You can't say that I've ever put you in a "groupthink" box. So your argument on that subject is with someone else. I haven't had any comment on groupthink other than that "ye may be able to comprehend with all saints..." is the kind of groupthink I subscribe to, which of course is meant to be a lighthearted take on it the idea.
The list of people you put me with in your example is so far off base, I'm quite sure you don't know me. Check out my exchanges with Mike, if you care. My byline is "TBone's protege" for goodness sake. But at the moment you were agreeing with TB.
Going back to Abi, I really do hope she finds a church family outside of GS. I can't imagine how difficult it would be if this place was my "main" fellowship. It's absolutely bizarre that someone like her could be treated like she has been. She ought to be adored and treasured. I know she would be if she lived around here. But she's tough. She's had to be. She went through TWI2. Great training.
I've found great friends here, and stimulating discussion. I've changed a lot since I've been here, which is a very short time. I realized that some of the first impressions I had of certain people were very incomplete, and have grown close to some with whom I had traded some pretty in-your-face words. My guess is that there is a lot more to Larry than meets the eye. I know that's true of you, too, Dot.
It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing people to try to sway them to their POV against another person. It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing the mods and asking them to ban someone.
To hash differences out in a thread is one thing. I have seen numerous times when a thread started out very ugly, but when it was "left to be" the participants were eventually able to hash things out and come to a place of mutual respect, if not agreement.
BUT, to start PMing people in an attempt to sway one person against another is something else entirely. That has happened here - the "warnings" good inentioned though they may be, are ultimately a means of potnetially isolating one person out as a the "bad guy" by swaying others to your POV. (I use "you" generally and do not mean you specifically, Dot.)
I have received such "warnings" about Larry, and I have spoken out against such things in several threads over the years now. I have received such "warnings" about others here as well. People who are still here and ahve offered much. I find that type of behavior even more aggravating than anything Larry has done out in the open on the forums!
I get that Larry's interactions with some of you have been offensive. I think some of the interactions others have had with Larry could be equally offensive from his POV.
I don't think everyone here has to agree with or even like everyone else. There are people here who I care about, in the sense that I see them as a fellow human being, who I don't particularly like as individuals.
BUT - those same people who I don't like may very well say things that are very healing to someone else. Larry may be very offensive to some of you, yet say things to someone else that are very healing. See?
I think every person here is an important part of this place, whether I like them as an individual or not.
(((Dan)))) thank you! Your words have not gone unnoticed by me!!!
And I will soon be moving on to find a face to face church, fellowship, whatever it eventually turns out to be. That is not to say I am never going to come here again, never going to post here again. But in time, as I find the right fit for me, I will probably post less and less. As the Holy Days come to an end, I have a few different options I will be investigating, including the one you recommended. :)
I am also going to give the Synagogue near here a second try. There is a new Rabbi there and I figure this time I will go and actually mingle with the people afteward, instead of running out right after the service. I like the notion of a Synagogue very much, if it works out to be a good fit. They provide many opportunitties to give - groups who help feed the homeless type stuff. They also have classes that I could take and I have heard from my cousin they would probably provide a scholarship so the boys could go to Hebrew school. So I do want to give that another, more honest try.
Anyway, I didn't want you to think I hadn't read what you said. Thank you (((Dan)))
Hey Abi! Didn't know all that.
But it wasn't everyone, I didn't anyway.
No, you didn't. And I think those who did were very well intentioned, really!!!! I think they wrote out of concern not with an intent to do damage. But I think it has the very real potential to do serious damage, nonetheless.
Once again, for emphasis - I don't think anyone INTENDED harm. I don't think anyone's heart was to hurt someone else.
When this thread was started, Tonto didn't name anyone. I know it never even occured to several people (including myself) that the original post in this thread was even directed toward Larry (and maybe it wasn't).
It was only later that it seemed to me some of the posts were absolutely directed toward Larry.
Now, in my mind, it is one thing for someone to "confront" (and there's a word from TWI that still makes my skin crawl) Larry and tell him he is acting like a jerk. For maybe the two of them to has things out and find a place of mutual respect, even if they never agree. Or to simply decide they should avoid each other because they are oil and water. Heck, I even hashed things out with Larry at one point, and fortunately for me, we were able to find that place of mutual respect.
BUT when one person calls someone out for bad behavior, is it really necessary for 4, 5, 6 however many other people to all chime in and say "yeah, you're a jerk!" At that point, it strikes me that the person is then being ganged up on.
Some people can take that, especially if they have someone else to help advocate for them. Others cannot - they won't be helped by being ganged up upon, they will only be hurt. Perhaps they could have been helped if it had remained more of a one to one dialogue, but because they feel ganged up upon and the defenses have gone up - they will be unable to actually receive any benefit.
When this thread was started, Tonto didn't name anyone. I know it never even occured to several people (including myself) that the original post in this thread was even directed toward Larry (and maybe it wasn't).
The fact that that Larry kept responding was kind of a directive tool...
I did not get any pm's trying to sway me about Larry
So, if your intent is to make me feel badly for LARRY – think again.
I am still nauseated over the treatment of John Juedes, of Rascal –(who BTW has been tortured by groupthink each time she starts to post.), of Dmiller who Larry all but called him stupid because Dmiller disagreed with HIM. And don’t even tell me that Cman did not try to be kind. He was wonderful as Larry dissected him, as were many many others. Skyrider who can intellectually topple him, Sunesis whose personal experiences are being denied and treated like a doozie!
But somehow, all of this gets lost here because of poor Larry. He doesn’t fit in.
One thing, I learned YEARS ago, as I gathered people for Twig fellowship and would “love” them, drive them places, buy things for them, some of the loneliest people are lonely because they deserve to be. They have no friends because they run them off, they have no place to go because they destroy every place they have ever been.
<snip>
WOW........all this discussion about Larry, how he's treated, groupthink, etc.
As I move from table conversation to table conversation here at the Cafe.......there are tables where I enjoy the discussions, the food, the laughs, and just hanging for awhile. I like it here.....but I also know, that there are certain situations or antagonistic discussions that really just go nowhere.
And, yes......I've conversed with Larry on a few occasions, but found the sarcastic attitude abit too toxic to my liking. Sure, maybe he's trying to "find himself" or whatever........I have no problem giving him some space.
Gee, I think that term groupthink is totally misplaced in this situation. To me, Greasespot is dynamics in action......with each of us, thinking and expressing and growing at our own pace. Heck, there are no statements of belief to adhere to .....no meetings to attend......no threats of taking your nametag.......no mog expecting sexual favors in the motorcoach........no way rag regurgitating articles.
I enjoy healthy, thought-provoking discusssions.....like those from Dot, Rascal, T-Bone, Tonto, Sunesis, Socks, DMiller, etc. etc. etc. I do NOT like the badgering of questions that belittle and demean our experiences in twi.
Does anyone here ever think that we all make a lot of assumptons about people, with very few, if any facts to back these assumption up with? Or am I a lone in this?
That is also insulting. Does anyone see themselves as so WEAK that getting a pm would make you dislike someone?
You could each write me 100 pm's about how great Larry is, it will not sway me. I find him to be offensive.
Likewise, 100 of you could write to me bad things about Sunesis and I would still like her (nobody has Sun)
Is anyone that weak?
Do you view yourself as that weak?
I think most of us ADULTS here are old enough to formulate our own opinions. Case in point, for years people have told me how great VP is, I still think he isn't.
If it WERE that easy, with this crowd, Oldies would burn his PFAL books, Exxie would hang a picture of VP in her den, and Mike would become a dedicated Catholic.
This is a forum not a sandbox, although at times.....
No, Larry got what he dished out and there is no "abuse excuse" to give him any wiggle room. IMHO No, Twinky excuse!
RG, I love newcomers - we all were new here once. I have another Christian website I go on - vastly different from here. I scoped it out, and when I first went on was very polite, and continue to be - I didn't go in like a bull in a china shop insulting people, etc.
After you've been here awhile, you relax, get to know posters, their opinions, political leanings, biblical leanings, etc. I love having discussions - even if I do not agree. After a while you get to know others you don't agree with, probably never will, and just leave them alone. It just takes awhile to get the lay of the land.
I will say though, I have never, in all my years of posting here and at waydale, seen someone trash and derail threads, insult posters, try and "trap" them, like LM did. It got frustrating, because there could be a great conversation going on, he comes in, derails it and destroys it, and new people may wonder why we're "ganging up" on someone. If someone consistently spoils a thread, its time to let them go. I've seen other boards, sometimes you do have to tell people - hit the road, p*ss in someone else's wheaties.
I think you also have a group of Geerites and TWI innies who decided they were going to come in here and derail, mock, and give those who are not in love with TWI or VP, a very hard time. Now, they are going so far as to suggest those who don't agree with them are possessed, have devil spirits, a spirit of error, etc. (and is always a dead giveaway they are involved in a TWI spin off). The person doesn't like someone's opinion? Well, hey, they must be possessed. And from what I've seen of them over time, I believe its calculated.
.
Sunesis,
You failed to mention the groups of trinitarians and people who never were in TWI that "decided to come in here and derail, mock and give those who are not in love TWI of VP a very hard time?"
That's quite a group you've put me in, there, Dot. From my point of view, I'd say that AnotherDan is willing and ready to learn from anyone, and to love anyone, but the ones I look up to most around here include TBone, Wrdsandwrks, Abi, George Aar, Socks, ButNowISee, Another Spot, Pawtucket, JohnJ, and debbieb. And others.
Dan, Thanks for including me in your list. I'm honored.
Dan, Thanks for including me in your list. I'm honored.
As a bonafide newbie, my own journey here so far has been a surprising one. I expected to find some good folks, but I really had no idea. Like TB (my mentor) says, my doctrine is all messed up. I have quite a few loose ends, so take what I say with as much salt as you like.
I believe the body of Christ is a living reality. There is a "visible church" and a "functioning church," and they sometimes overlap. The people on my "list" were those who occured to me at the moment as "elders." As I said, there are others; I was just making a point about the list Dot put me in. And I'm mindful of the "members of the body" that don't seem so "comely." God has tempered the body together, giving more honor to that part which lacked. I hear from the Lord through my grandchildren, and through them, He ministers to me. I have particular regard for the people I listed, and I think the scriptures say we are to render honor to whom honor is due. These are the kind of people with whom I can "be subject to" in the sense of "submit yourselves one to another" because I recognise something about them that reminds me of Christ. My theory is that this is because they are subject to him. George may not say so in so many words, would be my guess, and I'm glad that doesn't get in the way of my appreciation of his honesty.
I respect Rascal, and I think her often-expressed outrage is entirely appropriate and in accord with God's own outrage at those who take advantage of God's "little ones." We don't connect much because I personally am not dealing with those issues that are along those lines, but she has helped me to weep properly for those who are.
That said, the inclusion or exclusion from my example "list" should not be taken too literally. My desire is to be subject to Christ where ever I find him, and he does surprise me from time to time.
You failed to mention the groups of trinitarians and people who never were in TWI that "decided to come in here and derail, mock and give those who are not in love TWI of VP a very hard time?"
Possibly the reason Sunesis "failed to mention" them is because this hasn't happened yet.
In my time at the GSC (which is not ALL the time but predates Y2K, IIRC)
this has not happened.
We have not had "groups" of "trinitarians and people who never were in twi" at all,
let alone who "decided to come here and derail, mock and give those who are not in
love with twi and vp a very hard time."
What we HAVE had is one person, not a "group"
who is a "trinitarian" (ooo, a Trinitarian, call the cops)
who DID take pfal,
who wrote an analysis of certain things concerning vpw and twi.
He was INVITED here to post, and has posted.
Those posts were on topic for their threads, and not "derailing."
They disagreed, they did not "mock".
They informed, and weren't DESIGNED to give anyone a hard time.
That having been said, I expect that tactfully-phrased true information about vpw
will feel like "a hard time" to people determined to pretend they don't exist.
There ARE polite ways to disagree and discuss.
twi's methods were NEVER polite- they use ridicule, distort the positions of others,
and put forth that everyone who doesn't agree with them are in error, foolish,
or worse. Many people formerly of twi learned to do that in twi. Some of those
people have moved on since then. Some of those people still rely on it, however.
many people who disagree on many things-including Christians and non-Christians-
get along quite peaceably at the GSC. According to twi, you would think that
divide alone would make discussion, let alone peaceable, intelligent discussion,
impossible. Well, people are often capable of things not imagined in the sterile,
barren little world painted by twi.
=========
Oh, and for the record,
depicting one man who rarely posts as an organized conspiracy,
I consider that depiction indicative of something all by itself.
It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing people to try to sway them to their POV against another person. It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing the mods and asking them to ban someone.
Cool, you mean the injustice of Larry's actions affected more than ONE person at the same time? Cool, God was working in more than one heart!
Praise God! People were at the same time trying to report what looked-to-be like a troll and a forum assassin? They reported what THEY saw, how it affected them, and they tried to protect Greasespot? I find that awesome! I had no idea that even one person asked Paw to ban him.
Well done!
Again, I agree. And I will say this publicly, though I am walking out on quite a limb here. I PMd with Larry the night things were at their worst in this thread and he was repeatedly posting the "ignore" screen.
The reason I kept confronting him is he got a dose of his own medicine and he could not handle it. Like the bully on the playground, he is one until someone stops him. Mmmmm my motives were bad but I am sure his were pure... After all he has shown to be such a nice guy.
You will have to talk to Dooj herself, but I imagine she had enough as well.
Pm's - groupthink
And yet it was fine for you and Larry (and it appears another guy) to have pm's about the retaliatory posts LArry was getting, it was okay for YOU to talk about it -- Just not anyone else?
Mmmmm okay... <_<
Seems to me –
Larry arrived spewing insults. People were taken back. Some people wanted to leave and not fight back, some tried to hold their own, some ignored him hoping he would mellow. He continued to spew.
People, independently, were tired of it. They began to tell him to back off. Because he offended SO MANY, it may have appeared to be a “gang” because he insulted a “gang” of people. People, who for the most part, had not been tied together by anything other than posting here.
Tonto started a thread because of the ATTITUDES. She was kind enough not to put Larry’s name in the title.
But Larry came to this thread and in 77 posts he showed he was fearless, determined and arrogant. Some people fought back, I am included. Enough is enough. Some people seemed to cower at his Craig-like demeanor and a few defended him.
Larry insulted people and trashed threads.
The defense? It wasn’t Larry it was we did not make him feel welcome.
WE had “groupthink” and that is why we were insulted (to stupid to get insulted on our own)
We got Pm’s that swayed our opinion of Larry
And finally WE ganged up on HIM.
So WE did this to HIM.
I find the defense weak and insulting. It is the Twinky defense that opened the door to the “no responsibility for your actions” defenses you see in court today.
They killed them out of “black rage”
She killed him because of “post traumatic stress”
He killed him them because "of a sleep disorder…"
And my favorite, the one that started it all, he killed them because "he ate too much junk food and the sugar is to blame…. Twinky defense”
Larry did this to Larry. People did not like being insulted. They came to that conclusion ON THEIR OWN.
IF someone tells you, “if you pass the basket I will spit in it!”
Do you need “groupthink” to understand you were insulted? Do you NEED a pm so you can figure out Larry insulted you? And if a few people had ENOUGH at the same time, is that ganging up on someone? He insulted people and ran all over the board ruining discussions. Larry did this to Larry. Larry happens to be x-way but he is also a “troll” so-to-speak.
The arguments protecting him are weak and insulting. First Larry insults us, then the defense reiterates that we are weak and easily led, not even smart enough to SEE on our OWN that we were insulted.
What a Twinky defense…. Sorry kids, I am not interested in swamp land in Florida either.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
32
74
35
Popular Days
Sep 13
84
Sep 2
71
Sep 15
40
Sep 3
39
Top Posters In This Topic
doojable 30 posts
cman 32 posts
Larry N Moore 74 posts
anotherDan 35 posts
Popular Days
Sep 13 2007
84 posts
Sep 2 2007
71 posts
Sep 15 2007
40 posts
Sep 3 2007
39 posts
anotherDan
You were making a point about "groupthink." OK.
You can't say that I've ever put you in a "groupthink" box. So your argument on that subject is with someone else. I haven't had any comment on groupthink other than that "ye may be able to comprehend with all saints..." is the kind of groupthink I subscribe to, which of course is meant to be a lighthearted take on it the idea.
The list of people you put me with in your example is so far off base, I'm quite sure you don't know me. Check out my exchanges with Mike, if you care. My byline is "TBone's protege" for goodness sake. But at the moment you were agreeing with TB.
Going back to Abi, I really do hope she finds a church family outside of GS. I can't imagine how difficult it would be if this place was my "main" fellowship. It's absolutely bizarre that someone like her could be treated like she has been. She ought to be adored and treasured. I know she would be if she lived around here. But she's tough. She's had to be. She went through TWI2. Great training.
I've found great friends here, and stimulating discussion. I've changed a lot since I've been here, which is a very short time. I realized that some of the first impressions I had of certain people were very incomplete, and have grown close to some with whom I had traded some pretty in-your-face words. My guess is that there is a lot more to Larry than meets the eye. I know that's true of you, too, Dot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well, I think if Abi was here she might rethink the group think thought :)
Anyways, Larry said that about everyone at GSC, so it's from him too.
Point is I think is that somehow Larry helped Abi through something. Which is good.
And Larry was not run off, he left on his own, leaving us to quibble about why.
Which sucks.
Seems he wanted something he was not getting, so he left.
Nobodies fault but his own.
He can return, but I would appreciate honesty in his attitude.
I mean if one honestly sees something then speak up.
But don't blame everyone for what you think you see.
Let people clarify what they are saying.
Instead of jumping to conclusions one could have patience.
And yeah I reckon change is not required but we will anyway.
Whether we are here at GSC or anywhere else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing people to try to sway them to their POV against another person. It becomes group think - or at least has the very real potential of becoming group think, when people start PMing the mods and asking them to ban someone.
To hash differences out in a thread is one thing. I have seen numerous times when a thread started out very ugly, but when it was "left to be" the participants were eventually able to hash things out and come to a place of mutual respect, if not agreement.
BUT, to start PMing people in an attempt to sway one person against another is something else entirely. That has happened here - the "warnings" good inentioned though they may be, are ultimately a means of potnetially isolating one person out as a the "bad guy" by swaying others to your POV. (I use "you" generally and do not mean you specifically, Dot.)
I have received such "warnings" about Larry, and I have spoken out against such things in several threads over the years now. I have received such "warnings" about others here as well. People who are still here and ahve offered much. I find that type of behavior even more aggravating than anything Larry has done out in the open on the forums!
I get that Larry's interactions with some of you have been offensive. I think some of the interactions others have had with Larry could be equally offensive from his POV.
I don't think everyone here has to agree with or even like everyone else. There are people here who I care about, in the sense that I see them as a fellow human being, who I don't particularly like as individuals.
BUT - those same people who I don't like may very well say things that are very healing to someone else. Larry may be very offensive to some of you, yet say things to someone else that are very healing. See?
I think every person here is an important part of this place, whether I like them as an individual or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hey Abi! Didn't know all that.
But it wasn't everyone, I didn't anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
(((Dan)))) thank you! Your words have not gone unnoticed by me!!!
And I will soon be moving on to find a face to face church, fellowship, whatever it eventually turns out to be. That is not to say I am never going to come here again, never going to post here again. But in time, as I find the right fit for me, I will probably post less and less. As the Holy Days come to an end, I have a few different options I will be investigating, including the one you recommended. :)
I am also going to give the Synagogue near here a second try. There is a new Rabbi there and I figure this time I will go and actually mingle with the people afteward, instead of running out right after the service. I like the notion of a Synagogue very much, if it works out to be a good fit. They provide many opportunitties to give - groups who help feed the homeless type stuff. They also have classes that I could take and I have heard from my cousin they would probably provide a scholarship so the boys could go to Hebrew school. So I do want to give that another, more honest try.
Anyway, I didn't want you to think I hadn't read what you said. Thank you (((Dan)))
No, you didn't. And I think those who did were very well intentioned, really!!!! I think they wrote out of concern not with an intent to do damage. But I think it has the very real potential to do serious damage, nonetheless.
Once again, for emphasis - I don't think anyone INTENDED harm. I don't think anyone's heart was to hurt someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
One more thought on the group think - -
When this thread was started, Tonto didn't name anyone. I know it never even occured to several people (including myself) that the original post in this thread was even directed toward Larry (and maybe it wasn't).
It was only later that it seemed to me some of the posts were absolutely directed toward Larry.
Now, in my mind, it is one thing for someone to "confront" (and there's a word from TWI that still makes my skin crawl) Larry and tell him he is acting like a jerk. For maybe the two of them to has things out and find a place of mutual respect, even if they never agree. Or to simply decide they should avoid each other because they are oil and water. Heck, I even hashed things out with Larry at one point, and fortunately for me, we were able to find that place of mutual respect.
BUT when one person calls someone out for bad behavior, is it really necessary for 4, 5, 6 however many other people to all chime in and say "yeah, you're a jerk!" At that point, it strikes me that the person is then being ganged up on.
Some people can take that, especially if they have someone else to help advocate for them. Others cannot - they won't be helped by being ganged up upon, they will only be hurt. Perhaps they could have been helped if it had remained more of a one to one dialogue, but because they feel ganged up upon and the defenses have gone up - they will be unable to actually receive any benefit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
The fact that that Larry kept responding was kind of a directive tool...
I did not get any pm's trying to sway me about Larry
I was completely offended on my own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Truthfully I think Larry wanted it to be about him.
And wanted Tonto's post to represent GSC as a whole.
So it always takes two or more ya know. He could have quit on this thread.
Instead he did the big exit thingy.
Which I've done too...lol...for different reasons though.
I'm guessing that he watched this place a while before posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
WOW........all this discussion about Larry, how he's treated, groupthink, etc.
As I move from table conversation to table conversation here at the Cafe.......there are tables where I enjoy the discussions, the food, the laughs, and just hanging for awhile. I like it here.....but I also know, that there are certain situations or antagonistic discussions that really just go nowhere.
And, yes......I've conversed with Larry on a few occasions, but found the sarcastic attitude abit too toxic to my liking. Sure, maybe he's trying to "find himself" or whatever........I have no problem giving him some space.
Gee, I think that term groupthink is totally misplaced in this situation. To me, Greasespot is dynamics in action......with each of us, thinking and expressing and growing at our own pace. Heck, there are no statements of belief to adhere to .....no meetings to attend......no threats of taking your nametag.......no mog expecting sexual favors in the motorcoach........no way rag regurgitating articles.
I enjoy healthy, thought-provoking discusssions.....like those from Dot, Rascal, T-Bone, Tonto, Sunesis, Socks, DMiller, etc. etc. etc. I do NOT like the badgering of questions that belittle and demean our experiences in twi.
Have a good weekend......everyone.
skyrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Does anyone here ever think that we all make a lot of assumptons about people, with very few, if any facts to back these assumption up with? Or am I a lone in this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
(((Skyrider))))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
((((((((((( dot )))))))))))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
We all do that RainbowsGirl imo.
Most wait it out to see if they are right or wrong or things change i believe.
Or perhaps that's an assumption.
the old gut feeling instinct or whatever one wants to call it.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
RG
No offense, but I do not think I need to go on an excavation to SEE someone who is mean and insulting.
It is not my job to dig and try to find the caramel center.
People can if they want to do so.
But you come in like a skunk, who just lost a load on everyone, then you get what you get.
There are many more wonderful people here who are “just wonderful”. If anyone needs help THAT badly then go see someone.
(not speaking OF you, but TO your post, thanks :) )
(((EXXIE))))
(((((CMAN)))))
I agree
I kept waiting and waiting as he decked Rascal then Sunesis, then Buklwinkl, then Dmiller....
Enough is enough.
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
cman, another great post. I'm glad to be getting to know you better!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Re: Pm's
Welllll Nowwww....
Hate to say it, but...
That is also insulting. Does anyone see themselves as so WEAK that getting a pm would make you dislike someone?
You could each write me 100 pm's about how great Larry is, it will not sway me. I find him to be offensive.
Likewise, 100 of you could write to me bad things about Sunesis and I would still like her (nobody has Sun)
Is anyone that weak?
Do you view yourself as that weak?
I think most of us ADULTS here are old enough to formulate our own opinions. Case in point, for years people have told me how great VP is, I still think he isn't.
If it WERE that easy, with this crowd, Oldies would burn his PFAL books, Exxie would hang a picture of VP in her den, and Mike would become a dedicated Catholic.
This is a forum not a sandbox, although at times.....
No, Larry got what he dished out and there is no "abuse excuse" to give him any wiggle room. IMHO No, Twinky excuse!
I don't buy it, sorry....
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
RG, I love newcomers - we all were new here once. I have another Christian website I go on - vastly different from here. I scoped it out, and when I first went on was very polite, and continue to be - I didn't go in like a bull in a china shop insulting people, etc.
After you've been here awhile, you relax, get to know posters, their opinions, political leanings, biblical leanings, etc. I love having discussions - even if I do not agree. After a while you get to know others you don't agree with, probably never will, and just leave them alone. It just takes awhile to get the lay of the land.
I will say though, I have never, in all my years of posting here and at waydale, seen someone trash and derail threads, insult posters, try and "trap" them, like LM did. It got frustrating, because there could be a great conversation going on, he comes in, derails it and destroys it, and new people may wonder why we're "ganging up" on someone. If someone consistently spoils a thread, its time to let them go. I've seen other boards, sometimes you do have to tell people - hit the road, p*ss in someone else's wheaties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I keep forgetting a lot of posters here don't visit other boards.
There's plenty of other messageboards out there.
I've served as a moderator, an admin, and declined offers to BE a moderator at
various boards. One of the things the staff HAS to do is to police the board.
That means that, sooner or later, they will have to decide some things- posts, whatever-
need to be addressed.
I've seen fully unmoderated boards, and the ones I'm thinking of died off.
Why?
Eventually, they were visited by trolls, and there was NO corrective mechanism.
So, the trolls totally derailed every discussion, and eventually all the legit posters
walked out in frustration.
That's why staff HAS TO make judgement calls.
Sometimes that's easy-posts that are advertisements, bots selling things, etc.
Sometimes it's NOT so easy. That's why the staff needs discernment- what looks
harmless to some is the first stage in some bigger plot sometimes,
and other times something suspicious-looking is completely innocent.
None of that means staff just doesn't judge.
They are REQUIRED to judge.
Sometimes, something can be corrected with one or more regulars saying something.
I've known boards where that's all the non-ads need.
Sometimes, it takes staff saying something before someone will admit they need
to adjust something.
Sometimes, someone is of no use whatsoever to a community and needs to get
banned.
Staff have to try to recognize which is which, and that's the hard part.
But the worst possibility is the staff refusing to judge. Then they're surrendering
to entropy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Good stuff, sunesis and WW. Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
Sunesis,
You failed to mention the groups of trinitarians and people who never were in TWI that "decided to come in here and derail, mock and give those who are not in love TWI of VP a very hard time?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Dan, Thanks for including me in your list. I'm honored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
As a bonafide newbie, my own journey here so far has been a surprising one. I expected to find some good folks, but I really had no idea. Like TB (my mentor) says, my doctrine is all messed up. I have quite a few loose ends, so take what I say with as much salt as you like.
I believe the body of Christ is a living reality. There is a "visible church" and a "functioning church," and they sometimes overlap. The people on my "list" were those who occured to me at the moment as "elders." As I said, there are others; I was just making a point about the list Dot put me in. And I'm mindful of the "members of the body" that don't seem so "comely." God has tempered the body together, giving more honor to that part which lacked. I hear from the Lord through my grandchildren, and through them, He ministers to me. I have particular regard for the people I listed, and I think the scriptures say we are to render honor to whom honor is due. These are the kind of people with whom I can "be subject to" in the sense of "submit yourselves one to another" because I recognise something about them that reminds me of Christ. My theory is that this is because they are subject to him. George may not say so in so many words, would be my guess, and I'm glad that doesn't get in the way of my appreciation of his honesty.
I respect Rascal, and I think her often-expressed outrage is entirely appropriate and in accord with God's own outrage at those who take advantage of God's "little ones." We don't connect much because I personally am not dealing with those issues that are along those lines, but she has helped me to weep properly for those who are.
That said, the inclusion or exclusion from my example "list" should not be taken too literally. My desire is to be subject to Christ where ever I find him, and he does surprise me from time to time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Possibly the reason Sunesis "failed to mention" them is because this hasn't happened yet.
In my time at the GSC (which is not ALL the time but predates Y2K, IIRC)
this has not happened.
We have not had "groups" of "trinitarians and people who never were in twi" at all,
let alone who "decided to come here and derail, mock and give those who are not in
love with twi and vp a very hard time."
What we HAVE had is one person, not a "group"
who is a "trinitarian" (ooo, a Trinitarian, call the cops)
who DID take pfal,
who wrote an analysis of certain things concerning vpw and twi.
He was INVITED here to post, and has posted.
Those posts were on topic for their threads, and not "derailing."
They disagreed, they did not "mock".
They informed, and weren't DESIGNED to give anyone a hard time.
That having been said, I expect that tactfully-phrased true information about vpw
will feel like "a hard time" to people determined to pretend they don't exist.
There ARE polite ways to disagree and discuss.
twi's methods were NEVER polite- they use ridicule, distort the positions of others,
and put forth that everyone who doesn't agree with them are in error, foolish,
or worse. Many people formerly of twi learned to do that in twi. Some of those
people have moved on since then. Some of those people still rely on it, however.
many people who disagree on many things-including Christians and non-Christians-
get along quite peaceably at the GSC. According to twi, you would think that
divide alone would make discussion, let alone peaceable, intelligent discussion,
impossible. Well, people are often capable of things not imagined in the sterile,
barren little world painted by twi.
=========
Oh, and for the record,
depicting one man who rarely posts as an organized conspiracy,
I consider that depiction indicative of something all by itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Praise God! People were at the same time trying to report what looked-to-be like a troll and a forum assassin? They reported what THEY saw, how it affected them, and they tried to protect Greasespot? I find that awesome! I had no idea that even one person asked Paw to ban him.
Well done!
The reason I kept confronting him is he got a dose of his own medicine and he could not handle it. Like the bully on the playground, he is one until someone stops him. Mmmmm my motives were bad but I am sure his were pure... After all he has shown to be such a nice guy.
You will have to talk to Dooj herself, but I imagine she had enough as well.
Pm's - groupthink
And yet it was fine for you and Larry (and it appears another guy) to have pm's about the retaliatory posts LArry was getting, it was okay for YOU to talk about it -- Just not anyone else?
Mmmmm okay... <_<
Seems to me –
Larry arrived spewing insults. People were taken back. Some people wanted to leave and not fight back, some tried to hold their own, some ignored him hoping he would mellow. He continued to spew.
People, independently, were tired of it. They began to tell him to back off. Because he offended SO MANY, it may have appeared to be a “gang” because he insulted a “gang” of people. People, who for the most part, had not been tied together by anything other than posting here.
Tonto started a thread because of the ATTITUDES. She was kind enough not to put Larry’s name in the title.
But Larry came to this thread and in 77 posts he showed he was fearless, determined and arrogant. Some people fought back, I am included. Enough is enough. Some people seemed to cower at his Craig-like demeanor and a few defended him.
Larry insulted people and trashed threads.
The defense? It wasn’t Larry it was we did not make him feel welcome.
WE had “groupthink” and that is why we were insulted (to stupid to get insulted on our own)
We got Pm’s that swayed our opinion of Larry
And finally WE ganged up on HIM.
So WE did this to HIM.
I find the defense weak and insulting. It is the Twinky defense that opened the door to the “no responsibility for your actions” defenses you see in court today.
They killed them out of “black rage”
She killed him because of “post traumatic stress”
He killed him them because "of a sleep disorder…"
And my favorite, the one that started it all, he killed them because "he ate too much junk food and the sugar is to blame…. Twinky defense”
Larry did this to Larry. People did not like being insulted. They came to that conclusion ON THEIR OWN.
IF someone tells you, “if you pass the basket I will spit in it!”
Do you need “groupthink” to understand you were insulted? Do you NEED a pm so you can figure out Larry insulted you? And if a few people had ENOUGH at the same time, is that ganging up on someone? He insulted people and ran all over the board ruining discussions. Larry did this to Larry. Larry happens to be x-way but he is also a “troll” so-to-speak.
The arguments protecting him are weak and insulting. First Larry insults us, then the defense reiterates that we are weak and easily led, not even smart enough to SEE on our OWN that we were insulted.
What a Twinky defense…. Sorry kids, I am not interested in swamp land in Florida either.
BTW
Great insight Word Wolf
Good post Sunesis, I agree
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.