WordWolf

No. He's said before that men have-in his opinion-physical advantages, and women have verbal advantages. So long as women have unrestricted verbal freedom-and can say WHATEVER they wish in whatever quantities, and men do not have unrestricted physical freedom-and can strike HOWEVER they wish in whatever quantities, an unlevel playing field exists, it's not even fair to say men and women both have unrestricted verbal freedom.

Maybe- after all, it MIGHT have worked...

Please select the most flexible level of communication, and the most free use of violence, that comes closest to your opinion. The poll's anonymous, but feel free to post and make your position known and explain it.

Seems obvious to me that you and them are using different meanings for the word "nag." When I was in high school, I wanted to make sure all my friends signed my yearbook. So, I made a point of asking a few a few times-so I could catch them when they had time to write something. Is that "finding fault with them continually?" Obviously not. However, one commented IN the yearbook that I'd been a "nag" over getting them to sign it. (At the end of a longer personal note, of course.) Sounds like THAT person's usage of "nag" is closer to what OTHER people here were saying, but NOT close to what you were saying. Perhaps we need to agree on definitions of certain words, around which anyone's going to wrangle- in this case, it's obvious "nag" is going to be one of those words. You went from using a different meaning for the word they used,to an interpretation BASED on that meaning ("that constitutes abuse"), and thence to saying there's a double-standard. That is, claiming they say verbal abuse is normal, and acceptable, but physical abuse is neither. That was a leap far beyond what anyone was saying. I'd say it's ok to ask a friend a few times to sign a yearbook, but it's not OK to respond to that request by punching the requester in the face. (One usage of "nag", followed by physical violence, the simplest usage of physical abuse.) I think others would agree with me. Perhaps even you would. This is still making assumptions based on your usage of a DIFFERENT definition of "nag" than they were. They said nothing about being entitled to "disdain" or "abuse men"- that all sprang from your interpretation and your definition. "You think you're better than we are"- I can't even find where this came from- was it supposed to be some sort of extrapolation from what you just said? I think there's rather fewer usages of the word "hit" than there are of the word "nag". One person "hitting" another could be flicking them behind an ear, or rapping their knuckles, or a slap on the wrist, or a poke to the chest, or a slap in the face, or a punch or a kick. All of those differ, mainly on degree and intent, but all are acts of violence, even the lightest. All meanings of "nag" involve communicating on a subject more than once. And if asking someone more than once to sign a yearbook, and verbally harassing and haranguing them, can be meant with the same word, then it behooves us to use that word more precisely and more carefully, and NOT jump to conclusions. How about ASKING what was meant?

Hello. Welcome to the GSC. There's different people, with different points of view here, who engage in discussions- after all, it's a "discussion forum". :) On the whole, I find that's a healthy process, and people can generally tell the difference between healthy speech and unhealthy speech, once they can compare them side-by-side. One of the things I find unhealthy, for example, is an eagerness to label other people. Here is an example of what I mean. The poster here has already labelled and categorized the people who disagree with you- or who don't agree with you 100%. He's already taken ALL their DIFFERENT points of view, and eliminated all the positions except the most extreme. This would limit your ability to see that there are MANY points of view, and limit the amount that all of them have to offer you. After all, everyone here offers SOMETHING, and sometimes, the most surprising things come up from the most surprising people. If you allow labelling like this to close you off to learning from them, you'll be the poorer for it. Individual posters, sooner or later, may earn-in the eyes of some people- some sort of "title" representing their PARTICULAR position. Whether or not that's fair or proper, it's equally common for such people to presume other people will get the SAME title with little or small reason, in the mistake or the pretense that they got theirs from little or small reason as well. Then again, of course, THIS poster may be right, and I may be in error. It's up to you, as always, to evaluate things and see whether you believe they're right, I'm right, or we're BOTH wrong and the truth is something else entirely. Enjoy your stay.

Well, this thread's gone a number of pages. Except for the fact that there's new posters who've read it and understood what's happening without difficulty, this is pretty much the same type of thread we had all the way back at the waydale forums. We have people who were direct eyewitnesses of things that happened, who have said "I was in the room when this happened", and we have people determined to do everything they can to attempt to silence or discredit their testimony, despite not being where and when it happened, and using every tool, starting with calling them liars without having the courage to use the word "liar", to claiming their unchanging testimony has changed, to claiming ulterior motives to those who've come forth, to claiming to be able to read their minds as to details and what they did and didn't do, and so on. Anything they personally didn't see didn't happen, especially if it was something unpleasant. And anyone saying so must produce ludicrous amounts of evidence to back up things they were witnesses of....all to silence unpleasant information. Truth is truth, even when it is UNPLEASANT truth. And love is often easy to see in progress. And those who CLAIM to love while doing otherwise, well, is it that hard to tell?

I misunderstood you. Please accept my apology.

Jeff Sjo may be new here, but he's making up for lost time on the Gems list.... I don't say this every day....I am impressed.

In the version I heard, the door was opened by a 12-year old boy. He's wearing a fedora, and a towel is tied around his neck like a cape. He has a cigar in his mouth, a snifter of brandy in his left hand, and a tv remote control in his right. (This kid was really maximizing his time...)

How true! Several posters said this is what they were told PERSONALLY. That is a fact. WD claims they are lying. That is an opinion. This is not difficult for most people to track.

Wayne Gretsky's in this movie????

Thanks for the link. For those wondering, I scanned the link, and it came up clean. (Can't be too careful nowadays...) I downloaded the zip file and extracted it, too. Amazing how much text can fit when it's left as a simple txt file rather than bloated into a doc or something.

Funny thing- I know a song that begins ALMOST with this line, so it's probably a completely DIFFERENT song.

I've posted-and post-on boards with LOTS of Trinitarians who are loving. Except when there's certain doctrinal discussions, things tend to go very smoothly- and I've yet to see any board where SOMETHING wasn't controversial.

Mr Hammeroni did as well. I agreed with Ham... Nobody was "ugly" with you. Mild sarcasm, at best, is what I said, which is what you quoted. It RESPONDED to what you ALREADY posted, and had nothing to do with your imaginary "baiting". Someone gave personal testimony. You said "liar." We contested your response. That's not "baiting." The claim, however, looks like someone ELSE was given bad doctrine from twi, suffered by trying to carry it out, and YOU'RE claiming to be the suffering one because you heard later that some people were taught some stuff you didn't like or agree with. How about a drop of sympathy for the ones who actually had to try to LIVE it? This may come as a shock, but the people who are SPEAKING UP about twi are here. Those who wish to remain silent, or refuse to remember, or insist it was all sweetness and light, DON'T come here. And "here", we have people from all over the country (and countries), and across twi's decades, including recent evacuees. Different people, who were in different places at different times, have come forth and said it was taught to them. The logical approach is to admit they probably WERE taught that-even if you weren't. Nero replied again: As did Watered Garden. As did rascal. Your continuing to dismiss accounts of different people from different places and different times as all being part of some singular imaginary "Greasespot region" was responded to by Tom, and I think he has the right of it.

Oh, WD, want to change the subject and draw some heat off of John? Ok, I'll bite. Don't pretend to be an injured party, it's a poor fit. Here's a quick recap to what happened: rascal said YOU used the OLD posting style-from all the way back to waydale, even, to say Which was used, as of old, to take someone's personal testimony, and, instead of saying "I wasn't in the room when it was taught," you said "I wasn't taught this-therefore it wasn't taught and you're a liar". OLD posting style. Don't pretend it's not what you were saying. I replied to YOUR post with That was a reminder that-as has come up a lot-different people were told different things in twi, and not everyone's experience was identical. Just as some things you were taught were supposedly close to perfect, others have reported things they were taught that were far from perfect. There's room for both of you to tell the truth and say different things. Your reply? Repeating you're calling it a lie-without saying the WORD "lie", of course... potato spoke up, as someone ELSE who heard this.... And rascal replied As did Nero.

It's one of my favourites! Yes, let's see who else chimes in.

Ah, I see. However, I DID post a first line this time... :)

This was an improvement. This was NOT an improvement.Microsoft frequently fixes security problems very, very late. IE 7 has better security than 6.0, and has more functionality for websites, some of which won't render as well under 6.0 as they do under 7.0. Up to you as to whether you want to upgrade or not, but why aren't you using Firefox? http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Ah, you're just using the Windows internal firewall? You're trusting MICROSOFT for your system security? :blink:

Actually, ces HAD a messageboard, but they SHUT IT DOWN. It was upon request of ces-people that this subforum's info arrived. So, if ces people go anywhere to have OPEN COMMUNICATION, it seems the GSC is the only game in town!

Robin Williams Good Morning, Vietnam Robert Wuhl

Is this "South Park"?

I'm supposing waysider was right. Although we're not RESTRICTED to OPENING lines to songs, a few of those are rather recognizable: "Please allow me to introduce myself- I'm a man of wealth and taste."

Of course, if it's not in writing, nobody was ever told it, no matter how many GSC'ers insist they were told EXACTLY THAT by corps, LC and so on.