The Voice of Offence

[oldiesman]

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.

[Nero]

OM, just how is it an "insult" to pretty much quote another poster, or ask them questions regarding things they've posted before?

If a poster has admitted to something that's "insulting" to a normal person does that mean they're insulted when someone asks them about it?

I also do not consider it a "personal attack" when a poster is "calling a spade a spade".

I mean, I find most of your viewpoints "insulting" because I happen to call you on them does not mean I am insulting you.

It's personal and insulting because they don't like being called on their insane posts - like we are just supposed to go with it without question.

Like it's okay for someone to mentally abuse you for years - sweep it under the rug.

Like it's okay to clock a woman if she is bugging ya.

Like it's okay to slip some chick date rape so her attacker (er... I mean... savior) can loosen them up sexually.

All of it is blame the victim.

I'm guessing Danny is just an anoying fly. Someone had to either swat him or run off the forum and cool down a bit and come back and talk about it. I guessing he picked the swatting?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Nero

[Nero]

I guess to address the original topic - I think it's all fine and dandy to forgive someone. Forgiving people for offences right? Not letting it stay inside forever?

I've been talking about my probs slowly with you guys and my other friends I know personally (outside of twi) about what happened to me while I was in TWI - it has been a real healing process.

I still haven't talked about everything that happened to me though. Why? Because people on this forum tell those who were raped they are liars, deserved it, it was for their own good or they need to get over it and sweep it under the rug. I can't imagine how that could feel. If people can't have compassion for others in that sort of extreme situation - how can they have any compassion with me? My best friend couldn't - she acted like it wasn't a big deal. My own mother is starting to act like that too. They still have their blinders on.

The way they have treated me has only shut me up more. Which is probably what some of the posters here are going for? I think one day - when it's all out - those posts won't get to me as much. And maybe once it's already been said I'll be able to say it again and again without worry.

But on forgiveness...

Do I forgive the people who tormented me? Yes. Why? Because I don't have to deal with them anymore. Because I finally got to talk about it and people understood. That has been amazing. The things I haven't admited? Those are still eating at me - but I am confidant that when I share them that I'll start feeling better about it.

Now, if the people who treated me badly showed up today at my door acting the exact same way... would I be all happiness and sunshine? Heck no. Will I say great things about the people who treated me badly? No. If a topic comes up and someone talks about what happened to them - and I just happen to have a story that is similar I am going to share it. It doesn't mean I'm letting that offence build up in my life. It just means I am sharing a story that relates to their own.

[Watered Garden]

One more comment on posts --

Most of us type more slowly than we think. A post written in anger can be reviewed before you hit that "add reply" button at the bottom. I've posted a few things I regret, some deeply, and what I have learned from that is to edit and read carefully before I add a reply to a thread. I edit first for grammar and spelling and then I read it again to see if (a) what I have posted is true to the best of my knowledge and memory; (b) I've posted anything remotely interpretable as slanderous; and © is this going to really, really hurt or offend or anger someone who reads it? Is it too personal? Am I being completely clear or am I engendering confusion and innuendo?

I think JohnIam could have done that. It's easy to respond with knee-jerk reflex anger at what we perceive as a personal attack, but doesn't Proverbs say someplace that "a soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger."?

And if I don't want some stupid, ignorant comment of mine to be repeated back to me ad infinitum, I need to keep it to myself - or at least off the internet.

WG

[Jeaniam]

It was John who proudly said a woman needs a clocking.

Danny was merely repeating what he said. Sometimes words come back to haunt us.

No matter though, who was right or wrong, the response was way overboard.

I think, from Jeans post, its pretty obvious that John will come back with righteous indignation, reflect any blame away from him, it wasn't his fault and Danny shouldn't have started it, he started it first, nyah, nyah...

It will be interesting to see, will John man-up and acknowledge what he said was wrong, and take some personal responsibility - or not. Or will it be someone else's fault?

I wonder if DANNY will, as you say, man-up and take some personal responsibility. I personally doubt it.

[Tom Strange]

I've often wondered what would happen if a person were banned (temp or otherwise) what would keep them from just logging in on their spouses name and posting?

I've often wondered that...

[potato]

personal responsibility for what exactly? his tone was angry for sure, but I think anyone who claims a woman should be hit for being irritating should be confronted and it would be extremely difficult to do it without anger. why exactly does johniam think it's ok to hit women? does johniam think it's ok for me to punch my husband in the face if he irritates me by talking too much when I'm busy thinking about other things? like the tv show I'm watching?

[Ham]

John's response WAS more offensive and disparaging

unless one is still numb from some of loy's tongue lashings..

I dunno.. some of us thought that was "normal" "confrontation" for a while..

not anymore for me at least.

[doojable]

I wonder if DANNY will, as you say, man-up and take some personal responsibility. I personally doubt it.

Personal responsibility for what???? Danny already said it was bait.

[Bumpy]

I've often wondered what would happen if a person were banned (temp or otherwise) what would keep them from just logging in on their spouses name and posting?

I've often wondered that...

What's your spouse's name?

[year2027]

God first

Beloved Tom Strange

God loves you my dear friend

some times it not the person that gets banned but the computer ID which makes it only harder to post until both computers are banned in a household

I have 1 computer that is banned on EZ-boards another two not

so I only stray with the 5 boards that want me no more EZ-board joining to keep things all most right and they know I am me

but I do not know about how it works here

thank you

with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy

[irisheyes]

What's your spouse's name?

Too funny!

Roy, I would think the banning works the way is does with the EZ boards. I would THINK that, but don't know for sure. Anyone??

OM, you are right about what it says. I never read it. My bad. But that surely wasn't the only point I was making. It seems, however, to be the only point important to you.

Jean/John: I have a couple in my bible class with the same names. He's 88. She's about 68. He just got diagnosed with altzheimer's. Does any of this sound familiar to you?

JUST KIDDING. That IS allowed isn't it OM?

unless one is still numb from some of loy's tongue lashings..

I dunno.. some of us thought that was "normal" "confrontation" for a while..

not anymore for me at least.

I am so glad I didn't witness any of that. I remember a few of VP's outbursts and I was just as horrified then. I guess you were around after I left. Sorry about that, too.

[Belle]

It was John who proudly said a woman needs a clocking.

Danny was merely repeating what he said. Sometimes words come back to haunt us.

No matter though, who was right or wrong, the response was way overboard.

I think, from Jeans post, its pretty obvious that John will come back with righteous indignation, reflect any blame away from him, it wasn't his fault and Danny shouldn't have started it, he started it first, nyah, nyah...

It will be interesting to see, will John man-up and acknowledge what he said was wrong, and take some personal responsibility - or not. Or will it be someone else's fault?

Based on jean's response, I'd say you got your answer, Sunesis.

I wonder if DANNY will, as you say, man-up and take some personal responsibility. I personally doubt it.

It's Danny's fault.

Unless, of course, john really does want to do the right thing, but we'll have to wait till he's out of the penalty box since he would never post under his alleged wife's screen name...

Edited December 4, 2007 by Belle

[Tom Strange]

What's your spouse's name?

Lloyd

[Bumpy]

Lloyd

Lloyd...hmmm, let me see, as in WC Lloyd? I think I remember hearing something about a "cross/dresser" with a name like that? Wasn't 'she' into some rather "kinky" things back in the 70's? Nice body, long blond (bleached) hair, but a bit flat chested?

If I remember right, didn't like to be turned down for a late night drive around town?

[Tom Strange]

Lloyd...hmmm, let me see, as in WC Lloyd? I think I remember hearing something about a "cross/dresser" with a name like that? Wasn't 'she' into some rather "kinky" things back in the 70's? Nice body, long blond (bleached) hair, but a bit flat chested?

If I remember right, didn't like to be turned down for a late night drive around town?

Heck I don't know about any of that... I was all set to type "Hubert" but the spirit took over my fingers and typed "Lloyd" instead...

[doojable]

Heck I don't know about any of that... I was all set to type "Hubert" but the spirit took over my fingers and typed "Lloyd" instead...

Having trouble keeping track of them all? :biglaugh:

[Sunesis]

Yes, Belle, I think we got our answer.

Too bad Jean had to lie and change my quote.

[Bramble]

Yes, Belle, I think we got our answer.

Too bad Jean had to lie and change my quote.

She's done it before.

[Danny]

Hey I am the man and will man up to anything I did.

Let me ask didn't Jesus do the same thing a few times with

fancy stories how you should change your ways?

That was the bait. Until you acknowledge you are thinking wrong

you can not change. I see the thinking of hitting anyone especially a woman.

You never never never hit a woman. NEVER.

So the bait was to change. Yes I said it. Do I regret it? Lets see-----------

No.

Yes I believe God wants us to help others and I think in a latter post and other places

I said I will and have prayed for John.

One of the few comandments Jesus gave was to Love your enemies.

Hey how you doing oldies my old friend Phil. Do you still think it was ok for VP to drug anyone?

You said it. Was I supose to pass it up.

If you boys say stupid things I will try to get you to see the error of your ways.

I still think God cares for us to do that for a brother.

And Phil I have and will pray for you.

Like Roy the man of gold would say God loves you my friend.

Peace.

[Danny]

And a

PS you can almost see the respose DEC 10

Its all Dannys fault.

Sure I can go with that.

Hell they crucified the Lord of glory because

they didn't like his bait.

Plus we needed a little drama around here the post were getting a little stale.

And no I don't think I'm Jesus.

And surly don't have the answers for them.

God is the only one that can open the eyes

of understanding. You have to want it and cultivate it.

If you think I have the devil in me---- well

God loves you my dear friend.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Danny

[Jeaniam]

It was John who proudly said a woman needs a clocking.

Danny was merely repeating what he said. Sometimes words come back to haunt us.

No matter though, who was right or wrong, the response was way overboard.

I think, from Jeans post, its pretty obvious that John will come back with righteous indignation, reflect any blame away from him, it wasn't his fault and Danny shouldn't have started it, he started it first, nyah, nyah...

It will be interesting to see, will John man-up and acknowledge what he said was wrong, and take some personal responsibility - or not. Or will it be someone else's fault?

OK, let's compare that with...

QUOTE(Sunesis @ Dec 4 2007, 12:03 PM)

It was John who proudly said a woman needs a clocking.

Danny was merely repeating what he said. Sometimes words come back to haunt us.

No matter though, who was right or wrong, the response was way overboard.

I think, from Jeans post, its pretty obvious that John will come back with righteous indignation, reflect any blame away from him, it wasn't his fault and Danny shouldn't have started it, he started it first, nyah, nyah...

It will be interesting to see, will John man-up and acknowledge what he said was wrong, and take some personal responsibility - or not. Or will it be someone else's fault?

I wonder if DANNY will, as you say, man-up and take some personal responsibility. I personally doubt it.

Looks like Sunesis is the liar.

[Jeaniam]

Hey I am the man and will man up to anything I did.

Let me ask didn't Jesus do the same thing a few times with

fancy stories how you should change your ways?

That was the bait. Until you acknowledge you are thinking wrong

you can not change. I see the thinking of hitting anyone especially a woman.

You never never never hit a woman. NEVER.

Under no circunstances, not even if your life is in danger? I think you're the one who is blind and needs to change.

[dmiller]

Shucks -- every knows (or should know) that Tom's spouse is named ---

She Who Must Be Obeyed!!

[waysider]

Under no circunstances, not even if your life is in danger? I think you're the one who is blind and needs to change.

Let's be honest here.

John's comments regarding "clocking" a woman were not set in a context that depicted physical danger.

Does it need to get pasted again to illustrate the essence of what he said?

That's not a "personal attack", it's a statement of fact.