Rocky

Mike, the way it happened between Gorbachev and Reagan was Gorby didn't keep insisting it was a two way street. He had to, in the words of the late M Scott Peck, empty himself of such an attitude and clearly, emphatically, indicate he was OPEN and willing to give first. Are you capable of doing the same?

Where did you find that common ground, other than in your head? I believe you believe you have found said common ground. But that's not reflected in any of your posts.

The following is a reflection on world history. The COLD WAR ended when Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement glasnost. It's clear from the history books (and much is available on line) Russia and Gorbachev viewed themselves as victims of western imperialism. That was a legit point of view even though Europe and the US had a much different POV that was no less legitimate. I submit that the GSC cold war between Mike and the rest of us will end when Mike decides to implement glasnost. IF you're honest with yourself and with US, Mike, you'll have to recognize the corrosive impact of the rhetoric you employ. I cited a couple of examples in posts a little while ago. IF you genuinely want people here to take you seriously, you will have to engage with a different, perhaps more loving, tone.

An exquisite example, Socrates, of the opposite of Deep Canvassing. And of people talking AT you. And brilliantly illuminating the fundamental (bottom line) reason Mike has not, nor ever will (unless he figures out how dismissively unloving people perceive his schtick to be here). How do people change their minds? First step, someone listens to them BEFORE (or really, instead of) telling them how wrong they are. I sat in on a law school class session once a few years ago. The professor asked questions intended to elicit discussion. Instead of, "no you're dead wrong," he replied to students with thoughtful, acknowledging responsive follow ups like, "what about this..." or "have you thought about this angle..." Mike, all you're doing and have been doing for the better part of two decades here at GSC, is 1) talk AT us, 2) not recognize the humanity and value of the experiences that underlie the responses people have graciously (or at times, snarkily) given you. Have you given these things any thought over the years/decades?

THIS seems like a quintessential example of talking AT us. The opposite of dialogue.

Oh really? A thought (or two) occurred to me reading through some of today's posts. One of those thoughts is best illustrated and hopefully illuminated by a song from a 1969 movie. Everybody's talkin' at me. Can't hear a word they're sayin'... I guess we can be thankful. I suppose the history of humankind, of civilization, of religion is replete with people talking AT each other without really listening. A natural outcome of that kind of interaction through the millennia has been rampant wars. LOTS of them. I'm confident many at GSC have tried to listen when Mike has talked AT them. I'm confident Mike believes he was genuinely trying to engage in productive dialogue. I'm confident we'll really never, despite anyone's frustrations (including mine), ever really reach common ground to come to genuine connection with Mike. I also reflect on MY childhood history with the RC church and subsequent exposure to the different ways the RC church has accommodated and acquiesced to various local religious traditions... to ensure the survival of said RC church. Not that any of that would come into play here at GSC. But it might with various of twi's actual international "missions" in Africa or South America. But I digress.

No. I simply believe those reacting to you could be a bit wiser in how they let you push their buttons... whether that's your intent or not, it's the ultimate result. I do think it's absurd to realize we've all been having virtually the exact same discussion with NO apparent common ground found. You stated, earlier today that you believe you're correct and everyone else is wrong as it concerns twi and PFLAP. 20 years. Something or somebody really should consider figuring out how to actually "connect" such that you give genuine consideration to viewpoints on GSC you've stubbornly refused to do so. And if threads like this are going to be anything different than they've been for two decades, perhaps people here might benefit from figuring out a way to find tidbits of your message that they/we could acknowledge as valid. I don't know how to do so at this time, however.

I noticed and appreciate the effort. Thank you.

I was simply reflecting back to you the question(s) you posed to me about data. I had no expectation at all for what you would, could, or should do.

No. I don't.

He's made, apparently, 74 posts on this thread. Take your pick.

Okay, you're not quibbling. To answer your questions. I was asking any/all readers those questions. There's an old saying, "if the foo poops, wear it." or something like that... Oh, correction, if the shoe fits... If nobody finds the questions relevant, so be it. However, declaring Mike's schtick pathetic hasn't made any progress, either, right? I'll grant that I have been dismissive of Mike's antics and his claims and his reverence for PFLAP and Wierwille. But my objective wasn't to get him to like me or listen to my perspective either. Was it yours? I figured that 20 years of doing the same thing and expecting any different outcome wasn't worth my time. But I share perspective and values with the rest of the people on this thread. Have I taken an approach that everyone will consider? Probably not. But with you, T-Bone, I share a curiosity about matters of the mind and human behavior/conduct. So, I thought it possible you might be interested in Deep Canvassing and McRaney's book. One thing necessary to get people to consider changing their minds, according to what I've read recently, is empathy. I haven't demonstrated empathy toward Mike. So I don't expect him to care in the least about what I have to say to or about him.

Okay. Your intentions are noble. Yet, speaking of data, do you have any data to show the approach taken by those who engage with Mike's vain babblings have changed their minds because of those discussions? I get that you are likely not impressed with the perspective I present now. That's okay. But, if you really want to change minds of twi refugees, you might want to explore the concept of Deep Canvassing. Can you reflect back on interactions with Mike and honestly think they would be considered Deep Canvassing types of conversations? I appreciate that you read extensively on psychology issues. This book might interest you. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57933312-how-minds-change

WW said that about Mike. Has Mike shown ANY indication in 20 effing years that he has given your perspective ANY serious consideration, T-Bone? OR, is what he said on this thread the same position he has taken, and overtly stating his dismissiveness of EVERY thing that anyone who disagrees with him... just today? Does that rhetoric/narrative reflect ANYthing different from the tone and gist he has consistently maintained for TWENTY years? Have you detected ANY posts from anyone on GSC indicating that discussions with Mike have moved them in any direction, toward or away from twi? Just asking.

In Mike's case, the same $pit, (different but not really different) day for 20 years. Have you made any progress?

Oh. Okay, he isn't pushing your buttons. Not causing anyone to react/respond emotionally. You're absolutely correct.

Did it ever occur to you that he might really be doing nothing more than mocking you? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/07/onion-amicus-brief-supreme-court-satire-essential/

There is NO logic or rational thinking/analysis in that claim, at all. Well now. While Mike's claim here is also NOT at all rational or logical, it DOES show that he continues to push people's buttons... or at least try to do so. WW "gets" Mike... at least to some degree. But why ANY of you continue to let him toss you around with every wind of psychological manipulation escapes me. 20 fking years. NOBODY ever gets anything in reply/response from him other than crap that fits neatly into the same damn box he's kept you in for TWO decades.

That sounds like a Yogi Berra-ism.

SAME game... ALWAYS. One game.

My final word: Consider WTF you intend to do on GSC, especially the About the Way forum. I believe that continuing to allow Mike to toss you about with his and others' vain babblings, you do a gross disservice to the purpose of GSC. Consider how your words, especially when you allow yourself (selves) to be used by Mike, would be construed by an innocent soul wanting to figure out what's really the problem(s) with twi. THAT is why this thread (IMO) belongs ONLY in the doctrinal forum.

I don't know. I don't care. This whole thread, IMO, is vain babbling and good people being tossed about by every wind of Mike's bull$pit.

I disagree. It also gets into how several of you are so easily tossed about (by see Eph 4:14) whenever he pushes your buttons. The overall and overarching "discussion" is doctrinal. It's not just me, but then again, I'm not a moderator either. Bottom line: LEARN from the 20 years or so in which Mike has been pulling this same s**t. In the meantime, the purpose of the "about the way" forum has been hijacked. Period. Further in the meantime, take a lesson from Ryan Holiday, whose latest book on Stoic philosophy is "Discipline is Destiny: the Power of Self-Control." As you know, self-control is the farthest thing from a Biblical truth, right? Self-Control is pretty much what Wierwille lacked. HE was tossed about by every wind of the temptation of his flesh and seemed to most easily justify disregarding the virtues of self-control... he did whatever the h E double hockey sticks he wanted to do and he used his own damn private interpretation to justify it. As to the doctrinal issue of the Absent Christ, who gives a F? Nevertheless... carry on.

Btw, generally speaking, and notwithstanding Wierwille's years of gaslighting, science isn't precise.

FACT! Also fact, I tried to warn you guys.