Ground Hog Day WAW #18

[hoosiermama]

OK, Phil, you've asked some pretty clear questions tonight, and I can answer some of them for you. You get to choose whether you will read through the answers. And I will do my best to communicate in a non-threatening, non-argumentative way.

I said it from the get go that people didn't now how to talk to me. Go back to my thread #1.

I just think its funny that the passive aggresive behavior I get on this board brings out the best in them. They can call me every name in the book, denouce truth in religous terms I suggest, and when I zing back. I get punished. I get my thread locked. I get threatened. I get harrassed. Then its a gang bang approach.

This sounds pretty arrogant, Phil. The thing is, it's difficult to know how to talk to you. You ask questions, you get answers from the heart and from experience, and you reply with disrespect. For example:

PHOENYX... Really I think your dense.

If you don't like the answer you get, you kick the person off your thread. No one else on here does that, Phil. Most of us post to get feedback from those with more experience or more perspective, so we think you're probably seeking the same things. Sometimes the answer is uncomfortable, and those people who value being reflective think about why it's uncomfortable. It may be because it's totally off base, in which case we often ignore it. Or it may be because it hits home with something that's so true that we say "ouch." And we learn from that. That's why we're here.

Really, it's pretty rare that posters call you "every name in the book." Perhaps every now and then when you've been particularly disrespectful, but not very often. Yes, you get called on your behavior, as we all would. But it's not necessarily passive-aggressive, it doesn't usually involve name-calling.

Why the gang bang approach? The high fives... etc...

What you're calling "gang bang" is what happens when several readers notice that you've said or done something that many of us consider either highly counterproductive, highly disrespectful, or flat-out damaging. You got a lot of response to a conversation you reported having in front of your children--because many of us had strong gut reactions to the damage that could cause your children. I know you disagree, but you're in the minority about that. You and your wife have demonstrated a real tendency to use the children as currency in your war against each other, and you will never find anyone who doesn't agree that that is very harmful to them. And so many of us responded because we are worried about your family and we would do anything to get your attention so that you stop the behavior. Again, I acknowledge that you disagree with me about that, however I guarantee that in 5 years time your opinion will have changed.

As for the "high-fives," that's just what happens here. It's not just your thread, Phil, but people talk to each other on each others' threads. No one else seems to mind that on their threads, and not everyone is familiar with the rules you have set up for your thread. This is something of a community, and communities have their own cultures and ways of communicating--and that's all this is. It really isn't about dissing you but rather acknowledging community.

denouce truth in religous terms I suggest

See, the thing is, you don't suggest; you use language that demands. And that kind of language is just not an effective way of communicating when you're discussing religion in a non-denominational setting. We know and accept that you're Catholic and no one is challenging that or disrespecting that. But this isn't a Catholic-only site; people have different faith traditions that they cherish as much as you cherish yours. If you had the whole College of Cardinals on here posting, they would use language that is much more tolerant of others' faith traditions than you do! And it wouldn't mean that they are lukewarm in their faith. But when you insist on "your way or the highway" Catholicism here, you use language that is sometimes openly disrespectful of the other person's faith. And that's disrespecting someone at their core, and I can pretty much guarantee they will take offense. We understand that you believe the credo of Catholicism and no one is challenging your right to express that. Most folks also give that respect to others. I know that you believe you are an "amateur theologian." Your terminology. But you admitted to being an amateur. There are those of us who have studied Catholic theology in Catholic institutions with non-amateur theologians--and I can tell you that sometimes you don't quite hit the nail on the head. It's one thing to quote a source, but it's quite another to have a broad understanding. But Phil, bludgeoning (that's how it feels) others with your interpretations isn't the most effective way to get your point across. In teaching RCIA classes or apologetics, do you think the presenters would win many converts or get their points across if they used a similar communication style? Diplomacy is very important in these matters--and it doesn't mean wavering in your faith, it simply means finding a way to explain without alienating others.

One last thing--because this is getting too long. It is very important to you to demonstrate that your wife is "the crazy one." Phil, you had us all at WAW! We have that understanding. What's underneath the need to prove that to an audience that, by very definition, gets it? I don't have the answer to that, but I'll bet if you gave it some reflection you might just have another epiphany. Epiphanies are great.

Phil, I didn't just spend the last half hour writing this to argue with you, to nit-pick or to play tit-for-tat or to prove I'm right. My hope is to help you understand the answers to the questions you asked. Simple as that.