oldiesman

None of the above. I need to think of a clue that won't give it way. I will try.

Good points Oakspear and Socks, thanks. It wouldn't be a problem at all, until one makes that comment against a poster on a public forum that discourages such activity. "please don't make it personal" means what it says and says what it means. It is very simple. Besides, even if it were absolutely true that someone were actually worshipping Wierwille, still, it'd be against the forum rules to make it personal on the forum. I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the issues what the disposition and character of a poster might be. Want to get personal? I think the appropriate way would be to use PM, email, snail mail, the telephone, or use automobiles, trains, planes, etc., to visit in person.

Thats all the questions for me today. I have to sign off. :D Irisheyes, its not Susan Hayward, but that was a pretty good guess. :)

Marlene Dietrich No, sorry.

It's unnecessary. Let's stick to the issues.

Yes it was wrong for Victor Paul Wierwille not to give proper written acknowledgement in his books. However I continue to bear in mind that I learned from him early on that lots of the stuff he taught was not original. Any other questions? (BTW you can ask me these things in PM if you like.)

I don't think it sets a good example, but I'm not going to wag my finger at two single adults wanting privately to have consentual sex with each other. It really is none of my business.

Who is my avatar? Whoever is the first to guess it right wins a $20.00 gift certificate to Lands End. You have to purchase $100 worth of merchandise from them, but hey, $20.00 off is something. No tax. Hurry, this offer expires on December 7. I will email or PM the voucher # and pin # to the winner.

Thank you Rascal. Bumpy do you like my avatar? Can you guess who she is? I was thinking about holding a contest and first one who guesses it right will win a $20 gift certificate (with $100 purchase) to Lands End.

Yes! Which is why calling them docvic worshippers is a personal attack against their character. It is essentially accusing someone of idolatry. Unless you know that the person or people actually are worshipping Victor Paul Wierwille, it is entirely accusatory and speculative. Why use it? Exactly! Even if someone WAS ACTUALLY worshipping Wierwille, to mention that on the forums is a personal attack. Who cares? It's like if someone was fat and you called them grossly obese on the forums. You could be absolutely correct, but why would you mention it? What does the person's fatness have to do with the issues? You can discuss FAT without calling the poster FAT.

Nero, I have always maintained, for years, that the alleged drugging was wrong. That hasn't changed. What I did do a few weeks ago which I now see was an error was pose a possible motive as to why Dr. Wierwille did it. I actually got that idea (drugging someone to loosen them up sexually) from a television show. In the show, it worked. But obviously I shouldn't have posed it because, as I believe Goey pointed out, it really doesn't matter what the reason was, it was WRONG because it was non-consensual. Drugging someone without their consent is always wrong. I hope this explanation clarifies my position to all and we can move forward from here.

Rascal, I apologize for the personal attacks which I greatly regret, and ask for your forgiveness. While we're on this , I hope you understand that you, too, have made some hurtful and damaging accusations against me and my family. But for me its all water under the bridge ... and I hope we can move forward from here.

Danny, IF and where I called someone a liar, yes, that was a personal attack and I am guilty. I don't even remember whether I ever actually directly called someone a liar but yes, that would be wrong and not in accordance with the forums rules. As I stated previously I have been guilty of engaging in personal attacks on the forums and but have resolved to change for the better. Additionally part of the change also is expecting the same behavior from others and not be a punching bag for someone's amusement. No.

Not a problem. But again, if you find the need to resort to personal ridicule and acrimony, you can always PM.

Yes Jesus did engage in reproof and correction many times, but he would have handled it in a responsible and godly manner; not use public insults and acrimony to humiliate or scare someone into repentence. I think if Jesus saw a fault in a brother, he would go to them privately first to offer correction: Although the GS forum isn't a Christian forum, I believe the rules of the forum are in congruence with the above Christian principle. Accordingly if someone has a personal beef with anyone, rather than resorting to personal attack and ridicule on the open forum, one should contact the person privately though PM, if one feels it necessary to get personal at all.

Tom, I see the concept as a very simple one. Keep your anger and contempt and disgust against a poster, to yourself. Conversely, disagree all you want to and show your contempt and disgust against THE IDEA presented; but not the poster.

Irisheyes, I have to disagree with you there because the forum page states the following: The moderators can't catch every personal insult, and all personal attacks are not complained about. But it still doesn't make it right. The guideline is: please don't make it personal. Posters should be able (or at least willing) to make points and share opinions, without going off on personal or judgmental attacks against a poster they may disagree strongly with. It can be hard and sometimes takes a lot of work. But it is possible. It took me a while to fully understand this as I've been guilty of personal attacks in the past myself. But I've come to realize that making it personal only obscures the points and opinions expressed. There is no need to get personal -- its totally unnecessary. I'm trying to elevate the discussion so from this point forward, all personal attacks against me are going to be reported to the moderators. That is the way I'll handle it and see what happens. Maybe it will help some folks tackle the issue rather than the poster.

Thanks Jeaniam. Tell Johniam I said hi. :) As I see this, John responded with vulgarity to a personal attack by Danny: Danny's bait was offensive and personal. He first asks whether John hit any woman today. Then he calls us (John and me) wolves that tend to stick in packs. Danny then accuses John of deception by logging on as Jean. Then he accuses WTH of having an idol. John responded with anger and vulgarity, falling for the bait. But, John's response was no less offensive and disparaging than Danny's bait. Danny gets away with it. John gets banned. I guess its ok for posters to engage in personal attacks, as long as one isn't vulgar about it?? :huh: John can speak for himself when he returns. But John doesn't need to clear his good name, say nice words, share how he blew it. He doesn't even need to be prayed for about this. All he needs to remember (as we all do) is quit engaging in personal attacks.

Thank you PAW and Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Washington's God

I think so. I think it's so much better not getting personal in the public forums. It takes work, but in the long run makes for better discussion. One may use PM if needed to communicate personal issues.

I was just speaking generically about unnecessary personal details (a whole lot of stuff including a persons occupation applies here) and personal insults against a poster which is unnecessary and detracts from the discussion. I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.

The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster. If you have a personal opinion about a poster and want to say something about them that is of a personal nature, why not PM them directly? My PM is always open to anyone here.

It asks posters right on the forums page "please don't make it personal".

The bias or lack of bias of a poster is not the issue. I don't care. The point is one doesn't (and I believe shouldn't) have to invoke anything personal about the poster in order to engage in a debate about the issues.