ALarson Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Question mark? Really???? You didn't think that was funny? I did and stated it clearly. What is your question? 1
iWriteStuff Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 A contentious conversation about contention.... the irony abounds. All the same, as a noob this is rather enlightening since y'all are certainly helping me understand your positions and self assigned roles in this forum.
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 ??? You didn't think that was funny? I did and stated it clearly. What is your question?Uh, It was so clearly a joke, I couldn't figure out what the question mark was for. Now I know.
Ahab Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) but the difference here is that you know your dad says he doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a prophet. there's no deception in what he says to you. you may think he's been deceived and that's the reason why he thinks what he thinks, but he is being consistent.I think it's interesting that sincerity seems to be your primary concern. You say there is no deception in what my Dad says to me when he says or insinuates that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. But yeah, there is. That is deceptive information. And the fact that he is sincere in believing Joseph was not a prophet of God just shows how well he has been deceived. You're not going to say that is just my opinion now, are you? That would be an attack on my credibility and the credibility of my testimony. there is no universal detector of truth, sincerity, deceit, and falsehood. i agree with you there.Do you see what you did there? I don't agree with your statement that there is no universal detector of truth, sincerely, deceit, and falsehood... so what the heck were you doing when you said you agree with me there???but we can help ourselves out by being concrete and comparing what we say with how we act. the more specific you are in your claims about what you do and don't believe, the easier it is for someone to make a judgment call on your sincerity.Sincere or not, however we portray something is either deceptive or not and the only thing that makes a portrayal of something not a deception is to portray it as it is. To say what is true is true, and what is not true is not true. Sincere but wrong is still a deception. if you routinely call into question the motives of the prophets and apostles, or call into question the claims that we're led by God when, say, no non-Utah AND non-white men are called to the 12, and are silent or muted in your affirmation that they are led by God, but then routinely talk about experiences you had while at Church in the very recent past (leading the reader to believe you maintain membership and attendance, ostensibly as a member), then i would would be slow to believe your sincerity as a believing member. i would start to wonder what you hoped to get out of some questions. i would be wondering if you already had formed an opinion and your questions were designed such that their answers would logically or naturally lead someone to the conclusions you have.if you call into question, etc... but say "and for these reasons i am leaning toward NOT believing they are led of God" then i will 100% trust your sincerity.just me, though.Okay. I'm not primarily concerned with sincerity when trying to ascertain what something is or is not, though. Someone who sincerely believes something is not what it is can't help me to know what it is if they sincerely believe it is what it is not. Just point out what something is or is not while being right about what you are saying. Or else get out of my way. Edited October 14, 2015 by Ahab
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 ahab i am just not understanding you nor you understanding me. thanks, though.
jkwilliams Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 ahab i am just not understanding you nor you understanding me. thanks, though. My guess is that such misunderstanding is at the root of most contention in these kinds of boards.
sethpayne Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Do you mean humorous or peculiar? Both. Just the idea of an "internet tyrant" is so absurd its amusing.
Ahab Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 A contentious conversation about contention.... the irony abounds.All the same, as a noob this is rather enlightening since y'all are certainly helping me understand your positions and self assigned roles in this forum.We're getting to know you by what you are saying, too, so keep it up as long as you can. Most of us are wise enough to not take anyone at their word, whether they are right or wrong, but combined with what we know and can continue to learn from God we can get to know each other fairly well, whether good or evil.
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 My guess is that such misunderstanding is at the root of most contention in these kinds of boards. just what does that mean?!? (kidding)
Ahab Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 ahab i am just not understanding you nor you understanding me.thanks, though.I am understanding you, though, even though you say I am not.The fact that we don't agree with each other doesn't mean we don't understand each other, and speaking for myself I can tell you that I do and did understand you by what you were saying to me.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 A contentious conversation about contention.... the irony abounds. All the same, as a noob this is rather enlightening since y'all are certainly helping me understand your positions and self assigned roles in this forum.Careful lest you get absorbed into a contentious conversation about a contentions conversation about contention. It can happen e'er you are aware. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Both. Just the idea of an "internet tyrant" is so absurd its amusing.Ack. You snatched away my member title before I had time to use it. Well, I'll have a variation on it. Watch for it. Edited October 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Ack. You snatched away my name title before I had time to use it. Well, I'll have a variation on it. Watch for it. No, no. I am "Oppressed by the Internet Tyrant" and am certainly not the tyrant him or herself. Your claim of benevolence is still an open question, IMO. Edited October 14, 2015 by sethpayne
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 OK that does it.I am clearly the tyrant around here. Usurp my authority an pay the consequences.
ALarson Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Ack. You snatched away my name title before I had time to use it. Well, I'll have a variation on it. Watch for it.Hmmmm...."Benevolent Internet Tyrant"....clever....I like it!!
Calm Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) I think that is an excellent answer, and I also liked your previous post about "ego".So what do we do about a two-faced person who posts one way on one board and has a totally different personality on another board? What about those who "lie in wait to deceive"?Do we call them out, or sit by passively and let them work their wiles?"If we are to avoid contention, why did the savior himself contend against evil even physically on several occasions?"I think it makes a big difference the medium in which we are contending. 'Long distance' where we do not personally know people and observers don't know us adds a level of potential misunderstanding that requires us to be extra careful in our approach.As to the twofaced person....I don't think just letting people know is sufficient if you are being vague. Unless someone knows you well enough that they trust your opinion is not going to be influenced to the point that you are drawing the wrong conclusions, it may appear you just don't like the person. You need to present evidence in the person's own words to have them condemn themselves rather than just your word. If there is a problem with content...not being able to link to antimormon sites etc., then I think you need to appeal to the mods...maybe even ask a couple of board members to view the evidence as well and present their opinions of the inappropriateness of allowing someone to act here one way while badmouthing or whatever elsewhere.Add on: I like the caution of avoiding turning someone into a martyr, presenting evidence to the mods along with other posters who are troubled by the duplicity seems the best approach at this point to me."And then pm's incessantly saying how sorry he is for what he said, and how he wants to be your friend."Report excessive or harassing PMs to the mods, they are against board rules and can result from what I've seen in years past in quick bannings. Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 "If we are to avoid contention, why did the savior himself contend against evil even physically on several occasions?"I think it makes a big difference the medium in which we are contending. 'Long distance' where we do not personally know people and observers don't know us adds a level of potential misunderstanding that requires us to be extra careful in our approach.As to the twofaced person....I don't think just letting people know is sufficient if you are being vague. Unless someone knows you well enough that they trust your opinion is not going to be influenced to the point that you are drawing the wrong conclusions, it may appear you just don't like the person. You need to present evidence in the person's own words to have them condemn themselves rather than just your word. If there is a problem with content...not being able to link to antimormon sites etc., then I think you need to appeal to the mods...maybe even ask a couple of board members to view the evidence as well and present their opinions of the inappropriateness of allowing someone to act here one way while badmouthing or whatever elsewhere.Add on: I like the caution of avoiding turning someone into a martyr, presenting evidence to the mods along with other posters who are troubled by the duplicity seems the best approach at this point to me."And then pm's incessantly saying how sorry he is for what he said, and how he wants to be your friend."Report excessive or harassing PMs to the mods, they are against board rules and can result from what I've seen in years past in quick bannings.Thanks
Calm Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Spoiled teenage brats are good practice to help develop better tactical skills when dealing with such people, and if you don't have any of your own you could probably ask around to find some.Love it.Might help imagining a poster one has problems with as a teenager...maybe they still are in many ways unfortunately. 1
hagoth7 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) ...All the same, as a noob this is rather enlightening since y'all are certainly helping me understand your positions and self assigned roles in this forum.Didn't know I had a self-assigned role. If there's a nursery thread, and it allows naps, can I be there? Edited October 14, 2015 by hagoth7 3
Calm Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 i guessed calm. i swear, that chick is running the long con.The payoff is going to be so sweet. Going to bring down the Church in one blow. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 The payoff is going to be so sweet. Going to bring down the Church in one blow. I can just see it. Your advice about reporting bad behavior is a good one, as it will clear the air one way or another.
iWriteStuff Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Didn't know I had a self-assigned role. If there's a nursery thread, and it allows naps, can I be there? Nope, already called dibs. And of course you folks learn more about me when I pop in for comment. The same is true of everyone: the more you speak, the more you reveal yourself.
ALarson Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) The same is true of everyone: the more you speak, the more you reveal yourself.You say that like it's a bad thing. Speaking for myself, I have nothing to hide. I post my thoughts and beliefs like most on here do. Why would you think people don't want to "reveal" themselves on here? Edited October 14, 2015 by ALarson 1
Recommended Posts