I agree with Perry. The shoe is close to my size.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 27 May 2005 06:08:12 -0700
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: farewell to TT -- long but most real answer
Lance, thanks for posting this very candid and informative post. It is almost always a good exercise to see oneself as others see you.
>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: farewell to TT -- long but most real answer
>Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 05:27:13 -0400
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Debbie Sawczak
>To: Lance Muir
>Sent: May 26, 2005 14:42
>Subject: farewell to TT -- long but most real answer
>
>
>Lance, this may be too long to post on TT. I'll let you be the judge. I'm >writing as if to you --you asked the question, and besides, that keeps me >more open and thinking less about how others will respond. Do what you like >with it.
>
>Why did I leave? David is partly right about the time factor, but that >springs from the more important issue, which is the quality of >communication that happens on TT; I am serious about communication (maybe >too serious!), so I put a lot of time and thought and energy into reading >the messages and composing readable replies. As it became harder and harder >to understand and be understood, that investment only increased, and with >it my anxiety about the result, since it usually turned out badly. It just >wasn't worth it. Reducing the number of messages would only get at the >symptom, not the cause.
>
>When I started on TT the first time, back in December or January or >whenever it was, I took everybody at face value and expected and practised >normal communication. I actually learned stuff from some peopl e, got new >ideas from them. It wasn't long, though, till it became clear to me that >some key participants were not up for learning anything at all. They were, >at best, only into correcting people. At their worst, they did not read >posts lovingly (putting things in the best light, trusting the intent, >looking for points of commonality). They also did not read them properly >(as wholes, following the thread of argument, looking for the main thrust, >interpreting parts in the light of the whole). Instead they tended to pick >messages to bits and "pounce" on individual words or predicates that raised >flags for them. This was generally done in a tone of superior spirituality, >superior allegiance to God and Scripture. There was never any good way to >respond to this. What can you say in return when someone does this, since >every subsequent attempt to address their response only leads to more of >the same? Here was something I can only describe as deafness, hardness. >With other people out side TT--for example, you and I when we misunderstand >each other--we try again. There is good will. It gets cleared up. Or we >find the places where we agree and go on from there. But on TT, people just >dug in deeper and deeper. Ironically, people ended up going to ridiculous >extremes of untenability to defend something they had said.
>
>The same old arguments kept coming up again and again, with zero change in >anybody's position. That was a bore. We were in an argumentative rut, so >that if somebody posted something that wasn't related to one of the >polarizing issues, it was ignored, or quickly and superficially dispatched, >or twisted into something that did relate to one of the polarizing issues. >Meanwhile on the polarizing issues there was just mindless mouthing going >on, for the most part. If Camp A Member said something, it had to be right. >If Camp B Member said something, it had to be wrong. There were only rare >exceptions to this.
>
&g t;There was a lot of sarcasm. From childhood I have been unable to tolerate >sarcasm. Sarcasm when it is obvious you are joking is one thing (even >though it's a weak form of humour), but then there's sarcasm intended to >make the other person appear absurd or evil so you can beat them unfairly. >It is not real communication and I do not allow it in my family. For me it >is the end of the conversation, which is why I stopped responding to >certain TT people altogether.
>
>Accusation, recrimination, smearing, insulting, and condemning were common >too, and produced anger in me, not all of it righteous. This anger >generally turned to sorrow. I would seek refreshment elsewhere (in >prayer--sometimes confessing and receiving forgiveness for my anger--in >Scripture, in other parts of the Christian community, etc.), and try again, >but this cycle got to be wearing, and the people doing these things seemed >not to notice or care that they were. It was discouraging. When I left t he >first time it was with the idea of probably returning refreshed at some >point, and I did. That might still happen this time, too, but if it does it >will take longer. I think I have to grow more, be wiser and stronger and >braver, before I can be of use on TT as it is.
>
>Even those who didn't deal in this kind of thing were mostly not prepared >to entertain any idea they didn't already believe. The whole point of the >exercise seemed to be to prove you were right, rather than simply to be >understood and to understand and consider and appreciate. (I can just hear >it: "How can I appreciate what is patently false? And if it's false don't I >have a moral obligation to say so, every time?") Some, when they didn't >understand something, just shrugged and said, "Who cares? I know what I >think. If I don't understand it, it must be something that doesn't matter, >or worse, something pretentious. Obviously God doesn't want me to be >bothered with these things." I don't t hink calm closed-mindedness is any >better than ranting closed-mindedness.
>
>When I engaged several people off list, I found them to be quite different. >That, I think, might have been the final stroke, because I realized that >these were probably all decent, warm, pleasant, humble people but the >dynamic of TT was twisting them into something else, and that seemed >downright sinister to me. I suspected it might be happening to me as well. >And if the people engaging on TT weren't the real ones, why bother at all?
>
>Debbie
>
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscr ibed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: farewell to TT -- long but most real answer
>Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 05:27:13 -0400
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Debbie Sawczak
>To: Lance Muir
>Sent: May 26, 2005 14:42
>Subject: farewell to TT -- long but most real answer
>
>
>Lance, this may be too long to post on TT. I'll let you be the judge. I'm >writing as if to you --you asked the question, and besides, that keeps me >more open and thinking less about how others will respond. Do what you like >with it.
>
>Why did I leave? David is partly right about the time factor, but that >springs from the more important issue, which is the quality of >communication that happens on TT; I am serious about communication (maybe >too serious!), so I put a lot of time and thought and energy into reading >the messages and composing readable replies. As it became harder and harder >to understand and be understood, that investment only increased, and with >it my anxiety about the result, since it usually turned out badly. It just >wasn't worth it. Reducing the number of messages would only get at the >symptom, not the cause.
>
>When I started on TT the first time, back in December or January or >whenever it was, I took everybody at face value and expected and practised >normal communication. I actually learned stuff from some peopl e, got new >ideas from them. It wasn't long, though, till it became clear to me that >some key participants were not up for learning anything at all. They were, >at best, only into correcting people. At their worst, they did not read >posts lovingly (putting things in the best light, trusting the intent, >looking for points of commonality). They also did not read them properly >(as wholes, following the thread of argument, looking for the main thrust, >interpreting parts in the light of the whole). Instead they tended to pick >messages to bits and "pounce" on individual words or predicates that raised >flags for them. This was generally done in a tone of superior spirituality, >superior allegiance to God and Scripture. There was never any good way to >respond to this. What can you say in return when someone does this, since >every subsequent attempt to address their response only leads to more of >the same? Here was something I can only describe as deafness, hardness. >With other people out side TT--for example, you and I when we misunderstand >each other--we try again. There is good will. It gets cleared up. Or we >find the places where we agree and go on from there. But on TT, people just >dug in deeper and deeper. Ironically, people ended up going to ridiculous >extremes of untenability to defend something they had said.
>
>The same old arguments kept coming up again and again, with zero change in >anybody's position. That was a bore. We were in an argumentative rut, so >that if somebody posted something that wasn't related to one of the >polarizing issues, it was ignored, or quickly and superficially dispatched, >or twisted into something that did relate to one of the polarizing issues. >Meanwhile on the polarizing issues there was just mindless mouthing going >on, for the most part. If Camp A Member said something, it had to be right. >If Camp B Member said something, it had to be wrong. There were only rare >exceptions to this.
>
&g t;There was a lot of sarcasm. From childhood I have been unable to tolerate >sarcasm. Sarcasm when it is obvious you are joking is one thing (even >though it's a weak form of humour), but then there's sarcasm intended to >make the other person appear absurd or evil so you can beat them unfairly. >It is not real communication and I do not allow it in my family. For me it >is the end of the conversation, which is why I stopped responding to >certain TT people altogether.
>
>Accusation, recrimination, smearing, insulting, and condemning were common >too, and produced anger in me, not all of it righteous. This anger >generally turned to sorrow. I would seek refreshment elsewhere (in >prayer--sometimes confessing and receiving forgiveness for my anger--in >Scripture, in other parts of the Christian community, etc.), and try again, >but this cycle got to be wearing, and the people doing these things seemed >not to notice or care that they were. It was discouraging. When I left t he >first time it was with the idea of probably returning refreshed at some >point, and I did. That might still happen this time, too, but if it does it >will take longer. I think I have to grow more, be wiser and stronger and >braver, before I can be of use on TT as it is.
>
>Even those who didn't deal in this kind of thing were mostly not prepared >to entertain any idea they didn't already believe. The whole point of the >exercise seemed to be to prove you were right, rather than simply to be >understood and to understand and consider and appreciate. (I can just hear >it: "How can I appreciate what is patently false? And if it's false don't I >have a moral obligation to say so, every time?") Some, when they didn't >understand something, just shrugged and said, "Who cares? I know what I >think. If I don't understand it, it must be something that doesn't matter, >or worse, something pretentious. Obviously God doesn't want me to be >bothered with these things." I don't t hink calm closed-mindedness is any >better than ranting closed-mindedness.
>
>When I engaged several people off list, I found them to be quite different. >That, I think, might have been the final stroke, because I realized that >these were probably all decent, warm, pleasant, humble people but the >dynamic of TT was twisting them into something else, and that seemed >downright sinister to me. I suspected it might be happening to me as well. >And if the people engaging on TT weren't the real ones, why bother at all?
>
>Debbie
>
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscr ibed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
