The thing that got me thinking and posting about all of this is when the Freud thread came up. It just seemed a little over the top when someone mentioned the Waygb...........and another poster who hadn't posted but a couple times, was referred to as an innie who was a "plant" or something to that affect on a different thread....almost a little embarrasing.......almost like we are a little too paranoid when it comes to new posters or something.........because the idea of GSC being an avenue to expose TWI, we should at least give people the benefit of the doubt.......that is all I meant and the best I can explain it.......for me
There are exceptions to every rule and I understand that people have slammed other people in here, I just felt like the overall atmosphere was more the rule than the exception. I didn't mean for it to sound like it is always like that, just seemed lately that way
Hey maybe I am being the one that is over sensitive or something......you never know.........that is why I keep coming back.........I learn new things all the time :)
"It just seemed a little over the top when someone mentioned the Waygb...........and another poster who hadn't posted but a couple times, was referred to as an innie who was a "plant" or something to that affect on a different "
I would agree with you 100% on this. I see calling/accusing someone of being WAYGB, a Plant, or a Troll as an attack on character, which makes it a personal attack.
as opposed to:
Telling someone that something specific that they said reminds you of something that the "WAYGB or a troll" would say is different because you are dealing with a specific statement as oppposed to who the person is as a whole.
I think it is something of a fine line, but it is a line that can make a lot of difference.
I see calling/accusing someone of being WAYGB, a Plant, or a Troll as an attack on character, which makes it a personal attack.
Being from the Pro-TWI faction does not make you any of the above. but after you have been here for several years there are some tells that you can pick up on really quickly after a several posts.
1. Refusal on a steadfast basis to answer questions while asking questions, designed to elicit information as to dates, places and or identifying information about a poster, especially a poster who may be still in or have family who are in
2. Repeated hit and run posts. asking question that stir up controversy, while failing to answer any resulting responses.
3. Any poster who consistently makes posts whose primary purpose is to derail, confuse, or otherwise disrupt the flow of a thread on to an extreme degree
These patterns become really obvious after posts of several days duration, In some cases the tells are there almost immediately, with posters who lack finesse.
Please note that there are several posters here that I would place in the Pro-VPW camp that I would not characterize as any of the above. Trolls, WayGB, and Plants have a certain "flavor" to their posts that is easily recognizable, one of the most noticeable being the inability to sway them onto a tangential discussion, Like the boat in "The Enemy Below"-w Robert Mitchum they always return to the original course.
That said Flaming is always wrong, even when done by me <_<
Flaming consists of character attacks, name callig as well as demeaning personal attacks
1. Refusal on a steadfast basis to answer questions while asking questions, designed to elicit information as to dates, places and or identifying information about a poster, especially a poster who may be still in or have family who are in
2. Repeated hit and run posts. asking question that stir up controversy, while failing to answer any resulting responses.
3. Any poster who consistently makes posts whose primary purpose is to derail, confuse, or otherwise disrupt the flow of a thread on to an extreme degree
MO... er... flickersnoodle... er... Templelady... do all three of these conditions need to be in play? or just one? or two? cuz I could be guilty of number 3, but I wouldn't say it's my primary purpose!
Isn't "throwing stones" a term derived from the Bible?
In John 8, a woman caught in adultery is brought Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees. They wanted to stone her according to the Law. They ask Jesus his opinion and Jesus says to them:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Later after they all leave without stoning the woman , Jesus says to the woman:
"
Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
To me "throwing stones" implies judgment unto condemnation. That grace and mercy are withheld. Jesus acknowledged her sin, when he told her to "sin no more" yet his judgment was not unto condemnation but rather unto to mercy.
I attempted to locate a definintion of "throwing stones" on the Internet but couldn't find one.
In our conversations and debates here at GS from time to time someone makes a charge against another of "throwing stones". Sometimes the glass house analogy is used. But only the one making the charge of throwing stones really knows what they mean. The term is used rather loosely here IMO.
Sometimes it is used as a defense. As in how can you "throw rocks" at VPW when you are a sinner too? . The implication is that only the sin free are allowed to discuss VPW's ungodly behavior or any ungody behavior for that matter. It is thinking evil or throing stones.
Sometimes it is used to try to silence a differing opinion . An idea is brought forth and when another disagrees with that idea the charge is made of "throwing stones".
Sometimes it is used in response to an ad hominem argument. You are throwing stones ....
Sometimes it has been used when a poster has been needlessly abusive.
I am sure there have been more.
However I have yet to see a poster here at GS actually judged unto comdemnation for their ideas or behavior. I think the closest thing to that has probably been the "millstone" analogy, but that was never directed at a poster than I can recall.
I think the term is generally misapplied and is therfore pretty worthless in regards to our discusions here. But then again, it may mean something different than I understand it.
To me an example of 'throwing stones' would be someone involved in , lets say, a church with wacky, weird, hypocritical beliefs, criticizing VP's teachings as being weird, wacky, and hypocritical.
To me an example of 'throwing stones' would be someone involved in , lets say, a church with wacky, weird, hypocritical beliefs, criticizing VP's teachings as being weird, wacky, and hypocritical.
What say you.....?
I say a piano has 88 keys - why you feel the need to play the same note all the time is sometimes baffling. It would be nice to hear a different note from you every once in a while. :)
Seen as how you have already openly acknowledged that you have hounded Mo from thread to thread to thread because you had to/needed to/wanted to "prove your points with the LDS chuch "
I am very curious as to what drives you to this stalker like behavior where Mo is concerned? What is so crucial about your point, or what it is you are so terrified of, that you would make yourself look like a complete jackass at best, and possibly a psycho, just to prove your point regarding the LDS church?
Hey Abi...no names or organizations were mentioned by me...is this an example of someone 'reading into' a post ? I think that happens a lot here at GS and has been acknowledged by you.
Raf...a piano really has 88 keys ?? Many notes are nice but...most of the posts on GS are about the same song. The song remains the same !
To me an example of 'throwing stones' would be someone involved in , lets say, a church with wacky, weird, hypocritical beliefs, criticizing VP's teachings as being weird, wacky, and hypocritical.
What say you.....?
I say that if a person believes in taking off all their clothes and howling at the moon, it's ok with me as long as they don't do it in my livingroom.
If a subject is opened for discussion, that just opens the subject to discussion. it does not automatically open for discussion the beliefs of the participant.
"Hey Abi...no names or organizations were mentioned by me...is this an example of someone 'reading into' a post ? I think that happens a lot here at GS and has been acknowledged by you."
Wanna bet? go back and read your post on page one of Paw's "throwing stones" thread. You did, in fact, name names and the organization.
But I see you did manage to dodge answering my original question. Would you like me to repeat it?
Well, what I learned from the Mo stalking situation is that she handled herself with dignity, grace, and constantly mopped the floor with her rather creepy stalker. She was a credit to her personal character and church.
Sheeesh. We are all pretty grown up here. We are all aware that there are different churches, religions. How hard is it to use google to learn something about a church. Do you really need to badger someone of a different belief so everyone will know how awful YOU think it is?
Stalking looks alot like bullying to me. The stalker came off--to me--looking unstable. Not like a great believer.Just a meanie.
p.s. Abi..why throw out insulting, abusive names...to me, you are counteracting the EXACT messages brought up in the posts about 'where is the love', throwing stones', etc.. ?
Can anyone bring up ONE post where I 'flamed', 'abused', 'insulted' Mo ??
And yet, you and a couple of others cannot refrain from pouring abuse at those who 'stick to their guns' when it comes from VP's teachings !!
Maybe the disruption and negative feelings on posts really don't come from our corner ?
In fact, when looking at certain posts, the first tirade of abuse tends to emanate from your ilk.
I hear what you are saying - but having been involved with GSC pretty much since it's birth, I have to say there have been very very few instances of true trolling and many many instances of false accusations against legitimate new posters.
Groucho,
You hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say. And I get the "lets play nice crowd". But really, if we cannot express that we have a different opinion from someone else, and then discuss our reasonings for our different pov's - what the heck is the point of even having a conversation? I don't usually spend a lot of my posting time going back and forth with people I agree with and telling them how much I agree with them. I enjoy debating different points of view - it allows me to examin my own POV and it allows me to see things from different perspectives.
And when I come across a poster who consistently seems to derail threads with insults and jabs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would like to feel free to call a spade a spade and tell him/her what I jackass I think he/she is behaving like. But please note the use of the word 'consistently' which would most certainly NOT apply to a new poster who has not had time to establish a consistent pattern.
Jim,
"If a subject is opened for discussion, that just opens the subject to discussion. it does not automatically open for discussion the beliefs of the participant."
I think I get what you are saying here, but (note I'm actually asking a question - lol) I wish to clarify. Are you saying that the subject of a given thread is open to discussion, but one should not drag all kinds of other stuff into the discussion. i.e. if you are discussing health issues with someone and you disagree with their pov - there is no need to drag in their opinion regarding VPW, PFAL, LDS, or whatever.
In which case, I agree. It only serves to further derail and mire the thread.
Well Allan, I consider us to be more or less of the same ilk. (except I don't stalk posters from thread to thread to harp on them about their religious beliefs). I am of the opinion that if you can dish it out (and I've seen you dish it out plenty - the fat thread comes to mind immediately, but I am sure I could come up with other examples) then you ought to be able to take it in return.
You will find that my tone is entirely different with those who do not dish it out. In fact, I am fairly certain you are the first person in 6 years that I have actually cussed at.
I would further point out that in this thread, at least, I did not call you names, I simply pointed out how I perceive you based on your behaviors. I do leave open the possibility that you also have some wonderful characteristics, which I have not yet seen.
And once again, you have avoided answering the question.
Bramble,
I agree with you. Mo has been an example of graciousness and self restraint. I respect and admire her for it. But I am not her and am not feeling particularly inclined towards graciousness or self restraint when it comes to this particular issue. If he wants to derail my thread with his continued stalking (which he had said a couple of weeks ago that he would stop) and if none of the moderators are interested in intervening (and I am not going to notify them because my personal preference is to NOT go there), then fine - let's have it out and be done with it already.
So what say you, Allen, are you too chicken to answer the question honestly? What is behind the driving need to make your point?
Jim...if a subject is open for discussion and a persons beliefs have no relevance to the subject involved, then there really is no such thing as 'throwing stones'.
And therefore, the discussion is nothing more than...discussion ! 'banter', 'gossip', 'intellectual stimulation' call it whatever one will !!
Is that all GS is, in it's least common denominator ? A 'time filler'...fill in the blanks.
In response to Abi's question about me. Some of you know...I am involved in ministry, fellowship with an awesome bunch of belivers, have a secular job with a company car, am paid $45,000 a year for 15 hours of work per week, have a gorgeous wife of 23 years marriage, have six terrific kids and four beautiful grandkids, am living in a beautiful country, have wonderful health, am a 'little bit' over my weight for height and age ratio, believe that God is GOOD always and the devil is BAD always, have personally been involved in 'miraculous' healings (including an 8 year old girl INSTANTANEOUSLY awoken out of a coma), are FIRMLY grounded in my beliefs and am SO, SO, SO, blessed beyond words.
I have one pet peeve...people in 'glass house throwing stones' !!
Well, what I learned from the Mo stalking situation is that she handled herself with dignity, grace, and constantly mopped the floor with her rather creepy stalker. She was a credit to her personal character and church.
Sheeesh. We are all pretty grown up here. We are all aware that there are different churches, religions. How hard is it to use google to learn something about a church. Do you really need to badger someone of a different belief so everyone will know how awful YOU think it is?
Stalking looks alot like bullying to me. The stalker came off--to me--looking unstable. Not like a great believer. Just a meanie.
AMEN and very well said, Bramble!!!
I, too, respect Mo even more and the LDS because of how well she has handled the incessant bullying and stalking.
I do wish, though, that something would be done about him....ban him, put all his posts into a que to be moderated before they even show up....something. I'd gladly take on the task.
"I have one pet peeve...people in 'glass house throwing stones' !!"
Allan - I wonder how you would feel after 2 or 3 months of someone derailing almost every thread you posted on, simply to make their point of view known about YOUR religious beliefs?
Well, Abi, I hope he's not trying to win any folks to his ministry from here. Cause I have a feeling he'd be sorely disappointed, unless there are some folks here who miss LCM style leadership. <_<
Sorry Abi... but if you are now trying to 'weasel out' by saying you did not call me names on this thread, then i will have to call you a darn liar..simple. My point was made in what I said. No names or org. mentioned by me, yet you and a couple of others 'read into it'. You assumed, (another point brought up on another thread).
DO YOU GET IT ?? NO names or org. mentioned, just an example given by me of what I thought 'throwing stones' is ( ON TOPIC)
DO YOU GET IT ?? NO names or org. mentioned by me, names and insults fired by you...HAVE YOU GOT IT ??!!
You see, Belle has stated a number of times here she has people like me on ignore..but then jumps right on in, with excuses like "I just couldn't let this go by" or "when I see someone I care about being lambasted" etc..
Belle, either mean what you say or don't grandstand and make untrue statements, it tends to make your posts a bit 'hard to believe'.
Now, can someone please get the thread back to 'throwing stones' ??
You've got a traceable history of trying to get a date with Mo here. Mo posts, you show up. And comment on what Mo posted. It's like an Al and Mo thing. Clear as a bell and sure as hard cash money on the counter.
Now I'm not suggesting that there's anything improper going on, but the attraction is obvious.
Is it just me? I've been wrong before, so let's not have any false expectations about the possiblities of my proposal. But there's something going on there. Sumpin'.
I'm not throwing stones here. I've got stones, big ones. No kidding, stones LIKETHIS. Stones that would've required one honkin' slingshot from David, I mean picture a blanket. But I'm not throwing them. I'm just making an observation.
And another one - if I throw stones too often will I eventually toss my cookies too? I dunno. I need to learn to play nicer, I know that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
4
6
11
Popular Days
May 1
44
May 2
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 11 posts
socks 4 posts
Tom Strange 6 posts
allan w. 11 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2006
44 posts
May 2 2006
16 posts
outofdafog
The thing that got me thinking and posting about all of this is when the Freud thread came up. It just seemed a little over the top when someone mentioned the Waygb...........and another poster who hadn't posted but a couple times, was referred to as an innie who was a "plant" or something to that affect on a different thread....almost a little embarrasing.......almost like we are a little too paranoid when it comes to new posters or something.........because the idea of GSC being an avenue to expose TWI, we should at least give people the benefit of the doubt.......that is all I meant and the best I can explain it.......for me
There are exceptions to every rule and I understand that people have slammed other people in here, I just felt like the overall atmosphere was more the rule than the exception. I didn't mean for it to sound like it is always like that, just seemed lately that way
Hey maybe I am being the one that is over sensitive or something......you never know.........that is why I keep coming back.........I learn new things all the time :)
Edited by outofdafogLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"It just seemed a little over the top when someone mentioned the Waygb...........and another poster who hadn't posted but a couple times, was referred to as an innie who was a "plant" or something to that affect on a different "
I would agree with you 100% on this. I see calling/accusing someone of being WAYGB, a Plant, or a Troll as an attack on character, which makes it a personal attack.
as opposed to:
Telling someone that something specific that they said reminds you of something that the "WAYGB or a troll" would say is different because you are dealing with a specific statement as oppposed to who the person is as a whole.
I think it is something of a fine line, but it is a line that can make a lot of difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Being from the Pro-TWI faction does not make you any of the above. but after you have been here for several years there are some tells that you can pick up on really quickly after a several posts.
1. Refusal on a steadfast basis to answer questions while asking questions, designed to elicit information as to dates, places and or identifying information about a poster, especially a poster who may be still in or have family who are in
2. Repeated hit and run posts. asking question that stir up controversy, while failing to answer any resulting responses.
3. Any poster who consistently makes posts whose primary purpose is to derail, confuse, or otherwise disrupt the flow of a thread on to an extreme degree
These patterns become really obvious after posts of several days duration, In some cases the tells are there almost immediately, with posters who lack finesse.
Please note that there are several posters here that I would place in the Pro-VPW camp that I would not characterize as any of the above. Trolls, WayGB, and Plants have a certain "flavor" to their posts that is easily recognizable, one of the most noticeable being the inability to sway them onto a tangential discussion, Like the boat in "The Enemy Below"-w Robert Mitchum they always return to the original course.
That said Flaming is always wrong, even when done by me <_<
Flaming consists of character attacks, name callig as well as demeaning personal attacks
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
MO... er... flickersnoodle... er... Templelady... do all three of these conditions need to be in play? or just one? or two?
cuz I could be guilty of number 3, but I wouldn't say it's my primary purpose!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Throwing stones?...
...I think it's important to distinguish the difference between criticizing the poster and criticizing what the poster said.
Debating issues can become very heated at times and it becomes important to choose your words wisely.
examples:
1-I think that what ________________ (fill in the blank) said is idiotic.
2-I think that __________________(fill in the blank) is an idiot.
There IS a difference...and remember, although we endeavor to be civil and polite, GSC is NOT a Christian website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Isn't "throwing stones" a term derived from the Bible?
In John 8, a woman caught in adultery is brought Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees. They wanted to stone her according to the Law. They ask Jesus his opinion and Jesus says to them:
Later after they all leave without stoning the woman , Jesus says to the woman:
To me "throwing stones" implies judgment unto condemnation. That grace and mercy are withheld. Jesus acknowledged her sin, when he told her to "sin no more" yet his judgment was not unto condemnation but rather unto to mercy.
I attempted to locate a definintion of "throwing stones" on the Internet but couldn't find one.
In our conversations and debates here at GS from time to time someone makes a charge against another of "throwing stones". Sometimes the glass house analogy is used. But only the one making the charge of throwing stones really knows what they mean. The term is used rather loosely here IMO.
Sometimes it is used as a defense. As in how can you "throw rocks" at VPW when you are a sinner too? . The implication is that only the sin free are allowed to discuss VPW's ungodly behavior or any ungody behavior for that matter. It is thinking evil or throing stones.
Sometimes it is used to try to silence a differing opinion . An idea is brought forth and when another disagrees with that idea the charge is made of "throwing stones".
Sometimes it is used in response to an ad hominem argument. You are throwing stones ....
Sometimes it has been used when a poster has been needlessly abusive.
I am sure there have been more.
However I have yet to see a poster here at GS actually judged unto comdemnation for their ideas or behavior. I think the closest thing to that has probably been the "millstone" analogy, but that was never directed at a poster than I can recall.
I think the term is generally misapplied and is therfore pretty worthless in regards to our discusions here. But then again, it may mean something different than I understand it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
To me an example of 'throwing stones' would be someone involved in , lets say, a church with wacky, weird, hypocritical beliefs, criticizing VP's teachings as being weird, wacky, and hypocritical.
What say you.....?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Allan,
Forget the rocks; I have a BIG boulder for you!!
Is that the response you were expecting? (I am just joking here :) .)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I say a piano has 88 keys - why you feel the need to play the same note all the time is sometimes baffling. It would be nice to hear a different note from you every once in a while. :)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Allan,
Seen as how you have already openly acknowledged that you have hounded Mo from thread to thread to thread because you had to/needed to/wanted to "prove your points with the LDS chuch "
I am very curious as to what drives you to this stalker like behavior where Mo is concerned? What is so crucial about your point, or what it is you are so terrified of, that you would make yourself look like a complete jackass at best, and possibly a psycho, just to prove your point regarding the LDS church?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Sure, but it's also a secular metaphor as in "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". That's the way I read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Hey Abi...no names or organizations were mentioned by me...is this an example of someone 'reading into' a post ? I think that happens a lot here at GS and has been acknowledged by you.
Raf...a piano really has 88 keys ?? Many notes are nice but...most of the posts on GS are about the same song. The song remains the same !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I say that if a person believes in taking off all their clothes and howling at the moon, it's ok with me as long as they don't do it in my livingroom.
If a subject is opened for discussion, that just opens the subject to discussion. it does not automatically open for discussion the beliefs of the participant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Hey Abi...no names or organizations were mentioned by me...is this an example of someone 'reading into' a post ? I think that happens a lot here at GS and has been acknowledged by you."
Wanna bet? go back and read your post on page one of Paw's "throwing stones" thread. You did, in fact, name names and the organization.
But I see you did manage to dodge answering my original question. Would you like me to repeat it?
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Sheeesh. We are all pretty grown up here. We are all aware that there are different churches, religions. How hard is it to use google to learn something about a church. Do you really need to badger someone of a different belief so everyone will know how awful YOU think it is?
Stalking looks alot like bullying to me. The stalker came off--to me--looking unstable. Not like a great believer.Just a meanie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
p.s. Abi..why throw out insulting, abusive names...to me, you are counteracting the EXACT messages brought up in the posts about 'where is the love', throwing stones', etc.. ?
Can anyone bring up ONE post where I 'flamed', 'abused', 'insulted' Mo ??
And yet, you and a couple of others cannot refrain from pouring abuse at those who 'stick to their guns' when it comes from VP's teachings !!
Maybe the disruption and negative feelings on posts really don't come from our corner ?
In fact, when looking at certain posts, the first tirade of abuse tends to emanate from your ilk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mo,
I hear what you are saying - but having been involved with GSC pretty much since it's birth, I have to say there have been very very few instances of true trolling and many many instances of false accusations against legitimate new posters.
Groucho,
You hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say. And I get the "lets play nice crowd". But really, if we cannot express that we have a different opinion from someone else, and then discuss our reasonings for our different pov's - what the heck is the point of even having a conversation? I don't usually spend a lot of my posting time going back and forth with people I agree with and telling them how much I agree with them. I enjoy debating different points of view - it allows me to examin my own POV and it allows me to see things from different perspectives.
And when I come across a poster who consistently seems to derail threads with insults and jabs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would like to feel free to call a spade a spade and tell him/her what I jackass I think he/she is behaving like. But please note the use of the word 'consistently' which would most certainly NOT apply to a new poster who has not had time to establish a consistent pattern.
Jim,
"If a subject is opened for discussion, that just opens the subject to discussion. it does not automatically open for discussion the beliefs of the participant."
I think I get what you are saying here, but (note I'm actually asking a question - lol) I wish to clarify. Are you saying that the subject of a given thread is open to discussion, but one should not drag all kinds of other stuff into the discussion. i.e. if you are discussing health issues with someone and you disagree with their pov - there is no need to drag in their opinion regarding VPW, PFAL, LDS, or whatever.
In which case, I agree. It only serves to further derail and mire the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well Allan, I consider us to be more or less of the same ilk. (except I don't stalk posters from thread to thread to harp on them about their religious beliefs). I am of the opinion that if you can dish it out (and I've seen you dish it out plenty - the fat thread comes to mind immediately, but I am sure I could come up with other examples) then you ought to be able to take it in return.
You will find that my tone is entirely different with those who do not dish it out. In fact, I am fairly certain you are the first person in 6 years that I have actually cussed at.
I would further point out that in this thread, at least, I did not call you names, I simply pointed out how I perceive you based on your behaviors. I do leave open the possibility that you also have some wonderful characteristics, which I have not yet seen.
And once again, you have avoided answering the question.
Bramble,
I agree with you. Mo has been an example of graciousness and self restraint. I respect and admire her for it. But I am not her and am not feeling particularly inclined towards graciousness or self restraint when it comes to this particular issue. If he wants to derail my thread with his continued stalking (which he had said a couple of weeks ago that he would stop) and if none of the moderators are interested in intervening (and I am not going to notify them because my personal preference is to NOT go there), then fine - let's have it out and be done with it already.
So what say you, Allen, are you too chicken to answer the question honestly? What is behind the driving need to make your point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Jim...if a subject is open for discussion and a persons beliefs have no relevance to the subject involved, then there really is no such thing as 'throwing stones'.
And therefore, the discussion is nothing more than...discussion ! 'banter', 'gossip', 'intellectual stimulation' call it whatever one will !!
Is that all GS is, in it's least common denominator ? A 'time filler'...fill in the blanks.
In response to Abi's question about me. Some of you know...I am involved in ministry, fellowship with an awesome bunch of belivers, have a secular job with a company car, am paid $45,000 a year for 15 hours of work per week, have a gorgeous wife of 23 years marriage, have six terrific kids and four beautiful grandkids, am living in a beautiful country, have wonderful health, am a 'little bit' over my weight for height and age ratio, believe that God is GOOD always and the devil is BAD always, have personally been involved in 'miraculous' healings (including an 8 year old girl INSTANTANEOUSLY awoken out of a coma), are FIRMLY grounded in my beliefs and am SO, SO, SO, blessed beyond words.
I have one pet peeve...people in 'glass house throwing stones' !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
AMEN and very well said, Bramble!!!
I, too, respect Mo even more and the LDS because of how well she has handled the incessant bullying and stalking.
I do wish, though, that something would be done about him....ban him, put all his posts into a que to be moderated before they even show up....something. I'd gladly take on the task.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I have one pet peeve...people in 'glass house throwing stones' !!"
Allan - I wonder how you would feel after 2 or 3 months of someone derailing almost every thread you posted on, simply to make their point of view known about YOUR religious beliefs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, Abi, I hope he's not trying to win any folks to his ministry from here. Cause I have a feeling he'd be sorely disappointed, unless there are some folks here who miss LCM style leadership. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Sorry Abi... but if you are now trying to 'weasel out' by saying you did not call me names on this thread, then i will have to call you a darn liar..simple. My point was made in what I said. No names or org. mentioned by me, yet you and a couple of others 'read into it'. You assumed, (another point brought up on another thread).
DO YOU GET IT ?? NO names or org. mentioned, just an example given by me of what I thought 'throwing stones' is ( ON TOPIC)
DO YOU GET IT ?? NO names or org. mentioned by me, names and insults fired by you...HAVE YOU GOT IT ??!!
You see, Belle has stated a number of times here she has people like me on ignore..but then jumps right on in, with excuses like "I just couldn't let this go by" or "when I see someone I care about being lambasted" etc..
Belle, either mean what you say or don't grandstand and make untrue statements, it tends to make your posts a bit 'hard to believe'.
Now, can someone please get the thread back to 'throwing stones' ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sorry Allan, that fish won't jump here.
You've got a traceable history of trying to get a date with Mo here. Mo posts, you show up. And comment on what Mo posted. It's like an Al and Mo thing. Clear as a bell and sure as hard cash money on the counter.
Now I'm not suggesting that there's anything improper going on, but the attraction is obvious.
Is it just me? I've been wrong before, so let's not have any false expectations about the possiblities of my proposal. But there's something going on there. Sumpin'.
I'm not throwing stones here. I've got stones, big ones. No kidding, stones LIKETHIS. Stones that would've required one honkin' slingshot from David, I mean picture a blanket. But I'm not throwing them. I'm just making an observation.
And another one - if I throw stones too often will I eventually toss my cookies too? I dunno. I need to learn to play nicer, I know that.
Edited by socksLink 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.