Emptied Himself?

[moonflower2]

Stephen---

That really isn't true. I saw posts going back and forth in an endless manner and threw a little humor into the fray. Sondra is welcome to say whatever she wants to say. I think this is all a case of taking everything far too personally. Someone mentioned editing, and she immediately thought she was being referred to. I throw in a joke about "How 'bout them Patriots" and she immediately thinks I'm referring to her personally, and referring to their discussion as a "contest" of some kind.
Often in my life I have seen humor diffuse an argument, or cause those involved to halt for a moment, and not take themselves so seriously(I need this often myself, that's for sure).

As I mentioned, I have used that statement before, when an argument starts to get out of hand a bit. I have said "How 'bout them RED SOX?" not to imply someone is not welcome, but to throw some humor or lightheartedness into the argument. But when someone thinks that everything revolves around themselves, they naturally see all comments as "attacks" or "comments" about themselves, rather than seeing they were made about someone else, or simply made in humor. I see this pattern as I read the long posts made below. I wasn't attempting to "meddle with strife that's not my own", but to help diffuse it a bit if possible--If I wanted to meddle I could have said a lot more than mention a football game.

But, in an effort to help keep the peace, and avoid any more misunderstanding, I will stay off of this thread and pursue the inane, ridiculous and sarcastic euphemisms(lol) I enjoy so much in other areas. And I'm going to talk a lot about football too.

--Joe

Morespeaky, Joe. We need you here.

[al Hartman]

Foregoing the temptation to reference quotes from the last 24 hours, I'll just shoot from the hip:

First, I am extremely disappointed that more space was not devoted to making fun of my name.  As hollywood and sports have shown us, there is no such thing as bad press.  "Alvin" was amusing, and I was not in the least offended.  If Bob meant it to discredit me in some way, I'm afraid I missed it.  I've been called Alvin since the first Singing Chipmunks song came out, not to mention Mary Hartman, Al Bundy, & numerous other nicknames.

Of all the posters on this board, I may be the most nit-picking when it comes to grammar, spelling, & editing in general.  That's no doubt due to my higher education: a high school diploma and a year's worth of "101" college courses for dummies.  OR, it could be because [1] I have a natural propensity for those things and [2] I have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder), which turns one into a psycho-perfectionist.  
I have tried to use my skills constructively to help and encourage some who are excellent thinkers but have difficulty with their posts.  I have also occasionally entertained myself by poking a bit of fun (always in private, I believe, except for once).

So What?  We all have strengths and weaknesses.  We weren't redeemed by grace because of either.  We have nothing in which to boast but for the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Anyone whose self-approval relies upon the debasement of others is more to be pitied than despised.


Now a bit of BB history:  Back in the days when I was new to this venue, I was opinionated and arrogant, and didn't know my right hand from my left.  I believed I was right, and that those of opposing views were wrong, and I said so.  In so doing I offended people, and was called upon the carpet by the powers that ran the show.  I was told I needed to repent, apologise, and find a good church.

I was deeply hurt, believing that I had been falsely accused, misunderstood, etc.  But I wanted to know the truth, no matter what the cost, so I prayed about it all, asking to be shown whatever I needed to see and what to do about it.

The first thing I realized was the impropriety of my attitude: pride, arrogance, self-important.  I repented before the Lord, then brought my plea to the BB:  something to the effect of "If anything I have said has offended anyone, please forgive me and accept my apology..."

I was told in no uncertain terms that that was unacceptable.  "Not good enough, Al," were the precise words as I recall.  I was told that such a vague statement was not an apology, but that it put the blame on the other people for having been offended-- I was to confess specifically for the exact offenses I had committed (although I truly still believed I had said nothing wrong).  "This," I thought, "is really unfair!"

But I returned to seeking the Lord, and by His grace I eventually came to an understanding that, regardless of whether others were right or wrong, I was wrong about certain things.  And so I repented and confessed and apologised on-line, and was forgiven by God and my brethren.

On the last two pages of this thread, there have appeared "If..." apologies, to which no one has apparently raised an eyebrow.  That, I believe, is because the residents of this board are maturing; beginning to be more aware of the humanness of us all.  My castigation was timely and needed, and it worked its purpose in me and others.  But there is now, for the most part, a greater healing taking place here.  We are beginning to realize the implications of "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you. Eph.4:32.

I am not saying these things to excuse anyone from wrongdoing, lying, rudeness, or any such thing.  But it behooves us all to realize that "implication," like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, and just because it sounds a certain way to your ear does not mean it left the speaker's tongue with that intent.  Likewise, because your intendend meaning is clear to you when you speak, is no guarantee it will be received that way.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
For the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God. Jas.1:19-20

And, on a personal note, I, the most notoriously rigid proofreader among us, wish to apologise to Sondra for calling her Sonja.  It was unintentional, but inexcusable. Please forgive me, Mrs. James. (*wink*)

In Christ,
al

P.S.-- I also found a wonderful church, but that's a story for another time.

[moonflower2]

First, I am extremely disappointed that more space was not devoted to making fun of my name.  As hollywood and sports have shown us, there is no such thing as bad press.  "Alvin" was amusing, and I was not in the least offended.  If Bob meant it to discredit me in some way, I'm afraid I missed it.  I've been called Alvin since the first Singing Chipmunks song came out, not to mention Mary Hartman, Al Bundy, & numerous other nicknames.


The first thing I realized was the impropriety of my attitude: pride, arrogance, self-important.  I repented before the Lord, then brought my plea to the BB:  something to the effect of "If anything I have said has offended anyone, please forgive me and accept my apology..."

I was told in no uncertain terms that that was unacceptable.  "Not good enough, Al," were the precise words as I recall.  I was told that such a vague statement was not an apology, but that it put the blame on the other people for having been offended-- I was to confess specifically for the exact offenses I had committed (although I truly still believed I had said nothing wrong).  "This," I thought, "is really unfair!"

But I returned to seeking the Lord, and by His grace I eventually came to an understanding that, regardless of whether others were right or wrong, I was wrong about certain things.  And so I repented and confessed and apologised on-line, and was forgiven by God and my brethren.

On the last two pages of this thread, there have appeared "If..." apologies, to which no one has apparently raised an eyebrow.  That, I believe, is because the residents of this board are maturing; beginning to be more aware of the humanness of us all.  My castigation was timely and needed, and it worked its purpose in me and others.  But there is now, for the most part, a greater healing taking place here.  We are beginning to realize the implications of "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you. Eph.4:32.



In Christ,
al

P.S.-- I also found a wonderful church, but that's a story for another time.

Lovable, huggable Alvin doll,

I was a recipient of one of the "IF I have offended/hurt you" statements, but I didn't feel that I was offended or "done wrong." I don't even know the person, except for what I've observed in her posts, and she seemed completely out of control at the time. (I also don't know where she got her information that she was "apologizing" for, which is another interesting item for a Sooper Snoop wanting to make a few bucks.) The discovered leak would be the one owing the apology.

If I had been offended, I would not have accepted her apology as a true apology.  I agree with what you just shared about what you and most of the rest of us have had to learn about apologizing. IF is conditional. One is not truly sorry for what they did or said.

I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign.

Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned.

Moonflower

[editor]

I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign.

Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned.

Moonflower

Sondra was given the same priviledges that every member of the board has.  She is free to post her thoughts, share her ideas, etc.

Along with that freedom comes vulnerability.  She is open to criticism, agreement, etc.  It's the same for all of us.

When this BB was first set up, I determined that there would be "no editing, no deleting," by the moderators, unless someone was impersonating someone, using profanity, or being really, totally over-the-top rude.

I received some of the harshest criticism for 2 things:

Letting people speak their mind, like John Malone

Deleting the "humor" thread after GG was excommunicated and the SLO brothers repented, etc.  (Happy Sunday, I call it)

Many of the BB members were furious that I went back on my word and deleted 88 pages of mockery, humor and Leno/letterman style jokes about the Assembly, George, Betty and many leaders.  

I felt that in light of the repentance, the least I could do was remove some of the totally unneccessary mockery and sarcasm.  I was told I was a sell out, and that I was letting them off easy, etc.  It was OK to hammer LB's etc.  That was OK.

Then, John Malone came on here and blasted everyone.  Well, THAT wasn't OK.  It was fine for us to blast LB's and workers,  but no one could talk like that to us!  It was just wrong!

You can't believe the heat I got when I didn't ban John!  There was no way I was going to ban him, but people were almost as mad at me as they were at John.  The message I had for them was,  "ignore him, or figure out a way to deal with it. You gotta grow up." Also, there is always the possibility that you just might learn something.

I think this situation is similiar in some ways, with a few notable differences.

We think nothing of talking about people in negative ways.  They deserve it, we are sure.  In some cases, maybe most cases, we are totally right in doing so.  However, things look differnetly when you are on the receiving end.

Sondra said a bunch of stuff, some of which I don't agree with, some of which I do.

Regardless of that, how did it feel to be on the receiving end?

None of it is true, of course....   but those we criticise feel the same way.  They feel they are without fault, and we are attacking them.

It is always hard to see oneself as anything other than being persecuted when someone calls us on the carpet.

Just something to think about.  I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just pointing out the dynamic that takes place when tempers are hot.

Brent

[Oscar]

Dave,

Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin,

I wil tak it tu hart:

Tomus Madddix

Howdy folks,

I've been reading the posts of the past several hours.  I can see just a teeny-tiny bit of connection in Joe's post to Sondra.  He used the word "eagles", which, of course is the name of her website.

I can also see that to get your underwear in a bundle over an imagined slight on such a slim pretext is irrational at best, deliberate and manipulative at worst.

As to the "hidden message" in the above post, which is supposedly a criticism of Sondra's educational level, ?? , there isn't anything to say.   The idea is absurd.

But about the name calling in her reply.  "Pinhead" was the term used.  Any furthur abusive name-calling, and "delete" is the name of the button I will push.

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

...
This may be true in a more balanced conflict, but when the conflict is very one-sided, you are considered part of the majority by default.
...

So, are you saying that if one enters the fray then there might be some music to face?

Marcia

[editor]

May I suggest that we each declare ourselves winners and stop this?

The ancient wisdom of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," applies here.

Let's drop it, or we may invite more of the same.

Brent

[moonflower2]

I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign.

Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned.

Moonflower

Sondra was given the same priviledges that every member of the board has.  She is free to post her thoughts, share her ideas, etc.

Along with that freedom comes vulnerability.  She is open to criticism, agreement, etc.  It's the same for all of us.

When this BB was first set up, I determined that there would be "no editing, no deleting," by the moderators, unless someone was impersonating someone, using profanity, or being really, totally over-the-top rude.

I received some of the harshest criticism for 2 things:

Letting people speak their mind, like John Malone

Deleting the "humor" thread after GG was excommunicated and the SLO brothers repented, etc.  (Happy Sunday, I call it)

Many of the BB members were furious that I went back on my word and deleted 88 pages of mockery, humor and Leno/letterman style jokes about the Assembly, George, Betty and many leaders.  

I felt that in light of the repentance, the least I could do was remove some of the totally unneccessary mockery and sarcasm.  I was told I was a sell out, and that I was letting them off easy, etc.  It was OK to hammer LB's etc.  That was OK.

Then, John Malone came on here and blasted everyone.  Well, THAT wasn't OK.  It was fine for us to blast LB's and workers,  but no one could talk like that to us!  It was just wrong!

You can't believe the heat I got when I didn't ban John!  There was no way I was going to ban him, but people were almost as mad at me as they were at John.  The message I had for them was,  "ignore him, or figure out a way to deal with it. You gotta grow up." Also, there is always the possibility that you just might learn something.

I think this situation is similiar in some ways, with a few notable differences.

We think nothing of talking about people in negative ways.  They deserve it, we are sure.  In some cases, maybe most cases, we are totally right in doing so.  However, things look differnetly when you are on the receiving end.

Sondra said a bunch of stuff, some of which I don't agree with, some of which I do.

Regardless of that, how did it feel to be on the receiving end?

None of it is true, of course....   but those we criticise feel the same way.  They feel they are without fault, and we are attacking them.

It is always hard to see oneself as anything other than being persecuted when someone calls us on the carpet.

Just something to think about.  I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just pointing out the dynamic that takes place when tempers are hot.

Brent

The point I was making was that the response that Al got for an "IF I offended you" apology was different than the lack of response to Sondra's "IF I offended you" apology, which in my mind is a bogus apology.

However, I was also saying that I didn't feel I needed an apology from her, but from the person who gave her the information about my name. (I have never been in contact with SJ, to my knowledge, but apparently many in champaign have been/and still are.)  I don't know what she was apologizing for, which is also why I suggest it was a bogus apology.

Maybe she thought she needed to explain that she was "pushing" everyone out of her way, which was already very obvious.

Compared to Malone, SJ was very biting, scratching and cruel. She doesn't really have a match on this BB as far as verbal assault goes.  Personally, I don't care to watch a woman castigate a man, especially one who I know is a true Christian.

Too bad you felt you had to delete all the Gefjack empire jokes. I especially enjoyed the purgatory ones.

Moonflower

[editor]

I have been told that people can express what they think over here and then others have the right to say what they think.  I think I am seeing a double standard though.  Name-calling has interesting and various subjective definitions.

Of course there is a double standard of sorts.  People have preferences, and tend to pull for their "team" if you will.  When a ref makes a questionable call that causes your team to miss a first down,  you can't help but wonder if he is biased.

Conversely, when the other team gets a touchdown called back for clipping,  you can't help but think,  "It's about time they called that!  He's been doing it all day!"

What isn't a double standard is what you referenced above.

You have been given total freedom to say whatever you want to say, and you have not crossed the line, nor come near the line that would cause you to be censored.  Of course you have made some people mad, you knew you would.

You also got what you came for, and that is Verne's admission and apology.  

Name calling will continue, I guarantee.  However, the type of name calling you were subjected to has stopped, and will not occur again.  Many people don't agree with your views, and if you share them, you will find resistance.  That's normal and healthy.

People are going to defend you, and people are going to defend Verne.  Do the right thing and you need not concern yourself what others think.  Your name and reputation have been cleared, as is proper.

If I demanded retribution for every time someone said something negative about me, I wouldn't have time to apologize to everyone I said something negative about!  

Again, I will appeal to both sides here, take some time off and cool down.  Let Sondra and Verne talk together if they want to.


On another note, Moonflower,

The person who told Al that an "If I offended" apology was not going to cut it was none other than my wife, Suzie, and also me.  The reason I did it to him, and not to Sondra is simple.  The situations were totally different, and Al and I had the issue.  

People can use that sort of apology any time they wish.  If they use it with me, I am going to have something to say about it, perhaps.

Brent

[editor]

Jan is a regular here and I am not.  She represents your board.  I don't have unbiased advocates on this board- so I must speak for myself and I will until booted for not sharing the same bias.

You're not going to get booted unless Brian does it.

I agree that you don't have many advocates here.  Nothing I can do about that.  You are still free to speak your mind, no one is stopping you.

I honestly think that you would cease to be a topic of conversation in under 24 hours if you took a break, but I also know about protecting one's reputation.  I've done it on occasion for one reason or the other.

Brent

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

Sondra said:

"I responded to Tom in a private email giving him many examples of names that have been called on this board in the past and I am waiting for a response.  I chose private communication as a first option so as to not to reopen old wounds.   

Tom, since you addressed me openly I would like a public response if you don't mind."

This morning I checked my e-mail and there was a long message from Sondra.  It contained a long list of quotes from Verne's previous posts demonstrating quite a pattern of  denigrating name calling.  Some of it was pretty strong stuff.  I therefore cannot dismiss Sondra's complaint as unfounded.

She criticized me for allowing this to go on.  She is right, I did.  There are several reasons for this:

1. I don't read every post on the board.  Sometimes I have more time to read, sometimes less.  Sometimes I don't read the boards for a day or two.

2. I don't read some of the posts carefully.  When someone gets long winded, particularly if they type single spaced, I tend to skim through it.

3. I have become used to Verne's way of speaking.  He tends to speak of anything and everyone he opposes in very strong terms.  People aren't just wrong, they are agents of Satan etc. etc. 

So, I let some strong talk slip by me.    I will try to be more vigilant and evenhanded in the future.

However, Sondra, I must say that I don't agree with your justification of your own name calling on the grounds of "he did it first", and "you let it happen."

As a teacher, I had to deal with this excuse many many times.  It usually came from the mouths of kids who were 12-14 years old.

But my answer was always the same, and still is.  Two wrongs never make a right.   

So, here's what I am going to do.

1. I am going to lock this topic.

2. I am going to start a new thread called "Sondra speaks out".  Those who wish to interact with Sondra about whatever she has to say may go there and do so.

3. I am requesting that Sondra not take her issues with people on this board into threads that do not specifically deal with those issues.

Thomas Maddux