Have you had it with simpleman?

[Emproph]

This thread is a waste of my time. I hate to suggest permanently banning anyone, but without a suspension policy there's really no other option.

Kara I see a double standard here with Simpleman. While he says that it is constitutional to discriminate against people or even to hate them, he seems to be saying it is unconstitutional for people not to speak out against it. As I've said before,Soulforce has the right to exercise free speech even if it means they go to jail and even if it is based on their religious convictions.Have you read a word that I have typed? Or do you just think "Oh, he doesn't support us to the last end of his nerve, so he must be an evil, bigoted, hate-monger" every time you see my penname on this site? I feel compelled to make a motion to call troll.
I second that motion.

Last night:
You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.
I would have just done it the first time. You truly are my biggest watchdog
on this site, so I'll be sure never to err again.

In the post immediately after that:
I don't know what you mean by "false information" but if you are referring to Bush's reference to British intelligence and uranium from Niger, and how Joseph Wilson tried to say that Bush lied about it, then all I can say is that Wilson has been proven a fraud. His wife, a CIA agent whose position wasn't classified, recommended him for an unpaid trip to Niger to meet with dignitaries. Once there, he asked them if they had sold any uranium to Hussein. Of course their leaders would deny this, because they don't want the US and UN crawling up their behind either. Wilson comes back and tries to con America into believing that his report was ignored and that Bush had been lying about the WMD's all along, when his "report" had never reached anyone important's desk (such as Cheney, which he claimed that it had). Furthermore, his report was nothing more than what he gleaned from the aforementioned conversations with Nigerian leaders. And British intelligence also confirmed that they had indeed collected evidence that Niger had sold uranium to Hussein.

I'm sure there are other claims of false information, but this is the most-reported one. If there is any other "false information" I'd be glad to take a look at it.

I might acccept such one-sided tripe from someone who doesn't own a TV OR a computer, but obviously simpleman at the very least has access to a computer, yet chooses not to Google or live up to his own promise to not "err" in regard to qualifying his facts.

To be clear, I could possibly accept non-verification IF it was actual information being disputed, however, I do not accept the regurgitation of sheer right-wing-nut propaganda.

Let's consider that last quote from someone who watches the news channels and CSPAN every single day.

This all came out recently in the Scooter Libby trial and I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so if anyone has a better LEGITIMATE recollection of events, please feel free to correct me (or add). Point being, I AM AWARE OF BOTH "VERSIONS" OF THE STORY!


The Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq BEFORE they even entered office. In order to help make their case, when they found out about the rumor of uranium from Niger being sold to Iraq, Cheney called the CIA to have someone find out if the rumor was true. Joe Wilson was sent, came back, and said "No, the rumor was based on FORGED documents, don't use it as evidence."

They then KNOWINGLY used this false information as evidence of WMD'S in Iraq. Joe Wilson then wrote an article in the NY Times detailing this falsehood and he was then discredited as a result and his wife's (Valerie Plame) SELF-ADMITTED (to congress) covert status was outed to the press.*

Yet THIS is the best we can hope from Simpleman in regard to this information:
I'm sure there are other claims of false information, but this is the most-reported one. If there is any other "false information" I'd be glad to take a look at it. Now does that sound like the attitude of someone who has even the least interest in finding truth?
_____
* Understand the implications of all this. As a covert agent (to protect the US from terrorism), everyone she ever worked with, and their families and friends have now potentially been put in permanent danger, as they were all outed along with undercover agent Valerie Plame.

Additionally, consider the message to the rest of the world that has been sent to potential sources of information; If you help U.S., we'll out you to your government in a second if it suits our vindictive agenda against our own.
____
All of this useful banter could have been saved for the thread in question. That's why I call this thread a waste. It's not about sharing the contents within, it's about the need to waste them as examples.

Long story short, I'm sick of pulling simpleman's weight.

[andrewlittle]

I have no time for people who only listen to find little gaps n which they can continue to insert their own ideological, unreflective snippets. Listening and considering the arguments of others are skills that take practice and enamate from a desire to learn and make judicious decisions. They are sometimes remarkably absent. And Simpleman ain't the only one.

[Daniel]

Seeing that I made a post on the thread Emproph refers to, I think a comment is in order.

While it is considered impolite to talk about another person in the third person (and I caught hell from Dewdrop in regards to a thread I started after my experience with Blossom), this comes to mind.

As Mel White has said, we have to outlove those that oppose us. I'm sure I could do a better job of that, seeing that the expression in my last post to the person under discussion- ie "You are full of crap!" - is undoubtedly a refutation of the concept. :rolleyes:

However, what did Mel White do when Jerry Falwell said misinformed and misguided things about gay people from his pulpit? He stood up - literally- he stood up in silence.

My sense is that we have to do our own standing up- each in our own way.

Maybe silence really is golden in this case.

[antonyh]

I have no time for people who only listen to find little gaps n which they can continue to insert their own ideological, unreflective snippets. Listening and considering the arguments of others are skills that take practice and enamate from a desire to learn and make judicious decisions. They are sometimes remarkably absent. And Simpleman ain't the only one.

I think Andrew is right. Considering the arguments of others is important. In a forum like this it is difficult because some of the threads are "rapid" fire...so many posts. It is overwhelming to take the time to digest all the material. In addition to that, electronic communication like this can easily be misinterpreted as hostility when someone did not intend any hostility. The final point I want to make is that we're dealing with very, very controversial topics at best and there are bound to be heated exchanges. That is why we keep discussions about religion and politics out of our thanksgiving dinner conversation at home given the huge diversity of opinion in my immediate family.

As for banning Simpleman...I'd have to vote no. He brings some important counterpoint to all of us wild, wacky lefty liberals on here. At the end of the day I value the fact that we have plenty of diversity of opinion in this nation. It makes us stronger.

[BrentRichards]

Unless someone is being vulgar, spamming, etc., I don't vote for banning. Don't ban on disagreement, or even stubbornness. I'm a big boy, and I can just choose not to talk to people who I think are wasting my time.

[u-dog]

I mostly don't read Simpleguys posts. They are rather on the long side and mostly don't interest me that much... plus they tend to be repetative and don't really address what anyone has said before and so there seems no point in replying to them. But aside from that I see no reason why he shouldn't go on posting.

I think a person needs to meaner than he is to get the boot.

just my opinion for what its worth.

Dave

[Zerbie]

Ya know, I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think it's necessary.

Yes, I have had it with Simpleman. And ya know what? I'll deal with that by just not reading his posts anymore. I don't know if he has violated any guidelines recently b/c I have stopped reading him. Unless he has violated guidelines, he should not be banned: it's our responsibility to gauge whether or not to read & respond to him.

If you feel strongly enough about banning him, I'd much prefer it if you expressed that opinion to the moderators privately without putting his participation up for a popular vote.

[BruceChris]

But does not love you, or me, or the rest of us. I'm kinda with Daniel, but mostly with Zerbie.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[keltic63]

I think a person needs to meaner than he is to get the boot.


a person gets the boot (banned) for violating the guidelines. (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1)

[u-dog]

a person gets the boot (banned) for violating the guidelines. (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1)


Are you interpreting those guidelines as literal and inerrant? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Are they the ACTUAL words of Mel White? or just a collection of suggestions from people who have been influenced by Mel White?

[Daniel]

I was not, by the way, trying to say that Simplman should be silenced. I'm just going to think about where I place my energy and commitment in the future. That seems the better part of prudence.

This comes from the concept within Buddhism called 'Right Speech'. There are times to speak out and times to shut up. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

One can only get on the merry-go-round so many times before one says: "Gee....was that worth it? Is this a real dialogue? Whom is this benefitting?" I think this is what Emproph is asking. Not that Simpleman should be banned (correct me if I'm wrong Patrick!).

~

I once hear a story about a guru in an ashram in India. He liked to keep one or two 'crazy' people around so that things wouldn't get too comfortable- so that everyone would have to face their 'stuff'.

Perhaps our greatest teachers are those who drive us the most crazy.

~

From the Artist's Way:

Crazymakers are those personalities that create storm centers. They are often charismatic, frequently charming, highly inventive, and powerfully persuasive. And, for the creative person in their vicinity, they are enormously destructive. you know the type: charismatic, but out of control, long on problems, and short on solutions.

Crazymakers are the kind of people who can take over your whole life. To fixer-uppers, they are irresistible: so much to change, so many distractions...

If you are involved with a crazymaker, you probably know it already, and you certainly recognize the thumbnail description in the paragraph above. Crazymakers like drama. If they can swing it, they are the star. Everyone around them functions as supporting cast, picking up their cues, their entrances and exits, from the crazymaker's (crazy) whims (pp. 44 and 45).

[Zerbie]

Are you interpreting those guidelines as literal and inerrant? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Are they the ACTUAL words of Mel White? or just a collection of suggestions from people who have been influenced by Mel White?

Put 'em up Dave! I'm lunging atcha brandishing a wet noodle.
:smashy:

[BrentRichards]

a person gets the boot (banned) for violating the guidelines. (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1)

Are you interpreting those guidelines as literal and inerrant? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Are they the ACTUAL words of Mel White? or just a collection of suggestions from people who have been influenced by Mel White?


Wait a minute, are you saying that the guidelines are more important than the Bible? Which comes first?

[tdogg]

I was not, by the way, trying to say that Simplman should be silenced. I'm just going to think about where I place my energy and commitment in the future. That seems the better part of prudence.

This comes from the concept within Buddhism called 'Right Speech'. There are times to speak out and times to shut up. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

One can only get on the merry-go-round so many times before one says: "Gee....was that worth it? Is this a real dialogue? Whom is this benefitting?" I think this is what Emproph is asking. Not that Simpleman should be banned (correct me if I'm wrong Patrick!).


That is what I'm thinking. First is it worth expending my energy even reading Simple's posts anymore. Then if I choose to read them, do I bother responding to anything? I'm thinking not. My thoughts were 'silent responses' by not responding to anything he posts. At least until he starts making some sense. Banned? Probably nothing there to ban him at this time. But we certainly have a choice whether or not to respond or even read.

We cannot change anyone, only ourselves and how we deal.

[tpdncr4christ]

I'm a big boy, and I can just choose not to talk to people who I think are wasting my time.

He isn't just talking about Simple Man you know.

Oh, and by the way, don't you dare get rid of this kid. Maybe you haven't noticed but I keep saying, about his posts, "IAGREEIAGREEIAGREE!!!" but no one has posted anything about getting rid of me... The more and more you get on him the more and more I think he is right. I've been trying to say the same stuff as he has, and yet from him it is offensive. I'm starting to think it is because of our previous conversations. That's just not cool.

I think you should grow up. If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. Hmm... I feel redundant... so I'll repeat, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. That goes for everyone.

[tpdncr4christ]

I refuse to vote in your pole... there is no, "I am mature enough to know when I don't want to talk to someone" option... so I have nothing to click.

[tdogg]

But Austin, you aren't being disrespectful to GLBT people. We don't have to agree, but there should at least be mutual disrespect.

I personally do not feel the need to respond to Simple any longer. I'm done, over, through. No more energy for that. But I don't feel the same about you. I don't feel disrespected by your posts I guess.

[Zerbie]

He isn't just talking about Simple Man you know.

Oh, and by the way, don't you dare get rid of this kid. Maybe you haven't noticed but I keep saying, about his posts, "IAGREEIAGREEIAGREE!!!" but no one has posted anything about getting rid of me... The more and more you get on him the more and more I think he is right. I've been trying to say the same stuff as he has, and yet from him it is offensive. I'm starting to think it is because of our previous conversations. That's just not cool.

.

Austin, take the time to ponder WHY. There are reasons why Simple's remarks so frequently result in anger and offense.

[u-dog]

Wait a minute, are you saying that the guidelines are more important than the Bible? Which comes first?

I think I'm saying that the Guidlines TRUMP the US Constitution and that some Soulforce members rely too much on the freedoms they enjoy under the guidelines.:rolleyes:

[alakazoom87]

What do you mean by troll?

[keltic63]

What do you mean by troll?

simon/sammy


is that you?

[Progo35]

Banning someone will only hurt the gay cause by causing others to feel that those involved are biased against those who hold other opinions. Simpleman has said that he supports gay rights, but that he would place certain limits on them. Those in this forum may feel like climbing a wall over this, and it's understandable, but it is not appropriate to derail people with legitimate concerns. E's poll wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't attached, "I love it when people waste my time" to the No part.

[tdogg]

simon/sammy


is that you?

I've certainly had my suspicions...fess up fella if its true.

[ladyinred]

People do have a right to disagree and not be "nice". I suppose if someone was on the receiving end of a hate crime, for example the idea that they should be "nice to the perpetrator" might not sit too well with them.While I advocate being kind that is not the same as being a doormat or letting someone else's opinions dictate to you how you should feel , or think. And I do think it is a big misperception to say that people here who disagree with Simpleman hate him.

Are they turned off by his opinions, I'd say yes.I also think that Simpleman is playing the poor, WOE is me victim, and if he doesn't like the idea of people standing up for their convictions or disagreeing with him or countering him with questions or alternative view points, then he can leave.

BUT do not expect people on this forum who feel strongly about the anti-gay stance to say,"Well, gee, you have a point, we really shouldn't have rights, or disagree. Or gee, we really shouldn't protest, or go on equality rides because it might "offend" others who have a strong anti-gay stance. While I agree we should not stoop to name calling or belittling or hate speech, yes we do have a right to speak up and point out what we don't like about the other person's comments and even disagree , even if they feel they are offended.

[ladyinred]

Suppose for example we were having a dialogue with Hitler,(I know this is an extreme example and I'm not saying Simpleman is anything like Hitler, but bear with me) Hitler came on this forum and started to talk about how gays and jews should be exterminated, would we try to think of something "nice" to say to him or would we find his dialogue offensive and rephrehensible. I certainly wouldn't say,"Well gee, Hit, you might have a point there." If anything I would try to point out the fallacies of his thinking and try to dissuade him from such a horrid outlook.

I think people here are made to feel like they should blindly and graciously accept Simpleman's viewpoint when they see his remarks as blatantly anti-gay and demeaning and dehumanizing to them. Does he have a right to his own view, yes, but he does not have the right to impose them on the rest of us and then whine when we don't see things his way. Sorry, I'm with Daniel on this one.

[ladyinred]

Quote:
Crazymakers are those personalities that create storm centers. They are often charismatic, frequently charming, highly inventive, and powerfully persuasive. And, for the creative person in their vicinity, they are enormously destructive. you know the type: charismatic, but out of control, long on problems, and short on solutions.

Crazymakers are the kind of people who can take over your whole life. To fixer-uppers, they are irresistible: so much to change, so many distractions...

If you are involved with a crazymaker, you probably know it already, and you certainly recognize the thumbnail description in the paragraph above. Crazymakers like drama. If they can swing it, they are the star. Everyone around them functions as supporting cast, picking up their cues, their entrances and exits, from the crazymaker's (crazy) whims (pp. 44 and 45).

__________________
Hey Daniel how about another viewpoint on the crazymakers(I felt like your post was enlightening) Now this may be somewhat off-track when it mentions growing up with crazymaking and dysfunctional homes but I also feel like it pertains to dysfunctional religion as well and I feel it is pertinent when dealing with crazymaking in general and people who do it. Perhaps you have had the feeling , that someone is screwing with your mind and emotions, trying to convince you , you are the bad guy, wrong and defensive for example for having you own view points---my words of course..

When you grow up in a crazymaking household, as I did, you don't know that it is crazymaking. As a child, you have no way of knowing that your parents may be projecting onto you their own wounded selves. You have no way of knowing that they can't really see who you are because they can't see their own essence. You just know that their behavior doesn't feel good. You might not have a word for the feeling that feels so awful - you just know that it feels so awful that you need to try to do something about it.

The word I have for this feeling is loneliness. It's not a great word to describe the terrible feeling, but it's the best I've come up with. Under the overall heading of loneliness you might have been aware of feeling alone, empty, afraid, abandoned, isolated, anxious, agitated, confused, sad, angry. These are some of the emotions we experience when we are very lonely - when we want to feel a connection with our parents or other caregivers (or how about other people?)and we can't because they are not only not available to it, but they are blaming us for their unloving behavior. This is the crazymaking - treating us in unloving ways and acting as if it is our fault that they are behaving the way they are.**** (I feel this is relevant)

Crazymaking takes away a child's sense of safety - of being seen, heard, and validated. Because it creates so much inner pain, we all learn ways to protect against the intense loneliness that will always result from crazymaking. Each of us chose different strategies, or a combination of strategies, to attempt to have control over getting the love and connection we needed. Some of us chose to become caretakers - good girls and boys attempting to do everything right in the hopes of warding off the blame. Others chose to act out with anger and temper tantrums in reaction to the crazy making. We might have learned, as we moved into adolescence, to adopt the same judgmentalness and blaming behavior that we grew up with, becoming crazy makers ourselves. Or, we might have resorted to resistance - shutting down or procrastinating in our attempts to not be controlled by the crazy making. All of our protective behavior had the intent to get love, avoid pain, and feel safe. We became addicted to our protections as a way to avoid the loneliness of disconnection and crazymaking.

At some point, if we want to grow into loving Adults and have loving relationships, we need to become aware of crazymaking - our own and others. We need to become aware of when we are saying one thing and doing another, when we are being dishonest and manipulative, when we are projecting our own unloving behavior onto another, when we are turning things around and putting it on the other person, and when we are blaming another for our own feelings and behavior. And we need to be aware of when another is behaving this way with us.

I have discovered that if someone is crazymaking me and I don't attend to it and name it, I will feel agitated. My agitation lets me know that I have not taken care of myself in the face of crazymaking behavior. I've found that if I just say, without blame or judgment, "This feels crazy making," then I feel fine. It's not another person's crazymaking behavior that causes me to feel upset, angry, defensive, or to resort to caretaking. It's my own lack of naming it and getting hooked into it as a result of not being aware of it.

No matter how crazymaking another person is - blaming you, accusing you, lying to you, resisting you - you can maintain your equanimity if you become aware that it is crazymaking and name it out loud. This is challenging if you grew up with crazymaking, but when you learn to do it, your Inner Child will feel so safe and happy!

[Zerbie]

Wow! Fantastic post, Red!! (the one about crazymaking & how to understand it.)

Just fantastic. Totally on the mark.

I have a word to suggest if you are looking for a word other than loneliness: helplessness.

But whatever you call it, I know what you mean. being left to deal with it all alone is part of creating that helplessness.

[ladyinred]

Do you have the right to say I will no longer engage in this conversation,yes you do,if it feels emotionally and mentally draining to you and if you feel you have to constantly defend your view points to other person , it is time to walk away, that conversation will get you nowhere fast. I would look at the motives and intent of the other person, is it a one way conversation going nowhere? Do you feel like you are beating your head against the brick wall with this person?

Time to say enough is enough. this person will try endlessly to convince you of the rightness of their view and the wrongness of yours. It is different when someone come to you with an open mind with an intention to learn something and not just try to shove their own view point down your throat. Taking a stand on what you feel strongly about is not wrong,but just realize other people may not see things your way.

I've had disagreements with friends , where I would state my view point and they would state theirs, and because we were getting nowhere with trying to convince each other which of us was right,I just said, Hey we just do not see eye to eye on this , then discussion ended . are we still friends? Of course, but it taught me that others don't always see things according to my world view and perspective.

[simpleman]

People do have a right to disagree and not be "nice". I suppose if someone was on the receiving end of a hate crime, for example the idea that they should be "nice to the perpetrator" might not sit too well with them.While I advocate being kind that is not the same as being a doormat or letting someone else's opinions dictate to you how you should feel , or think. And I do think it is a big misperception to say that people here who disagree with Simpleman hate him.

I never said I feel hated. I also don't believe that anybody has proposed that I am hated. No one has said they hate me. I honestly can tell you that I've never said that I am hated, nor do I feel hated.


Are they turned off by his opinions, I'd say yes.I also think that Simpleman is playing the poor, WOE is me victim, and if he doesn't like the idea of people standing up for their convictions or disagreeing with him or countering him with questions or alternative view points, then he can leave.

I never said that I felt victimized by anything. You can quote me, in several posts, as saying that I enjoy dialogue, arguments, and opposing viewpoints. I don't understand where you get "he doesn't like people standing up for their convictions" from "I enjoy hearing and exploring opposing viewpoints". I don't mind people countering my viewpoints at all. All I've said is that I would like my arguments to be considered based on more than what people see as bigotry or prejudice on my part. I say that because there have been many occasions where people have made the presumption that my stances on public policy issues stem directly from prejudiced beliefs, and instead of responding to people's specific policy questions, I've had to spend my time in point-by-point defense of myself, trying tirelessly to explain that I am not, in fact, a bigot. That doesn't mean that I don't want people to oppose me. I know that I will meet opposition here, it's par for the course.


BUT do not expect people on this forum who feel strongly about the anti-gay stance to say,"Well, gee, you have a point, we really shouldn't have rights, or disagree. Or gee, we really shouldn't protest, or go on equality rides because it might "offend" others who have a strong anti-gay stance. While I agree we should not stoop to name calling or belittling or hate speech, yes we do have a right to speak up and point out what we don't like about the other person's comments and even disagree , even if they feel they are offended.

I have never said that gays shouldn't have rights. You can also find several posts where I say that I think gays still don't have rights that I believe the Constitution entitles them to. I never said that the Equality Ride shouldn't happen because it might offend people. I think if you go back and read all my posts, they don't say "gays shouldn't have rights, and they should shut up". I've even had to defend my posts against this criticism before.

Everybody seems to want to just throw me into the same bin as the likes of James Dobson, et al, but I'm a little different than them. No one will take the time to really find that out, rather I am generally just written off as another Bible-thumping, pontificating, closed-minded, pseudo-Christian who hates all people who are different. I can't say anything I haven't already said to dispell this misconception.

To everybody, re: this thread:

If you want me to go, just say so. I won't hang around if everybody just wants me to leave. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I'm sure there are plenty of you who would just as soon me never come back. That being said, I do appreciate the hospitality that many have offered on this board, but if it's the consensus that I disappear, I'll delete my account, and you can all wash your hands of me forever. Get back to me on it.

[ladyinred]

Not going there Simpleman, you are on your own, what everyone else decides is up to them I can only speak for myself.I'm not saying you are a bad guy,but I just do not want to pursue this conversation any longer.

[Daniel]

What do you mean by troll?

An exhaustive explanation regarding trolls can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Here is one relevant section.


Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is known only to the troll.

A person who retaliates (using whatever means) as a result of a misunderstanding (or as a way of rebelling against the overzealous application of rules) is not a troll. A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either as a goal in and of itself or as a means of attacking the board perhaps motivated by opposition to the ethos of the board. For example, a neo-Nazi approaching a Jewish forum with the intention of attacking the members, purely because the neo-Nazi knows the forum to contain Jewish members, will be considered a troll.

The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person, coupled with the person's history with the forum or group. An indignant user who has had a previous normal relationship with the group is not a troll, even if the user uses methods of attack that are characteristic of a troll attack.
The term "troll" is often used as an insult in online communications, resulting in it being largely misapplied.

[Daniel]

A very deep one too!

I was right with you regarding crazymaker stuff. And could see where you went with the concept. You stated my own experience in many respects, having thought a lot over the years about my own family dynamic and how it has shaped me. And your words about procrastination hit home. At the age of 48, there are deeper places that need healing.

What you resist persists. That's how I think of it.

Thank you for your words. They are a bright beacon in remembering good things. Good actions. Good stuff.

[ladyinred]

Zerbie that post on crazymaking was written by Dr, Margaret Paul not me, I had had it saved to my documents and her name was not posted on the article, but to give credit to whom it is due, I thought I would mention the author. I do think it pertains to what many of us in the LGBT community are going through ,possibly with our folks , our peers and possibly our churches. I also did some research on spiritual abuse.

While the RR quotes, "Love the sinner but hate the sin",I feel like many of their actions speak otherwise. When they admantly oppose legislation which would make our own lives easier, they, I feel would like to see that legislation not passed, have us kicked out of our homes , apartments and lose our jobs to justify their agenda."

I feel that they are promoting loveless behavior and spiritual abuse through their agenda. They may deny it, but I've read enough on them to know that what they are promoting is a form of spiritual abuse. Could you ever do such hurtful ,uncaring things to people you care about? Of course not. So I think their rhetoric and anti-gay stance is a form of crazymaking on their part.

How on earth can you justify legislation that hurts people , that denies them their humanity and basic rights? How on earth can you say you truly care about someone and then behave in vindictive and unloving ways toward them.Sick.

[Daniel]

If you want me to go, just say so. I won't hang around if everybody just wants me to leave. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I'm sure there are plenty of you who would just as soon me never come back. That being said, I do appreciate the hospitality that many have offered on this board, but if it's the consensus that I disappear, I'll delete my account, and you can all wash your hands of me forever. Get back to me on it.

This is the second or third time you've trotted this out.

I mean. Come on. It's like you are the last guy to be picked for the dodge ball team and are begging to stay. And if you don't have someone say 'please stay' you''ll have the satisfaction of knowing that those damn homosexuals gave you the boot. That would be something to boast about I suppose.

I mean. Really. Who are you kidding?

No one is going to ask you to leave, so you better as well stop making ultimatums. We have manners after all, despite what you think. Remember: we're the folks who have been charged with outloving you. And we don't give up so easy.

You'll either leave when you aren't getting any juice out of the interaction or you don't observe the guidelines.

Either way, it's up to you.

[simpleman]

I mean. Come on. It's like you are the last guy to be picked for the dodge ball team and are begging to stay. And if you don't have someone say 'please stay' you''ll have the satisfaction of knowing that those damn homosexuals gave you the boot. That would be something to boast about I suppose.

It's not like that. I can't really convince you otherwise, I guess. I'm not looking to brag about getting kicked off of a message board by everybody. I work really hard to be as careful as a I can be with really sensitive matters, out of respect for other people. It would be out of my character to do something worthy of being booted from the board. Asking me to leave is not being booted. Last guy to be picked for dodgeball? Sheesh, Daniel, does the pithiness ever end with you?


Remember: we're the folks who have been charged with outloving you.
I really want to avoid being rude about this, but I don't really see how you can call the way you've treated me "love" or "outloving". I don't know, maybe tpdncr could back me up on this? Maybe not. Either way, I wouldn't call it love. I don't know what I would call it, but I generally don't consider references to being "the last guy to be picked for dodgeball" as very loving.

[ladyinred]

LOL, don't feel bad Simpleman,in highschool I was always picked last when it came to sports. I was definitely not Ms. popularity.:lol:

[keltic63]

a message from your cranky, allergy-riddled, moderator:

knock it off! :mad:

anyone remember this thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2872)?

Simpleman: join in on some other conversations or start a silly thread in general chat so we can see that you are more than these 1 or 2 issues and not a troll.

Daniel: go sit on your cushion, NOW! You've been like a dog with a bone on this stuff with Simpleman.

The rest of you: I haven't been able to read every post in this forum this week. There are probably 2 pages of threads that have posts I haven't read yet. Moderators rely on you to notify us of guideline (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1)violations. If you think that anyone here has done that, you need to report that post! As far as I can tell, Simpleman has not broken our guidelines, and until he does, he is welcome to post here. Remember, no one is forcing you to reply to any posts!

Now, I have to get ready for school: we're playing a softball game against the 6th graders. This is stressful for me as I'm not a lesbian and not very good at softball! (That part is a joke girls! don't pm me about stereotypes!) :p

oh yeah. I'm locking this thread.