Re: Truth is not really threatened by error; only the error is actually vulnerable

In article <7p6gd6FqurU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_belle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:756ac3d6-7f71-4ad1-bdcd-43ad9f950aba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 19, 11:42 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ian Davis" <ijda...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:hgjn9q$hku$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article
<3a5e3cda-8daa-4915-b671-41bcc0992...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<<Kelly>> <<Kelly> wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:13 pm, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The past with Engineer is over; a brave new world awaits...

I didn't ask if the past was over.. I asked what happened!

I counted him a friend and only returned here because when I was
told of his departure it seemed that I must needs return, if only to
defend his good name. Am I not entitled to be told why he left, by
the one most likely to be able
to say?

Engineer wrote on the 25th of December 2008 in message
<AcCdnSOkVZQtA8_U4p2d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
I believe that I am the last Quaker who still participates in
soc.religion.quaker, so some may find it noteworthy that I am
unsubscribing. Seeing dozens of posts of 316 and David flaming
each other, and knowing that polite requests that they stop
flooding s.r.q with off-topic crossposts do no good, I am
abandoning the newsgroup. I note that 316, Rod, Jon G. and
Hendry Leon all came here in response to David's crossposts,
and it is pretty clear that he will be able to attract many
other posters like them who have no interest in discussing
Quakerism.
(Google's group search is *not* being helpful - I had to find this
one by 'hand')

Pretty funny, in an ironic way. When I first came here, I was asked
what I knew about Quakerism. I responded the best I knew how to with
what little information I had. Immediately, I was rudely rebuffed by
none other than Engineer, who made it clear that what I knew was all
wrong. Then, I was next informed by Engineer that I was undoubtedly a
sock-puppet of some other poster (Kent somebody, IIRC). No matter
what I told him, he still insisted I was lying and was most certainly
the other poster using a sock. He then refused to communicate with me
because I was, as he insisted, a liar - and then claimed to killfile
me.

This is mostly but not totally consistent with my impressions (and having
just read the archives of the end of 2008, my memory has been refreshed
somewhat).

My memory was that Rod came into this group, asking about Quakerism. He
seemed - at the time - like a genuine seeker.

You then entered SRQ, warning us about Rod. It was clear to those of us here
that you were engaged in some sort of flame war with him somewhere else in
Usenet and had followed him here. The group, I believe, pretty much
universally told you that you warning wasn't welcome and that if Rod wanted
to seek God in here with SRQ'ers, he was welcome to, that his true colours
would quickly show, but in the mean time should be given the benefit of a
clean slate.

This, admittedly, was not a good foot to start off on for either you or the
rest of SRQ.

You & Rod then continued your flame war here in SRQ for some time, even
though the 'residents' of SRQ at the time asked you both repeatedly to stop.
Neither of you did.

As it turned out, your initial description of Rod was correct . However, it
was also explained to you, and has been several times, that whilst you were
right about Rod, that the Quaker ethos would give *anyone* a clean slate
when joining, and would have given *anyone* the same reception you got if
they'd come to 'warn' folks about someone new. Engineer, IIRC, apologised to
you about it, as did I.

I will also add that your posting style - at least as it was at the time -
was very similar to a regular Christmas visitor we have to SRQ called Kirk
( i wonder where he is - he's late this year). Kirk is a fundamentalist
Christian who objects to Quaker beliefs and practices. Kirk has been known
to use sock puppets in the past (and to lie profusely about it even when
caught with his sock on), so thats why Engineer thought you were Kirk-Sock.
I believe Engineer also apologised to you for that.

Once Rod left the group, you were asked what your interest was in Quakerism
such that you would want to continue to post here. As far as I can see, you
answer to this question each and every time it has been posed to you has
pretty much been "This is an unmoderated group, and therefore I can say/post
what I want." This sort of response would not endear you to folks wanting to
talk/write about a particular topic *anywhere* - SRQ in that regard is no
different.

The vast majority of the posts to SRQ are now you & David locked into a
strange macabre dance of insults, name calling and put downs. I realise that
you believe that this will help him, but it hardly creates the impression
that you are friendly, approachable and want to talk about Quakerism.

That you bring you first encounters up again suggests you are not ready to
forgive the initial reception you got here, even when those who didn't
welcome you with enthusiasm have apologised and asked for a fresh start with
you.

Would you offer that forgiveness now?

As long as I've been here - even with the self-proclaimed "last
Quaker" still posting when I came - this hasn't been a friendly
group.

Observe the interactions folks have when David and/or cross-posters aren't
involved. Whilst they are admittedly rare, they're not *un*friendly.

Methinks you are all romanticizing something that either has
been gone for a very long time or was never really here to begin with.

The archives are a testament to whether this perception is right or wrong. I
would encourage you to look at the archives when the people Ian Davis
mentioned, that is, Marshall, Christine, Elizabeth, Licia, and Jeff were
active posters (pre 2008, IIRC). I would also add Faith, Jenny, Whiskers and
the other Ian to that list as well. It will show a vibrant group discussing
many Qukerish topics in depth. Its not of course all love and roses, but its
a vibrant, alive group where I genuinley feel that the Spirit was moving and
touching people, making them reconsider their stances, making them think,
making them notice and walk with their inner light that much more.

Its is not that now.

As someone who is basically an outsider looking in (as some of you are
want to still so "kindly" remind me I am)

Who reminds you? I really hope that I don't, and apologise if I do - it
would be unintentional.

This is a two way street. You remain an outsider if you think yourself an
outsider and behave as one. There are Quaker topics raised from to time
here, and your viewpoint is always welcome. I would love for you to discuss
your viewpoints here - it is understood you are not Quaker and will not have
Quaker viewpoints, but providing such discussions are civil and respectful
and the minds on both ends are open, then we can all have a fruitful
conversation about Quaker topics. It saddens me that you feel uncomfortable
even sharing your own Christian journey here for fear that others might use
it against you. I am quite certain the 'regulars' here wouldn't, but I can't
vouch for 'lurkers', if we have any. But not sharing makes it hard for the
rest of us to get to know you as a person, even if you do 'hold back' for
perfectly understandable reasons.

I think it's fair to say
that SRQ is just like the rest of Usenet (and likely has been for
longer than most of you will admit).

I don't think anyone here thinks SRQ is anything other than Usenet, but SRQ
was - IMHO - demonstrably a better place both in terms of Usenet and in
terms of Quakerism than that which it has now become. Mainly because the
signal to noise ratio has decreased to almost zero, with the ocasional
static 'crackle' as someone makes an attempt - usually a futile one - to
spark up a conversation that a passing Quaker might consider on-topic.

I know it is possible to revive a group that for all intents and purposes
appears 'dead'. But it takes a group effort, like a critical mass (which I
think SRQ is below at the moment). If you would like to be part of that
critical mass, you have always been welcome, but on the same token, you also
have to be willing to step over that threshold and make yourself welcome
too. Otherwise you will always be 'outside' - if thats your choice.

Wish I had better words to express this with. If only we could only talk
face to face over coffee instead of this poor medium. I want to offer the
hand of friendship to you, with a fresh start if needs be.

Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.


I wish I were able to say all you've said as well as you said it above. I
fully concur with your observations.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages