AssemblyBoard

I thought I would post this here, so as not to further confusticate the New Info on David Geftakys Thread----although a powerful argument could be made that the thread is as confusticated as possible in its present state.

Why do two prominent posters see words in posts that aren't there?

That's a good question, and although some might say it's silly, it actually happens all the time.  I don't see anything funny about it, because of the serious implications that seeing and understanding hidden words and phrases suggests.

Obviously, the most likely reason is PMC, Psychotronic Mind Control.

However, we can't rule out some underlying pathology....unless we have the people in question re-read the posts with maximum shielding from PMC and PBC.

Here is the original post that started all the fuss:

[/b]

Those of you who are mentally secure, due to adequate shielding from your AFDB, read exactly what is posted above.  You will note the absence of the words that Tom and David used.  Words like "slut," "boyfriends," "Whore," "servicing other men," etc. 

However, those who are not mentally secure read something totally different, due to the extraordinary amount of PHTML used in the software for this board. (Psychotronic Hypertext Markup Language)

I took the liberty of running the original post through a Hashimoto-Breslin de-pixilator, using a Sharifzadeh-Renzi Anti-Disgronifier Algorythmic Overlay.  What you are about to read is what Tom and Dave actually read when they read my first post on the matter.

Warning:  The following section of this post contains pure, non-modulated PHTML.  It should not be read by anyone not wearing AT LEAST a double thickness AFDB.  My recommendation is that 3xAFDB technology be employed, along with emptying pockets of non-copper money and all bills and credit cards. (Canadian money is safe) This is no joke.

Here's how it looks to them:  (They can't see the < or > symbol, to them, the hidden code appears as part of the message text.)

---

How is it that David  finds the means to support himself, let alone his fiance, <a Fillipina whore>?  Did the "Work" send him that much cash, that he can still live off of it <and still give money to slutty whores>?

I wouldn't worry too much about Edna.<She makes lots of money "servicing" her many boyfriends.>  She will find out that this fish hasn't got what she wants, and that his past would indicate a bumpy ride in the future.  Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining <(servicing...you know what I mean, decent people understand that this means she's a whore)>  are better suited to her goals, <and can pay much more>!

I know of two of these Filipina Internet marriages, both of which involve men who are around 25 years older than their brides.  The men are soon as docile as lambs and their brides rule over them with an iron hand, obtaining airfare and housing for family members who immigrate to the US as soon as possible. 

I don't think David could/would provide this service for Lady Edna! <What's more, Edna certainly isn't going to "service" David, she's already got quite enough "work," thank you!>

Also, is it possible that there is another David Edward Geftakys, who attends the Maritime academy?  It certainly doesn't seem likely, neither does it seem likely that someone planted this info, although either are possible. 

It would be nice to ba able to verify this information.  <I command you to express shock and anger at the slanderous nature of this post.  Do it now.  Listen to nothing else but my voice.>

the skeptics's skeptic <This person must be stopped.  They are indecent and slanderous.>

---

Not too pretty is it?  Actually quite offensive, which explains why Tom and Dave are having such a hard time with this.  In their minds, they have been perfectly reasonable in all of this,  but in reality they have been deceived and manipulated via PMC.  Much like in my past, when I perceived myself as a handsome, blue-capped, mustachioed gentleman...I was really a raving lunatic!  See my avatar for a graphic description, a picture is worth a thousand words.

At any rate, Tom and Dave perceive themselves to be bright, caring, decent mature folks, who did the right thing by calling out a very profane and slanderous post.  They don't understand the nature of beast.  They need to see the Big Picture.  (BP)

Beanies and warm prune juice!

S'sS

And you call skeptic's comments slanderous?  How can you even speculate all this about this woman?

I do agree with you that decent folks don't go around calling girls whores.  Funny thing is, you're doing it.

Since the time I left the assembly 2+ years ago, I get the "silent treatment" quite often from local LBs, even recently when I sent an email detailing the outstanding issues and suggesting that we work towards reconciliation.  For some reason one never quite gets used to being ignored. :(

I can see your point re. PHTML overlay which erases much of what I write and leaves the reader with "let's pretend all this never happened, then we won't have to apologize, and we can pretend that everything is OK."


It becomes even sadder when this is done with God's Word, and then the offenders think that they can get away with "well we were sincere" and they cannot then apologize to God and to those they subjected to their misunderstanding.

Marcia

Well, since we're being so open and honest about things, I have a confession to make:

I have doubts about the whole AFDB thing.  I mean, I still believe in mind control, but I have moments now and then, when I doubt the whole thing about psychotronics.

I guess the reason I cling to my AFDB is that is offers the most RATIONAL explanation for why people behave the way they do.  There are other explanations, but they speak to the character of the people involved, which makes me uncomfortable.

The AFDB offers me security and a way to cope with things that I find to be disturbing.  For example, I find it disturbing that people who call themselves by Christ's name, and quote His words, won't admit it when they make a mistake.  Even if it's a little mistake, they won't admit it.  They would rather trash someone's character than admit doing anything slightly wrong.

That really bothers me, but it's probably due to PMC.  So I'm cool with it.

S'sS

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.  Romans 12:18


Dear Marcia:
This may well be a burden that you are carrying un-necessarily. If language means anything, it is clear from the above verse that the God understands that it will not always be possible. It can be counterproductive to pursue someone after they have repreatedly demonstrated themselves to be unentreatable.
There have been cases in my own life where the worse thing someone who had offended me could do was approach me about it - nothing but a work of the Spirit of God in my own heart permitted any possibility of reconciliation. You know the saying in Proverbs about "A brother offended..."  ;)
As Christians, we sometimes need the wisdom to know when to leave a situation with God.



Actually there is a very simple explanation. Some folk propagate the false teaching that it is possible to be free from sin's presence in this life. This doctrinal heresy takes myriad forms and is amusing for the specific reason that is if often promulgated by people whose manner of life demolish the proposition.
If you think you are perfect, if you think you are sinless, then it is quite understandable why you would respond to your own sin and imperfection with denial, of which inability to admit being wrong is one form.
It is a fundmental tenet of the gospel, that deliverance from sin's presence will require new bodies!
In the meantime, we enjoy freedom from its penalty and its power...

Verne

I'm going to need to wear on of those 3xAFDB to rationalize that.

Like when David M would start all those threads.  Well it really wasn't a moral issue so we could excuse it away even if he could have taken the advise of the moderator.
And tenderhearted does her board blasts so we have to go to each topic to read the latest posts, because they just rolled off the recent post list.  Well I kind of wonder about that too, but it isn't a moral issue either, so we can tolerate it.

But when Christians won't admit that they have made a mistake and apologize....


You are quite correct Verne.  Since I had received a couple of condolence cards I took the opportunity to thank them for the cards and to inquire if they had changed their minds about excluding me.  I have not done that in a while now.  I have better things to do with my life than to be pre-occupied with the local assembly matters.  Anyway this is not about me, but it was used to illustrate a point of people ignoring you to avoid conflict or whatever else.  One never really gets used to it.

Marcia

Frankly, I am surprised that Lenore continues to do this. Many of us have very politely (and privately) told her how diffiicult it makes it for the BB readers to follow a discussion when she posts in the way she does.
While it is certainly not worth contention, I sometimes wonder if ignoring that which we find problematic, just because it is not a "moral" issue is always in anyone's best interests. We after all do choose our own society and it is what we make it. I thought about sending another PM today but decided not to.




Is is possible that some of these kinds of blunders are due to failure to appreciate the remarkable breadth and depth of the English language? To extract from the rich word "entertain" which after all can signify "to consider", the emotive and unsavory notion of "servicing" is not something that would have occurred to me personally...
Verne

I was going to post a "groan!" response to each of her posts, but figured that that would only compound the problem.

It goes to prove that tenderhearted may not be a good username for her after all.

It also demonstrates how politeness and courtesy turns to blunt and straightforward communication.

Got to go,
Marcia

No, Tom and Dave are much wiser than we are.  I don't think they didn't understand the language. 

It's the PMC.

Remember, "DECENT" people know that I was saying she was a whore.  ????

Have you ever tried the Masutatsu-Nureyef model? 
It gives remarkably similar results!   ;D
Verne

Yes, and it does everything you would expect.

However, it is really designed for the Asian variants of PMC, and doesn't work as well as the Hahimoto-Breslin model for our purposes.

How do you know so much about this stuff?

S'sS

Good point re. language BUT when one reads the whole original post, it becomes pretty clear that skeptic's intent was not slander.  I was not biased by the knowledge of skeptic's true identity or anything, yet I got the point of skeptic's intent, which has subsequently been clarified for all.

A couple of points come to mind.

With that subsequent clarification there has not yet been an apology from those that misread skeptic's intent.

When people breeze on and off the BB it is easy to misunderstand and run with what one already knows, as Tom did, unless one takes the time to get on track.

Marcia

I am sorry if I have inconvenience people, by posting posts to encourage people.
It is not with malice or trying to get your goat.
It is to encourage people only.

I am sorry that I am a topic of conversation again.

Does it really take that much effort to go to the topic of interest to get the conversation.
As you have notice I am only posting about once a week now.

I am sorry if I step on you 'RIGHTS' toes and made it really uneasy for you to get right to the conversation.

It is amazing that you are complaining about me inconvenience you, that you have failed to notice about the source and topic of most of those posts of encouragement.
It is the Lord's Day isnt it. So the topic of verses, devotionals, etc that reflect my life in Christ, is an inconvenience to you.

Well I am sorry for inconvenience you.

Lenore

you say you want to encourage people, but everyone is telling you to knock it off.  We aren't encouraged, yet you continue to do this.

Stop it.  It's annoying, weary, tiresome and irritating.  It's not encouraging.

You aren't sorry, either.

This looks like a self pity post to me.  In one breath you say "I am sorry" and in the next you say "It is amazing that you are complaining about me inconvenience you".  Make up your mind.

What you are doing on the WP thread, having a discussion with MarkC, is good.  The rest is questionable.

Marcia

This is not self pity, this anger.  You are the ones who are doing the complaining. Not every one is telling me to knock it off.

People have written to tell me what I have posted have helped them.

If you want the right to post the way you do, doesnt the same courtsey should be extended to me. To post the way I want to.
If this includes verses, devotional, what the Lord has done to encourage. Then what it to it.
By complains on the subjects I post. These are the ones I am being send, I find them wonderful and I want to share them.

If I dont like what you post I ignore it and continue on.

I believe there is room on this board for all kinds of postings and submission and personalities.

I will let you post what you want, all I am asking is the same rights.
Yes I used the word RIGHTS.

IT SEEMS THAT YOU WANT TO POST WHAT YOU WANT, ANY WAY YOU WANT, YET WHEN SOMEONE POSTS DIFFERENT. OH NO, THIS DOES SUIT.
LETS TALK ABOUT IT, GET HER MAD, THEN WHEN SHE RESPONSE TO THE NEGATIVITY.
LETS KICK HER SOME MORE.

THIS IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OR ENCOURAGING.

THIS IS TO LET YOU KNOW. AS LONG AS ONE PERSON IS ENCOURAGED BY BIBLE VERSES, BIBLE DEVOTIONALS, TOPICS OF BIBLICAL & TOPIC OF JESUS AND THE LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN WALK. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR OPINION IS OR NOT.
ONLY JESUS CAN JUDGE THE HEART.

I KNOW I AM A CHILD OF CHRIST AND NO ONE , CHRISTIAN OR NON CHRISTIAN, BECAUSE JESUS IS ADVOCATING AT THE THRONE OF GOD FOR ME, AGAINST ALL ACCUSATIONS.

THIS IS MY VOICING ON THIS TOPIC.

I ALSO READ THE 10 RECENT LIST, AND ALOT OF TIMES I HAVE TO GO TO THE TOPIC TO GET TO THE AREA OF INTEREST FOR ME.

SO WHAT. IT IS NOT AN INCONVENIENCE FOR ME.
IT JUST TAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFORT AND TIME ON MY PART.

MAYBE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD,
WHY TOM AND DAVE READ WORDS THAT OTHERS CANT SEE ?

In my opinion, may be they can see by being intimate with the Holy Spirit, and listening to the Holy spirit of what God is telling them , talking to them in their hearts.
Maybe they can see because God is allowing them to see, what is beyond the words that are being written.
I have not developed that skill yet. I hope as I avail myself to God's teaching I will be blessed with that gift as well.

I am amazed at Christians condemning another Christian for sharing things of God.
I am really amazed at this. Questioning things of God that is being share. And Questioning the condition of another Christian heart and motives.
I am really amazed , I am really amazed.

You know what has just cross my mind: THE HEARTS OF MANY WILL GROW COLD.

Well it is almost 12 midnight.

See you next LORD'S DAY.

Lenore

Your response is not supportive nor encouraging to me.  I am really amazed at how condemning it is.  Neither is it tender hearted.  It looks more like a temper tantrum.

You said, "People have written to tell me what I have posted have helped them."

Then email your thoughts to them.  There is a way to work this out, if you are inclined to do so.


WOW!!!

Marcia

Hi Lenore:
A few quick points as to a friend.
It is not about inconvenience.
It is very much about BB etiquette and these are things we all have to learn.
Did you know for example that posting in caps is the verbal equivalent of shouting?
While one may actually want to shout once in a while, few will listen to someone who does it all the time.
The thing that makes a BB interesting is that it is a place of exchange.
No one is interested in listening (reading) to a lengthy monologue with little or no opportunity for response and/or comment.
 Unfortuntely, this is exactly what happens when you make posts of the length that you generally do, and in such rapid succession. It completely disrupts the flow of BB conversation and frankly has the opposite effect of the one you intended, which as you indicate, is to encourage others.
Please do not be offended that the matter is being raised again as it was mentioned to you previously and you apparently have chosen to ignore the effect the practice has on other BB participants.
May I suggest that you shorten your attempts at encouragement a bit, and try to avoid posting more than two or three items at a time. This will make what you post easier to digest, and will not have the effect of your most recent posts disproportionately dominating the recent posts lists.
It is simply a matter of consideration for your fellow posters.  :)
Verne

When Lenore first signed on to the BB, she used caps exclusively.  I, and maybe another, informed her via an email that caps meant she was shouting.  At that point she changed her posting style.  So, yes, Lenore knows that caps means shouting.  She was reason able with then, but has changed her tune since.

IMO some of what she posts is unnecessary and only takes up database storage space.  Like the long lists of verses e.g.  I am encouraged that Lenore has renewed her family connections, but I knew that anyway, from knowing her personally and from what she has posted here before.  I don't find her other accounting of her other activities, to the detail she accounts them, necessary.

Her false spirituality becomes quite evident when she makes all those long posts of how the Lod is encouraging her and how she is trusting the Lord, and then she spews out garbage when she gets angry.

This is written in response to Verne's post since Lenore said she would not be posting till next Sunday.

Marcia

P.S. see www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=697.msg24783#msg24783 (http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=697.msg24783#msg24783) for Stephen Fortescue's excellent post on this topic and the discussion that followed.

Marcia

This could explain it.  Normally, Tom is quick to jump on someone saying things like this.  How much you wanna bet he ignores this one?  (Your posts get erased, Marcia)

OH, LENORE, I THINK YOU ARE WELL ON YOUR WAY TO DEVELOPING THIS SKILL, AND HAVE DEVELOPED MANY OTHERS THAT ARE JUST AS AMAZING.

Brent,

Welcome Back!

Have you seen the NHL commercials?  They're using the "Welcome Back Kotter" song to promote the NHL comeback.  Wish I could play the tune here for you.

Brent, I believe that you and Elijah have a lot in common.  Any common ancestry there? :)

Anyway, I will be surprised if Tom does not respond to that heresy.  But then most people only skim Lenore's long post and may have missed that point.  I happened to read it because she was 'reacting' to my post.

Marcia

Wisdom dicates that we learn and abide by the unspoken rules of decency and post-Assembly recovery.  According to these rules, there are several things we should not say:


Lenore should be allowed to post in whatever manner she wishes, without judgement, condemnation or criticism.  We shouldn't say anything about it.

As for me, I should be sharply rebuked for things I did not say, the moment I type a sentence.

It's only fair. God simply LOVES an imbalanced scale.  Prov. 34:124


Never speak plainly and openly about a person who is accepted, if that person is saying or doing something irritating.

Always trash and then ignore people who are not accepted.  The response of the moderator will teach you who is, and who is not accepted.  Remember these are unwritten, unspoken rules.

People who we perceive as needy and weak are valuable, because they allow us to teach and have influence over them easily.  Anything and everything should be tolerated and praised, if said by such a person.  Never speak the plain truth to someone like this.  Never attempt to shake them loose from their self-deception.  It isn't done.

Any person of influence should never admit a mistake.

There are more, but these serve as a good foundation. 

S'sS

This is fairly serious business. At the risk of appearing to take myself too seriously let me weigh in with this.
The first time I came onto the BB and saw that all ten most recent posts were Lenore's I was a bit taken aback.
The natural assumption would have been that this was either an incredibly egotistical person entirely lacking in any self-restraint whatsoever, or someone a bit unstable. I assumed neither. I reasoned that Lenore simply did not realise that this violated generally accepted rules of BB etiquette and that this was probably because she was never told any differently.
I e-mailed both moderators and suggested they talk to her about her posting habits.
Tom advised me to simply scroll through her posts and that if I tried it,  I might like it, or something to that effect.

His meaning was clear - pretend the problem did not exist.

Mark's assesment was that Lenore was too fragile to be corrected.

My astonishment knew no bounds at these responses and I found them quite revealing indeed.
I asked myself the question:
"Would I silently allow someone to continue doing something that I was convinced made them look foolish in the eyes of other observers?
My answer? No, not if I cared anything about them.
I therefore e-mailed Lenore and gently told her that I thought what she was doing was inappropriate and why.
This was several mionths ago.
I am still convinced that if either one of the moderators had talked to her about this we would not be having this conversation. This is one instance in which moderatorship ( as well as all forms of leadership) is worth its weight in gold.
Verne

p.s Some of you know why I am doing this. This is the long and short of what happened with George Geftakys and his legacy. Believe it!

Verne, both repsonses were in keeping with the sick set of standards that has infected this board.

I'm sure you also deduced that these are the same character flaws that made Tom and Dave especially ineffective at stopping GG for all those years, and after they each left the Assembly. 

Lenore has been told many times about her posting habits.  She doesn't like being corrected, or told what to do, in case you haven't noticed.  She also thinks she is really spiritual, especially compared to others.

The reason the moderators haven't done anything is because they believe Lenore to be a substandard person, not capable of behaving in a decent, socially acceptable manner.  She isn't smart enough, and is too fragile...in other words, she is incapable of learning.  At least that's what they think.   Dave Sable even likened her to a "retarded kid,"  hence, the toleration of her obnoxious posting. 

They aren't concerned about her to the point where they will tell her the truth, which really means they despise her.  It's like medicating a boisterous sixth grade boy,  in order to get him to behave more like a girl.  It's easier to do that than to do practice tough (real) love.

They may have used some "gentle" communication with her, but it is obvious that she doesn't listen to that! 

Come to think of it, Tom doesn't respond to gentle communication either.

It has to do with one's perception of oneself, and our whacky ideas about love and decency.

S'sS

Dear SS and Others,

   With my metal cap and aluminum eye shield firmly in place I still discover that all my attempts to moderate "the dreaded" Lenore debacle remain ineffective.  I would like to take this moment to tender my resigination as "Global Moderator," with all it's glorious perks.

   Though SS and Verne suggest a tougher police man on this block is the answer (maybe they are right, as I still refuse to drink the warm prune juice) I hereby,as an official Global Moderator of dubius distinction,am willilng to pass the torch of the testimony to SS or Verne, or whomever has the perfect balance of wisdom to make this BB a utopian community.

   I must admit Sceptic's appearance on the scene sent David M. to mingle with his former Worker atheist friends, and maybe a heavy dose of sarcasm will do us all a great deal of good.

   I say all this without accepting the sweeping generalizations about how the moderators operate on this BB--- meaning I doubt even Skeptic's shielded thoughts can provide a view into the motives of why Tom, Mark, and Dave (the last not being in the special annointed class of moderator at all) "always" say and act the way that they do.  I will deeply ponder the insight that I, as a Moderator, wish to keep Lenore weak so that I can "teach and influence her."

   However, it cannot be denied that Skeptic and Verne are correct that Lenore is involved in very "serious" breaches of "etiquette" that are very harmful to her soul.  Making Long and numerous devotional posts with reams of scriptures in them is certainly (helmet on securely and eyes covered with shield) ----- Annoying?  Yes, that's the great wickedness---- it bothers me!!!!

   I thought Verne's attempts to address his concerns with Lenore were very courteous and good advice; and I told her so.  However, as usual my great influence over her had little affect.  I thought Marcia's suggestions re. how Lenore had a conversation with me on WP was very sound as well.

   Oh well, I suppose a totally utopian and fully mind shielded community awaits the annointing of a truly efficient, effective, and balanced Moderator who will be able to make this BB what it really should be. 

   This Moderator would be able to abolish all annoying posters, and catch them before they could even get started (we could have a chain, like a prayer chain, and call it The Watchtower.  24/7 we could make sure and keep up with those crossing the line of good BB manners, and with our powers of persuassion get them to be all that they can be!

     No more posting what we don't want and----- BTW,we better sit down with our helmets on and a big warm glass of prune juice before we decide what will be acceptable posting.  Well, the new Moderator will tell us what to say, how to say it, and even if our motives are in proper order while making our contribution.

   Hip-hip-horray for the new BB with the new and improved moderators!!!  I can hardly wait for the ushering in of the new age of Aquarius;right here where only mediocrity and deadness has reigned for so long!!!!

                                       God bless the new Moderator, Mark C.

                                                              (He/she will need it)

   

 

Hi Mark,

Interesting post.  I'm not sure what to make of it.  Are you ticked off, joking, serious ... ???

The ideal would be to have a change in the moderators rather than a change of moderators.  None of us is beyond the need for growth and change, eventhough we have learned some valuable post assembly lessons.  It would be unfortunate if we only go so far and then get stuck in another rut of sorts.

The point was being made that there is a double standard, and that good discussions often get sidetracked.

What is obvious is that the approach you used did not produce the needed change in Lenore re. BB etiquette.

You said, "However, it cannot be denied that Skeptic and Verne are correct that Lenore is involved in very "serious" breaches of "etiquette" that are very harmful to her soul."

I'm not sure of the tone here.  Seems cynical if anything.
The BP (big picture) is that Lenore loves an environment where she receives support and encouragement.  The moment someone touches on a need for change she cannot receive it.  Her spirituality is false, and that is harmful.

You also said, "Making Long and numerous devotional posts with reams of scriptures in them is certainly (helmet on securely and eyes covered with shield) ----- Annoying?  Yes, that's the great wickedness---- it bothers me!!!!"

I failed mind reading 101 hence I'm not sure if you are being cynical or are actually bothered by it.

And you said, "Well, the new Moderator will tell us what to say, how to say it, and even if our motives are in proper order while making our contribution."

Kind of like when skeptic was accused of slander eh??

Marcia

In my opinion, you have done a generally very good job as moderator Mark. Your resignation in NOT accepted!  :)
A few quick points.
Power without restraint is terrifying - the bull in a china shop syndrome.
Authority without power is pathetic.
If as the moderator you had politely asked Lenore not to make ten posts in a row, the next time she did it you simply delete an appropriate number of them. It's that simple my friend. She would get the message.
No rancor, no hard feelings, no condemnation; you properly excercise your authority for that is why you have it!
Verne
p.s. in the two years or so I have been on the BB, there have been probably two or three occasions in which I thought moderator intervention was needed. I myself have benefited from a timely correction or two... :)

Hello Verne and Marcia!

  I must attribute whatever I said in the last post to my wearing of my approved head and eye shield, thus I employed only pure reason and truth in my studied post.

  As to "changing the way the Moderator operates vs. changing the Moderator:"   

  I disagree.  If we can only find the right person to moderate they will be able to take all the different personalities, with all their different points of view, and mold them into completely rational and productive members of the BB.

    SKeptic seems to fit the bill here better than anyone that I can think of.   Why, it is obvious the present Moderators will never be able to clearly discriminate between who should be able to post, how much, or how long.

  As an example:  We've had very rude and dominating contributors, wacko atheist/liberal posters, false mystic posters, malacious lying wolves holding forth, former members now wanting to pursue same sex partners, and now the pinnacle of destructive evil----- the long and boring poster!

    Tom deleted one or two of the wacko liberal's rantings, I believe, but it took the sarcasm of Skeptic to finally convince the errant soul to flee to his leftist friends elsewhere.  It isn't just deletion of posts that did the trick, because that just made him mad;  no, it was a special gift that used anonymous ridicule and like an arrow expertly aimed it found it's mark!

    Even on my best day, and with helmet and eye shield on, I still try to "believe the best" about participants, and trust that most people can see where these different people are coming from.  The world is filled with the above and it's a good idea if we can learn how to answer their views vs. as a Moderator just hitting the delete button.

   So you see, my perspective is too weak and we need to elect a new Uberman who can control the mass of humanity vs. allowing a too tolerant BB where all this nonsense is allowed to continue.

   Slander you say Marcia?  Certainly not!  It was perfectly just to suggest that the Moderators of this BB wish to keep Lenore weak so that we can teach and influence her.  Skeptic knows what goes on in the hearts and minds of Tom and myself, it is apparent in how we have handled this whole situation!!   

                                                  God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Mark,

We've got a number of issues now on this thread:

1. what started all of this is that Tom accused skeptic of slander and then did not apologize when he discovered otherwise.  Come to think of it I cannot remember that Tom has ever felt a need to apologize.  I've read apologies from you, Brent, Verne, Margaret, etc.  but I cannot remember reading one from Tom.  But then maybe Tom is above reproach and his education has shown him the truth and it is us that need to spologize to him for not seeing the wisdom of his thoughts.

2. When Tom accused skeptic of slander, skeptic retorted with a high dose of sarcasm.  DaveS and I have discussed how it comes to this in another discussion see: www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=995.msg26256#msg26256 (http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=995.msg26256#msg26256)

3. The fact that Tom often breezes on with some related good point, but only succeeds in sidetracking the discussion, as demonstrated with where we are now.

4. The fact that your subtle gentle approach, though necessary at times, does not make it abundantly clear what your opinion truly is.  Almost like you are afraid to state your true opinion for all to see and thus end up offending a poor lost soul.  The effect, better that the lost soul remains lost, than you state the truth about the matter clearly.  This is not to say that you are not clear in stating your opinion on other matters.

5. When spared was on board declaring her use of the welfare system, she was driven off.  It was easier to do that with an annonymous poster than with someone like Lenore.  Not that the point is to drive people off.  But IMO it is hypocritical to take an annon to task about the very matter that a regular is all about.  People are afraid to point out to Lenore her false doctrines just because she is Lenore.  Maybe they know she will fly off into a temper tantrum. :-\

6. Changing moderators only avoids the existing problem and does not solve it.  And besides, why would any of us want to be on the hot seat eh?? ;)

Marcia

PS.  You have stated you ire at skeptic quite clearly, so that's actually a good thing.  Not sure why you do not state your ire at other posters.  Maybe I have forgotten those occasions.

MM

It seems to me that while true, these observations are not relevant to the issue.
There has not been a single other poster on this BB who has taken the extraordinary action of making ten posts in a row, not even the most passionate of posters among us. In fact I have never ever seen even five posts in a row by any past poster!
This is abberrant in the extreme.
The logical person to deal with that kind of profusion on a BB is the moderator and they should.
The issue is not one of content or of motive, it is one of order versus chaos.
While it is true that the moderator should be all but invisible, there are a few instances in which their invovlement in the process is absolutely necessary to prevent complete chaos. Any poster in the habit opf repeatedly holding the ten most recent posts is in my view one such instance.
Verne

p.s. Marcia contrary to the discussion being side-tracked as you suggest, I think this topic is even more vital and relevant than the original. I think a fatal misunderstanding of what constitutes the proper and improper use of authority is the key to seeing how the men around Geftakys failed. If I find the time, I am thinking about starting a thread on the subject.

OK, you say all she is is boring and tedious.  Well, she said this in her last post:


I was immediately accused of slander for something I didn't say...not by you.

Lenore was immediately ignored for saying something really whacky...by everyone except Marcia and myself. 

Why would you not show some care and gently correct her regarding the spiritual gift of "seeing beyond the written word."

This is hardly merely being boring!  If you read some of what she says, you would have a different position.

I also remember vividly, your misquoting, mis-using and flat out lying about scripture---Romans 14---in order to protect Lenore.  You really don't know what I'm talking about? 

It's good that you have decided to wear the beanie, it helps.

What's your opinion regarding Tom and Dave being able to see hidden words and phrases, and Lenore earnestly desiring this gift?  I, personally think these three could be wounded pilgrims, and we might not even have known it.

S'sS

I have a suggestion for Lenore:

How about starting a blog (weblog)? I don't know if you're familiar with the concept--it's basically an online journal. You can post whatever you want, however lengthy, and the good thing about it is that you could give your other friends from church, Alpha group, etc. the URL so they could read your meditations without gettting into post-Assembly conversations.

When you have it set up, post the URL on the BB, too. Blogs are free, and really easy to set up at "blogger.com". They give you  a choice of preset designs, and you can even post pictures. Then you can limit your input to the BB to taking part in the conversations, with shorter posts. 

Back to the general conversation:

There is something else that's been sitting in the back of my mind and I think it's trivial, except that the subject keeps getting brought up. It's the "issue" of Tom "reading into" Ss's post, and then not apologizing for it. Maybe I live in a different environment from the rest of you guys, or maybe it's a generational thing--being a doddering old grandma and all. But it seems obvious to me that Ss's use of the word "entertain" in the context he did was definitely ambiguous. I think the meaning he intended was "to consider". But if you look up the word "entertain" in the online dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=entertain, that's not the main idea you get, it's only one out of five, some of the others being "show hospitality" and "provide entertainment".

So it seems to me that Tom's guess was not particularly out of line. And here's the grandma part--In my day, (quavery voice here, sonny) it was the person whose communication was vague that did the apologizing and said, "Oh, I'm sorry I left the wrong impression. What I meant to say was...."

Okay, grandma's had her say.

There should have been some reflective comments on Lenore's post.
I seriously doubt that either Dave or Tom would endorse her view of their being clairvoyant. To apply the work of the Spirit of God to such  a context as this is simply nonsensical.




This is the worst kind of superstition, and is the stuff of whch assembly dogma and propaganda is made.
What possible basis could any Christian have for making a statement like this in this particular context?



No need for amazement. The BB community is simply saying whatever your motives, posting in the manner you do is unacceptable and disruptive. The gracious and mature thing to do is shorten your posts and stop making so many in rapid succession. Trying to make this some sort of spritiual issue is dishonest and self-serving Lenore.



Granted Margaret. None of the definitions of "entertain" however, would justify Tom's notion of "servicing", a rather startling conclusion in view of the context of the remarks.

Verne

Hi Grandma ;)

While I agree with Verne's response, I would ask that, hypothetically speaking, if skeptic had responded as both you and Dave S claim he sould have, then what??  Are you saying that then Tom would have apologized for his misunderstanding?  Tom just came and went and no straightening of the matter.  The only response we have had, to date, from Tom was to "justify" his stance for misunderstanding, rather than to you know what.

Marcia

Hi folks,

There is so much going on in this topic that I must limit myself to brief responses.

1. Once when I was teaching, we had a science classroom containing a wading pool with a number of crawdads in it.  During the week they were fed daily.  But after the weekend there would always be at least one less crawdad in the pool.  Lacking other food, they ate each other.  The strong ate the weak.

Could this board be suffering from a lack of intellectual stimulation?

2. Regarding my unwillingness to apologize.  

I criticized our "skeptic" (SS) for its rude statement about a girl it (neuter prounoun) does not know.  She was, it said, "servicing" other "clients".  
a. Clients are people for whom someone performs a service for pay.
b. A few weeks ago I walked down a road in west Texas where I used to go with my cousin Cecil to call the cows home for milking.  The cows were milked by hand as they only had 10 or so.

A cow cannot be milked indefinitely.  You have to repeatedly have them impregnated so that they will produce a calf and then you can keep them "fresh" (giving milk) for a couple of years by regular milking.  When that period is over, you must have them "serviced" so they will get pregnant again.

Nowadays on modern dairy farms they use artificial insemenation.  But FYI mares, sows, and cows are being "serviced" on farms and ranches all over the world for the continued production of milk, pork, beef, and the occasional horse.  The term is understood to mean that all over the USA.  In fact, I have Dr. Laura Schlesinger use it on her nationwide radio broadcast.  She applies it to unmarried live in partners.

Skeptic, IMHO, called the girl a whore, and I am still of that opinion, hence, no apology will be forthcoming.  

3. Regarding deletion of posts.

Brent informed Marcia that her posts have been erased.  Perhaps so, but not by me.  I have deleted no more than, (I believe) six posts in two years, and have altered four of five more.

Brian has the ability to strip me of my "powers" at the stroke of a key.  Until he does so I will just have to use my best judgement, for good or for ill.  No one has ever supplied me with a list of rules as to what is allowed or disallowed.  

4. Lenore

a. I do not have the direct instruction and/or illumination of the Holy Spirit concerning people's posts that she has conjectured.  However, since most American Evangelicals believe in this, or something very similar, I have no wish to go "tilting at windmills" in order to cure the evangelical community of its error.

b. As some have stated, and have criticized me for doing, I decided a long time ago to simply scan over and or skip Lenore's interminable posts.  IMHO, she does this because it satisfies some need/desire/whatever that she has.  From time to time someone posts that what she has said has been very encouraging.  In fact, much of what she says in intended to encourage.  

In addition, other than keeping a constant watch on her and immediately deleting, I can't stop her.

c. LENORE, please be aware that many on the board find your constant posts very annoying.  Could you perhaps be a little more sensitive about this?

5. "Skeptic"

This genderless and anonymous troll, IMHO, is only here to cause trouble.  It looks to me as if it is succeeding in doing so.

I was amused by the tinfoil helmet thing when it first mentioned it.  As with most jokes, the humor content is reduced by repetition.

SS was, however, quite wrong about one of the statements it made.  There is far more evidence for God than there is for Belgium.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Lenore,

Vern Carty said:

I agree with Verne's admonition. 

I also refuse to become involved in personal quarrels between board members, unless they excessively disrupt the board.

Thomas Maddux

You know Tom, I did not expect it from you, but life is full of surprises.

You accuse skeptic of lying and validated Lenore's POV that you have that special gift to see the motives and deeper meaning in other's posts, though you stated that you did not.

This confirms for me why George was able to continue for as long as he did.

Got to go lift my lower jaw.  It seems to be locked in open mode.

Marcia

Folks,

I just read this, posted by Dave.


If this is true, there are only four people that could be "skeptic".  Myself, Mark C, Brent, or Brian.

Brent, are you "Skeptic"?

Tom Maddux

Of course I am, Tom.  Had you been doing any reading at all, you would have known it.  I made it quite clear, dropping little hints here and there, and then flat out proving it several times.

Most people know it was me, and I have certainly owned up to it when asked.  Yes, Skeptic is Brent and Brent is Skeptic.

Tom,  I never used the word "servicing" or "client," in my post.  Didn't even come close.  You obviously haven't taken the time to read them.

You said this:

This is outrageous!  Either you:
1.) Didn't bother to read what I said, let alone re-read it after being REPEATEDLY told that you were wrong
2.)Did read it, but insist on lying about what I said

Both of these are unacceptable and offensive. If you're going to enter into conversation with someone for the first time by telling them they are committing slander, you should have at least a ruimentary basis for your charge.  You have nothing but your imagination and arrogance!

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, here's what I actually said:


Please notice the entire absence of the words "servicing" and "clients."

Let me also remind you that your went on in some detail about how I called this woman a whore.  Dave Sable used the words "Multiple boyfriends," and "slut."

Nowhere in my post was any of this suggested, in any fashion whatsoever!  The word entertain doesn't mean the same as impregnating a cow, Tom. 

What you are saying, and the way you are going on with defending yourself is ludicrous.  You know quite well that I never said anything about clients, whores, servicing, sluts, or multiple boyfriends.  You have no basis whatsoever for carrying on like this.

Here is the plain fact of the matter:

You are too proud to admit a mistake.  Your pride is so great that you imagine that I typed words that I didn't---I am assuming you really believe this and aren't just lying like a child caught stealing---furthermore, you expect everyone else to go along with your ruse!

This is why you were so ineffective at dealing with George when you knew better Tom.

Again, if you're going to claim I said any such thing as you say above, at least provide a link to it.  The words have not been altered, as many can vouch.

There is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you back down when you're wrong? 

Can anyone provide me one instance where Tom has ever admitted the smallest mistake?

Finally, In response to Tom's first post to me, where he accused me of slander,  I wish I had said, "Why do you say that?"  Then he could have said all this garbage and wouldn't have the feeble excuse that I was ambiguous!  Ambiguity on my part doesn't allow a college student to manufacture words and intent out of thin air.

I have cleared up what I meant many times over, and you get more outrageous in your delusion every time you post!

S'sS

So  Verne, in other words, the sentence could read,"Certainly some of the other men she is (considering) are better suited to her goals." and "I don't think David could/would provide this (assistance)."

I guess calling Brent a slanderer is easier to do than read at a 6th grade level.

Tom, I do hope you can see how off you were/are and apoligize, as it does make you look very foolish and arrogant.

Suzie

Tom's gone again.  Looks like he breezed on board and cleared the decks with his wisdom.  Reminds me of LBs who refuse to admit that they could even remotely or possibly have done anything wrong, and have the the insight to know how the members are really thinking.

Suzie, why would you want Tom to apologize.  His problem is that he isn't even wrong, ever.  I hate fake apologies.  He's not going to trouble himself with "fighting" you know, just cause the fighting.  It's called being above approach (or is it reproach).

This is so sick,  I needed to take a break.

It would be interesting to note where Brian stands on this.

Marcia

Marcia,

No, I couldn't predict what Tom would have done, and it's a good thing I didn't try. I think Tom should apologize, but that point has already been driven into the ground. I was just feeling the need to point out another facet to the debacle. If anyone wants to know what I think about apologies, read the article on ga.com--empathy is the key word, something a lot of us are short on, including myself. I'm done now.

"Grandma"

Not only could it read as such Suzie, the context in my view demanded that any reasonably intelligent reader get that sense, Margaret's interesting counter notwithstanding... :)
Verne

My! my! my! I have not seen the BB humming  like this in quite some time. I suspect some of what is driving the current debate lies way beneath the surface doncha think y'all?

Verne,

I think I understand you clearly, but some of our other readers may not. May I take the liberty of re-phrasing what you wrote above? Please correct me if I don't have it right.

"Of course it reads like that! Any fool can see it, and to suggest otherwise is plain stupid, even if someone tries to grasp at straws by using other definitions of a word."

PS, none of the other definitions of "entertain" mean "servicing" cows or mulitple boyfriends!

Here's a nifty definition: 

slander: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=slander&x=16&y=18

Brent

Thank you for that most excellent clarification.
I sometimes have a tendency to be somewhat subtle.. :)
Verne

Some years ago Sergio Aragones, a brilliant cartoonist, created a comic book entitled Groo the Wanderer.  The character Groo was a farcical take-off on Howard's Conan the Barbarian, drawn and scripted to poke fun at the artificial seriousness of the latter.  Like "The Far Side's" Gary Larson, "Calvin and Hobbes'" Bill Watterson, and "Dilbert's" Scott Adams, Aragones' insights into human nature made for some hilarious and humbling graphic commentary.

One of my favorite recurring jokes was when someone would remark in Groo's presence that "Any fool can plainly see that..." and Groo would innocently reply, "I can plainly see that." :o

Another was when someone within earshot of Groo would describe Groo to another person as being "slow of mind."  The story would continue for two or three more pages before Groo would scratch his head and wonder to himself, "What did he mean, 'Slow of mind'?" ???

The point is that descriptions such as fool, idiot, stupid, vapid, hypocritical, sanctimonious, etc. have genuine meanings, and their use to cause harm, directly or indirectly, to others or to gain personal support in conflict is abuse of legitimate language and abuse of those to who it is thus applied.

Gospel truth is gospel truth and opinion is opinion-- neither can rightly be presented as the other.

For any of us to criticize, much less deliberately insult another simply for failing to be "like me" in attitude or behavior is, in its best light, immature.  Carried to extremes, it can be the witting or unwitting tool of evil.

It saddens me that the above may be dismissed by some as being a sidetrack that seeks to avoid, evade or otherwise escape the main point of this thread (as they view it), as if our God were not sovereign and mere men are capable of thwarting His divine purpose and plan.  But if that or any part of it is your opinion, I can never justly say that our disagreement makes you wrong.

Be yourself, and allow others to do the same.  Decry evil and heresy, but first be certain that that is what you are addressing.  In preparation for his discourse on the threat, the nature and the fate of false teachers, Peter prefaces those thoughts with the instruction to "make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,
and virtue with knowledge,
and knowledge with self-control,
and self-control with steadfastness,
and steadfastness with godliness,
and godliness with brotherly affection,
and brotherly affection with love. 
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. (2Pet.1:5b-9) (emphasis added)

It is an impressive list that holds tremendous promise, and it is devoid of such characteristics as
faultfinding,
criticism,
insult,
hostility,
provocation,
and the like.  Why?  Because those are fruits of the sinful nature of Adam's children, having been flourishing in us long before the advent of our newness of life in Christ Jesus.  But the fruit of the Spirit (see also Paul's admonition and list in Gal.5:16-26) is not so easily come by, necessitating our "abiding in Christ" (Jn.15:1-17).  Jesus, Paul and Peter all strongly urge us to compete for them, not by striving against each other, but by striving each against our own natural proclivity to avoid the things of God, and against the influences of the world in which we live, and against the wiles of the devil.

Think about it.
Pray about it.

Your brother in Christ through it all,
al

Thank you Al, for your wise and well chosen words.  You have articulated many of the things that I have been feeling over the past few days since this terrible storm of words began. 
Dear Everyone else,
I know that I have no right to weigh in on any of this, being a newcomer.  I don't know the history behind your offenses with your fellow bb brothers and sisters, but you all are breaking my heart with your bickering.
Do you remember back when you first were saved? (30 years in Oct. for me)  Do you remember the first scriptures that you studied?  Before you waded out and swam into the deep waters of doctrine and studied deeper things, you walked along the beach as you became accustomed to the waters; simpler concepts.
I am going to share some scripture that most of you will be able to recite from memory, but this is what has been going through my heart since Sunday.  Many may think it too simple and only for simple minds.  May my mind learn to  always be this simple.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbol.
If I have the gift of prophesy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all of my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I Cor 13: 1-7

I know I fall very short on a daily basis of the blueprint for life listed above.
Blessings,
Your sister,
Gay

Dear Gay,

While I agree with you regarding the unfortunate, heartbreaking bickering that goes on, I would like to attempt to get you to see a few things from a different point of view.

As far as I know, most of the people on this forum are saved, and contrary to what you say above, have NEVER waded into the deep waters of sound doctrine.  To the contrary, what most of us did after salvation was wade into the deep evil of a cultic apostate.

In the case of those who claim to have been sound in the faith prior to joining up with George, their long association with him completely negates whatever claim they may make about their soundness at the time.  Only foolish believers, with serious problems, lapse from real faith into Geftakysism.  For the most part, all of us went from an ill-founded faith into a cult.

If anyone here believes themselves to have "waded into the deep waters of doctrine,"  I don't believe a word of their claim if they are unable to judge themselves with regard to their enabling and vigorous service for George. 

I pay little attention anymore to a person who is able to judge George, or David.  We can all do that, and while that's a start, we need to rightly judge ourselves in order to be sound in the faith.  I am highly suspect of those who claim,  "I saw through George," and spent years doing nothing about it.  They may have "seen" George, but they certainly didn't see themselves, and probably still can't.

However many scriptures such a person may be able to play with, their views on things are muddled, at best.  They were wrong about George and totally lacking in discernment then, and may be quite WRONG AGAIN.

While I understand your gentle, sincere admonition regarding love, and your plea to return to the "simple" concepts, I must say a thing or two here.

The same addled minds that fell for George Geftakys, use this passage and many others like it to avoid reality and extinguish any light that may happen to shine on them in such a way that it reveals who they really are.

Instead of RIGHTLY judging themselves, they twist a passage like this in order to WRONGLY judge anyone who upsets their spiritual self-image.  More messengers have been shot to avoid hearing the message with passages about "love for the brethren," and "gentle speech," than any other.

Case in point:

Workers, elders and Fullerton Leading brothers sat under George and endured his abuse for years....decades even.  Most of them could/would not see who he was or what he was doing.  They severely violated their own consciences to the point of searing them.... no other explanation will do. 

If their moral and doctrinal compass was so flawed at that time, to the point where they failed to recognize the horror that they were serving with all their might....there is a strong likelihood that they are WRONG AGAIN with whatever doctrinal points they are trying to make now. 

The exception to this is to be found in those who can clearly judge themselves and admit to what they have done.  (A person who has done that has no problem admitting that they misread a post and then went on a fanciful journey into mistaking one word for another while slandering someone.  That's not a simple mistake, and shouldn't take a sustained chorus of words in order to get them to see what they have done.)  Can you imagine a person who won't admit a small thing like this actually comprehending something as huge as their involvement with George?  Look at this as a small example of the Big Picture.

A person, in this context, who has rightly judged himself, would not handle the passage of scripture in the manner you have above, and such a person would not confuse God's love for some kind of spiritually medicated evangelical tolerism, as Al has done countless times.  Don't fall for it.

God is love.  God's love is perfectly expressed in the fact that Christ died for us.

This same Christ insulted the religious leaders of His day, and called His own followers "foolish," "deaf," "stiffnecked," and "Satan."  Furthermore, He used a whip on many of them, after destroying their property.  Worse yet, speaking through one of His disciples, he called others of those who professed His name,  "fools," "blind," and apostate!

No doubt, many of the Pharisees would have employed 1 Corinthians 13 against Jesus, if they had it.  They were quick to misuse such other scriptures as they had against Him.  There was something wrong with their judgement, you see.

So, the point I am trying to make is this:

Contrary to the predictable objection that arises against anyone who uses strong language to expose a hypocrite; that the person telling the truth is not "acting in love," the opposite is true.  Allowing someone to blather on in self delusion is a radical violation of love.  Had the Apostle Paul had this twisted view of love, he would not have written most of the New Testament!

Weenies and Jackasses will always fall back on this objection with regard to blunt truth.  That is to be expected, and it happens in plenty more areas of life than Christian churches and BB's.  It's human nature.

This BB is sick, the culture that has sprung up around it is sick, and the core group of posters (yes, that's me included) are doing nothing more than perpetuating many of the errors that got us into Georgeism.  As long as we keep doing this, our lives will forever by hung up and defined by Geftakysism.  Is that what you want?

We need to stop it.  The worst thing we could do, is get all loving and "believing the best," and continue on in this nonsense.  The loving thing to do is to say,  "This BB is sick.  It's not healthy.  Don't go there."

Why am I still here?  I'll get to that soon, before I leave.

Brent

Thanks, Gay, for having the courage as a “newbie” to express your dismay at what’s been going on here. In spite of Brent’s very strong contrary opinion, it seems to me, too, that the simplicity of I Cor 13 applied here. Al said he was addressing the level of discourse—the hostility and provocation and name-calling. I don’t understand why his post should be viewed as “spiritually medicated evangelical tolerism” that you shouldn’t fall for. His entreaty seems very sound and scriptural to me.

Brent in his reply to you is confusing behavior the New Testament employs against Pharisees, false disciples and issues of the gospel, with behavior we’re to have toward fellow-believers. Those called “fools, blind and apostate” were professed followers of God who proved to not belong to Him. Brent is mixing up apples and oranges in his citations of scripture.

It seems to me that the New Testament is pretty clear how we are to relate to one another in Christ, no matter how wrong or offensive the other person may be. (If the issue doesn’t effect the gospel. That’s another category, and that’s where you see Jesus and Paul pulling out the stops.)

Al makes a point from 2 Pet which later proved true on this board, that the qualities of brotherly affection and love, among others, keep one from being ineffective. Brent’s pages of belittling and insults were ineffective in getting through to Tom. What it took was explanation to help him see the error of his ways.

Brent would no doubt object to that statement, saying if he hadn’t beaten Tom over the head, Tom never would have apologized. That’s debatable. In Tom’s case, being objective rather than emotional in how he thinks, as he says, I bet all the highly charged language made it less likely rather than more so that he could see the issue. Dave Sable may have been right, that if Brent had replied to Tom’s first post with friendly clarification instead of firing off a string of insults, the whole debacle might have been avoided. “Let the peace of Christ rule…”

The reason that didn’t happen is evident in Brent’s first reply to Tom: “…you probably didn't read what I posted for information, only for an angle to educate and inform the board members.”  Brent was operating on assumptions that he clarified to us all later in his Big Picture. But that’s another subject.

My thoughts, for what they’re worth. Thanks again for your effort to be a peacemaker. There’s a special blessing for them  ;D

Margaret   

Brent,
I think you misunderstood my word picture.  I'm sorry about that.  I tried to make clear what I was trying to express, but I don't think I did a very good job.  I apologize.  The word picture itself was not intended to be a focal point.  My only intention was to point out that this passage of scripture, though often overlooked because of it's familiarity, has much to offer.  I'll try not to wax so poetic in the future  :).  Guess I'm not that good at it. (I need to point out though, that you adding an adjective to my words didn't help the clarity   ;))
I'm sorry that your exposure to this scripture has such negative conotations, but that aside, I hope you'll take a step back and at least consider it's wisdom.  Please don't allow the shortcomings of foolish and wrongly motivated humans keep you from enjoying what God intended for you.  There is incredible wisdom in these words that can be and should be applied in all of our dealings with each other, whether there is a subtle disagreement or a full on blow out.
Despite a person's experience with people, God's word is God's word.

***********************

Hey Margaret,
Thanks right back atcha sis  :)  Blessings to both of us  8)

Gay

Below is a copy of a response I wrote to an email.  I hope it helps to explain my thoughts on how I view conflict resolution.
Dios le bendiga,
Gay

I think I understand what you are trying to say, however, we don't share the same point of view when it comes to confrontation. 
You state ... that you "stuck around (the bb), harsh words or not" and I am personally glad that you did, but what about those out there who are "lurking", that are wounded and don't have the fortitude that you do?
I am not saying not to rebuke serious sin or false teaching, but there is no need to attack the person that is wrong either.  There are better ways to communicate.
... in your example about the JW, you ask "Should you receive his message because he was friendly, or should you react with anger...?"
My answer is neither.  It is the very rare instance when anger is the appropriate reaction to anything.  Please note that I am not saying never, but I am adamantly stating that it should be rare.  I will not win that JW to Jesus Christ by calling him a cultist and telling him he is going to hell, although both are very true.  However, I would rather invite the JW into my kitchen, put on a pot of coffee and approach him with "Come now, let us reason together..."  He may or may not receive what I have to say, his choice, but I can guarantee that the chances are greater of his conversion at my kitchen table than if I took a broom handle to him on my front porch.
From my point of view, perhaps the "swashbuckling" could have better been handled in private emails and not on the bb, but then maybe I don't have a good grasp yet as to what the "mission statement" of the bb actually is.

Every once in a while, I get a perverse impulse to see what's going on in this board.

Sorry, I really don't find this a friendly place, especially since some of my comments were censored and I was harrassed off the board by a certain someone.

I'll spit it out: Tom, you offended me. I've never gone out of my way to offend you, yet you seem to have gone on the offensive towards me. What I think of you is untypable on this board. That is how I feel, especially after I have been treated badly by you in the past and then to be censored.

My life after the Assembly hasn't been the ideal ex-member's. After a while, I found I could no longer subscribe to an Evangelical view of Christianity. I explored agnosticism over the past several years. I had to come out to myself as gay. I refused to do any more spirtual violence towards myself, whether it was assimilating intolerant dogma or trying not to be gay. This is the reality of my life and I believe I should be honest about it. And I got shot down for being honest.

I don't think Tom is the only one guilty of the gripes I've stated two paragraphs ago, but he is the worst offender. I can't say that I forgive Tom right now, but I hope this is a step.

Maybe I'll post later. I really don't want to role of a bitter and cynical person. It just doesn't suit me.

Skeptic, you're my new hero! I've been encouraged to read some of your posts. Skeptics are always good.

Shin,

The last time you came here, I asked two things of you:

1. Do not make personal attacks on the people who post here.

2. Observe the same social conventions that we all do about keeping our sexual practices private.

I am repeating the requests at this time.

btw, "Skeptic" was Brent.

Thomas Maddux

Tom, ******  (Vulgar comment removed by moderator)  >:(

i can appreciate that you have had a rough time here in the past. noone likes to be censored, particularly when opening up in a vulnerable way in a public place. and i think you were particularly sensitive to the way tom reacted to you because of the spiritual violence done to you in the past. on the other hand, this board is predominantly conservative christians, so it is unrealistic to think that these people are going to be very supportive of the directions your life has taken. i personally don't find it offensive that you told us you are gay, since it is probably a big part of your identity at this point in your life, and it would be difficult for you to interact here meaningfully without putting that out there. but its also true, and i think you must know this, that most of the people here do find this offensive, and will react accordingly. personally, i would enjoy having a little more variety of perspective around here, and i hope you feel comfortable enough to participate in whatever discussions catch your fancy. but if you want to openly discuss your sexual preferences, this is a poorly chosen place to do so.

brian