One Chance for a Clean Start

[Cow Poke]

Jeff,

While you're cogitatin' a response, I thought I'd try to explain a little further.
You gave a good example of what I'm talking about in your "defense".

And the REASON I posted it here, is because I honestly beleived (or honestly TRIED to believe) you were being sincere here about wanting "a clean start".

So, let's look a this really recent example.

This quote is the "conclusion" you have drawn from what I said...

You are already on record as believing that I am insincere and dishonest (which some might call being dramatic or taking things to extremes)

And here is where you quote me, "backing up your claim", and I believe the quote is accurate...

("I don't believe your "summaries" to be very sincere or honest, Jeff...This is where you're being totally disingenuous, Jeff, but I understand why you need to do so.")

Now, a few things....

Please note that my actual words referred to your SUMMARIES, not to you personally. I was specific about that. And I have said in the past that I generally believe you to be an honest man. I WISH I had not used the word "honest" in my quote -- my error -- but I couldn't think of the opposite of the word "disingenuous", which I used subsequently. So I apologize for that. But note that I was still singling out your SUMMARIES.

And the followup in that quote confirms that --- "THIS is where you're being totally disingenuous, Jeff..." (and I could have left off that last phrase, for sure)

My problem is with the way you SUMMARIZE or INTERPRET or DRAW INFERENCE from what I say.

so FROM THAT, you go to ....

"You are already on record as believing that I am insincere and dishonest"

That is flat not true. I am ON RECORD on NUMEROUS occasions in saying that I believe you ARE generally honest. In fact, I remember once when I made that statement, and you seemed to argue with me.

Now here's what you do from time to time.....

You take a statement like "I don't believe your "summaries" to be very sincere or honest" (and, again, I wish I would not have used "honest" there in the negative)
You BROADEN the meaning from a specific example to OVERALL CONDUCT, contrary to obvious intent.
You use the NEGATIVE of the form of the word say something totally different than what was intended.

So my statement that your SUMMARIES were "not very sincere or honest" becomes "You are already on record as believing that I am insincere and dishonest".

That, I believe, is an example of (using your words) "being dramatic or taking things to extremes".

Then you go on to ....

The risk of me responding in kind, with comparable personal insults and causing the hostility to escalate, seems pretty high.

In this example, Jeff, where have I PERSONALLY insulted you, other than my protest that you misreprested my words? And I EVEN used "I don't believe"... kinda like "in my opinon"?

Then you point out MY "fallacy"....
[quote]Your fallacy is in assuming that any misconstruing--if it even occurred--was deliberate.[/qoute]

It goes to pattern, your honor.

You fail to consider the real possibility that I could have a solid argument and still accidentally misstate your position.

pattern

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. But you seem to need the elevated drama that you get from assuming that every allegedly incorrect thing I say was said deliberately, and with the knowledge that it was incorrect.

If I did that, Jeff, then I would not be APPEALING to you for understanding, and pointing out what, IN MY OPINION, is a fairly common tactic (can't think of a "softer" word right off the top of my head) you employ in "summarizing" what I believe.

AGAIN, I have taken quite a bit of time to POLITELY and respectfully explain a way that IN MY OPINION we can enagage in more civil disourse.

And AGAIN, as I have said before....

I was only suggesting what I beleived might help, Jeff. You are free to ignore it, but I DID beleive you were sincere in THIS thread in wanting to get "down the road".

[nrajeff]

You can APPEAR to be insincere at times, Jeff. I do believe, overall, you are a decent and honest person.

I guess I can say that same about you and not be stretching the truth.

I'm offering my suggestions of what would help the discussion, Jeff. And you see that as "accusations".

Only to the extent that passive-aggressive-sounding comments might be taken as accusations. Suppose that Person A tells Person B "Here's some helpful advice--maybe you could stop being such a ____ (insert pejorative)"-- and then claims amazement that Person B would see that as an accusation that he was a ____. Person A says "I'm just offering 'suggestions' because I want to be helpful." And Person A might feel that's exactly the case. But that doesn't make the veiled (or not-so-veiled) accusation any less real. Many people know of the famous back-handed compliment "You sweat less than any fat person I know....what's that--you feel insulted? Why, for heaven's sake!? I was saying something NICE about you!"

Totally agree with you, Jeff. So did you MISTAKENLY misunderstand? If so, I apologize wihtout hesitation.

I think it's safe to say that virtually, or maybe literally, every time I have misunderstood something, it was unintentional.

I'm making it clear now, Jeff. If I failed to do so before, I do now, and I apologize.

Noted.

I sincerely believe He did NOT instruct Smith or Young or any other Mormon leader to begin polygamy any more than he instruted Brigham Young to go on the assualt at Mountain Meadows.

The "evidence" that Brigham Young went on ANY assault at Mountain Meadows is, to my knowledge, relatively non-compelling.

I honestly believe you have, at times, been somewhat "dramatic", Jeff

One man's "dramatic" is another man's impassioned sermon or forceful counterargument. I won't deny you your version of reality.

, and I honestly believe you have been less than sincere in your "quotes" of me.

I am willing to plead guilty to having inaccurately summarized your "doctrine" on at least one occasion. If you think that is synonymous with insincerity, then we need to get out our lexicons/thesauri and find out which of is has an understanding that is incorrect (but not necessarily insincere).

In fact, I have asked repeatedly for you to use the QUOTE funtion instead of "summarizing" what I said.

The two are independent actions. I can quote you all day, but all I will have is a bunch of quotes. Not even the Gospel writers could obey your proscription on summarizing actions and statements. At some point, it becomes pretty much necessary to say "So this is what I am getting from your statements" and then restate it in one's own words. If that seems strange or somehow illegitimate or illegal to you, then maybe you just went through a different kind of education system than I did.

Regardless of the way you responded to this, I am still going to try to be more charitable, but you're making it pretty difficult.

If you think you consistently make it easy as pie for people to unreservedly accept the things you say about others, then I could call some witnesses who would be willing to testify otherwise.

Yes, Jeff, with respect to God, I admit I do have a hard time using the words we normally ascribe to a madman. Guilty as charged.

Then this is the point in the new, improved discussion format where I say "Please explain why you feel that way, and please list the words that you feel would be the correct ones to use."

[Cow Poke]

I think I'm ready to admit that it's a waste of my time trying to reason with you in this thread, Jeff. But, at least I know I tried.

[nrajeff]

I think I'm ready to admit that it's a waste of my time trying to reason with you in this thread, Jeff. But, at least I know I tried.

You haven't wasted your time, as far as I am concerned. I think at least some of your points have some or a lot of validity. In fact, I have been thinking about some of my remarks, and I have concluded that I was wrong to say them. I apologize for those remarks. I think I will just lurk for a while--at least in some of the threads--while I think about things, and while I attend to "real life" projects that I have neglected for too long (I have 3 guns that are still unfired after years of owning them).

Again, I acknowledge that I haven't been agreeable in some places--and I realize that you have been agreeable in some--and I ask forgiveness for my stubbornness.

I was sincere about wanting to improve the conduct of posters here. Since I am not up to the level I had hoped for everyone else, I should stop posting in threads where my comments are hurting that endeavor.

[Cow Poke]

You haven't wasted your time, as far as I am concerned. I think at least some of your points have some or a lot of validity. In fact, I have been thinking about some of my remarks, and I have concluded that I was wrong to say them. I apologize for those remarks. I think I will just lurk for a while--at least in some of the threads--while I think about things, and while I attend to "real life" projects that I have neglected for too long (I have 3 guns that are still unfired after years of owning them).

Wow. A pleasant surprise, Jeff. I'm anxious to hear more, but no hurry.

I have a Russian Saiga 12 guage shotgun I have not yet fired. In fact, I'm not even sure what the proper ammo is for it. It's the only "long gun" I currently own, and looks quite similar to an AK-47, "banana clip" and all.

Again, I acknowledge that I haven't been agreeable in some places--and I realize that you have been agreeable in some--and I ask forgiveness for my stubbornness.

You sure have been a hardhead! But it takes one to know one. So the feeling is mutual. I am trying to be MORE agreeable, or, as they say, go disagree more agreeably.

I was sincere about wanting to improve the conduct of posters here. Since I am not up to the level I had hoped for everyone else, I should stop posting in threads where my comments are hurting that endeavor.

I was quite sincere, Jeff --- in pointing out what I felt were your areas of weakness, and I'm just as sincere when I open myself up to ... what is it I can do? Again, I'm still going to disagree -- but I can do it with less fercotiy, for sure.

[Cow Poke]

Jeff,
Here is another example (today) of what I'm talking about.

I didn't realize that you see a difference between mainstream Christianity and Jesus' Christianity. I assumed you see them as pretty much the same thing. Therefore, I assumed that you see the expected level of commitment to either to be the same.

If you are now saying that there is a difference between mainstream Christianity and the doctrines of Jesus Christ, then I stand corrected and ask you to state what you believe to be the amount of devotion (as a percentage) a member of each should give, respectively.

Thanks.

This is a TOTAL distortion of my position, and you know better. It's a silly game you're playing. IMO, you do this when you don't have a valid point. I believe you got backed into a corner, and you come back with this.

[nrajeff]

Jeff,
Here is another example (today) of what I'm talking about.

What you are talking about is not reality. Sorry to tell you but you are misunderstanding something. There is a disconnect somewhere.

This is a TOTAL distortion of my position, and you know better.

That is a false statement. I am being honest and sincere when I say that.

It's a silly game you're playing.

If there is a game, it is you who began it. I responded in good faith. Your complaints might come across as disingenuous if you start a game and then complain when someone responds 'in kind.'

IMO, you do this when you don't have a valid point.

YO is mistaken.

I believe you got backed into a corner, and you come back with this.

Your belief is wrong, to be blunt. But try to use some empathy and imagine how you would feel if someone falsely told you that the reason you made a particular statement was because you were "backed into a corner."

How would you feel? How would you respond? Until you "get it" that your jumped-to conclusions regarding people's MOTIVES are fallible, you will continue to offend and insult people you claim to "like" and "care about." And your credibility as a Christian will suffer accordingly.

I have had it with such arrogance. I tried to give this place and its denizens (including myself) another chance and I think that there are a few of us (not naming names except for myself but you SHOULD know who you are) who are failing miserably. There is nothing more I can do to change you, but I can stop the part of the problem that I contribute.

I am out of here for at least the near future, I think. Maybe the firearms-related thread is still active. There is far less Pharisaic judgmentalism over there, and the fresh air of honest friendship will be an extremely welcome change.

So long.

[Sparko]

I am out of here for at least the near future, I think. Maybe the firearms-related thread is still active. There is far less Pharisaic judgmentalism over there, and the fresh air of honest friendship will be an extremely welcome change.

So long.

[Cow Poke]

I have asked you numerous times, Jeff, to use actual QUOTES instead of your propensity to "rephrase" what we say.

I think this would go a long way to ending a lot of misunderstanding, and I beleive that if you were REALLY SINCERE (yes, I am expressing my doubt) I don't see why this should be so difficult.

I think you're being a weenie... you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You claim you want more civility, and I'm telling how, IMO, you can demonstrate that. And I was very clearly expressing my concern. And I have been trying much harder to be respectful of you, and to let you know where I think you are in error. In return, I'm wide open to you doing likewise.

I had suspected that this thread was simply a pretense for your eventual "I'm outta here". I truly will be sad to see you go. ANY TIME you are ready to engage in conversation with what was ACTUALLY SAID, instead of your mischaracterization of it (yes, that's my honest opinion) I'll be happy to discuss it with you civily and politely.

But I refuse to "defend" positions I don't hold because you chose to misrepresent them.

I think, if you were really sincere in engaging in dialogue, you would recognize the value of arguing against what was ACTUALLY SAID --- including using ACTUAL QUOTES. LOTS of other people do that on a regular basis.

I really do sympathize with your position, Jeff --- you are trying to defend something that, IMO, is not defensible. And when you get backed into a corner (sorry, but that's how I see it) you come back with this kind of response.

The ball is in your court.

[ke7ejx]

Jeff, if you want to do that, it's your decision, but I do fail to see how that would be helpful or even productive.

[Brown Cat]

Leave it to Sparko to always come up with this kind of stuff

Enjoyed the song, btw.

[Cow Poke]

Jeff,

I really am trying to believe that this thread was started by you with honest intentions. I say "trying", because, of course, I have already expressed my doubt.

Now, I have clearly shared my #1 peave with you -- that you don't use "actual quotes", but, instead, tend to rephrase what we say in (IMO) a less than accurate manner, and try to build on that. I, obviously, have come to a point where I'm simply not going to tolerate that.

MEANWHILE, what's the single biggest complaint (or 2 or 3) with the way I'm dealing with you (since Thanksgiving 2011), and what could I do differently?

CP

[Cow Poke]

OC,

Just like I did with Jeff, I'll point out what I think you could do to make our discussions less hostile. At the end, I'll ask what I can do, so please hear me out....

My biggest complaint with you is the "false dichotomy" thing you seem to do pretty frequently, forcing things into an "either / or" when no such structure is called for.

FOR EXAMPLE... In the thread about CONTEXT, I'm pointing out that God gave us brains, and the Spirit can speak to us through a number of ways... and somehow you turn that into me saying that I ONLY trust "the brain" --- I'll find the actual quote if you'd like, but you turned this into a "Spirit" OR "brain" false dichotomy. That's very disingenuous, OC. It is neither what I SAID, nor IMPLIED, nor does it have to be an "either / or".

It would really help if you would stop this forced false dichotomy stuff.

Second, I think you frequently misrepresent my position (as in the above) and argue against a position I don't even claim to hold. THIS is not productive -- it's just games. You're not a stupid man, OC, so I don't believe you're doing this by accident.

Like I've asked Jeff -- It would REALLY HELP if you would use actual quotes, instead of grossly misrepresenting what I say. Lord knows I say enough stupid stuff on my own without you having to help me!

NOW... I'm sure you have some legitimate grievances with the way I deal with you, and I'm wide open to hearing them.

MEANWHILE --- I'm glad to see you back! I've missed you!

[OtherCheek]

OC,

Just like I did with Jeff, I'll point out what I think you could do to make our discussions less hostile. At the end, I'll ask what I can do, so please hear me out....

My biggest complaint with you is the "false dichotomy" thing you seem to do pretty frequently, forcing things into an "either / or" when no such structure is called for.

FOR EXAMPLE... In the thread about CONTEXT, I'm pointing out that God gave us brains, and the Spirit can speak to us through a number of ways... and somehow you turn that into me saying that I ONLY trust "the brain" --- I'll find the actual quote if you'd like, but you turned this into a "Spirit" OR "brain" false dichotomy. That's very disingenuous, OC. It is neither what I SAID, nor IMPLIED, nor does it have to be an "either / or".

It would really help if you would stop this forced false dichotomy stuff.

Second, I think you frequently misrepresent my position (as in the above) and argue against a position I don't even claim to hold. THIS is not productive -- it's just games. You're not a stupid man, OC, so I don't believe you're doing this by accident.

Like I've asked Jeff -- It would REALLY HELP if you would use actual quotes, instead of grossly misrepresenting what I say. Lord knows I say enough stupid stuff on my own without you having to help me!

NOW... I'm sure you have some legitimate grievances with the way I deal with you, and I'm wide open to hearing them.

MEANWHILE --- I'm glad to see you back! I've missed you!

Well, CP, when you say "God gave us brains" you seem to be implying that you use yours but I don't use mine and that is why I am a Mormon. This, to me, is very disingenuous.

[Cow Poke]

Well, CP, when you say "God gave us brains" you seem to be implying that you use yours but I don't use mine and that is why I am a Mormon. This, to me, is very disingenuous.

No, OC --- that was not implied at all. But it looks like you're only going to look for ways to be insulted, so talking to you appears to be a total waste of time.

I posted in sincerity, and this is what I get?