Dewey's post
-
I learned today that a former acquaintance died. I never met him in person, but I knew him online, as a fellow member of a music-related forum, for the better part of two decades, in the era just before the social media explosion. For years, I considered him a very dear, close friend.
Despite the fact that the forum - family of forums, actually - was primarily music-related, a lot of the conversations revolved around politics, religion, all the touchy social subjects that you aren't supposed to talk about in polite company. The forum was populated by many really intelligent and diverse people, and it really became a family. We hosted in-person gatherings all over the country. The forum itself was featured in a New York Times Best Seller, written by one of the forum members - one of several accomplished authors who were members. Together, we celebrated life's major milestones and joys in our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. We celebrated weddings. We mourned deaths. Our hearts were broken by a murder. In fact, it was a forum member who first pointed out that it seemed that I was being called to the ministry - a comment that, given what would later become our polar opposite theologies, I'm sure he came to regret. But that's another story.
For a long time, the political/social discussions, while sometimes getting quite intense, were mostly fairly high level. The forums were unmoderated, and on occasion, they could get pretty nasty - more than once, the comparison was made between some forum debates and the cantina fight scene in the original Star Wars. Still, on balance the arguments were relatively harmless - at least originally.
Over time though, that changed. Things got nastier, more partisan. Factions formed, or I suppose, it's more accurate to say that they became more entrenched. With some of the members, the arguments got intensely personal and abusive. A small group of members - I'm ashamed to say that I was one of them - banded together as the conservative "guardians," ready to go on the attack against not just progressive positions, but against specific individuals in personal ways that I can only say was a forerunner to the Trumpist school of destructive personal discourse. I cringed during the worst of those personal attacks, but I'm ashamed to say that I often agreed with them in principle, if not in their actual execution. So I only rarely objected to any of the attacks. On the contrary, I was an enabler of them.
I did so because I'd become good friends with the man who would ultimately become the leader of this wolf pack. He'd shown himself to be a good person in many ways, and that resonated with me - so much that for a long time, I couldn't bring myself to stand up and oppose him when he crossed the line - and as time wore on, he crossed it increasingly often. He eventually just went almost completely dark.
It was while I was studying for the ministry when the real cracks in our friendship began. He'd always known me as having very conservative religious views that he agreed with - at least in theory. He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics. But the more my religious training continued, the more I questioned, and eventually rejected, those conservative views, theologically, and by extension, politically.
And that's when he turned on me, with a vengeance.
I suddenly became the target of his abuse. Even after I tried to ignore and disengage from him, he continued to harass, insult, and abuse me online. I came to be the recipient of all the vitriol and personal attacks that I'd earlier laughed at, and enabled, and defended when he'd targeted others. Karma is indeed a bitch.
Much of his abuse against me revolved around my theology of full acceptance of LGBTQ people in society and church. He was a rigid ultra-conservative in all regards, but his rabid homophobic bigotry was his most strident position. When my views changed, and I found the courage to disagree with him - which was an intellectual, theological turn that actually predated my recognition and acceptance of my own sexuality - that was the last straw for him. He smeared me with a number of falsehoods and constant personal insult. He was in every real sense, an online stalker. The abuse intensified to the point that I seriously considered investigating what actual charges might be filed against him.
And today, I learned that he has died.
With his passing, many are offering kind words about him, and many of them are justifiable for certain aspects of his life. At the same time though, the truly horrible, harmful, abusive aspect of his personality, and the real and deep harm that he inflicted on people, are being minimized - partly, I suppose, out of a desire to not speak ill of the dead, but I think even more because only those he abused can understand the magnitude of the pain and suffering he caused. Only those who never received it, or at most were only passive observers of it, can dismiss it with such ease. I can't, not for my own sake, or the sake of others he abused.
In remembering him, one person said that despite his flaws, when push came to shove, he could be relied upon to do the right thing. In reality, when push came to shove, it was usually him doing the pushing and shoving, and while doing it, he very frequently, in fact, did the wrong thing.
I do genuinely mourn the loss of all that was good in this man - and at least at some point in his life, there was significant good. My condolences go out to his family and all who loved him. But I recognize the good, and I offer the condolences, while bearing the scars that he caused. It does nothing good, and it does a real disservice to those he hurt, to ignore or minimize the magnitude of the horrible side of his personality as well. He was often a vicious, abusive bully. Only God knows why he was so often gleefully cruel to others, and especially so constantly, vehemently homophobic. For all his good, and all his bad, he is now in God's hands, and I trust God to deal with him with the appropriate measures of mercy and justice.@Horace said in Dewey's post:
He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics.
One of the little peccadillos of (some/many) Protestants is to step into the shoes of God Almighty and declare judgement on some other Protestants that aren’t in full theological agreement as “unsaved” and “unbelieving.” This may be the case with Dewey here. I didn’t follow the Larry-Dewey wars all that closely but I’m sure Larry had a similar pronouncement. (As a Catholic I don’t get into these internecine arguments and actually the one thing that just about all these Protestants agree on is that Catholics are “unsaved” and “unbelieving.”) Anyway, I do take issue here with Dewey’s appraisal. I remember when Wacky Iraqi was on the board and had terminal cancer Larry stopped his usual harangue, changed his whole demeanor, and tried to convert Wacky to the Gospel and save his soul before he died. It is exactly what Christians are supposed to do. Larry really impressed me by how he took his faith and Wacky’s salvation so seriously. It didn’t even occur to me to do something similar. And not that I would have even if it did. But Larry did it and that would be a Christian.
Well, there’s that. As to the tone of Dewey’s missive—Dewey was butt hurt by Larry and he’s just expressing what he feels. Larry, I’m sure would do something similar is the shoe was on the other foot. Next door the people there are pretty much dancing on Larry’s grave. They were sometimes on the wrong end of Larry’s personal invectives and are venting. The gleefulness is a bit troubling, but that is the sandbox we all play in. But those over there tend to see the mote in Larry’s eye and not see the plank in their own—right from the beginning they expected to lecture the poor conservatives on the error of our ways with equal measures of condescension and pity and they expected us acquiesce to their wisdom, but instead to their surprise they got one hell of a fight. All good.
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true. -
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
For me, a minister is no more or no less perfect than me or anybody else.
They are in a position to be more hypocritical than anybody else. That hypocrisy is what I'm attempting to examine.
Seems like everyday, worldwide (for example monks in Thailand or Taiwan, ministers in the US, etc.) religious people break either moral or legal laws. Again, they are just ordinary people.
Just like ordinary people. LOL I remember having a discussion about religion with some friends, and one of them said that they remember their priest saying something like, "Christianity seems to end in the parking lot". It was meant as a joke that people are getting mad at each other in the parking lot because someone cut someone else off, took their spot, etc. but there is some truth to it.
As I said, I am not very religious but it seems that alot of religious people (again, worldwide, not just US christians) seem to think that they have a higher "moral" standing because of that. I dont agree with that and dont believe that, so maybe that is another reason why Dewey's post did not bother me. Maybe he will look back and say, "yup, I probably could have done that differently." Maybe not.
I think maybe I overstated the degree to which I'm interrogating your personal emotional reaction. I don't care about that. I was looking for some acknowledgment of an hypocrisy from a man who I'm very sure lives a life meant to convey he is above that sort of thing. But please don't overestimate the degree to which I'm looking to pry that acknowledgment out of you, personally. You are free to have your own view on everything, as always.
@Horace Ah okay. But I guess I would answer - should people in certain positions (religion, law enforcement, politics, etc) be held to a higher standard?
I think most of us (me included) probably do that, even if it is not something that should be done.
(Off topic but not really). I remember (probably on a TV show or something) where the lawyer was asking a juror if witness testimony from a police man should be given higher priority than witness testimony from anybody else. My internal bias says that they should, but my reality brain says "nope", it should be the same.
Not sure I am answering your question. 555
Is it hypocritical for Dewey to post that? I honestly dont know. It was posted without names, and I dont know if he posted it as his position in the church.
I guess the only thing I am sure of is that it doesn't bother me that much. In my (small) knowledge of him, I think that Dewey is a good writer and pretty deliberate before he writes something. Maybe he himself struggled with posting it. Has anybody gotten any feedback from him?
-
All I can think of as I watch this piling on from both “sides” is that Larry would have loved this sh*t. It’s actually made me laugh out loud a couple of time. Sorry, I’m in a weird place in my mind lately. A weird and sometimes overwhelming grief that pops up at strange times from losing my Dad and both of our cats this year, along with my mom’s dementia that has taken her mostly away, even though her body is still there. Really hard. So death has been on my mind a lot lately.
-
@Horace Ah okay. But I guess I would answer - should people in certain positions (religion, law enforcement, politics, etc) be held to a higher standard?
I think most of us (me included) probably do that, even if it is not something that should be done.
(Off topic but not really). I remember (probably on a TV show or something) where the lawyer was asking a juror if witness testimony from a police man should be given higher priority than witness testimony from anybody else. My internal bias says that they should, but my reality brain says "nope", it should be the same.
Not sure I am answering your question. 555
Is it hypocritical for Dewey to post that? I honestly dont know. It was posted without names, and I dont know if he posted it as his position in the church.
I guess the only thing I am sure of is that it doesn't bother me that much. In my (small) knowledge of him, I think that Dewey is a good writer and pretty deliberate before he writes something. Maybe he himself struggled with posting it. Has anybody gotten any feedback from him?
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace Ah okay. But I guess I would answer - should people in certain positions (religion, law enforcement, politics, etc) be held to a higher standard?
I think most of us (me included) probably do that, even if it is not something that should be done.Yeah, you're supposed to. Gatekeepers get held to higher standards in their keeping of their gates, that's how positions of expertise and authority work. That's part of how people get together and form functional groups. We depend on people in positions of leadership to conform to higher standards of behavior, that's actually why they are there to begin with, especially as the group in question is entirely about standards for behavior. But I don't want to intrude on your opinions with anything that might seem too obvious or self-evident. That gets boring.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics.
One of the little peccadillos of (some/many) Protestants is to step into the shoes of God Almighty and declare judgement on some other Protestants that aren’t in full theological agreement as “unsaved” and “unbelieving.” This may be the case with Dewey here. I didn’t follow the Larry-Dewey wars all that closely but I’m sure Larry had a similar pronouncement. (As a Catholic I don’t get into these internecine arguments and actually the one thing that just about all these Protestants agree on is that Catholics are “unsaved” and “unbelieving.”) Anyway, I do take issue here with Dewey’s appraisal. I remember when Wacky Iraqi was on the board and had terminal cancer Larry stopped his usual harangue, changed his whole demeanor, and tried to convert Wacky to the Gospel and save his soul before he died. It is exactly what Christians are supposed to do. Larry really impressed me by how he took his faith and Wacky’s salvation so seriously. It didn’t even occur to me to do something similar. And not that I would have even if it did. But Larry did it and that would be a Christian.
Well, there’s that. As to the tone of Dewey’s missive—Dewey was butt hurt by Larry and he’s just expressing what he feels. Larry, I’m sure would do something similar is the shoe was on the other foot. Next door the people there are pretty much dancing on Larry’s grave. They were sometimes on the wrong end of Larry’s personal invectives and are venting. The gleefulness is a bit troubling, but that is the sandbox we all play in. But those over there tend to see the mote in Larry’s eye and not see the plank in their own—right from the beginning they expected to lecture the poor conservatives on the error of our ways with equal measures of condescension and pity and they expected us acquiesce to their wisdom, but instead to their surprise they got one hell of a fight. All good.
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
Please love yourself.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
Education is extremely important.
-
I guess one could be wrong with the initial in-person impression but as someone who has met scores of forumites over the years there are some who are pretty much the same as online and there are some who are very different in person, often times in the latter case it’s people who are far more argumentative online but not so much in person. (Quirt is an excellent example of the latter).
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
Please love yourself.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey's post:
I never much cared for Dewey’s tendency to proselytise through the back door.
Is that what they call it?
-
I guess one could be wrong with the initial in-person impression but as someone who has met scores of forumites over the years there are some who are pretty much the same as online and there are some who are very different in person, often times in the latter case it’s people who are far more argumentative online but not so much in person. (Quirt is an excellent example of the latter).
@jon-nyc said in Dewey's post:
I guess one could be wrong with the initial in-person impression but as someone who has met scores of forumites over the years there are some who are pretty much the same as online and there are some who are very different in person, often times in the latter case it’s people who are far more argumentative online but not so much in person. (Quirt is an excellent example of the latter).
He's still kinda like that, though.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
We are all the product of millions of years of evolution to maximize our ability to be shrugged off and disregarded as a normal acceptable human, regardless of what's going on inside our heart of hearts. Not that there's anything particularly deep going on inside a person's heart of hearts, no matter how far you dig. We are pretty simple creatures.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey's post:
I never much cared for Dewey’s tendency to proselytise through the back door.
Is that what they call it?
@Ivorythumper said in Dewey's post:
@Renauda said in Dewey's post:
I never much cared for Dewey’s tendency to proselytise through the back door.
Is that what they call it?
Anything else would be construed as lewd.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
We are all the product of millions of years of evolution to maximize our ability to be shrugged off and disregarded as a normal acceptable human, regardless of what's going on inside our heart of hearts. Not that there's anything particularly deep going on inside a person's heart of hearts, no matter how far you dig. We are pretty simple creatures.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
We are all the product of millions of years of evolution to maximize our ability to be shrugged off and disregarded as a normal acceptable human, regardless of what's going on inside our heart of hearts. Not that there's anything particularly deep going on inside a person's heart of hearts, no matter how far you dig. We are pretty simple creatures.
I don't think that's true, either. Everyone is a mix of fascinating, profound, boring, cringey and a host of other things.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
se you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language
I'm sorry that Dwain posted what he did about Larry. I understand why he did, and why he defends it, and I don't see him as one to take the high road or be self reflective or do anything but do what he did. It's also quite predictable that he censored others who tried to moderate his views or give context to what he wrote about Larry. That's just Dwain being Dwain.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
se you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language
I'm sorry that Dwain posted what he did about Larry. I understand why he did, and why he defends it, and I don't see him as one to take the high road or be self reflective or do anything but do what he did. It's also quite predictable that he censored others who tried to moderate his views or give context to what he wrote about Larry. That's just Dwain being Dwain.
@Ivorythumper said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
se you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language
I'm sorry that Dwain posted what he did about Larry. I understand why he did, and why he defends it
That's pretty much my take, too.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
I think it was way more than five minutes. But, yeah, Steve always said that about Larry.
As for Dwain....I'm actually really disappointed. My memory of him is vastly different from the man who wrote this post.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics.
One of the little peccadillos of (some/many) Protestants is to step into the shoes of God Almighty and declare judgement on some other Protestants that aren’t in full theological agreement as “unsaved” and “unbelieving.” This may be the case with Dewey here. I didn’t follow the Larry-Dewey wars all that closely but I’m sure Larry had a similar pronouncement. (As a Catholic I don’t get into these internecine arguments and actually the one thing that just about all these Protestants agree on is that Catholics are “unsaved” and “unbelieving.”) Anyway, I do take issue here with Dewey’s appraisal. I remember when Wacky Iraqi was on the board and had terminal cancer Larry stopped his usual harangue, changed his whole demeanor, and tried to convert Wacky to the Gospel and save his soul before he died. It is exactly what Christians are supposed to do. Larry really impressed me by how he took his faith and Wacky’s salvation so seriously. It didn’t even occur to me to do something similar. And not that I would have even if it did. But Larry did it and that would be a Christian.
Well, there’s that. As to the tone of Dewey’s missive—Dewey was butt hurt by Larry and he’s just expressing what he feels. Larry, I’m sure would do something similar is the shoe was on the other foot. Next door the people there are pretty much dancing on Larry’s grave. They were sometimes on the wrong end of Larry’s personal invectives and are venting. The gleefulness is a bit troubling, but that is the sandbox we all play in. But those over there tend to see the mote in Larry’s eye and not see the plank in their own—right from the beginning they expected to lecture the poor conservatives on the error of our ways with equal measures of condescension and pity and they expected us acquiesce to their wisdom, but instead to their surprise they got one hell of a fight. All good.
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics.
One of the little peccadillos of (some/many) Protestants is to step into the shoes of God Almighty and declare judgement on some other Protestants that aren’t in full theological agreement as “unsaved” and “unbelieving.” This may be the case with Dewey here. I didn’t follow the Larry-Dewey wars all that closely but I’m sure Larry had a similar pronouncement. (As a Catholic I don’t get into these internecine arguments and actually the one thing that just about all these Protestants agree on is that Catholics are “unsaved” and “unbelieving.”) Anyway, I do take issue here with Dewey’s appraisal. I remember when Wacky Iraqi was on the board and had terminal cancer Larry stopped his usual harangue, changed his whole demeanor, and tried to convert Wacky to the Gospel and save his soul before he died. It is exactly what Christians are supposed to do. Larry really impressed me by how he took his faith and Wacky’s salvation so seriously. It didn’t even occur to me to do something similar. And not that I would have even if it did. But Larry did it and that would be a Christian.
Well, there’s that. As to the tone of Dewey’s missive—Dewey was butt hurt by Larry and he’s just expressing what he feels. Larry, I’m sure would do something similar is the shoe was on the other foot. Next door the people there are pretty much dancing on Larry’s grave. They were sometimes on the wrong end of Larry’s personal invectives and are venting. The gleefulness is a bit troubling, but that is the sandbox we all play in. But those over there tend to see the mote in Larry’s eye and not see the plank in their own—right from the beginning they expected to lecture the poor conservatives on the error of our ways with equal measures of condescension and pity and they expected us acquiesce to their wisdom, but instead to their surprise they got one hell of a fight. All good.
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.Missing your target a bit.
Most protestants don't think Catholics are unsaved or unbelieving. We do reject sacerdotalism and don't understand how y'all got so hung up on that Mary thing. And we'll just mark that building the Church on Peter idea, down to a reading comprehension problem.
As for protestant vs. protestant, most don't sweat the small stuff. I don't care if Pentecostals believe they need to speak in tongues, or Baptists abhor taking an alcoholic drink, etc. Where I do have a problem with any Christian or somebody who identifies as Christian, is when they portray something irrefutably sinful as being okey-dokey. It just doesn't work that way.
And be we whatever shade of Christianity, those pastoral letters still apply to the leadership of the church. The clergy is held to a higher standard. They don't always meet it, but they must strive to do so.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
