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



"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_belle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:37a01109-dc8b-4200-b350-e198148dec3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 20, 3:33 am, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Mmm-hmm...

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.

Yes, correct so far.

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

So what? How long ago was that? How much time has passed since then?

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.

Nope. Not true.

Every time Rod has come back here to target me, I have either told him
to take it elsewhere and that SRQ isn't interested in reading his
trash -or - I have completely ignored him. The only one who has
actively engaged or encouraged him to continue is David Christainsen.

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.

Yeah - and...? I have no issue with that, so why you are bringing it
up again is beyond me.

Engineer, IIRC, apologised to
you about it, as did I.

Okay...and that means what, today, in light of the frequent invoking
of Engineer's nym in order to mourn the good-old-days of SRQ and how
it hasn't been the same since a rude, dysfunctional poster left?

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.

Except that at the time Engineer went off on his Kirk-tangent, I never
said anything that would indicate what I think or feel about
Christianity vs. Quaker beliefs and practices. Sorry - but that's not
a valid argument.

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.

It doesn't matter. You're making excuses for a guy who behaved
badly. Even when shown the facts, he refused to apply any good faith
or even try to listen to reason. That tells me that the guy is not
the "rock" of the group you and others seem to what to make him out to
be.

And now that I think about it, the lot of you make excuses for the bad
behavior of a lot of people. Is that part and parcel of being a
current or past Quaker?

I believe Engineer also apologised to you for that.

I vaguely remember an a facsimile of an apology but more vividly
remember his continued nastiness and a holier-than-thou/smarter-than-
thou attitude that never changed.

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."

Well, that's certainly oversimplfying the facts.

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.

Actually, it's a perfectly acceptible response in other groups and
other groups (as a whole) don't have a problem with it because they
understand that it's the truth. IMO, this group is extremely
dysfunctional (even when you take away DC, Jon, and Hendry) and
oversensitive. Put that in conjunction with the way so many of you
make excuses for and enable the bad behavior of your regulars and
you've got a very unhealthy bunch of people.

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.

I honestly don't care.

Let's take you for example: you have reached out to me on a personal,
non-Usenet level, and (I hope) have found that I am not the lying,
bull-in-a-china-closet ogre that other posters (specifically Ian
Davis) imagine. It's been about 6 months since we communicated in
that fashion, so I don't know what you feel about me today - but I
think that you came away from that experience with a fairly positive
feeling. Am I right?

No one else has attempted to get to know me better in a real way - and
that's okay because I don't expect it. But don't place the
responsibility on me because others still see me as unapproachable.
It would be nice if Usenet were a friendlier place, but the fact is
it's not - it never really has been - and it never will be. But if
someone wants to know who I am outside the battleground that is Usenet
- the answer is more along the lines of what you did, Yowie. And it's
certainly *not* in using my sexuality against me, calling me a liar,
and being hostile simply because I happen to disagree with someone.

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?

I bring up my first encounters here not because it still is a problem
for me, but because it is still a problem for all of you.

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.

No, they're not. But it shouldn't matter whether cross-posters or DC
is involved. You all natter on about Quakerly this and Quakerly that,
but why does "Quakerly" seem to stop when DC or crossposters are
involved?

Or someone who is suspected of being a sock-puppet?

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.

I've looked previously.

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.

And...why is that??? Do you even care to find out the answer why? Do
you think it's no longer that way because a particular person has
left? Do you think it's no longer that way because a particular
person joined? Do you think it's no longer that way because a
particular person keeps posting?

Or maybe SRQ was the way it was just for a season and because it
wasn't meant to be that way forever...?

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.

No, you don't. You are the only one here who has been even remotely
kind to me on a consistent basis. Right now, Ian Davis is
vascillating back and forth between being nice and being nasty - but I
know he's just pretending to be nice in order to get some information
out of me.

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.

It should make you sad. It should also make you ask why I feel that
way. And then, that should make place the blame on the group
regulars, not on me. But that's not what you've done - above, you've
placed the blame squarely on my shoulders.

Look, it's not that important to me to be anything other than an
outsider - and I always will be, because the majority of you reject my
Christianity and my adhearence to the Bible and faith in Jesus
Christ. I will never be a Quaker, because Quakerism rejects so much
of the basics of following Jesus Christ from a Biblical standpoint. I
will never be a Wiccan or Pagan, because I believe that the practice
and "belief" is from the pit of Hell and smells like smoke. I will
never be an ultra-liberal-wishy-washy-fence-riding Christian. I will
never be a Thieringite, I will never be a Dead-Sea Scrollite, I will
never be a Marianne Williamsonite. I will never be the things that
make up the majority of the beliefs in here and that most are willing
to accept as differences. Yet, no one here accepts me for who I am as
a Biblical follower of Jesus Christ. I get called names. I get told
I am a liar. I get treated like the red-headed stepchild at a family
barbeque. Whatever. It is what it is and I am not complaining -
frankly, amongst such a diverse group of decidedly anti-Christian
thinkers, I'm used to it.

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.

And anyone of you who remember it as it was is welcome to do their
part to increase the signal to noise ratio - and a few bellyache about
it frequently. What's keeping the bellyachers from doing it? What
are you waiting for? Someone else to take the lead?

Good grief - you'll be waiting for a long time if that's the case.
From what I've observed, most of you are followers and not leaders.
Ian Davis posted some stuff while Soggy was gone - why did he stop?
And why did no one take that cue to post stuff of their own and build
on that? What I see is a bunch of whiners who want to live in the
past but have no chutzpah to make things better for the future (if you
really *want* SRQ to have a futre other than what it is now).

I know it is possible to revive a group that for all intents and
purposes appears 'dead'.

The group isn't "dead" - it has low activity (in comparison with other
Usenet groups), but with an average of 330-over a thousand posts in a
month, it's definitely not dead. It's just not what it used to be
(according to you and a few others). What in life *is* the way it
used to be?

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.

What you see right now of me in SRQ is what you're likely to get until
the day I am no longer in SRQ. I don't mind being outside - this *is*
just an online discussion group - it's not a church or a meeting or a
place where I expect to make close, personal friends. Like I've said
before, if you (or anyone) don't like my posts, don't read them. I
certainly don't read everything everyone posts here - and I doubt
anyone does.

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.

I don't feel that I need a "fresh start" here. What I would like to
see is for people to stop bellyaching about how things here were so
great in the past and that Engineer was such a nice guy and that the
group has gone to pot since he left.. I'm sure Engineer had his good
points, however, from what I saw and was subjected to, I completely
non-plussed by him. He was rude, short-tempered, and prone to
throwing unreasonable tantrums where he would kill-file just because
he didn't like someone. He was not the epitome of Quaker behavior
that some here want to make him out to be. Enough romanticizing the
"Engineer Days of SRQ". He was just a guy who still considers himself
a Quaker (unlike the majority in SRQ) and posted here and left in a
huff. It would be nice to see him come back, but do you honestly
believe SRQ will be *that* much of a different place (than it is now)
if he does?

--
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.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Names
    ... - I'm not a Quaker, ergo, I cannot be held to Quaker standards. ... Therefore, I uphold Christian ... BTW you DISTORT and TWIST way too often on SRQ. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Quaker-L and Quaker-P -- this one you can open
    ... of other Friends I find more of the edifying dialogue about Quaker ... Thanks for the blog link. ... Could you share other quaker blog links with me. ... Several have said that blogs these days are more edifying than SRQ ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Truth is not really threatened by error; only the error is actually vulnerable
    ... Engineer wrote on the 25th of December 2008 in message ... My memory was that Rod came into this group, ... You then entered SRQ, warning us about Rod. ... that the Quaker ethos would give *anyone* a clean slate ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Truth is not really threatened by error; only the error is actually vulnerable
    ... Engineer wrote on the 25th of December 2008 in message ... My memory was that Rod came into this group, ... You then entered SRQ, warning us about Rod. ... that the Quaker ethos would give *anyone* a clean slate ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Is there life on Mars?
    ... harm to SRQ by his determination to make of something what that something ... surviving despite all the harm David does it. ... but it goes with the territory of being Quaker that one has to ... Who said anything about Christianity? ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)