Inside and Outside the Cup

[Bootstrap]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

Here's why I assumed that: I requested that people read the pamphlet before they post in this thread on Thursday, at 5:38 pm. At 6:38 pm, Ken posted, objecting to my request, saying it shows that I have control issues. It was the same request Ernie made in the original thread. I thought it was reasonable here, too.

At 7:07 pm, you posted, without acknowledging the existence of my request. There were precisely 89 minutes between the time I made the request and the time you posted, and I assumed you had not acquired and read the pamphlet during that time. I also assumed you would at least acknowledge my request if you had read the pamphlet after I made that request.

That still seems like a reasonable assumption to me. I would not have been offended if you had made that assumption under the same circumstances. Can you explain what is so offensive about this to you?

[Bootstrap]

I agree. Somehow all the disclaimers don't mean anything if a person has tunnel vision on one particular thing.

And in defense of John, he has spent most of his life doing expositional teaching from the New Testament. And I don't know that I have ever heard giving the impression that "the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers." He has begun talk about this the last decade as a side topic on occasion, but this side topic is not what he focuses on.

This pamphlet is not important to me. I was interested, when you started the original thread. I read it, I responded in that thread. I did not start the side threads (though it looks like it, since the first post in this thread was moved from another thread where it was not the first one).

But this is important to me: I did not intend to insult or offend plain people or John Martin in this thread or any other, and I apologize for that. There are some issues here that are clearly sensitive - I suspect a lot of what happened here is about those sensitivities. My interactions with plain people have been mostly positive, and I do respect your tradition.

[GaryK]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

Here's why I assumed that: I requested that people read the pamphlet before they post in this thread on Thursday, at 5:38 pm. At 6:38 pm, Ken posted, objecting to my request, saying it shows that I have control issues. It was the same request Ernie made in the original thread. I thought it was reasonable here, too.

At 7:07 pm, you posted, without acknowledging the existence of my request. There were precisely 89 minutes between the time I made the request and the time you posted, and I assumed you had not acquired and read the pamphlet during that time. I also assumed you would at least acknowledge my request if you had read the pamphlet after I made that request.

That still seems like a reasonable assumption to me. I would not have been offended if you had made that assumption under the same circumstances. Can you explain what is so offensive about this to you?

So which is it? You assumed I had not acquired and read the pamphlet during that time, or...

Can you explain how I could write the following if I have not read the pamphlet?

There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

I did not know if you had read the entire pamphlet or just a few pages at the beginning. And it is the end of the pamphlet that I was talking about.

[Bootstrap]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

Here's why I assumed that: I requested that people read the pamphlet before they post in this thread on Thursday, at 5:38 pm. At 6:38 pm, Ken posted, objecting to my request, saying it shows that I have control issues. It was the same request Ernie made in the original thread. I thought it was reasonable here, too.

At 7:07 pm, you posted, without acknowledging the existence of my request. There were precisely 89 minutes between the time I made the request and the time you posted, and I assumed you had not acquired and read the pamphlet during that time. I also assumed you would at least acknowledge my request if you had read the pamphlet after I made that request.

That still seems like a reasonable assumption to me. I would not have been offended if you had made that assumption under the same circumstances. Can you explain what is so offensive about this to you?

So which is it? You assumed I had not acquired and read the pamphlet during that time, or...

At what point in the conversation? At first, I assumed you had not read it at all. And you know what, you still haven't said that you have read it. Could we please get that out of the way Gary? Did you read the pamphlet? If so, when?

And why were you offended because I assumed you did not acquire the pamphlet and read it in the 89 minutes between the time I made the request and the time you posted? Or if you were not offended, why did you respond the way you did?

I also wondered why you responded this way:

Can you explain how I could write the following if I have not read the pamphlet?

There are lots of possible explanations. You managed to discuss this for seven pages without reading the pamphlet. You could have talked to someone who had read it. You could have started the pamphlet but not yet finished it. You could have read the whole pamphlet.

I have no idea how you went about writing that, and it's not my job to guess.

Did you read the pamphlet? If so, when? Were you offended that I did not assume you had read it in the 89 minutes after I made the request? If so, why? If not, why are you responding this way?

[Bootstrap]

This pamphlet is not important to me. I was interested, when you started the original thread. I read it, I responded in that thread. I did not start the side threads (though it looks like it, since the first post in this thread was moved from another thread where it was not the first one).

But this is important to me: I did not intend to insult or offend plain people or John Martin in this thread or any other, and I apologize for that. There are some issues here that are clearly sensitive - I suspect a lot of what happened here is about those sensitivities. My interactions with plain people have been mostly positive, and I do respect your tradition.

I certainly wasn't insulted or offended and I would be highly surprised if GaryK was. I think you grossly misrepresented John D's teaching and focus but I doubt even he would be offended by that. I am actually somewhat impressed how you were able to turn a purported apology into a barbed comment about how this whole kerfuffle was caused by other people being super-touchy!

It felt like more than a kerfuffle to me.

And no, that was not a barbed comment about people being super-touchy. But I think you illustrate something here - in this thread, there's a lot of projecting ugly thoughts onto me, thoughts that I do not have. Like this one. Suppose I were to treat you or Gary that way. How would you feel? How would you respond?

Here's why my apology was a little vague. I can't find specific things to apologize for here, and I don't want to apologize dishonestly. I don't think it was wrong to ask people to read the pamphlet. I don't think it was wrong to assume that Gary had not read the pamphlet in the 89 minutes between my request and the time he posted. If I misunderstood something in the pamphlet, we could have discussed what the pamphlet says and straighten it out, or decide we have different understandings, or whatever. If there is something that I should apologize for, what is it?

People were responding in ways that people often respond when they are offended. If people were not offended, I have a hard time understanding some of the responses to me. From your perspective, what do you think the conflict was? Or am I the only person who thinks there was uncomfortable conflict in this thread?

[Bootstrap]

I was not insulted or offended in the least, which is why I downloaded a Kindle version of the pamphlet, read it, and responded to a point Boot was making about the pamphlet that I felt mischaracterized what John D said.

Thanks for that clarification.

Are you sure you were not insulted or offended in the least? Is there still something that needs to be resolved here? To me, at least, it sure felt like things got very tense. And I felt rather denounced.

The point in the pamphlet got left behind by other things that were happening in the conversation.

[GaryK]

I was not insulted or offended in the least, which is why I downloaded a Kindle version of the pamphlet, read it, and responded to a point Boot was making about the pamphlet that I felt mischaracterized what John D said.

Thanks for that clarification.

Are you sure you were not insulted or offended in the least? Is there still something that needs to be resolved here? To me, at least, it sure felt like things got very tense. And I felt rather denounced.

The point in the pamphlet got left behind by other things that were happening in the conversation.

Yes, I'm sure. I have tried very hard, since I was a teen, not to allow myself to be offended by what people say and do. That's not to say that I won't point out what I believe are incorrect assumptions people make about what I say or do. And here again, you are questioning my truthfulness in saying I wasn't offended.

I really don't know why it's so difficult to say something to this effect - "I wrongly assumed you hadn't read the pamphlet when I could have noted the references to the pamphlet in your response to what I was saying about the pamphlet". Yet, here we are, still discussing something you started.

[Bootstrap]

Thanks for that clarification.

Are you sure you were not insulted or offended in the least? Is there still something that needs to be resolved here? To me, at least, it sure felt like things got very tense. And I felt rather denounced.

The point in the pamphlet got left behind by other things that were happening in the conversation.

Yes, I'm sure. I have tried very hard, since I was a teen, not to allow myself to be offended by what people say and do. That's not to say that I won't point out what I believe are incorrect assumptions people make about what I say or do. And here again, you are questioning my truthfulness in saying I wasn't offended.

So there's nothing to apologize for, then, since you were not offended in the least. There's certainly no issue from my side. I wish we could have clarified that earlier. And at lower energy levels.

Thanks for the clarification.

I really don't know why it's so difficult to say something to this effect - "I wrongly assumed you hadn't read the pamphlet when I could have noted the references to the pamphlet in your response to what I was saying about the pamphlet". Yet, here we are, still discussing something you started.

I'm not good at saying things that I do not believe to be true. It was not wrong for me to assume you had not read the pamphlet in the 89 minutes after I asked people to read it. We had already been talking about this pamphlet for 7 pages before you mentioned that you hadn't.

Yesterday, for the first time, you said clearly that you have read it. Thanks.

A question though: Since you were not insulted or offended, why not let it go? Why was it so important to you to focus on that instead of simply discussing the subject? Why get so personal against me?

[justme]

Boot, I'm going to ask you the same question. Why is this so important to you?