And don't forget: there are ways to challenge the bully about his/her own rudeness and behaviour (which is done out of his/her own arrogance, that is, fear of losing face).
Trolling, or intentional denseness combined with persistence, indicates over the course of time that the person has the agenda of disrupting the communication of others.
Forcing your agenda on an audience despite their thoughts and desires is the ultimate rudeness.
I applaud your kindness in reaching out here to Mike to endeavor to appeal to logic and reason in an easy to be entreated manner.
I post here also partially to heal from trauma. The kind inflicted by cults. The kind stirred up by trolls. This in my view accomplished his inner agenda. Disrupt and call people back to PFAL.
Perhaps it might be more kind to ban this individual from the attention forum he seeks as opposed to constantly engaging with him to our own and the readers detriment?
I think Mike is genuine in what he believes. He just cannot cope with anything that challenges that belief. He doesn't know how to look outside the rut walls to see the flowers and the grass and to feel the Sonshine. I think I know why he can't cope with challenges. I don't know how to help him look out of the box, or get out of the rut.
I have no idea what satisfaction trolls gain from what they do: some sort of sense of superiority? And bullies. Miserable folk like Alex Jones and others of his ilk. We can only call such folk sad losers, and pity them.
It befits all of us to behave in a reasonable, honest, kindly manner where possible.
And to examine what we think, and what we think we believe.
That person who gazes at you in the mirror in the morning is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Do you like him/her? Really? Would you truly trust him/her as your most confidential friend? With your life, and the lives of your spouse and children, if any?
Some people die for their beliefs. Or suffer such enormous social ostracism that they may as well be dead (far worse than being M&A'd). Like Copernicus, who said the Earth revolved around the Sun; or Galileo, who in later years supported that same belief?
From Wikipedia>Galileo affair: "Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory oftidesin 1616, and ofcometsin 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth.
In 1632 Galileo published hisDialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy overtheology,astronomyandphilosophy, theRoman Inquisitiontried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect ofheresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.[2]At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.[3]"
How solid are your beliefs? Really? if push came to shove, would you die or face life imprisonment, rather than recant? Or would you be willing in such circumstances to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?
to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?
To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system.
You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.
To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system.
You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.
Great point Twinky!
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books. The writer sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but I think he’s going along the same line of thought you expressed – he’s somewhat of a stoic – in that he doesn’t get caught up in pain, pleasure, grief, or joy but endures through his core beliefs. In Ecclesiastes we find that he looked about with an honest questioning mind and found flaws – emptiness in what he saw…at the end of the book he reaffirms his core belief - that the answer must be found elsewhere…in the metaphysical…God!
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books. The writer sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but I think he’s going along the same line of thought you expressed – he’s somewhat of a stoic – in that he doesn’t get caught up in pain, pleasure, grief, or joy but endures through his core beliefs. In Ecclesiastes we find that he looked about with an honest questioning mind and found flaws – emptiness in what he saw…at the end of the book he reaffirms his core belief - that the answer must be found elsewhere…in the metaphysical…God!
Something here resonates with me. The paradoxical virtue of doubt, questions, introspection...maybe. Or, maybe I'm reading too much into your synopsis. I should read Ecclesiastes.
That's what the legal system is all about. Challenging one person's version of events against another's version, looking at different versions. Everyone gives it their best shot. Eventually, a conclusion is reached based on all the known, established, facts. The conclusion will likely disappoint at least one party.
Sometimes, later facts come to light, such as DNA evidence that exonerates a perpetrator when such evidence was previously not available. Or a principal witness confesses to having lied. Or the missing person or object turns up. Etc, etc.
Mike, would you suggest that such evidence should not be considered? And the previous conclusion (even though based on best available evidence) voided, if later evidence points to a different conclusion? (That's a rhetorical question; I don't expect - and don't want - an answer, though I'd be very concerned if your answer was not, "Yes, of course the later evidence should be considered.")
It was a bit of an accident that I posted on this thread the other day. My intention was to stay on one thread to minimize the disruption that my posting is followed by. I know that I do WANT not cause that commotion, and I know I take some steps to minimize it. I will try to keep my footprint minimal here in this thread. You may have noticed I did not respond to after my 2 impulsive posts.
My impulses were great because of my GREAT Interest in this topic. Don't worry, though. I have no book or long essays I'm writing on it. I just have a folder on it that I have been throwing things into for almost 10 years. It started off with differing measurable surety levels in differing science fields, and it branched out to include the surety people feel in core beliefs.
But I am not anti-evidence; just exploring boundaries.
*/*/*/*/*
In answer to your question above, yes, I believe that the legal system has a fairly good handle on what constitutes evidence worthy of a case re-evaluation .
I also do think the meme you posted is generally true and ought to be heeded. However, it has its limits and that is one aspect I study.
What I'd like to do is sit back and read this thread as it grows for more items to throw in my "surety folder." I've jotted down a few notes already, and am happy with that. After the thread seems to run its course I may have some items to offer for extended consideration by everyone.
It was a bit of an accident that I posted on this thread the other day. My intention was to stay on one thread to minimize the disruption that my posting is followed by. I know that I do WANT not cause that commotion, and I know I take some steps to minimize it. I will try to keep my footprint minimal here in this thread. You may have noticed I did not respond to after my 2 impulsive posts.
My impulses were great because of my GREAT Interest in this topic. Don't worry, though. I have no book or long essays I'm writing on it. I just have a folder on it that I have been throwing things into for almost 10 years. It started off with differing measurable surety levels in differing science fields, and it branched out to include the surety people feel in core beliefs.
But I am not anti-evidence; just exploring boundaries.
*/*/*/*/*
In answer to your question above, yes, I believe that the legal system has a fairly good handle on what constitutes evidence worthy of a case re-evaluation .
I also do think the meme you posted is generally true and ought to be heeded. However, it has its limits and that is one aspect I study.
What I'd like to do is sit back and read this thread as it grows for more items to throw in my "surety folder." I've jotted down a few notes already, and am happy with that. After the thread seems to run its course I may have some items to offer for extended consideration by everyone.
This is the most important thread of your life. I encourage you to stay here and absorb and contemplate all you can. Post honestly; ask honest questions; think about your composition before hitting submit.
What you can learn from this thread will allow you to learn so much more about everything. Literally, EVERYTHING.
I know that I do WANT not cause that commotion, and I know I take some steps to minimize it. I will try to keep my footprint minimal here in this thread.
Mike, honestly, you are welcome to post on this thread. You may have some valid points to make. Or valid questions to pose.
I'd only ask : STAY ON POINT and don't deviate from the topic unless really germane. DO NOT promote PFAL or the other books. DO NOT BOAST about your nebulous connections. But please do discuss if you can do so without causing "commotion."
It befits all of us to behave in a reasonable, honest, kindly manner where possible.
And to examine what we think, and what we think we believe.
That person who gazes at you in the mirror in the morning is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Do you like him/her? Really? Would you truly trust him/her as your most confidential friend? With your life, and the lives of your spouse and children, if any?
I do what I can with virtuous characteristics as I can develop them. Part of this for me is a strong distinction in avoiding the unquestioned acceptance of half truths which have in the past allowed to occupy space in my head causing real damage from bondage, constricted thought, poor self image. All of that 100% from this cult.
Mike plays the victim of rudeness and bullying.
I’m fine with my mirror doppelgänger guy. A hell of a lot better than when I was in a cult 100%. And I did ok with lives trusted to me when in cult too. But all suffered trauma. My family, spouse. All impacted by this insidious group. What is reasonable when freeing your family from the clutches of those who feed themselves off of your family?
Proverbs states the dilemma of answering fools according to their folly or not answering them. Mike lives at the juncture of this dilemma on a daily basis. Real honestly how I feel from the bottom of my heart with respect to etiquette and Mike he can go kiss dead Dorothy Owen’s arse. He used up all the good will and kindness here about a decade ago imo.
Damn. Some John Wick shonta here. God, I wish I wrote this.
Who is this?
Ermal Owens wife. I believe Ermal was either first sec. treasurer...or vp...not sure which. She was really cool and hated all the bs going on within the way. I used to stop by her house at HQ with the maintenance guys and enjoy her chocolate chip cookie she kept on hand. Fresh made and lip slapping. She was really cool though. She had a book called Just The Way it Was. She wrote some of it but it had the all fire edited out of it.
Mike, honestly, you are welcome to post on this thread. You may have some valid points to make. Or valid questions to pose.
I'd only ask : STAY ON POINT and don't deviate from the topic unless really germane. DO NOT promote PFAL or the other books. DO NOT BOAST about your nebulous connections. But please do discuss if you can do so without causing "commotion."
That's all good advice. I don't know if he can bring himself to follow it. He's tied his view of self up with his methods, and concluded that the ends justified the means decades ago. Challenging that after decades? We'll see, but I know which way to bet.
The main problem with Galileo wasn't his science. He was a legit scientist. Galileo's problem was that Galileo Galilei was also a FANATIC. (No, I'm not saying he should have been tried or anything, but he should have been more sensible for his time.) Before Galileo wrote his books, others had written on the same subjects. They wrote to other scholars, and did so in Latin- which all scholars knew up into the dawn of the 20th century. The RCC ignored them. Galileo knew that. Rather than do something similar, Galileo set out specifically to set off the RCC. He wrote in the common language, and targeted more of the average person, deliberately drawing attention to himself. (Frankly, he could have been a bit more subtle and still been ignored.) When he started getting some verbal warnings about what he was doing and how it was going to end up backfiring on him, Galileo doubled down. He wrote in the common language again, and this time, he made sure to include a rather obvious strawman in his book that was an expy for the current Pope! After that, the RCC kinda HAD to take notice. He also was sentenced to a house arrest- so, rather dump him in prison for some years, they sentenced him to having to live in his own home. As sentences go, that's not so severe. I mean, I might be sentenced to that, and carrying out that sentence, and not even notice it.
None of that means I agree that there should have been a trial over science, but Galileo was spoiling for a fight, and antagonized the sitting Pope. If it was JUST about the science, he would have been a bit more sensible about it. He could have reached more common people, also.
What was so controversial about Just The Way It Was that it needed the fire edited out of it?
Did the etiquette booklet advise to stand up when the TMOG entered a room?
I have no idea about this other book someone mentioned. I'd never heard of it until now. As for the "Christian Etiquette" book, I've heard of it but never read it. I can only SPECULATE about its contents, so I'd wait until someone who still has the book, or at least has READ the book, to comment. I do remember asking once about the "stand up" business and nobody mentioned that book, so it might not be there. (Or anyone who read it may not have replied.)
This is the most important thread of your life. I encourage you to stay here and absorb and contemplate all you can. Post honestly; ask honest questions; think about your composition before hitting submit.
What you can learn from this thread will allow you to learn so much more about everything. Literally, EVERYTHING.
If he can follow Twinky's advice, he might find this thread MOST useful.
Ermal Owens wife. I believe Ermal was either first sec. treasurer...or vp...not sure which. She was really cool and hated all the bs going on within the way. I used to stop by her house at HQ with the maintenance guys and enjoy her chocolate chip cookie she kept on hand. Fresh made and lip slapping. She was really cool though. She had a book called Just The Way it Was. She wrote some of it but it had the all fire edited out of it.
What was so controversial about Just The Way It Was that it needed the fire edited out of it?
Somebody's selling "Christian Etiquette" on Amazon for $20. 48 pages of information on eating nicely, use of utensils on the table, writing thank you letters, how to be a good houseguest or to be a good host/ess, etc. About how to be polite and get on with other people. Nothing controversial, but nothing outstanding, either, or perhaps I was well enough brought up to not need too much of Dorothy's pearls of wisdom.
Now let's get back on topic, being polite and trying to get on with other people. I ask you not to bash Mike, and in return, I ask Mike to lay off promoting PFAL (as noted above). That way, we might have a productive discussion.
She also wrote some booklet on etiquette or something, which became de rigeur at hq a long time ago, which is why her name came up now.
Christian Etiquette
Lots of good, old fashioned common sense advice. I still have a copy.
My main take away from the book is that, no matter how formally correct or proper your etiquette may be, if it makes people uncomfortable it's wrong.
Excerpt from page 5:
"The essence of good manners is consideration. There are specific points of how and what, but when you are considerate of the feelings of others, their sensibilities, their opinions and their welfare, you are manifesting innate courtesy on which all manners are based."
Slurping noodles in America?... Rude.
Slurping noodles in Korea or Japan?...Totally expected and acceptable.
Lots of good, old fashioned common sense advise. I still have a copy.
My main take away from the book is that, no matter how formally correct or proper your etiquette may be, if it makes people uncomfortable it's wrong.
Excerpt from page 5:
"The essence of good manners is consideration. There are specific points of how and what, but when you are considerate of the feelings of others, their sensibilities, their opinions and their welfare, you are manifesting innate courtesy on which all manners are based."
Slurping noodles in America?... Rude.
Slurping noodles in Korea or Japan?...Totally expected and acceptable.
Right. Great. Good advice. I think I was raised right.
What about Just The Way It Was? What evidence was suppressed by editing out the fire?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
7
18
Popular Days
Nov 15
36
Nov 14
23
Dec 19
13
Nov 16
3
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 8 posts
Twinky 15 posts
OldSkool 7 posts
Nathan_Jr 18 posts
Popular Days
Nov 15 2022
36 posts
Nov 14 2022
23 posts
Dec 19 2022
13 posts
Nov 16 2022
3 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.
Twinky
@OldSkool : I was terrified, too. Embarrassing how afraid of people I had become. Oh really ... what kind of "Christian" organisation leaves people full of fear? Took years to "escape" from myself
Twinky
OldSkool, what a very honest post. I would never have thought you'd've been fearful. Bravo for facing reality and moving on. I do think that a large part of the value of GSC nowadays is trying
chockfull
Trolling, or intentional denseness combined with persistence, indicates over the course of time that the person has the agenda of disrupting the communication of others.
Forcing your agenda on an audience despite their thoughts and desires is the ultimate rudeness.
I applaud your kindness in reaching out here to Mike to endeavor to appeal to logic and reason in an easy to be entreated manner.
I post here also partially to heal from trauma. The kind inflicted by cults. The kind stirred up by trolls. This in my view accomplished his inner agenda. Disrupt and call people back to PFAL.
Perhaps it might be more kind to ban this individual from the attention forum he seeks as opposed to constantly engaging with him to our own and the readers detriment?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Chockfull, thanks for your kind remarks.
I think Mike is genuine in what he believes. He just cannot cope with anything that challenges that belief. He doesn't know how to look outside the rut walls to see the flowers and the grass and to feel the Sonshine. I think I know why he can't cope with challenges. I don't know how to help him look out of the box, or get out of the rut.
I have no idea what satisfaction trolls gain from what they do: some sort of sense of superiority? And bullies. Miserable folk like Alex Jones and others of his ilk. We can only call such folk sad losers, and pity them.
It befits all of us to behave in a reasonable, honest, kindly manner where possible.
And to examine what we think, and what we think we believe.
That person who gazes at you in the mirror in the morning is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Do you like him/her? Really? Would you truly trust him/her as your most confidential friend? With your life, and the lives of your spouse and children, if any?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Some people die for their beliefs. Or suffer such enormous social ostracism that they may as well be dead (far worse than being M&A'd). Like Copernicus, who said the Earth revolved around the Sun; or Galileo, who in later years supported that same belief?
From Wikipedia>Galileo affair: "Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth.
In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.[2] At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.[3] "
How solid are your beliefs? Really? if push came to shove, would you die or face life imprisonment, rather than recant? Or would you be willing in such circumstances to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system.
You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great point Twinky!
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books. The writer sounds like a modern existential philosopher – but I think he’s going along the same line of thought you expressed – he’s somewhat of a stoic – in that he doesn’t get caught up in pain, pleasure, grief, or joy but endures through his core beliefs. In Ecclesiastes we find that he looked about with an honest questioning mind and found flaws – emptiness in what he saw…at the end of the book he reaffirms his core belief - that the answer must be found elsewhere…in the metaphysical…God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Something here resonates with me. The paradoxical virtue of doubt, questions, introspection...maybe. Or, maybe I'm reading too much into your synopsis. I should read Ecclesiastes.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was a bit of an accident that I posted on this thread the other day. My intention was to stay on one thread to minimize the disruption that my posting is followed by. I know that I do WANT not cause that commotion, and I know I take some steps to minimize it. I will try to keep my footprint minimal here in this thread. You may have noticed I did not respond to after my 2 impulsive posts.
My impulses were great because of my GREAT Interest in this topic. Don't worry, though. I have no book or long essays I'm writing on it. I just have a folder on it that I have been throwing things into for almost 10 years. It started off with differing measurable surety levels in differing science fields, and it branched out to include the surety people feel in core beliefs.
But I am not anti-evidence; just exploring boundaries.
*/*/*/*/*
In answer to your question above, yes, I believe that the legal system has a fairly good handle on what constitutes evidence worthy of a case re-evaluation .
I also do think the meme you posted is generally true and ought to be heeded. However, it has its limits and that is one aspect I study.
What I'd like to do is sit back and read this thread as it grows for more items to throw in my "surety folder." I've jotted down a few notes already, and am happy with that. After the thread seems to run its course I may have some items to offer for extended consideration by everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is the most important thread of your life. I encourage you to stay here and absorb and contemplate all you can. Post honestly; ask honest questions; think about your composition before hitting submit.
What you can learn from this thread will allow you to learn so much more about everything. Literally, EVERYTHING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mike, honestly, you are welcome to post on this thread. You may have some valid points to make. Or valid questions to pose.
I'd only ask : STAY ON POINT and don't deviate from the topic unless really germane. DO NOT promote PFAL or the other books. DO NOT BOAST about your nebulous connections. But please do discuss if you can do so without causing "commotion."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Ecclesiastes is a weird book and very much on point. Thanks for bringing it in, T-Bone.
Nathan, great point.
Hope you all enjoy pleasant and searching discussion on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I do what I can with virtuous characteristics as I can develop them. Part of this for me is a strong distinction in avoiding the unquestioned acceptance of half truths which have in the past allowed to occupy space in my head causing real damage from bondage, constricted thought, poor self image. All of that 100% from this cult.
Mike plays the victim of rudeness and bullying.
I’m fine with my mirror doppelgänger guy. A hell of a lot better than when I was in a cult 100%. And I did ok with lives trusted to me when in cult too. But all suffered trauma. My family, spouse. All impacted by this insidious group. What is reasonable when freeing your family from the clutches of those who feed themselves off of your family?
Proverbs states the dilemma of answering fools according to their folly or not answering them. Mike lives at the juncture of this dilemma on a daily basis. Real honestly how I feel from the bottom of my heart with respect to etiquette and Mike he can go kiss dead Dorothy Owen’s arse. He used up all the good will and kindness here about a decade ago imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Damn. Some John Wick shonta here. God, I wish I wrote this.
Who is this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ermal Owens wife. I believe Ermal was either first sec. treasurer...or vp...not sure which. She was really cool and hated all the bs going on within the way. I used to stop by her house at HQ with the maintenance guys and enjoy her chocolate chip cookie she kept on hand. Fresh made and lip slapping. She was really cool though. She had a book called Just The Way it Was. She wrote some of it but it had the all fire edited out of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's all good advice. I don't know if he can bring himself to follow it. He's tied his view of self up with his methods, and concluded that the ends justified the means decades ago. Challenging that after decades? We'll see, but I know which way to bet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
She also wrote some booklet on etiquette or something, which became de rigeur at hq a long time ago, which is why her name came up now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What was so controversial about Just The Way It Was that it needed the fire edited out of it?
Did the etiquette booklet advise to stand up when the TMOG entered a room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The main problem with Galileo wasn't his science. He was a legit scientist. Galileo's problem was that Galileo Galilei was also a FANATIC. (No, I'm not saying he should have been tried or anything, but he should have been more sensible for his time.) Before Galileo wrote his books, others had written on the same subjects. They wrote to other scholars, and did so in Latin- which all scholars knew up into the dawn of the 20th century. The RCC ignored them. Galileo knew that. Rather than do something similar, Galileo set out specifically to set off the RCC. He wrote in the common language, and targeted more of the average person, deliberately drawing attention to himself. (Frankly, he could have been a bit more subtle and still been ignored.) When he started getting some verbal warnings about what he was doing and how it was going to end up backfiring on him, Galileo doubled down. He wrote in the common language again, and this time, he made sure to include a rather obvious strawman in his book that was an expy for the current Pope! After that, the RCC kinda HAD to take notice. He also was sentenced to a house arrest- so, rather dump him in prison for some years, they sentenced him to having to live in his own home. As sentences go, that's not so severe. I mean, I might be sentenced to that, and carrying out that sentence, and not even notice it.
None of that means I agree that there should have been a trial over science, but Galileo was spoiling for a fight, and antagonized the sitting Pope. If it was JUST about the science, he would have been a bit more sensible about it. He could have reached more common people, also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I have no idea about this other book someone mentioned. I'd never heard of it until now. As for the "Christian Etiquette" book, I've heard of it but never read it. I can only SPECULATE about its contents, so I'd wait until someone who still has the book, or at least has READ the book, to comment. I do remember asking once about the "stand up" business and nobody mentioned that book, so it might not be there. (Or anyone who read it may not have replied.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If he can follow Twinky's advice, he might find this thread MOST useful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What was so controversial about Just The Way It Was that it needed the fire edited out of it?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If he can open his mind and discard confirmation bias, he might find this thread most useful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Somebody's selling "Christian Etiquette" on Amazon for $20. 48 pages of information on eating nicely, use of utensils on the table, writing thank you letters, how to be a good houseguest or to be a good host/ess, etc. About how to be polite and get on with other people. Nothing controversial, but nothing outstanding, either, or perhaps I was well enough brought up to not need too much of Dorothy's pearls of wisdom.
Now let's get back on topic, being polite and trying to get on with other people. I ask you not to bash Mike, and in return, I ask Mike to lay off promoting PFAL (as noted above). That way, we might have a productive discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Christian Etiquette
Lots of good, old fashioned common sense advice. I still have a copy.
My main take away from the book is that, no matter how formally correct or proper your etiquette may be, if it makes people uncomfortable it's wrong.
Excerpt from page 5:
"The essence of good manners is consideration. There are specific points of how and what, but when you are considerate of the feelings of others, their sensibilities, their opinions and their welfare, you are manifesting innate courtesy on which all manners are based."
Slurping noodles in America?... Rude.
Slurping noodles in Korea or Japan?...Totally expected and acceptable.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Great. Good advice. I think I was raised right.
What about Just The Way It Was? What evidence was suppressed by editing out the fire?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.