bluebell Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I would go beyond that and question whether it is ever a good idea to validate something we earnestly believe is unfounded or unfair. It amounts to perpetuating a like, and that doesn't do anybody any favor in the long run. Many people going through a faith crisis already believe they were lied to or misled somehow. Are we going to keep doing that to them just to spare their feelings? What happens when the jig is up? Validation is where you recognize that someone has thoughts or feelings that are true to them. It has nothing to do telling them you also believe they are true. So it's not really like perpetuation a lie, exactly, but it is really hard to do when you don't personally believe the thoughts and feelings are reasonable. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Alas, if only you were only as antisocial, as unpleasant, as reprehensible, and as utterly irredeemable of an excuse for a human being as Dan is. (Hope For Things says it's so, albeit sans evidence (which he "doesn't feel comfortable" providing)). Perhaps Dan gives lessons, though? It wouldn't hurt to ask! "Learn from the Master, you must!" Just to be clear, because the smiley face doesn't make it clear, I've said none of these things about Dan. Not sure if you're joking either.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: The reason I think it would be particularly useful for you in this circumstance is because other people on this thread have provided evidence based on years of watching Dan interact with his detractors (and others), and being more aware of the potential subtexts and the back-stories that accompany those interactions. The only thing we have from you so far is a series ipse dixits. The evidence provided on both sides has been personal opinion based on personal experiences. What you're saying here is that your opinion based evidence is somehow more valid than mine. I haven't seen any other "evidence" in this thread.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The evidence provided on both sides has been personal opinion based on personal experiences. What you're saying here is that your opinion based evidence is somehow more valid than mine. I haven't seen any other "evidence" in this thread. I give up. If you don't see the significance of what Robert F. Smith, Scott Lloyd, and I (though I will grant you that my evidence is the weakest of that amassed by the three of us) have all cited as evidence of the accuracy of our assessment of Dan, on the one hand, and of his detractors, on the other; and if you don't recognize the significance of understanding subtexts, prior history, hidden agendas, axes to grind, and so on, in understanding why Dan reacts the way he does in some circumstances, then there's no reasoning with you. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Just to be clear, because the smiley face doesn't make it clear, I've said none of these things about Dan. Not sure if you're joking either. No, you're right. You haven't. Your methods are much more insidious: You prefer to "kill him softly," as it were, by indicting him with innuendo, with vague, unsubstantiated allegations, and with other, similar tactics which are impossible to defend against because no specifics are ever provided. ("I can't provide the evidence; that would be unseemly. Just trust me ... ) 2
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I give up. If you don't see the significance of what Robert F. Smith, Scott Lloyd, and I (though I will grant you that my evidence is the weakest of that amassed by the three of us) have all cited as evidence of the accuracy of our assessment of Dan, on the one hand, and of his detractors, on the other; and if you don't recognize the significance of understanding subtexts, prior history, hidden agendas, axes to grind, and so on, in understanding why Dan reacts the way he does in some circumstances, then there's no reasoning with you. I already agreed with your earlier comments and admitted those dynamics could be at play. Your opinion, Scott's, Robert's are all opinions though. I know others with different opinions and personal interactions with Dan who don't frequent this message board.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said: No, you're right. You haven't. Your methods are much more insidious: You prefer to "kill him softly," as it were, by indicting him with innuendo, with vague, unsubstantiated allegations, and with other, similar tactics which are impossible to defend against because no specifics are ever provided. ("I can't provide the evidence; that would be unseemly. Just trust me ... ) You have a twisted way of evaluating things. Being outright over the top and claiming I said things I didn't is somehow preferable to my more measured approach which is more insidious??? All the sudden my opinions are required to be substantiated with documentation while others aren't. Doesn't seem like a fair game.
Recommended Posts