Unfortunately, Slip Disc is continuing to post to this thread. <Twirlip (talk about a slap in the face)
As a member, I have every right to post to any thread as long as I'm within the parameters of group guidelines. Secondly, if a member posts something that doesn't agree with you it is not considered a slap in the face. We argue, criticize and disagree in here all the time without feeling insulting or needing to be pampered with sweet phrases. Your statement: Slip Disc, since coming here I've been irrationally slapped in the face by you four times. Will you please leave me alone? < Tw I challenge You, any Member or Moderator to show where and when you have been irrationally slapped in the face "four times" by me. I don't think you can handle anyone challenging your views, there will be others. No one ever really gets it all right. Orn told you in the beginning: No problems with the nudge nudge Twir…we do that sort of thing often here. And, rather than deconstruct and project upon your original emoticon’s meaning, I gave a ‘straight’ response. OM “Returning you to your actual thread, with apologies ...” – T No offense taken at all…so far, even though not fully acclimated to our style here, no faux pas have been committed as I see it. Although it does appear that a bit of your personal style includes being a tad bit apologetic. OM I also stated early on prior to Orn: NO Offense, please don't get so apologetic, I'm not in any way upset. This is how we function or dysfunction here in Minds Eye, we tell it like it is, we say what we truly feel, we express without apprehension of attack. Feel free to express yourself, I was just clarifying the mistakes. SD On Jan 16, 7:58 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 16, 10:15 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Slip, he said "I believe in a God who is immanent in each of us, > > universally loving, > > and an absolute moral authority. I have no knowledge or opinion as to > > whether this God created the universe, or is omnipotent. ". Your > > argument from evil in Haiti does not impinge his belief, for he does > > not believe in God that is universally loving /and/ omnipotent. We > > don't expect semipotent beings to do much about Haiti. They might want > > to (being loving) but be unable to (being semipotent). Isn't your > > complaint is with the One who is universally loving /and/ all- > > powerful? > > It almost seems superfluous of me to add anything, because that is > perfectly clear, as well as being a perfectly accurate account of what > has just occurred - but for the sake of complete clarity, it is as > well for me to acknowledge it! > > This thread has gone in a direction not remotely like what I expected, > or would have wished. This bit of it at least makes sense (as did a > couple of other bits, to which I've replied separately), but I'm > afraid it's the unpleasant and irrational personal attack that most > sticks in my poor benighted mind. > > > On Jan 16, 12:04 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If subtle mud slinging or crass innuendo is your forte [...] > > Does anyone else even remotely think that I have engaged in "mud > slinging" or "crass innuendo", in this thread, or in any other? > > The only person I think I have been unpleasant to is Pat Robertson. > And I hope I haven't gone overboard in using even him as my personal > punchbag. (I think I've only said he's guilty of bad taste and extreme > insensitivity; and I definitely haven't said he's mad and should be > drugged and hospitalised, although perhaps he deserves that punishment > more than most people who get it.) > > > > I'll refrain from injecting into your posts. No problem for me. > > Unfortunately, Slip Disc is continuing to post to this thread. > > On some higher plane, no doubt this isn't "unfortunate" at all. It's > just that I'm not on that higher plane (yet). I'm still on the runway. > > > > On Jan 16, 12:19 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Although Slip Disc's response to my OP seems like a thoughtless and > > > > reflex one, I have to make allowance for the context of the tragedy in > > > > Haiti. > > That was meant to be conciliatory and understanding (without denying > the mistaken nature of his response to my OP). No good. So, does > anyone have any idea what is /really/ going on here, at an irrational > level? I'm not very good at dealing with this kind of thing, myself. > > I can only deal with irrational personal attacks if I can manage to > find them amusing, and/or think of them as specimens of human > behaviour to analyse, but it is hard to do that when you try to > introduce yourself to a group, which implies a certain level of trust > and vulnerability (I don't want to exaggerate how much - I've learned > the hard way not to trust too readily), and then someone puts the boot > in like this. At the very least, it takes the focus off what I was > trying to talk about in the OP; but, worse than that, it has made me > think very seriously of leaving Minds Eye, and I've only been here a > couple of days! That might be no great tragedy, but I would prefer to > avoid it if possible.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
