25 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you claimed that Rank Outsider and JS357 have "exposed the vitriol" and then you mentioned me specifically by name. I'm not concerned with whether you were just being furtive. It's immaterial. If posters of the calibre of Rank Outsider and JS357 concur that I deserve singling me out for my supposed nastiness on this forum, I will certainly think on it.
Rank Outsider mentioned vitriol in general levelled against myself and the Gman, i think
your personally more inclined to squabble! My point was that it was refreshing to have
this aspect pointed out, as i have tried to do in the past against allegations of playing
the victim card which you yourself have expressed on more than one occasion, hard to
argue when its an independent perspective though, isn't it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 May 12
Originally posted by FMFI am not intending that my posts be a service or disservice to any posters here, but I suppose it is inevitable that some of them will come across that way especially if we are to allow for disagreement and not form alliances which call for avoidance of such things.
I think it does a disservice to several posters here to characterize the discussion here as a "squabble". That is my concern.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 May 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI guess if I can get away with calling it squabbling, robbie can get away with calling it vitriol. Wait... I didn't get away with it...
Vitriol!? 😞
Have you been dipping into the well of tabloid journalism again?
It's the...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rajk999To "admit fallibility... in one post, and state warnings in the next as if they are infallible" (quoting myself) is in my view a common human practice, which we become conditioned to use, because it is likely to be be more persuasive than saying something like "I could be wrong, but..."
Everything all of us are doing here now is being human.
What characteristic of his humanity is he showing up when he does that?
Being a common human practice, I admit to doing it too.
I suppose the trait is a desire to be effective and efficient in one's efforts to persuade, to an extent that can lead to using "hidden persuaders" to reference Vance Packard. But in contrast to the advertising business, I know a couple of JW's and it is my experience that they are sincere and well-meaning in these efforts.
25 May 12
Originally posted by JS357Granted, but what if you point out the error to them, and they insist that there is no error .. ie with one tongue their claim infallibility and with another they admit error.
To "admit fallibility... in one post, and state warnings in the next as if they are infallible" (quoting myself) is in my view a common human practice, which we become conditioned to use, because it is likely to be be more persuasive than saying something like "I could be wrong, but..."
Being a common human practice, I admit to doing it too.
I suppose th ...[text shortened]... of JW's and it is my experience that they are sincere and well-meaning in these efforts.
Should not such a person realise their mistake and admit it?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121314
25 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've only made 5 or 6 posts in this thread and on reviewing them I don't see any squabling or vitriol. Perhaps you should revert to claiming 'persecution', at least that give you something to talk about at the KH support group on Sunday?
What is rather refreshing from the thread is the acknowledgement by those who have
taken an independent stance, Rank Outsider, JS357 etc and who have exposed the
vitriol (to the extent of being concerned about it) levelled against myself and the Gman
on the flimsiest of grounds and the petty squabbling of posters like FMF and divejester,
refreshing to have it acknowledged by others although we've known it all along.
25 May 12
Originally posted by FMFAs I introduced the word vitriol into the debate (and I rather wish I hadn't) I thought I should try and clarify a few matters.
Well you claimed that Rank Outsider and JS357 have "exposed the vitriol" and then you mentioned me specifically by name. I'm not concerned with whether you were just being furtive. It's immaterial. If posters of the calibre of Rank Outsider and JS357 concur that I deserve singling me out for my supposed nastiness on this forum, I will certainly think on it.
There are some posters on this forum that appear to have singled out JWs for unique opprobrium (I had a thesaurus to hand). I have simply asked for evidence to support these views. This evidence has not been forthcoming and, in some cases, the poster(s) have seemed to delight in their unwillingness to provide any.
I don't like people who seem to want to encourage a mob mentality so, until evidence is posted as to why JWs should be subjected to this type of abuse, I am not going to play along. When the evidence is posted which is credible, I will alter my stance if appropriate.
But, FMF and JS357 are most definitely not in this camp. Indeed, exactly the opposite. I think Robbie and galveston75 have misjudged their intentions here but I am inclined to cut them some slack given what they sometimes have to put up with.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rajk999Should not such a person realise their mistake and admit it?
Granted, but what if you point out the error to them, and they insist that there is no error .. ie with one tongue their claim infallibility and with another they admit error.
Should not such a person realise their mistake and admit it?
I suppose so, but when it's something they consider to be vitally important for you to believe, they might give themselves the benefit of the doubt.
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rajk999Could you point to where JWs have claimed they are infallible?
Granted, but what if you point out the error to them, and they insist that there is no error .. ie with one tongue their claim infallibility and with another they admit error.
Should not such a person realise their mistake and admit it?
And do you also condemn the concept of Papal Infallibility in the same terms and with equal frequency?
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo [ but read the earlier posts] and Yes.
Could you point to where JWs have claimed they are infallible?
And do you also condemn the concept of Papal Infallibility in the same terms and with equal frequency?
The fact that I have no time to actually point you to the post means nothing.
I have been on this forum over 4 years talking to them. I really cannot remember all the places they said it.
25 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999If there were so many, then you should be able to put your hand on a few examples quite easily.
No [ but read the earlier posts] and Yes.
The fact that I have no time to actually point you to the post means nothing.
I have been on this forum over 4 years talking to them. I really cannot remember all the places they said it.
The fact that you don't does, of course, mean something, whether you like it or not. It just does not mean you are incorrect about claiming that JWs claim they are infallible, despite the fact that two current JWs have stated that they are not.
It just confirms that you are not interested in supporting your views with evidence. Until you do, your views don't really count for much.
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rajk999Your posts have attempted to convince me that JWs are engaged in brainwashing and mind control, and discourage independent Bible study. Your evidence for this was flimsy and, when challenged, you responded along the lines of "I could tell you but I ain't gonna".
Did anyone ask you to play along?
If your posts were not intended to inform or educate, or at least entertain, I can't really see the point of posting them. And if you can't or won't back them up, the same applies. This is a forum, not a soapbox.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121314
25 May 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWho are you talking about then?
As I introduced the word vitriol into the debate (and I rather wish I hadn't) I thought I should try and clarify a few matters.
There are some posters on this forum that appear to have singled out JWs for unique opprobrium (I had a thesaurus to hand). I have simply asked for evidence to support these views. This evidence has not been forthcoming a ...[text shortened]... s here but I am inclined to cut them some slack given what they sometimes have to put up with.