|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 9, 2012 2:48:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 4:04:32 GMT -5
Alan replied to the article, we are not 2x2s.
So Alan, is the article about another group or yours?
You know this group is called 2x2s by many on this board. So are you saying that this board is not about your church?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 8:52:39 GMT -5
Alan replied to the article, we are not 2x2s. So Alan, is the article about another group or yours? You know this group is called 2x2s by many on this board. So are you saying that this board is not about your church? One additional problem with a pro-2x2 posting a comment like that is that readers with think "wow, then all the rest of the article is 100% true?" or "wow, is that the worst thing wrong with the article?" In essence, a comment like that confirms that the article is largely true. Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 9, 2012 10:04:57 GMT -5
Very interesting. Likely to ruffle some feathers of the 2x2 flock.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 10:22:16 GMT -5
Does that "Alan" read or post on TMB? I didn't recognize the name.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 10:27:01 GMT -5
Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based. Which is exactly what Type III apostates do. I should post all the apostate, atrocity story, counter advocate links in a reply to that article - it's a showcase example of how type III apostate counter advocacy works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 10:31:36 GMT -5
Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based. Which is exactly what Type III apostates do. I should post all the apostate, atrocity story, counter advocate links in a reply to that article - it's a showcase example of how type III apostate counter advocacy works. It's no secret that "apostates" tell their story like that. It's also no secret that "apologists" are the exactly the same. There is no difference of imbalance and bias whatsoever for either group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 10:31:41 GMT -5
I have a string of minor issues with the article based upon my own personal experience. However, the main thrust of the article is pretty much accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 10:38:36 GMT -5
I have a string of minor issues with the article based upon my own personal experience. However, the main thrust of the article is pretty much accurate. What destroys the credibility of the article is that the writer provides no positive comment whatsoever. Any objective reader may be sympathetic to the writer but will heavily discount article's credibility. You don't have to know anything about the F&W group to know that all groups which are relatively freely joined or abandoned must have something good about them which is appealing to at least some rational people. While the testimony of current members is similarly lacking in credibility for the most part, the real credibility comes from exes who speak positively about the group, and current members who point out negatives of the group. Those are the opinions which are believable because the ex group has nothing to gain, and the innie group has something to lose. Opinions which are made when the opinion maker's butt is on the line have a whole lot of believability about them.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 10:47:14 GMT -5
It's no secret that "apostates" tell their story like that. It's also no secret that "apologists" are the exactly the same. There is no difference of imbalance and bias whatsoever for either group. Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 9, 2012 10:56:15 GMT -5
It's no secret that "apostates" tell their story like that. It's also no secret that "apologists" are the exactly the same. There is no difference of imbalance and bias whatsoever for either group. Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so. Could someone please define a type III apostate for me or better still types I, II and III so that we can measure the decline!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 9, 2012 11:04:57 GMT -5
Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so. Could someone please define a type III apostate for me or better still types I, II and III so that we can measure the decline! I think I, II, III refer to the degree of their counter-advocacy mindset and influences. IV, V and up probably refer to the inbred counter-advocacy to which Jesse refers in another thread today.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 11:06:45 GMT -5
Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so. Could someone please define a type III apostate for me or better still types I, II and III so that we can measure the decline! Irvine, someone has just introduced Jesse to a new word, which we'll be seeing in nearly every post he makes!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:10:44 GMT -5
Could someone please define a type III apostate for me or better still types I, II and III so that we can measure the decline! "Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
- Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
- Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority."
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 9, 2012 11:11:05 GMT -5
It's no secret that "apostates" tell their story like that. It's also no secret that "apologists" are the exactly the same. There is no difference of imbalance and bias whatsoever for either group. Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so. Major in minors All the terms conjured up to justify one way or another. I Love the Lord. Do I have to justify anything more. If anything justifying a group of any kind is putting you confidence in man or group and guess what they'll fail you . The Lord won't. Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we trust in the name of the Lord our God Ps 20:7 In love ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 11:22:06 GMT -5
It's no secret that "apostates" tell their story like that. It's also no secret that "apologists" are the exactly the same. There is no difference of imbalance and bias whatsoever for either group. Define apologist, an apologist that's "exactly the same" as a Type III apostate. Are you an imbalanced and biased apologist for saying "Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based." Does saying that make you "exactly the same" as the author? I don't think so. Extremist apostates look at only negatives. Extremist apologists look at only positives. They are mirror images of each other. Both equally lack credibility. As far as my comments go, I think most readers know I am neither an extremist apostate or apologist of the 2x2 system. The credibility of my words can then be judged not on my prejudices in either direction, but on whether my analysis makes any sense or not. It never ceases to amaze me to see how frequently people categorize everyone as either apologist or apostate. Really, you don't have to be either no matter what pressure you get to go in one direction or the other.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2012 11:30:48 GMT -5
Gee, I wonder who wrote this article! Aren't text analysis tools wonderful!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:34:18 GMT -5
Extremist apologists look at only positives. So then who is an example of an "extreme apologist"? "Alan"?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 9, 2012 11:34:29 GMT -5
Wait until we see What's reaction when he realises that the posting on Dialogue Ireland has used the 'C' word! That will get him going again.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:37:53 GMT -5
If anything justifying a group of any kind is putting you confidence in man or group and guess what they'll fail you . Exactly what are you saying - that *I* am justifying a group; putting my confidence in man and a group?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Feb 9, 2012 11:49:23 GMT -5
Personally, I see an unbalanced and biased report, notwithstanding that most of it is truth-based. Which is exactly what Type III apostates do. I should post all the apostate, atrocity story, counter advocate links in a reply to that article - it's a showcase example of how type III apostate counter advocacy works. And most of the public reading the article wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about and, furthermore, couldn't care less. They will simply pass it off as someone blindly pounding the desk for their church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 12:01:00 GMT -5
I have a string of minor issues with the article based upon my own personal experience. However, the main thrust of the article is pretty much accurate. What destroys the credibility of the article is that the writer provides no positive comment whatsoever. Any objective reader may be sympathetic to the writer but will heavily discount article's credibility. You don't have to know anything about the F&W group to know that all groups which are relatively freely joined or abandoned must have something good about them which is appealing to at least some rational people. While the testimony of current members is similarly lacking in credibility for the most part, the real credibility comes from exes who speak positively about the group, and current members who point out negatives of the group. Those are the opinions which are believable because the ex group has nothing to gain, and the innie group has something to lose. Opinions which are made when the opinion maker's butt is on the line have a whole lot of believability about them. After further consideration I would agree with this. All of my string of minor issues are in fact negative points which I personally had no experience of or disagree exist. Removal of these would enhance the article greatly imo. Personally I do see a lot of positive points in the article, but I think that is down to my own experience and perception of matters surrounding the benign details which I can connect with, but someone not connected with the sect would be unaware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 12:01:06 GMT -5
Extremist apologists look at only positives. So then who is an example of an "extreme apologist"? "Alan"? Hey, you're the expert on categorizing apostates. Just apply your skill to apologists! Either way, they have the same characteristic: one has nothing good to say, the other has nothing bad to say. You be the judge.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 12:04:47 GMT -5
Which is exactly what Type III apostates do. I should post all the apostate, atrocity story, counter advocate links in a reply to that article - it's a showcase example of how type III apostate counter advocacy works. And most of the public reading the article wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about and, furthermore, couldn't care less. They will simply pass it off as someone blindly pounding the desk for their church.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 12:57:49 GMT -5
Does that "Alan" read or post on TMB? I didn't recognize the name. Yes, Alan does post on this board under a pen name. He is a regular poster.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 19:03:07 GMT -5
Wait until we see What's reaction when he realises that the posting on Dialogue Ireland has used the 'C' word! That will get him going again. I think you said that you didn't write the article, correct? In that case, I am unconcerned.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 12, 2012 13:16:02 GMT -5
hahahaha Wyatt HattHey white hat ... you use some of the same terminology as a frequent poster on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Feb 12, 2012 14:05:58 GMT -5
Wait until we see What's reaction when he realises that the posting on Dialogue Ireland has used the 'C' word! That will get him going again. I think you said that you didn't write the article, correct? In that case, I am unconcerned. What, what?! Does this mean that you are concerned only when ex-2x2's or Irvine Grey uses the "C" word (edit: to describe the F&W)? LOL!
|
|