|
I, for the time being, am opting out of this
'micro-personality management' that, while having a 'brotherly/sisterly' sound
to it, smacks of something unhealthy. I just don't know what it is as
yet.Tentatively, it has a 'control' feel to it.
I'm beginning to get a sense of just who we all are
and, don't wish to 'shave off the rough edges' that reflect our distinctiveness.
Distinctiveness and sinfulness are NOT synonyms IMO.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 29, 2004 08:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's
Plagiarism
Judy, I think John is asking for permission to write you privately when
he thinks you have crossed the line with the personal attacks and
judgmental comments, and that you likewise write him privately when you
see him do it. This way it keeps it off the list, yet it also
responsibly seeks to help each other become better at thinking the best of one
another.
I personally would like to ask John if I could have the same relationship
with him and everyone else on this courtesy copied email. If I say
something that seems to be a personal attack, send me a private email.
If you become personal, would you welcome a loving private email from me
saying that you crossed the line, please reconsider and back off?
The goal is that we work together toward truth on the list and not be
judging the motives of one another or threatening one another.
Anyone receiving this email who would like this kind of partnership,
please reply all to this and indicate your willingness. Perhaps we
should include Izzy in this as well. I'm in. I think John is
in. What about the rest of you?
David.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:21
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's
Plagiarism
In a message dated 12/28/2004 3:46:44 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm
in agreement that Judy should avoid critiquing the character of those who
disagree with her. Judy? Can you, Judy, agree with this "no ad
hominem" rule? In other words, can you keep your concerns about what
spirit they might be following to yourself? Or, at least, if you
must, or at their invitation to do so, write them privately about
it?
Judy, if your question
was sincere, what about my suggestion that you and I partner up to
keep our judgmentalism at a zero sum game? A serious question
or another dig? Just asking.
jt: I'm not sure what
question you refer to here John or what this "partnering" would involve,
I've never heard of such a thing. I don't
intentionally make digs John nor do I consider myself any more
judgmental toward others than I am toward myself; God's Word is the
plumbline or standard and forgiveness, mercy, and grace toward others
personally is paramount. I wasn't part of the last mediation but
I for one believe there is more misunderstanding going on here than
anything - and I don't know that "partnering" would help this.
judyt
With regards to the agreement between us
concerning the accusation that Judy and Izzy are deceptive and dishonest,
you apparently misunderstood, as Jonathan did, what I was saying.
You wrote of my "imposed power" in this forum. I am not aware of
exercising any authority in the forum or threatening the exercise of any
power in regards to this situation. If you surmised such, you were
reading too much between the lines. As I have stated many times, the
list is not a Christian list. It is open to sinners, Satanists,
pagans, hypocrites, homosexuals, whoever. So if you think that you
were facing being cut off the list or something like that, no, that was
never under consideration. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that
you were submitting to my imposed power on this forum except perhaps
something like that. All I was saying is that if you persist to
consider these women to be dishonest and deceitful after they have very
plainly shown you through quoting past posts that they are not, my
relationship with you will change.
What
relationship? In fact, would you repost "that"
post.......privately, of course.
Are you now
retracting your previous proclamation that this whole thing was a
big misunderstanding?
I am giving additional
information to that which I posted upon my return. And I did
(and do) believe that were talking abouting disfellowship
-- that is why reposting is
important. Maybe it will clear that up.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism
This off line posting can be
a good thing.
A couple of things, if I am allowed to be
honest.
First -- as long as Judy or whoever
writes to critic the character of those who disagree, she will be
opposed. Such does not need to be a tit for tat
affair. Whether you see her judgmenatalism as continuing
sin, is of no concern to me, David. Others on this list love the
Lord, love truth, and have an appreciation for "holiness" in no less
measure than you. They see it.
And, several
on this list are no less qualified to speak against that sort of
thing. Your concern that we may be going too far
-- that this is getting "ugly" is a legitimate
concern, however.
As far as my :agreement"
with you (?) What I agreed to do was submit to your
imposed power on this forum. Your demand has changed our
relationship and has convinced me of a number of considerations that
were only "worried concerns" prior to the exercising of your
"authority."
Regarding Judy -- just
moments ago, she announced a belief that Jon was in service of
the spirit of Satan. She writes such with an
openendedness (word?) that allows her plausibvle
denial. A tactic that fools no one but makes asserting
your criticism against her impossible. You have a
better realtionship with her than others. Perhaps you
could side bar the women, never sharing such with us, and
deal with her judgmentalism in that manner.
At any rate -- I am on this list to learn and even share
in the fellowship of like-minded saints. I have no reason
to converse with Judy at all. Izzy is easy to
ignore. Her statments are less involved and, at times, she can
be rather pleasent.
John
|
