off the fact that you were openly lying? I seem to recall you calling him "childish and silly" for taking issue with your deception. Did you ever own up to that, or did you just figure you had successfully deflected the attention and chalked it up as a win?

[_informant]

Hey, remember that time you openly lied about being a bishop going on a trip to Israel with DCP, and then you used his accessing of the CDOL as a smokescreen to keep attention off the fact that you were openly lying? I seem to recall you calling him "childish and silly" for taking issue with your deception. Did you ever own up to that, or did you just figure you had successfully deflected the attention and chalked it up as a win?

OH NO HE didn't...............,.........!

Smackdown by thE Makdown!!!!! prediction......everybody wangs his own chung wont reply