Rocky

SNAFU

Frankly, having left twi 22 years ago, I have absolute ZERO concern about what "Mr. Linder & friends" think, say or do. And it's quite human for this type of situation to be occurring. That there is disagreement here means NOTHING as to whether or not twi is or is not good/evil, from God or otherwise... It certainly does make sense.

An excellent comparison.

My point is twofold: -- it should NOT have to be spelled out in writing, it CAN be a specific expectation (more) or unwritten rule. -- it should NOT have to be something to add to pawtucket's burden here. Those who already frequent the cafe here, who participate in the offending behavior, know who they are. If YOU are one of them, just STOP. Oldiesman has spelled out his need to blame others for his inability to behave himself. I, for one, don't buy it. He should take responsibility for his conduct, or leave. That might be it, but I think it boils down to him being unwilling to take responsibility for his own conduct.

I know... I figured out (finally) that that is what you were getting at.

And even WITH such a new forum, OM and his ilk should be expected to conduct themselves with respect, at minimum, to refrain from abusive language toward any person relating personal experience of abuse in twi, regardless of which forum such a post would be made.

This, I believe, is a delightful subject. And each post has contributed valuable insight. Indeed, such skills cannot ONLY be learned, but must be practiced to maintain a level of skillfulness! So, learn -- yes. Practice -- also. :)

Bottom line is that YOU (OM) need to recognize it, and not have someone else tell you that what someone is posting is what you should refrain from being abusive about. YOU seem to want to make it someone else's responsibility for you to behave yourself. That's NOT reasonable. YOU are responsible for YOUR conduct. Behave yourself or leave of your own volition. How old are you now anyway? 17????? THAT (and WD and maybe others) would obviate the need for pawtucket to restructure things here. That, dear Dooj... is perhaps being a bit too polite about it. Your point SHOULD BE well taken by Oldiesman and others of his ILK. And IF they CHOOSE (not anyone else's responsibility but their own) to refuse to conduct themselves as this community believes they should, they should choose to leave (on their own). IF they do NOT take these hints, they should be specifically confronted. If they do not take the hints THEN, they should be banned. No further changing of the rules OUGHT to be necessary.

Indeed, it is time for someone to call bullshirt on them. And I think that restriction idea is what pawtucket is referring to on his new thread in the open forum.

FUBAR: Eff'd Up Beyond All Repair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

Especially when your team wins.

It's become pretty clear that the whole bottom line of these recent threads expressing consternation at what the "wierwille apologists" might do (some actually DO do) in challenging the first hand testimony of those who were sexually abused by wierwille or martindale -- is a reasonable thing to decry. And the whole bottom line is to get those people to STOP challenging those first hand testimonies. And even though pawtucket has not directly involved himself in these discussions, they CAN and DO serve to clarify acceptible conduct even if those limits of acceptible conduct are not codified by writing them in the explicitly stated rules of this web site. And, I think the bottom line is that EVERYONE that has expressed an opinion or an idea about this situation seems to understand the need to address the situation... EVEN Oldiesman. Unwritten rules are a part of every social group. This unwritten rule -- NO CHALLENGING OF FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY OF ABUSE -- can be enforced, even if not solely or directly by moderators of the board here. When Oldiesman or WhiteDove or anyone else belittles a person trying to tell her story of abuse, everyone who recognizes that belittlement can and ought to demand (of the original poster of the offending text) to edit or remove the offending post content. It's been demonstrated that when someone refuses to behave here, that person can be banished -- either temporarily or permanently. It (banning) can be done as a last resort, with "the community" policing the mores or unwritten rules of the posts done as first resorts.

Life is FULL of UNWRITTEN rules, OM. And I'd bet that you follow most of them. They are called "mores" And frankly, these recent threads expressing consternation at your conduct (and that of some other wierwille apologists) is aimed at getting this point across to you (and them, as necessary).

A link?

Am I being too pessimistic? What's that song from Peter Pan? "I won't..."

The answer is NO. It's a great idea. It's a lofty ideal. It's NOT possible.

I disagree with YOU on this point. Challenging the person giving first person testimony is MOST inappropriate, unless YOU HAVE PROOF the person was lying. OM, your post above sugar coats your "responses" to people who, as young women especially, suffered abuse from wierwille. It is NOT simply exercising one's options for you to suggest the person that had been abused is responsible for that abuse. YOU sir, are a culprit in this situation. And YOU sir, most definitely need to exercise significantly more discretion and respect to the LIVE people who come here and tell their own stories. And frankly, I have to figure that if you weren't attacking these women, this fuss Groucho raised might not have come up in the first place (my opinion, absolutely). Abi's got a valid point, ya know Groucho... As wonderful (and lofty) and idea (and ideal) that is... to answer your question succinctly: NO!

I can imagine... at least it was a good game, from your team's perspective, eh? I live in the land of 110+ weather, and I would NOT want to sit through a game like you did today, outside. I live about two miles from Sun Devil Stadium... where the football Cardinals played for nearly 20 years. I went to one pre-season Cards game there a couple of years ago... at night... and was incredibly uncomfortable. At least for the Dbacks home games, they have air conditioning!!! (even if they don't have any offense!!!!!!!!)

Does this mean that you are an unapologetic wierwille apologist? Again, I don't think anyone here is trying to insist you agree with them. The concerns have to do with attacks by any of the so-called wierwille apologists on those who post their own testimony to the conduct of this man many have come to believe was a charlatan. If YOU do not participate in those attacks, then there's no problem with you (except for from groucho, I suppose... but he's got his own issues with attacking people).

That is an insightful essay. Indeed, the insistance that we were right and everyone else wrong fits with Knapp's hypothesis on secondary narcissism.

Absolutely (on the highlighted sentence)... if I were supporting him with my donations, I'd feel that way too...

Oeno... you still should be able to put a poll in... when you get into this thread, it should ask you if you want to manage the poll for this topic...

I have no problem with any of what your post says. I just don't see why anyone would believe JAL is obligated to come here and answer dwbh's concerns, comments or complaints.

There certainly is value in reflection/introspection. Therapists can certainly provide some direction in doing so. I've benefitted a couple of times from such. A great deal of healing/growth CAN come from self directed introspection and other learning... if one is actively looking for same. I would agree with you to a degree. I believe everyone can potentially benefit from therapy.

Point well made.