Re: 2Thes 1:11

[Peter]
>> Don't get me wrong here I'm not implying that Mitch or anyone else can
>> *with
>> any certainty* speculate on other peoples motives. What I do know though
>> is
>> that when we do look past peoples behaviour and ask ourselves why they
>> may
>> act in a way that I don't like we are left with just three options. 1)
>> The
>> problem is mine, they are acting in a perfectly healthy manner but I have
>> a
>> reaction to it cos of stuff (defense mechanisims usually that I have put
>> in
>> place because of the hurtful experiences that life has dealt me) that I
>> need
>> to deal with. 2)They have stuff in there lives, (defense mechanisims
>> usually
>> that they have put in place because of the hurtful experiences that life
>> has
>> dealt them) which they need to deal with. 3)They are jerks.
>> My hope was that if Mitch would engage with my question she would realise
>> that 1 or 2 were the most likely, at this point she seems to holding out
>> for
>> 3 though :-)


[Richard]
> Ah, so I see that I did get you wrong, and now you've clarified, I
> appreciate better where you're coming from. I would say that 1) and 2)
> are the only reasonable options, and 3) is just a subset of 1) where
> the stuff in that person's life is deeper.


Hmmm....you may be right Im not really sure. I have this sense, based on
only my experience and therefor very unreliable I know, that there are some
people who have simply given up and sold out (to the dark side Luke).


[Richard]
> I don't see Mitch holding out for 3),


Then you should read her last post to me more carefully. I may be wrong in
how I have interpreted her in that post but it seems she now will no longer
discuss it so if I have I am never going to know.

<snip>

> [ Richard ]
>> > Where do we see, on this thread, David owning his '***' ?

[Peter]
>> Actually I never said owning it, I said "working it out"....ISTM that
>> "owning it" is often a long way down the track and often takes a lot of
>> long
>> suffering from our Christian brothers and sisters...but to me that is the
>> core of the gospel.

[Richard]
> OK, that's a fair point. So do we see evidence of David working out his
> *** ?


I've always felt that committment to conversation with people who
fundamentally disagree with us is some indication of how much we desire to
know the truth about both life generally, and ourselves.


[Peter]
>> A question for you Richard. You have over the years ISTM irritated as
>> many
>> people with your style as David (or myself for that matter). Is there
>> anywhere where we can see *you* taking responibility for your ***?


[Richard]
> My 'irritating' style comes under your category 1) where the felt
> irritation is your own.


I see...... so if lots of people often find *someone elses* posts
problematic then that is evidence of *the poster* having stuff *he/she*
needs to deal with, but if lots of people often find *your* posts
problematic then that is evidence of *all those people* having stuff *they*
need to deal with?


[Richard]
> In other words, if a person winds you up, its
> entirely your responsibility to work out why that's happening.


Thats correct and entirely consistant with what I have been saying all along


[Richard]
> I'm very
> happy to engage in discussion with anyone willing to look at their
> responsibility for feeling irritated but there are so few who are
> willing to take it.


You think? Or is it that they take it and when they conclude that it is you
who has the problem you dont wanna hear it?


[Richard]
> So they blame the irritation on me. I myself find
> no-one else's style irritating, merely entertaining;


Really? I would have thought from your comments regarding David that you are
being far more than entertained by him?


[Richard}
that just shows
> that no-one here triggers my ***, it doesn't show I don't have any ;-)
> If I got irritated and dumped it on people on this group, as others do,


Yes look at those nasty tax collectors Lord thank goodnss Richard and I
ain't like them!


[Richard]
> then I'd be willing to take responsibility for that. Just so happens I
> haven't got irritated for a number of years, so have nothing to dump.



Whatever makes you think that dumping *** is the bastion of the irritated?


[Richard]
> So to answer your question explicitly, just show me where my *** is,
> and I'm happy to take responsibility for it :-) It of course is a
> truism that I'm blind to my own ***, I must rely on someone else to
> show it to me. Feel free to do just that.


OK.



[Richard ]
>> > Perhaps David, when privately communicating with you, is in the
>> > category of someone who owns up to his part of the '***' that's thrown
>> > around. On this group, he obviously does not, so Mitch looks perfectly
>> > reasonable in considering David to be in the other 'compartment' to the
>> > one you've placed him in.

[Peter]
>> As you say yourself, that's possibly because Mitch has never got to know
>> him
>> "privately" and my assertion in this thread is that could well be because
>> your never going to get to know someone if you can't look past the things
>> that irritate you about them.


[Richard]
> Indeed. So its possible that David doesn't get his *** triggered when
> communicating privately with you - after all, he's stated that you are
> someone 'high in [his] estimation'.


Why do you think that might be Richard?


[ Peter ]
>> >> As I expressed in my first post Im more than sad that you of all
>> >> people
>> >> have
>> >> seen fit to be so bloody self righteous about David's "style" and I do
>> >> hope
>> >> you can get over yourself, get down off your high horse and perhaps
>> >> proffer
>> >> an apology for such poor form.



[Peter talking about Mitch]
>> What would you call it when someone whos posts are often abrasive
>> and short tempered sees fit to bang on about someone elses style?


[Richard]
> Well if someone loses their temper in a post, that's their *** for
> sure. 'Abrasive' and 'banging on' mean what, precisely, here ? Give a
> few examples and I'll have a look for you.


Havn't the time sorry, do a thorough search of Mitch's posts and you will
soon get the idea.


[Peter to Mitch]
>> >> PS; I note you sniped and completely failed to answer my question
>> >> about
>> >> whether it would be OK to talk about you in the same manner that you
>> >> have
>> >> talked about David, are you brave enough to answer that question or
>> >> not?



[Richard]
>> > The sniping [sic] seems to be coming from you Peter ;-)


[Peter]
>> Yes sorry...my spall cheque isnt werking. :-)


[Richard
> Actually I thought this was a particularly ironic error to make :-)


Freudian even :-)

<snip>

[Richard]
I was simply
> making a recommendation that you owned up to your own ***. However,
> you're still under the illusion that its Mitch's, not yours, so maybe a
> dialogue about it will help clarify things for you, I don't know.
>

Dialogue is always good and I'm sure that there are several things that need
clarifing for me. Course as you actually enter into the dialogue Richard you
will soon realise it's you who has the vast majority of illusions that need
clarifying and I for my part will be very pleased when at the end of our
discussion I have been able to help you come to terms with them.

Peter R

Peter R
.