Did Brad Lewis really lose it?

[gloryintruth]

You need to learn the difference between rage and an intolerance for cult-think bullshit.

The same view is embraced by others in this world. Muslims, for example, will say that Islamist extremists are not angry, but merely fighting for freedom - no longer tolerating the rule of the decadent West. Their intolerance for the views of other people, and their culture, and yea their very lives, leads them to commit barbarous attrocities.

Intolerance is an oppressive condition of mind, which believes all men should be monolithic in their views (and even experiences). It is one thing to be exclusivistic; it is quite another thing to be intolerant. It is one thing to believe "I am right, and everyone else is wrong"; it is quite another thing to start behaving in an anti-social fashion toward others.

I eat politicians for lunch.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Oh, the royal "us"?

The difference is that Nathan and I are in the same Church, and share common beliefs and common doctrine. We support each other on this forum, and we have had quite a long interaction together. When I say "us", I of course speak of myself and Nathan, which I can do so with some measure of confidence. The fact that Nathan agreed with me, testifies to the fact that we know each other well.

On the other hand, most other posters can speak only for their own views.

You are not unlike the emperor with no clothes. You think the problem is with the other guy, not yourself.

These sentences border on self-referential satire.

The truth of the matter is that Brad Lewis appears to have improved. You on the other hand, seem to have gone further into denial.

I think Brad Lewis has improved too.

He has his coping mechanism. You have yours.

Is this a professional psychological opinion? I just find it extraordinary that I can make a suggestion about Brad, and you can make a suggestion about Brad both within the same context of health - needing help and so on. Yet you recieve my views with so much taunting and teasing implying I'm in no position to have such an opinion, but you evidently expect your view to have more validity. I can remember Brad in his worst and wild days; perhaps you do not?

He has. He used to be in a cult but he left. He turned to the Church that is the Church (not the Church that is a Cult).

I disagree.

He has. He used to have the gospel according to men but he rejected it for the Gospel according to the True Christ (not the Gospel according to the Cult-Mis-Interpreted Christ).

Do you represent the gospel of the True Christ? Are you representing Jesus now? Are you being an "ambassador for Christ"? It seems to me that message-boards breed hypocrisy, and I am as guilty of this as the next man.

If this were anything other than your opinion, I'd have real cause for concern. It isn't though. It's just the ranting of Emperor... the man with no clothes.

OK.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

Would you say that your posts are consistent with Christian scripture, teaching and the Spirit of God?

Yes, and if you see it as otherwise, I would expect you to share your opinion.

I used to ask Brad Lewis this question many times, and he refused to answer. In that instance, silence spoke louder than words.

I guess this would be a good time to point out that you, Nathan, and Bert are no strangers to this same behavior. Your silence speaks volumes as well.

I find it ironic, indeed, that you appeal to the "Spirit of Christ". We all know that the Spirit of Christ is that of love, joy and peace - qualities I certainly have not demonstrated in spades, regrettably. However, I believe the Christian life is one of ongoing failure, then repentance (prompted by the Holy Spirit who gives us "room for repentance"), forgiveness and restoration to communion with the Good and True God. We are called to be confessional people; repentant people.

How bleak, gloomy, and yes, ironic. You must be depressed a lot.

More ironically still, the term "Spirit of Jesus" is mentioned only once in the scripture, to the best of my knowledge, and that is in The Acts of the Apostles, where He directed two apostles to a place of spiritual need.

Why is this ironic?

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

The same view is embraced by others in this world. Muslims, for example, will say that Islamist extremists are not angry, but merely fighting for freedom - no longer tolerating the rule of the decadent West. Their intolerance for the views of other people, and their culture, and yea their very lives, leads them to commit barbarous attrocities.

Do you have a point?

I hope you weren't stooping to comparing me to a terrorist.

Intolerance is an oppressive condition of mind, which believes all men should be monolithic in their views (and even experiences). It is one thing to be exclusivistic; it is quite another thing to be intolerant. It is one thing to believe "I am right, and everyone else is wrong"; it is quite another thing to start behaving in an anti-social fashion toward others.

Do you have a point?

I'm sure you had a jab in there somewhere but I missed it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Roughly translated, if you're going to bullshit me, I will take you to task.

The difference is that Nathan and I are in the same Church, and share common beliefs and common doctrine. We support each other on this forum, and we have had quite a long interaction together. When I say "us", I of course speak of myself and Nathan, which I can do so with some measure of confidence. The fact that Nathan agreed with me, testifies to the fact that we know each other well.

Yet you belittle those of us who disagree with you, mockingly referring to us as the "Royal We".

On the other hand, most other posters can speak only for their own views.

I still don't see the difference, unless you are trying to claim that you and Nathan agree on everything.

These sentences border on self-referential satire.

Playground tactics, embellished with a thesaurus, are still playground tactics.

<stooping_to_gits_level>
Uh-uhhhhha, I called you that first.
</stooping_to_gits_level>

I think Brad Lewis has improved too.

Is this a professional psychological opinion?

No.

I just find it extraordinary that I can make a suggestion about Brad, and you can make a suggestion about Brad both within the same context of health - needing help and so on. Yet you recieve my views with so much taunting and teasing implying I'm in no position to have such an opinion, but you evidently expect your view to have more validity.

No. I was giving you a dose of your own medicine - that is a mental health diagnosis based on the casual observations of an untrained lay-person.

And yes, I'm doing it again this very instant. You set the standards. I follow.

I can remember Brad in his worst and wild days; perhaps you do not?

I remember him in his worst days on this board. (I don't know him personally.) I was one of his more vocal critics.

I disagree.

That happens here.

Do you represent the gospel of the True Christ? Are you representing Jesus now? Are you being an "ambassador for Christ"? It seems to me that message-boards breed hypocrisy, and I am as guilty of this as the next man.

I'm not perfect, but my interpretation of Christianity is obviously different than yours.

To me, being a Christian is not about self-induced suffering, a depressed outlook on life, and condemnation of other's beliefs in the vain hope of bringing everyone else down to my level of self-sustaining depression.

To me, Christianity is about peace, love, and tolerance toward others as well as encouraging others to share in that same peace, love, and tolerance toward others. And this doesn't mean that when I see a religious bully picking on others that I just walk on by...

[degem]

I like Frank what you said about peace, love and tolerance towards others as well as encouraging
others to share in that same peace, love and tolerance towards others..I hope you don't mind
me using those words.. Gem

[gloryintruth]

I'm not perfect, but my interpretation of Christianity is obviously different than yours.

I have no doubt of that!

To me, being a Christian is not about self-induced suffering, a depressed outlook on life, and condemnation of other's beliefs in the vain hope of bringing everyone else down to my level of self-sustaining depression.

Christianity, to me, is not about these things either. Nevertheless, a Christianity which does not explore, understand and grasp that life is difficult, and that human beings are complex, and that some behaviours are worthy of condemnation in the strongest possible terms, and that there is evil both within the man and external from the man - is a Christianity, I fear, that is sadly flawed and deficient in many ways.

To me, Christianity is about peace, love, and tolerance toward others as well as encouraging others to share in that same peace, love, and tolerance toward others. And this doesn't mean that when I see a religious bully picking on others that I just walk on by...

Is this a justification for not demonstrating peace, love and tolerance toward myself or Nathan? That such peace, love and tolerance is conditional on an individual interpretation of other people's views and motivations? "If you love those who love you, you are no better than the sinners, for they do the same" we are taught in scripture.

I have sought to be very restrained in my last posts to you, levelling no accusations and being very careful of even my use of the word "you", so as not to be condemning or arousing trouble. I do so not because I like you, for I do not (I'm still working on "loving my enemies"); I have sought to be careful in order to try and be a peacemaker - which I stumble to learn. Such a spiritual ambition requires self-restraint, which is indeed hard for myself, accustomed as I am to speaking pointedly.

Nevertheless, I find it extraordinary that you would affirm a belief that your words are consistent with the Christian life; with the teachings and the spirit upheld in the scripture. You affirm that your words are consistent with - and presumably would recieve approval from - the Holy Spirit. Yet I have seen little evidence in the posts so far contributed of much love, or tolerance, let alone peace. I would go so far as to say (with my limited powers of discernment) that it is the very reverse that has been demonstrated.

Do you not think this is extraordinary?

[gloryintruth]

How bleak, gloomy, and yes, ironic. You must be depressed a lot.

Theologian Dr. Kenneth Samples, in his lecture to Veritas 2005 about Postmodernism and worldviews opposed to Christianity, made this very point - we are meant to be a confessional people, in a life of ongoing repentance.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

Christianity, to me, is not about these things either. Nevertheless, a Christianity which does not explore, understand and grasp that life is difficult, and that human beings are complex, and that some behaviours are worthy of condemnation in the strongest possible terms, and that there is evil both within the man and external from the man - is a Christianity, I fear, that is sadly flawed and deficient in many ways.

It's likely you're just dying to tell us where you've seen this form of "flawed and deficient Christianity" recently, so why don't you just tell us and get it over with.

Is this a justification for not demonstrating peace, love and tolerance toward myself or Nathan?

Like I said, "this doesn't mean that when I see a religious bully picking on others that I just walk on by...".

Now if me calling you and Nathan out on your bullying tactics equates to you seeing me as failing to demonstrate peace, love and tolerance toward you and Nathan then so be it.

I take issue with the way you and Nathan behave here. You're both being spiritual bullies. I'm calling you on it. I'm sorry you haven't been feeling the love. I'll work on this.

That such peace, love and tolerance is conditional on an individual interpretation of other people's views and motivations? "If you love those who love you, you are no better than the sinners, for they do the same" we are taught in scripture.

It's not conditional. It's there. You just didn't see it. Perhaps I need to be more explicit in my expression of it. I'll work on this.

By the way, was that a rebuke? (Rhetorical Question)

I ask because it seems to read that way and, given your following statement, it seems contrary to your attempts at modifying your behavior.

I have sought to be very restrained in my last posts to you, levelling no accusations and being very careful of even my use of the word "you",

Jason, some people are experts at leveling accusations without using the word "you".

See? I just did it and I clearly meant you, Jason.

You do this all the time.

It is my opinion that these passive aggressive accusations leveled by you are one of the many reasons you find yourself so despised here.

so as not to be condemning or arousing trouble. I do so not because I like you, for I do not (I'm still working on "loving my enemies"); I have sought to be careful in order to try and be a peacemaker - which I stumble to learn. Such a spiritual ambition requires self-restraint, which is indeed hard for myself, accustomed as I am to speaking pointedly.

Loving your enemies is easy; Just don't let people be your enemy.

(This little pearl of wisdom is something I've lived by for years. It works wonderfully. I wish I could claim it as my own but I can't. My daughter said it when she was 5 and I've never forgotten it.)

Nevertheless,

Ahhh, the gloves come off. Welcome back Jason Landless.

I find it extraordinary that you would affirm a belief that your words are consistent with the Christian life; with the teachings and the spirit upheld in the scripture. You affirm that your words are consistent with - and presumably would recieve approval from - the Holy Spirit. Yet I have seen little evidence in the posts so far contributed of much love, or tolerance, let alone peace. I would go so far as to say (with my limited powers of discernment) that it is the very reverse that has been demonstrated.

Now that's more like it! That's the Jason Landless I know.

In full view of your actions on this board...

In full view of your claims on moral and spiritual enlightenment...

...You somehow feel qualified to judge me.

Thanks anyway but, thank God, God is my judge.

Do you not think this is extraordinary?

Again,

Like I said, "this doesn't mean that when I see a religious bully picking on others that I just walk on by...".

Now if me calling you and Nathan out on your bullying tactics equates to you seeing me as failing to demonstrate peace, love and tolerance toward you and Nathan then so be it.

I take issue with the way you and Nathan behave here. You're both being spiritual bullies. I'm calling you on it. I'm sorry you haven't been feeling the love. I'll work on this.

Edit: Fixed formatting bug.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

Theologian Dr. Kenneth Samples, in his lecture to Veritas 2005 about Postmodernism and worldviews opposed to Christianity, made this very point - we are meant to be a confessional people, in a life of ongoing repentance.

Well if masochism is a requirement of your religion, knock yourself out. ;D

I'll stay over here and rejoice in the Salvation of my Lord.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

Theologian Dr. Kenneth Samples, in his lecture to Veritas 2005 about Postmodernism and worldviews opposed to Christianity, made this very point - we are meant to be a confessional people, in a life of ongoing repentance.

By the way, was Theologian Dr. Kenneth Samples a worker?

Where did he labor?

[wanttobewithGod]

Frank, you don't see yourself as being the same sort of bully you accuse Jason of being? If you don't, I find that odd. JMO! M.

[gloryintruth]

Jason, some people are experts at leveling accusations without using the word "you".
See? I just did it and I clearly meant you, Jason.

I would not have read the first sentence as an accusation, or as being necessarily hostile. There is a significant difference - in my opinion, at least - between saying, "Some people are unkind" and saying, "You are unkind" (to use unkindness as an example).

...You somehow feel qualified to judge me.
Thanks anyway but, thank God, God is my judge.

My hope is that my statement would not appear to be criticising you as an individual - for I don't know you, except through this message-board - but would rather appear to be my personal critique of your posts. In my discernment, (which I confess is limited and deficient in many ways), I feel the tone in the posts I have read is not always so charitable.

Now if me calling you and Nathan out on your bullying tactics equates to you seeing me as failing to demonstrate peace, love and tolerance toward you and Nathan then so be it.

In my view, being on the recieving end of this "calling out", I can see little commentary on any bullying tactics. On the other hand, accusations have been made (repeatedly) that, for instance, Nathan and I are liars and blasphemers of the Holy Spirit. You have told me that "I'm sick", and that I am pretentious, arrogant and pompous.

By the by, you wrote once: "SOMEONE who shall remain nameless but his initials start with Jason determined someone's personal information and called them on the phone." I'm not sure if this is an accusation in my direction, but I should make it clear anyway that I have never phoned any exe from any forum, for any reason.

I find it ironic that in this very post, an appeal is made to God as the judge of all things - and that I, as a mere man, should not presume to judge another. In so saying, you are utterly correct. You are correct because you articulate a scriptural saying; and scripture, being the speaking of God, never errs. I agree that I should never presume to judge others, and I confess that I do this too often. I'm trying to teach myself not to.

Peace be unto you.

[gloryintruth]

Well if masochism is a requirement of your religion, knock yourself out. I'll stay over here and rejoice in the Salvation of my Lord.

I'm truly glad and happy that you rejoice in the salvation of God.

I must say, however, that I find it painful to read the view that confession and repentance is, to use the words above, a form of required masochism. My reading is that Jesus said, "He who would come after me must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me" and in another place, "He who saves his life shall lose it, but he who loses his life shall save it", and in another place, "If we confess our sins, he is just and quick to forgive". If ongoing confession and repentance are required masochism, then it would appear (extraordinarily enough) that the Apostles and yea, the Lord himself, so taught this!

Peace be unto you.

[parser]

gloryintruth said:

I should make it clear anyway that I have never phoned any exe from any forum, for any reason.

Ah yes, parse away. He didn't call "any exe." Much less anyone else, right??

[gloryintruth]

Ah yes, parse away. He didn't call "any exe." Much less anyone else, right??

Fine. I have never called ANYONE, without their consent. I did phone one professing lady but we had discussed having a phone conversation via email before I made the call.

[GO HILLARY 2008]

nathan9 said:

GIT... Hillary is the leader of the democratic party! right now. Our hope might come true... She will be the First female president of USA. Awesome! Hillary and Bill will turn things around.

Amen. They will turn this sorry country aournd.

Free health care for all! NO MORE SUFFFERING.

They will also use the living wage to do away with class warfare.

And finally shut the oil spigot off. FIX GLOBAL WARMING.

And open our borders the way our founding fathers wanted.

PLUS BEST OF ALL NO MORE UNWANTED BABIES.

[LMAO]

fb said:

Well if masochism is a requirement of your religion, knock yourself out. ;D

LMAO

[Yeserie]

GO said:

nathan9 said:

GIT... Hillary is the leader of the democratic party! right now. Our hope might come true... She will be the First female president of USA. Awesome! Hillary and Bill will turn things around.

Amen. They will turn this sorry country aournd.

Free health care for all! NO MORE SUFFFERING.

They will also use the living wage to do away with class warfare.

And finally shut the oil spigot off. FIX GLOBAL WARMING.

And open our borders the way our founding fathers wanted.

PLUS BEST OF ALL NO MORE UNWANTED BABIES.

And don't forget the issue of what "is" is?

After all sex is not sex if it "is" under the table. We can all feel safe now that we know adultry is not adultry if it "is" under the table.

[Frank]

wanttobewithgod said:

Frank, you don't see yourself as being the same sort of bully you accuse Jason of being?

No, I don't.

To understand why, please research and answer this question:

Where have I (Frank) bullied someone, unprovoked, as GIT (Jason Landless) did here (and read the whole thread to see it all in its proper context):

professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1199586203&page=1#1199593427

If you don't, I find that odd. JMO! M.

Do some research. Read some of what Jason Landless has said in the past (which is hardner now that he has found a way to hide his history) and you will see that he has a strong bullying streak. I suspect that it is triggered by frustration at other posters, but it is a bullying streak, nonetheless.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

I would not have read the first sentence as an accusation, or as being necessarily hostile. There is a significant difference - in my opinion, at least - between saying, "Some people are unkind" and saying, "You are unkind" (to use unkindness as an example).

It would seem so. However, saying "Some people are unkind" as a response to a person's quote is the same thing as saying "You are unkind".

The context in which it is said makes all the difference.

In the context of quoting someone then responding to them, the word "you" is not required, it is implied.

Consider this example: A co-worker is telling you of the difficulties of raising a teenage daughter and says "I'm concerned for her future". You wouldn't dream of saying "Some prostitutes make a good living" any more than you would see it acceptable to say "Your daughter could go into prostitution".

The context makes all the difference.

My hope is that my statement would not appear to be criticising you as an individual - for I don't know you, except through this message-board - but would rather appear to be my personal critique of your posts. In my discernment, (which I confess is limited and deficient in many ways), I feel the tone in the posts I have read is not always so charitable.

I can be blunt at times and if that is seen as a lack of charity, so be it.

I'm just telling you like I see it.

Where criticism is concerned, I don't mind it. In fact, I think it's healthy. Picture a world where humans are incapable of seeing fault. We never would have moved out of our caves.

In my view, being on the recieving end of this "calling out", I can see little commentary on any bullying tactics.

I tend to illustrate by example. I thought you'd caught that by now.

On the other hand, accusations have been made (repeatedly) that, for instance, Nathan and I are liars and blasphemers of the Holy Spirit. You have told me that "I'm sick", and that I am pretentious, arrogant and pompous.

Accusations have been made and I am willing, ready, and able to stand behind my statements. If you want me to do this, rather than list them here like this, provide a link to each instance that shows my comments in context and I will defend each of my statements with references and in context.

By the by, you wrote once: "SOMEONE who shall remain nameless but his initials start with Jason determined someone's personal information and called them on the phone." I'm not sure if this is an accusation in my direction, but I should make it clear anyway that I have never phoned any exe from any forum, for any reason.

This was an accusation in your direction and I've researched this.

"Jessi Hagen - Private Message"
professing2.proboards76.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1189899086

It turns out that I was wrong and I am sorry for my error.

You did not call her.

But you did threaten to call her after researching (via techniques since criticized by your friend Nathan Barker) to learn her phone number and address.

And before you say this wasn't a threat...

You never have came across as the most stable person and it's no secret you don't get along with her. Then you PM'd her saying that you know her phone number and home address. To top it off you asked her if her address was current! This flies right by threatening into stalker territory.

Again, I was wrong. You did not call her.

I find it ironic that in this very post, an appeal is made to God as the judge of all things - and that I, as a mere man, should not presume to judge another. In so saying, you are utterly correct. You are correct because you articulate a scriptural saying; and scripture, being the speaking of God, never errs. I agree that I should never presume to judge others, and I confess that I do this too often. I'm trying to teach myself not to.

Peace be unto you.

We should debate the inerrancy of scripture sometime. Ah well, that's another thread.

Edit: fixed quote block and changed errancy to inerrancy

[Frank]

GO said:

Amen. They will turn this sorry country aournd.

They will, more than likely, simply speed it along its current path.

Free health care for all! NO MORE SUFFFERING.

Socialized Medicine? It's coming. Unfortunately.

No more suffering? I'll have what you're smoking.

Health care is like anything else:

Pick any two -> Good, Fast, Cheap

Once the government is in charge, pick only one.

They will also use the living wage to do away with class warfare.

From each according to his means to each according to his need.

That sounds familiar.

And finally shut the oil spigot off.

Then we can all walk.

I work at home. How about you?

FIX GLOBAL WARMING.

We didn't break it. We sure aren't going to fix it.

The arrogance of some people... to think we could influence the weather on an ongoing basis... even if we wanted to... pure foolishness.

And open our borders the way our founding fathers wanted.

Someone needs to learn their history.

Unchecked immigration is an invitation to invasion.

PLUS BEST OF ALL NO MORE UNWANTED BABIES.

Abortion on demand? At any stage of pregnancy?

OK, but you forgot one. Condoms and bullet-proof vests for all the kids in school... After all, they're gonna do it anyway...

<Sigh>

You're a moron.

Unfortunately, morons are coming into the majority. Hillary has a chance. Marx was right. Socialism is coming.

[gloryintruth]

Where have I (Frank) bullied someone, unprovoked, as GIT (Jason Landless) did here (and read the whole thread to see it all in its proper context):

It's a bit sad if this is the best you are able to find in the way of "bullying tactics".

Do some research. Read some of what Jason Landless has said in the past

Wanttobewithgod and I have participated on this message-board for a long, long time. She would be familiar with my posting history. And like Nathan, I would rather you did not use my name on this message-board please.

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

It's a bit sad if this is the best you are able to find in the way of "bullying tactics".

What's really sad is that this is the best defense you can provide for what you did.

Wanttobewithgod and I have participated on this message-board for a long, long time. She would be familiar with my posting history.

I thought the same thing, but I wanted to try the polite approach before accusing her of selective memory loss.

And like Nathan, I would rather you did not use my name on this message-board please.

Tough.

I use your name here to clearly associate your behavior with you.

I will continue to do this until you start behaving like a civilized human being and stop bullying your way through this message board like a Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy inflicted Tasmanian Devil high on Crack Cocaine laced with Ginseng and Caffeine.

Be prepared to take it as long as you're prepared to dish it out.

Edit: Spelling

[wanttobewithGod]

Don't insult me, please, Frank. I don't like your posts; you don't like Jason's posts. So??? I mean, come on. M.

[gloryintruth]

The context in which it is said makes all the difference.

Context certainly provides a text with some meaning, agreed. But I am talking about different texts having a different degree of hostility or negativity attached - the "tone", if you will, of the text itself. This is recognised in customer service; and also in the Westminster political system where the use of the word "you" is banned when addressing the parliament.

In the context of quoting someone then responding to them, the word "you" is not required, it is implied.

A response does not need to be accusatory. It may also be informative, or referential to a third party. It may be personal narration or comment. Just because one's writing appears beneath a quotation in the form of the response, does not mean that it is aimed at the person who originated the text being quoted. All it means is that it has some connection by way of response.

I find it greatly disingenuous when it is suggested that context dictates and governs meaning, and that a response can only ever be referential to a person, and that form and function are limited to one mode - the accusative.

Consider this example: A co-worker is telling you of the difficulties of raising a teenage daughter and says "I'm concerned for her future". You wouldn't dream of saying "Some prostitutes make a good living" any more than you would see it acceptable to say "Your daughter could go into prostitution".

This is simply silly. Even by way of example. Firstly the statement is totally random and is impolite; secondly both statements can only be interpreted in one way; and thirdly the frame of reference for both is fixed.

On the other hand, if your co-worker were telling you about a difficult daughter, and you said, "You ought to be docking her allowance!" such a statement may not be very appreciated, and certainly conveys a somewhat hectoring and barracking tone. It would be different, though, to say, "Some parents that I know have found it helpful to dock their teenager's allowance".

The context makes all the difference.

A typical postmodern sentiment - words convey no integral meaning; their meaning is fluid and not fixed; and the motive and intention of the author cannot be determined by the reader or listener of the text. (Spoken word is classified as text as much as written word). You would find yourself at home with Sartre!

I can be blunt at times and if that is seen as a lack of charity, so be it.

It is.

Accusations have been made and I am willing, ready, and able to stand behind my statements. If you want me to do this, rather than list them here like this, provide a link to each instance that shows my comments in context and I will defend each of my statements with references and in context.

I'm not interested. Sorry.

Although, I would be interested to know how you could possibly defend your accusation that I use a thesaurus when I write, and I do so to make myself sound "better than I am"; or having a "larger vocabulary" or some such claim. I find this especially interesting given that I don't use Word for preparing my posts, or a thesaurus, for that matter.

This was an accusation in your direction and I've researched this.

Given that you are largely ignorant of the behind-the-scenes communication, you'll just have to accept my word that you have no idea what you're talking about on this issue.

But you did threaten to call her after researching (via techniques since criticized by your friend Nathan Barker) to learn her phone number and address.

It was never a threat. If you "researched" (I'm sorry for the parenthesis, but I find it amusing that you would qualify using a search function on proboards as "research") the issue properly - given you enjoy digging up the past - then this would be obvious.

You never have came across as the most stable person and it's no secret you don't get along with her. Then you PM'd her saying that you know her phone number and home address. To top it off you asked her if her address was current! This flies right by threatening into stalker territory.

I do not need to defend or justify my actions to a person I care little about, and whom I do not even like. You are free to interpret the situation - ex post facta - in any way you like.

We should debate the inerrancy of scripture sometime. Ah well, that's another thread.

No thank you.

[Iilene]

~~Here we go again with this perpetual arguing ~~How is
the weather in Australia GIT? ~~How is your weather Mr.
Frank? ~~Iilene

[Frank]

wanttobewithgod said:

Don't insult me, please, Frank. I don't like your posts; you don't like Jason's posts. So??? I mean, come on. M.

Oh thicken your skin. I wasn't insulting you.

You called me a bully and I was defending myself by attempting to show you the difference between Jason's behavior and mine.

"Come on" indeed!

[Frank]

gloryintruth said:

Context certainly provides a text with some meaning, agreed. But I am talking about different texts having a different degree of hostility or negativity attached - the "tone", if you will, of the text itself. This is recognised in customer service; and also in the Westminster political system where the use of the word "you" is banned when addressing the parliament.

This changes nothing.

This isn't customer service or parliament.

Rudeness is possible without the word "you" so banning its use is pointless.

A response does not need to be accusatory.

I didn't say it did.

It may also be informative, or referential to a third party. It may be personal narration or comment. Just because one's writing appears beneath a quotation in the form of the response, does not mean that it is aimed at the person who originated the text being quoted. All it means is that it has some connection by way of response.

But it is still a response to what was said. Even in your equivocation, you used the word "response" three times.

This is how discussions work. If your response has nothing to do with the discussion, then it isn't really a response; It is the beginning of a new discussion.

If you want your statements to be interpreted as something other than a response, start a new thread.

I find it greatly disingenuous when it is suggested that context dictates and governs meaning, and that a response can only ever be referential to a person, and that form and function are limited to one mode - the accusative.

I never said every response is a personal response.

I said every response is a response.

I hereby refuse to believe that you communicate for a living.

This is simply silly.

"Silly" is GITeese for "poignant".

Even by way of example.

Which made the point.

You just can't stand it.

(Yes, I admit to feeling a little schadenfreude now.)

Firstly the statement is totally random and is impolite;

I agree. I wanted to make sure I found something you would find repulsive so I didn't have to listen to you defend its merits.

secondly both statements can only be interpreted in one way;

Ahhh. My point exactly. Yay. You got it.

and thirdly the frame of reference for both is fixed.

As it is in discussions on this board.

Wow.

Full circle and you got my point completely.

Yet you protest.

Go figure.

On the other hand, if your co-worker were telling you about a difficult daughter, and you said, "You ought to be docking her allowance!" such a statement may not be very appreciated, and certainly conveys a somewhat hectoring and barracking tone. It would be different, though, to say, "Some parents that I know have found it helpful to dock their teenager's allowance".

Both statements convey the same suggestion, "dock her allowance".

As for your responses, whether you state that someone is an idiot or you assert that they are an idiot, you are still attempting to convey the thought that they are an idiot.

Watch, before the end of this post, I'll demonstrate by example. See if you can pick it out.

A typical postmodern sentiment - words convey no integral meaning; their meaning is fluid and not fixed; and the motive and intention of the author cannot be determined by the reader or listener of the text. (Spoken word is classified as text as much as written word). You would find yourself at home with Sartre!

I know an Australian that's a real Dip Shit.

It is.

At least we have an understanding... on this matter anyway.

I'm not interested. Sorry.

Then quit bitching.

Although, I would be interested to know how you could possibly defend your accusation that I use a thesaurus when I write, and I do so to make myself sound "better than I am"; or having a "larger vocabulary" or some such claim. I find this especially interesting given that I don't use Word for preparing my posts, or a thesaurus, for that matter.

Well that didn't take long.

I thought you weren't interested.

Make up your mind.

Given that you are largely ignorant of the behind-the-scenes communication, you'll just have to accept my word that you have no idea what you're talking about on this issue.

I can know up to and including what has been made public and that is quite enough. My conclusion stands.

It was never a threat.

I'll say again (though I see you've already casually dismissed it once):

You never have came across as the most stable person and it's no secret you don't get along with her. Then you PM'd her saying that you know her phone number and home address. To top it off you asked her if her address was current! This flies right by threatening into stalker territory.

If you "researched" (I'm sorry for the parenthesis, but I find it amusing that you would qualify using a search function on proboards as "research") the issue properly - given you enjoy digging up the past - then this would be obvious.

The nature of "research" varies based on circumstances.

Go on though. Poke fun. I know that's all you have.

I do not need to defend or justify my actions to a person I care little about, and whom I do not even like.

No, but here in full view of everyone else, your vanity demands that you fight vigorously! Why else would you be here right now?

You are free to interpret the situation - ex post facta - in any way you like.

I prefer the informed, honest route.

No thank you.

Hugs and Kisses buddy.

[eyedeetentee]

Oh goody! I wonder if they are going to kiss in public. I wanna see!