Bunny Trails

[temporal1]

"I think you are a bad person" doesn't really qualify as an "I" statement. "I think (s)he is a bad person" isn't much of an improvement.

If this is directed to my response to ken_s, i’d like to add, my attempt to explain my shortfall is not meant to justify. I don’t see those 2 things as the same.

And, to repeat, I’m not claiming to be master of any of it. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate what I fail to master.

[Ken]

Wow Temporal1, can we call a truce? Where is all this coming from?

In this thread you have called me "biased against individuals," that I "write off whole groups as unworthy" that I am a "crank" that I "represent a type that sanctimoniously influences thousands with my personal political and social biases" . You said "God have mercy on the children I teach", that I make "pathetic copies and pastes" and that I play "nasty games" When in point of fact you have absolutely no idea how scrupulously I keep politics, religion, and other social biases out of my classroom.

In contrast, the only remotely personal thing I wrote about you was that I thought you tend to make broad-sweeping generalizations to support your world view. Which I thought were often not accurate. And that was only in direct response to you attacking me personally.

Anyone can scroll up this thread and see that I kept my opinions strictly to the topic of this thread which is the 1st Amendment. All of my comments were related to the Supreme Court's recent ruling to limit the power of public schools to regulate student speech outside of school. Which I happened to agree with and I explained why. I think all Americans and not just Anabaptists should be wary of the ability of the government to regulate their children's conduct outside of school. And I explained why I thought that. And I am perfectly happy and willing and interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.

[temporal1]

In contrast, the only remotely personal thing I wrote about you was that I thought you tend to make broad-sweeping generalizations to support your world view. Which I thought were often not accurate. And that was only in direct response to you attacking me personally.

my comments were not confined to this thread but were regarding your posting history.

I avoid commenting to you. I remove your posts when replying to others, your views are so predictable.
I regret ever falling into temptation to respond to you.

Possibly you interpret no response as agreement.
Often it is not - not just mine. Agreement should not be presumed. Most have no need or desire to engage in useless debates. That does not mean they agree.
It’s probably more accurate to imagine silence indicates disagreement, until and unless stated.

The heart option helps a bit with that. It’s not a complete function, but a small indicator.

[Robert]

In contrast, the only remotely personal thing I wrote about you was that I thought you tend to make broad-sweeping generalizations to support your world view. Which I thought were often not accurate. And that was only in direct response to you attacking me personally.

my comments were not confined to this thread but were regarding your posting history.

I avoid commenting to you. I remove your posts when replying to others, your views are so predictable.
I regret ever falling into temptation to respond to you.

Possibly you interpret no response as agreement.
Often it is not - not just mine. Agreement should not be presumed. Most have no need or desire to engage in useless debates. That does not mean they agree.
It’s probably more accurate to imagine silence indicates disagreement, until and unless stated.

The heart option helps a bit with that. It’s not a complete function, but a small indicator.

I lot of "you"s in the past few posts. Yes, they will be moved to the bunny trail, but not tonight. It is late and I have to go to work in the morning. Don't add to them, add to the topic.

[temporal1]

In contrast, the only remotely personal thing I wrote about you was that I thought you tend to make broad-sweeping generalizations to support your world view. Which I thought were often not accurate. And that was only in direct response to you attacking me personally.

my comments were not confined to this thread but were regarding your posting history.

I avoid commenting to you. I remove your posts when replying to others, your views are so predictable.
I regret ever falling into temptation to respond to you.

Possibly you interpret no response as agreement.
Often it is not - not just mine. Agreement should not be presumed. Most have no need or desire to engage in useless debates. That does not mean they agree.
It’s probably more accurate to imagine silence indicates disagreement, until and unless stated.

The heart option helps a bit with that. It’s not a complete function, but a small indicator.

I lot of "you"s in the past few posts. Yes, they will be moved to the bunny trail, but not tonight. It is late and I have to go to work in the morning. Don't add to them, add to the topic.

ok. thanks.
sorry to be a bother. to “you” and everyone.
my heart is very sad for so many things i see IRL, and experience, too.

[Robert]

I lot of "you"s in the past few posts. Yes, they will be moved to the bunny trail, but not tonight. It is late and I have to go to work in the morning. Don't add to them, add to the topic.

ok. thanks.
sorry to be a bother. to “you” and everyone.

It was not just you. We all do it. We all have to work harder.

my heart is very sad for so many things i see IRL, and experience, too.

Good example. Thanks.

Jesus also teaches us that when we are hurting, we do not lash out in pain, but in love and compassion. I can not imagine how he did it on the cross, but he did. I asked him once to let me take his place. He looked down at me and said no. I asked why. His answer told me so much.

"Because I love you."

[ken_sylvania]

Our write up is called a "statement of practice". It is intended to describe our practice in a general way so that anyone coming in knows what we are shooting for.

I had no idea that Ernie belonged to the Rod and Gun Club.

[JimFoxvog]

And the tactic of attacking the messenger instead of the message has, again, been played.

Is this from the one who has banned certain common news sources?

[GaryK]

I was responding to your claim that Raffensperger's tweet that Robert posted was referring to the June 9 primary. According to The Hill, that tweet was not referring to the June 9 primary, but rather the recent discovery of double counted ballots.

Recent discovery?

I thought the article you pointed to said it was caught in the first of the three recounts. That was a long time ago. A lot of things that were caught and corrected either before or during the recounts seem to be getting reheated and served up as though these recounts and investigations never happened.

Boot, you have asked me not to respond to your posts, which I have been honoring. Two times, in private discussions, I have pointed out that it seems inconsistent for you to ask me not to respond to your posts, only for you to continue responding to mine. Since it appears that this is not going to change, I feel sort of forced to respond publicly so that the rest of the forum knows, why, other than this post (which is not a response to the actual post), I have not been responding to yours.

[temporal1]

I was responding to your claim that Raffensperger's tweet that Robert posted was referring to the June 9 primary. According to The Hill, that tweet was not referring to the June 9 primary, but rather the recent discovery of double counted ballots.

Recent discovery?

I thought the article you pointed to said it was caught in the first of the three recounts. That was a long time ago. A lot of things that were caught and corrected either before or during the recounts seem to be getting reheated and served up as though these recounts and investigations never happened.

Boot, you have asked me not to respond to your posts, which I have been honoring. Two times, in private discussions, I have pointed out that it seems inconsistent for you to ask me not to respond to your posts, only for you to continue responding to mine. Since it appears that this is not going to change, I feel sort of forced to respond publicly so that the rest of the forum knows, why, other than this post (which is not a response to the actual post), I have not been responding to yours.

This is interesting. i had no idea.
Interesting, in the past, for peace, i respectfully requested boot to refrain from responding to my posts, he categorically refused with haughty explanation he has every right to respond, and he feels personal obligation to correct. admin+mods agreed, counseling me this is an open forum. (this was probably on MD, the current search function is impaired, i won’t try to find a quote).

i want to add, i once received a similar request from a member in PM, on the aggressive side,
i respected his request for space immediately, without request for explanation. happily, over time, that member reached out to me, we began mutually respectful virtual interaction that continues.

there are rules. there is the spirit.
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-6.htm

i expect no change, no improvement. it is what it is.

- - -

sometimes, i don’t “heart” comments i like, because of anticipated accusations of bullying, factions, goon squads, etc.
the perennial victim mentality.