Personal Attacks

[David Koot]

Hi Amelia,

I don't see it that way. Certainly am no psychologist, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. A forum like this can be a very positive experience, and often is. Place for good discussion, interaction and friendly bantering at times. A good number of people seem to do that very type of thing on this forum. That is good IMO. There may be others who approach things differently. I would just suggest that forum boundaries restrain such things as personal attacks, and encourage people to stay on issue, and be pleasant. Don't see why it couldn't be done.

What can happen in situations where there is interaction, whether in person, or in a group, or online, is where some individuals tend to blame or demonize others. That certainly can be very unpleasant and inappropriate. Take a scenario, which no doubt has been played out many times over the centuries . . .

A man and a woman become acquainted. There is a mutual interest, which develops into a mutual attraction. The woman says and does things which are very appealing to the man, and the man responds, getting deeper and deeper into the relationship. Everything sounds good, but there are confusing signals. The man is unsure what to do, so he prays about it. As he continues to pray, it becomes more clear that things need to be put on hold for awhile, until everything can be sorted out. He communicates this to the woman. Things are broken off. So far, this is something that happens a lot, and goes with the territory. Later, however, to his amazement, he discovers that the woman has demonized him to others, insinuating that he led her along, that he 'used' her, then cast her aside. Thus, not only making very public something which was extremely personal and private in nature, but doing so in such a way that it appears to be 'his' fault, and 'his' wrongdoing--imputing wrong motives, making terrible judgments about him, and going far beyond the relationship itself, to 'damn' him in much that he does--and this, to quite a wide audience. And, when attempts are made to address the situation, her response is to the effect that she has done nothing wrong! All of that, of course, is satanic. Rather than to simply recognize that perhaps the relationship was not in God's will after all, and that the guy was acting in good faith.

This type of situation has happened so often, in various contexts. It is an example of the kind of nonsense that does harm. There is a solution, Amelia. People should assume the best about others, about their intentions, their motives, their words and actions. That would go a long way toward helping make a forum, or the world for that matter, a better place.

Dave

[Lil Star]

When someone keeps pecking and pecking in one thread and then another and yet another doing things to agitate someone then maybe a moderator should shine a light on the problem.

[Woody]

Quote:

There is a solution, Amelia. People should assume the best about others, about their intentions, their motives, their words and actions. That would go a long way toward helping make a forum, or the world for that matter, a better place.

Dave

Well said. I think it is always good to assume the best in people. Even if we don't agree with someone ... we can always give a kind word and assume that they are sincere rather than meaning to attack. Most people who we deem to be attacking ... would be shocked to learn their words came across as attacking.

This is why I think it would be helpful to have a list of words and phrases of words that some find offensive. I think what Ich did was very instructive.

[Neil D]

When someone keeps pecking and pecking in one thread and then another and yet another doing things to agitate someone then maybe a moderator should shine a light on the problem.

I have a problem with this.........Maybe it's because of the poster....

Over the last couple of years, when this poster has posted, a significant number of this poster's post have been directed at me and always in a disparaging way.

Until today, I have always refused to address this....

It seems to me that this advise from this poster is somewhat ...shall we say, hypocritical....While I bear no ill will, I am sure that this post is not going to be perceived this way and may, in fact, be considered an attack.

My advise for those who "keeps pecking and pecking in one thread and then another and yet another doing things to agitate someone" is a bit old fashioned....learn to forgive yourself.....

....because if you don't, you will continue to strive for that perfect relationship/friendship...or that perfect argument to embarrass the one who pecks [aka the 'pecker']. and there is not such thing as a perfect argument or friendship/relationship.

If you do that, your posting will change....causing a stir among other....peckers [after all, don't we all peck at the keyboard]...It will be noticed...and then maybe friends might be more ..forthcoming.....

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

A man and a woman become acquainted. There is a mutual interest, which develops into a mutual attraction. The woman says and does things which are very appealing to the man, and the man responds, getting deeper and deeper into the relationship. Everything sounds good, but there are confusing signals. The man is unsure what to do, so he prays about it. As he continues to pray, it becomes more clear that things need to be put on hold for awhile, until everything can be sorted out. He communicates this to the woman. Things are broken off. So far, this is something that happens a lot, and goes with the territory. Later, however, to his amazement, he discovers that the woman has demonized him to others, insinuating that he led her along, that he 'used' her, then cast her aside. Thus, not only making very public something which was extremely personal and private in nature, but doing so in such a way that it appears to be 'his' fault, and 'his' wrongdoing--imputing wrong motives, making terrible judgments about him, and going far beyond the relationship itself, to 'damn' him in much that he does--and this, to quite a wide audience. And, when attempts are made to address the situation, her response is to the effect that she has done nothing wrong! All of that, of course, is satanic. Rather than to simply recognize that perhaps the relationship was not in God's will after all, and that the guy was acting in good faith.

As I read the above the following comes to my mind:

1) It sure looks like Dave has a personal experience in mind. Perhaps he does not, but it looks like he does.

2) It seems to me like he has not put this experience behind him and that he continues to live in it. Perhaps he has, but that is not how it comes across to me.

3) Posts such as this one, in my thilnking, continue to dredge up stuff that would be soon forgotten if they were not refreshed. IOW, I will suggest to me that it looks like Dave is keeping the fire burning. If so, people would probably soon forget if it were not for reminders such as this.

4) It appears to me that the responses to this type of post have been quite muted and restrained. That is the better course of action.

5) There are times when it is best for the injured party to simply "suck it up" and move on with their life. If Dave has been injured, I will suggest that he do such.

[Woody]

Quote:

There are times when it is best for the injured party to simply "suck it up" and move on with their life. If Dave has been injured, I will suggest that he do such.

I don't mean to offend you in any way Gregory ... I am sure your advice is well intended ... BUT ....

I would propose that giving such advice is not always helpful. Just telling someone to "suck it up" ... while well meaning and well intended ... it was not solicited. And unsolicited advice is like sour grapes.

I am sure that many who are hurt ... do not recover as fast as we would like. But I find the best way to help is to be supportive and understanding. I would start by saying ... Dave, I am sure this experience must have been hurtful for you. I am sure there is a great deal of pain. But Dave ... you are appreciated here. You are doing great work for God. You are a part of the Body. How can we best support and care for you? Dave ... you are in our prayers.

Note: This is just based on your assumption Gregory that what he said is a personal experience. And again ... that is ONLY an assumption.

[Neil D]

Being in a single fashion myself, I have seen this happen as well. So, I suspect that it is far more common than many guys would like to admit.

Perhaps this is something that should go to the men's forum and be discussed.... or here, as I have no preference...maybe the moderators do.....and perhaps this is something that may look more like a hi-jacked thread....Not intending to do that either....

Just want to say, I have seen this happen....and more than once....

If blame should be laid for hi-jacking the thread...fess up Gregory!

[Woody]

Neil .... Before I saw your post .... I started up a new topic. It may not be exactly what you had in mind. It was just what was on MY mind. Perhaps you could start up a new topic on where you were coming from as a single.

[Denise]

Quote:

I would propose that giving such advice is not always helpful. Just telling someone to "suck it up" ... while well meaning and well intended ... it was not solicited. And unsolicited advice is like sour grapes.

Wow, Redwood, I agree with you on that! :)

[bonnie]

GREGORY and Ichabod,

Can either of you explain or justify or feel it is just not worthy of mention or the attention of those watching the following

Can you tell me why so many adventists feel it is far more acceptable to take continued jabs at people rather than to be straight out front with their opinions or feelings.

We have this from the one requesting a stop to attacks most prolifically. It has been repeated numerous times....

Redwood said

I also want to thank you that you did not use the name of the poster. I am sensitive to this factor. I think your persentation is much more able to be receptive without the name. We have all failed in our posting ... so the author of this particular post does not need to feel pointed out.

Yet this same party will repeatedly ignore his own statements and do just that. Where there is not a discussion appropriate to the remarks he will quite pointedly use a persons name. He has done this numerous times to me and before I came back it was others.

Of course many will deny they understand what he is doing or say oh, what the heck it is meant in a humourous way.

Redwood said....

Snippets Snippets Snippets.

Is that ALL that is said on the topic?

_________________________

Would the person who said this on 1-3-08 be willing to stand up and admit it?

Quote:

"Theose who keep the commandments of God will be in heaven." ... "The conditions of salvation are today what they have always been, the keeping of the Commandments of God" 1-3-08

_________________________

Gregory and Igchabod,did either of you read this and come away feeling this was a response done as a result of loving one another and a desire to get along?? Was it done innocently or as a desire to paint another as stating he could work his way to heaven

And failing to answer on that would either of you care to attempt to explain why it just can't be said plain and straight out. Why it cannot be said right out there

1. We believe that all of the countless times this is happened is all in good clean innocent fun

2.We believe it is done by someone that wishes to help others

3.We believe the less than accurate and inappropriate timing of the use of EW quotes continually is a desire to see people search our beliefs for themselves. Even those that are really just beginning to realize an interest in God

4.We do not see any of this as a problem,it is only done for the sake of entertainment of the forum and to lighten the mood at times of suicide,thoughts of or heartfelt questions concerning.

5. We do not intend to do anything concerning that.

6. It does no harm

7.If there are those that resent the continuous sniping, get over it. We like it or at least the members do.

8. Passive-aggressive behaviour is an acceptable form of showing disregard and respect for those you interact with,AS long as it is done carefully

At least straight-forward would set the record straight once and for all

[Woody]

Quote:

Quote:

"Theose who keep the commandments of God will be in heaven." ... "The conditions of salvation are today what they have always been, the keeping of the Commandments of God" 1-3-08

When I personally read this ... I was a little confused. And I don't want anyone here to be confused ... The above quote are not my words ... they are not my belief. Just for the record.

However I did quote the author of these words but not his name. Kinda like what Ichabod did.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Quote:

"Theose who keep the commandments of God will be in heaven." ... "The conditions of salvation are today what they have always been, the keeping of the Commandments of God" 1-3-08

When I personally read this ... I was a little confused. And I don't want anyone here to be confused ... I didn't say the above quote . Just for the record.

Just for the record I personally do not believe you are as confused as you claim. In any event thanks for responding.

It is something from Gregory or Ichabod I am really interested in.

I know that Gregory has more expertise in area's of this type of personality than most of us do. And Ichabod seems to be a very straight-forward man when he expresses an opinion or his experience in dealing with conflict among church members.

I have so far never seen either of them trying to slide thru the back door to get a point across.

[Woody]

OK Bonnie. I will try my best to be more straight forward with you. Thanks for all your advice.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I don't mean to offend you in any way Gregory ... I am sure your advice is well intended ... BUT ....

I would propose that giving such advice is not always helpful. Just telling someone to "suck it up" ... while well meaning and well intended ... it was not solicited. And unsolicited advice is like sour grapes.

There are times when it is inappropriate to wait to give advice for it to be solicited. This was one of those times. Redwood, if you are not aware of that, you are not aware of the dynamics.

Let me illustrate: I know someone who is a well trained police officr. He once, on a trip to Reno, observed a male in conflict with a female. He walked up to the couple, flashed his badge, and he advised the male to immediately depart the scene if he did not want to be arrested. The male promptly departed. IT should be noted that neither the male nor the female had requested that my friend give any advice. He volunteered to give the advice (to immediately depart) without being asked to do so.

There are times when it is appropriate to give advice without being asked for such.

NOTE: My friend does not live in Nevada, and therefore he had no authority to arrest the person--other than that of an ordinary citizen. Yes, he has enough training that he probably could have physically taken him into custody.

[bonnie]

Straight-forward with me is not the problem.It would be rather difficult to practise one personality trait with one and another for someone else. I think there is a name for that

Let's wait for either Gregory or Ichabod

[Woody]

Thanks Gregory. I find no fault with what you have said. And no ... I do not know of all the dynamics. I just know that there is a lot of personal advice giving going on around CA this time of year. Some may be warrented and some may be in excess.

[there buster]

I'm not at all certain why I was included in this request. I am not a moderator anywhere but on my own forum.

So, the general answer is:

I don't read the vast majority of posts, because it has been made pretty clear that my input into these matters is not welcomed or valued. That is clearly within the prerogatives of admin. Only the most egregious examples catch my attention. In the case I documented above, moderators told me they saw nothing wrong with the post.

I was chastized because I brought the issue to the moderators, rather than dealing with it publicly--even though I am not a moderator. When I offer suggestions openly, as on this thread, it is not long before a mod says, in effect, "stop complaining, and make suggestions." So it seems my suggestions are ignored. Once again, that's within their rights. But it leaves me with few alternatives.

Being straight forward is de facto a sin here, while 'giving the straight testimony' in terms of 'righteous indignation' is just fine. I say that, not because admin approves of such behaviors, but because the limited moderation essentially means the forum is in a state of nature--the forum rules itself, with little regard for any formal rules.

This means that it lapses into the types of dysfunctions with which church members are familiar, and with which they are comfortable. Passive aggression and pious posturing reign. It's no one's fault, it's everyone's fault.

MaleMan is more accurate than people feel comfortable with. Political correctness and the over-feminization of the church prevail. (And now the deluge begins).

Soooo. . .

Quote:

Igchabod,did . . . you read this

Sorry, I did not.

I really don't know what to say to the rest of the questions. If I were to respond, it would be purely on my own, not in any way representative of anyone or anything else.

In the example I gave earlier, I was not the recipient, nor did I use the name. I included sufficient context, and did not include the names of either the poster or the recipient, so that it could be evaluated without prejudice. Nor did I include the gender of the poster. At least I tried to eliminate even pronouns.

Under present circumstances, I do not believe any comments from me on the questions you raise would be constructive.

[Woody]

Quote:

There are times when it is appropriate to give advice without being asked for such.

I don't doubt what you have said. It is just my personal belief that the results that you desire ... in most cases ... are not accomplished by doing so.

And it is my desire to not see ANYONE hurt. How one can accomplish that ... I do not know. Maybe my desire is pie in the sky.

[bonnie]

I am sorry if I placed you in a spot. You were included as I have seen many times where you have addressed this particular topics of attacks,both blatant and underhanded and I don't see you as someone needing to hide behind subtrafuge when answering a question . Also you responded somewhat to the question by Lil Star.

I guess I was asking more of an opinion because of your apparant

involvement in helping solve some problems involving members of the SDA church. Not that you had authority to change things.

I know what you say about the "stop whining" has happened on more than one occasion, but Redwood seemingly repeatedly goes after a solution to attacks and is not subject to same.

Maybe I was just raised wrong, but what harm you can stop and refuse to places the ball in your court.

Ichabod said.....

This means that it lapses into the types of dysfunctions with which church members are familiar, and with which they are comfortable. Passive aggression and pious posturing reign. It's no one's fault, it's everyone's fault.

MaleMan is more accurate than people feel comfortable with. Political correctness and the over-feminization of the church prevail. (And now the deluge begins).

I do believe MaleMan was accurate,probably a little more abrasive than was necessary, but much preferable to "christians" that keep sliding thru the back door to take a poke at someone.

But why are we so comfortable with passive aggression and a postuing preening approach

I wasn't asking you to answer as a representative of anyone. Just your perspective in what you have seen dealing with conflict within the church or on forums

I am sorry you don't feel it appropriate to answer I would have enjoyed hearing your prespective

[Woody]

Undisclosed author said ....

Quote:

"Children want real people who stand for the truth at any cost and to their own hurt. Not the flakes that are floating around today."

"The land is filled with weakness and selfpity; blind, stupid fools are the majority of the people in North America and sad to say our church is not far behind."

We could discuss this comment in the manner in which Ichabod did with the other ones. But I suspect that many would support these words because the author is calling things the way he/she see them.

The "calling sin by its name" crowd will love this. Those who respect the Seventh day Adventist Church might be somewhat concerned.

I am in the latter.

[bonnie]

Undisclosed author said ....

Quote:

"Children want real people who stand for the truth at any cost and to their own hurt. Not the flakes that are floating around today."

"The land is filled with weakness and selfpity; blind, stupid fools are the majority of the people in North America and sad to say our church is not far behind."

We could discuss this comment in the manner in which Ichabod did with the other ones. But I suspect that many would support these words because the author is calling things the way he/she see them.

The "calling sin by its name" crowd will love this. Those who respect the Seventh day Adventist Church might be somewhat concerned.

I am in the latter.

Was this a continuing statement, repeated over and over in different inappropriate topics??

Is this directed at someone specific? I read it but don't recall.

What is your aversion to calling sin by it's rightful name?

I am not talking of singling out one person and going for the throat. Simply your aversion to calling sin by it's right name

[bonnie]

To the one that wants to make this a game and see who the winner will be,sorry, not interested.

Please restrict the pm's and not use them as subtle threats.

Thank you

[Woody]

Quote:

Was this a continuing statement, repeated over and over

Personally ???

I think attacking the church that I love just once is once too many. Particularly when one is attacking the "people" in the church.

But I guess this dismisses the idea of a list. Some people think that if a bad comment is said only once then it is permissible. Some feel twice etc etc. So, I guess I am at the point of where Stan has been.

Pulling ones hair out.

OK Stan ... I am coming to your side. The issues are in the eye of the beholder. And I am becoming bald. How are you doing?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Was this a continuing statement, repeated over and over

Personally ???

I think attacking the church that I love just once is once too many. Particularly when one is attacking the "people" in the church.

But I guess this dismisses the idea of a list. Some people think that if a bad comment is said only once then it is permissible. Some feel twice etc etc. So, I guess I am at the point of where Stan has been.

Pulling ones hair out.

OK Stan ... I am coming to your side. The issues are in the eye of the beholder.

I really couldn't find where I said once was fine, maybe twice. If you can locate it I will be glad to delete it.

The statement you posted seemed a lot more general than a specific attack on the church, a specific person, calling them self-righteous or a legalist. Then taking same comment and using over and over.

What is the difficulty with staying on the topic I believe you started-Personal Attacks

[bonnie]

I will give the floor to you until such a time someone expresses an interest in a straight forward approach to all this. Otherwise pointless to the extreme.

It can provide humor for those looking for it or food for thought for some,or whatever.

Give some an outlet to vent