A Different point of view,...

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

"You'll find that many of the truths that we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Alec Guiness Return Of The Jedi

To make a post that implies that *anyone* with a situation or circumstance in which they experience reality is Flawed, because their situation can not be programmed/Categorized/easily-referenced, is Biased and untrue to what we are trying to achive.

I understand that there have been some "outrageous" claims made.
However, I would wish to point out;

Solipsisim Can Not Be Refuted.

Who are we to deny the Validity of anyone's Claim as to what's going on in *Their* heads?

I know I can't. To the best of my knowledge, and from what I can discern. I live with 2 Brothers Inside my head. One of them seems to be a 14th Century Romanian Noble man (Who may or may not be related to Vlad Tepes,) and the Other for all intents and purposes seems to be A Raven.

I understand that caution must be heeded, when listening to another's situation. But shouldn't Judgement be reserved until the end? and also on an Individual basis?

I realize that I am opening myself up to attack, because I haven't carefully Metered out my response, making sure that what I say is backed up with scientific, or at least rational explanation. But That's O.k. to me. If the best way I know to describe what's going on in my 'system/family/house etc.' is that my older brother is a Vampire who's systematically sucking the life from all my Inner-Family members, and thusly killing eveyone else, then that's the only way I know to say it.

If all posts need to be changed so that they don't offend those who are too deeply rooted in their own fallacies, Then why post at all,.?
It doesn't encourage me to open up about *my* living with Multiplicity when all i can expect to recieve is skepticism and Ridicule.

What I'm trying to say is; If there's something you Can't/Won't understand. Then just leave it be. It won't negatively affect you will it? ...No. If you're worried that it brings down the standing of all other Multiples in general, Then do *Your* best to provide the Antithesis to that. Help to Provide Solutions.

If it's something that truly seems alarming to you, then see what avenues you can go through to get help for that person. Or at the very least point them in the right direction. Whether they take that advice or not is their perogative.

Don't sit Idely by and click your tongue in Disdain because someone said something that-you-just-happened-to-not-agree-with-the-day-you-read-their-post. More than likely if you had given it 24 hours, that post would have been gone from your friends' list and then you'd have something else to think about, instead of belittling someone else's experience with reality.

Our Community Is Built on Disparity. Which brings Innumerable Pluses to the Table. Bringing a wealth of new Information and existences to our attention. I don't think they should be overlooked, Simply because, "I don't believe them."

~M~

Comments

[luwana.livejournal.com]

Depending on what the individuals believe( and I mean the person 'judging' mostly) it could be seen as harmful and possibley immoral NOT to start questioning things, and I mean vocally.

Community is based on discussion, chatter, and that IS going to include "really? why do you think that? Hrm, I think you're wrong."

how one phrases it is up to them, there are some pretty bad ways of wording it, but the act of openly questioning and disbelieving somebody is IMO not bad, only the way we act about it is.


Also I think not believing someone is a VERY valid reason to discount a lot of what they say, most particularly if it's related to the thing we don't believe. I don't believe D J Conway has a psychic bone in her body, so I will take fuck all she says seriously, and I am not in the wrong for that.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

addendum: fuck all she says related to spirituality. Obviously these things come on a case by case basis, and I'm not going to say "you wrote a bad book therefore I will not trust you about train times."

[luwana.livejournal.com]

Oh I browse it. for comedy value, but I browse it XD

I got Dancing With Dragons a good while back, and was muchly amused. As a dragon, the concept that dragons run to the whims of emo kids ringing gongs just amuses the hell out of me.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

"Depending on what the individuals believe( and I mean the person 'judging' mostly) it could be seen as harmful and possibley immoral NOT to start questioning things, and I mean vocally."

-I think that would fall under, "If it's something that truely seems alarming to you, then see what avenues you can go through to get help for that person. Or at the very least point them in the right direction. Wether they take that advice or not is their perogative."

"Community is based on discussion, chatter, and that IS going to include "really? why do you think that? Hrm, I think you're wrong."

-This is true. However, it's not the best course of action when all one is seeking is Input. Not Debate.

"how one phrases it is up to them, there are some pretty bad ways of wording it, but the act of openly questioning and disbelieving somebody is IMO not bad, only the way we act about it is."

-Precisely. I thought the way they stated what they did was a bad way of doing so. I'm not going to pretend to be so Lofty as to tell them how they should have done it. I can't.

" Also I think not believing someone is a VERY valid reason to discount a lot of what they say, most particularly if it's related to the thing we don't believe. I don't believe D J Conway has a psychic bone in her body, so I will take fuck all she says seriously, and I am not in the wrong for that."

-Most of the time, From what I've seen, No one is asking Everyone else to belive what they are saying. Just to be heard seems to me, The Primary Objective.

Shouldn't all get that chance,.?

~M~

[luwana.livejournal.com]

However, it's not the best course of action when all one is seeking is Input. Not Debate.

Well then it's best to say "I do not want any debate, at all" and wait for at least some of the community to look at you funny ;)


-I think that would fall under, "If it's something that truely seems alarming to you, then see what avenues you can go through to get help for that person. Or at the very least point them in the right direction. Wether they take that advice or not is their perogative."

ja... and... that's mostly what everyone *does*?

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

it's also not a very nice feeling to be called a liar.. that's something I won't do to another person..

[luwana.livejournal.com]

I think there's a difference between liar and wrong.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

that's true.. but when it's in relation to an experience where there's no real way to show what's happening because it's "in my head", then telling someone that their "experience is wrong", would be the same thing as calling them a liar..

[luwana.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I disagree. Because, even with the whole subjectivey thingy, you're not strictly speaking lying. I mean, is a schizophrenic talking about their hallucinations lying? Noup. Are there really dead people crawling out of the floor though. Noup again. So they're wrong, but they're not lying because they're just relaying what they 'know'.

Same when I relate my experiences. They are my experiences, AFAIK I'm not lying (even to myself), but I could still be wrong. I don't find being told I might be wrong nearly as offensive as being told I am lying *noddle*

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

I can see what you're saying.. it could be a personal response to myself to being told "no, you're wrong!".. to me, that feels like someone's telling me I'm lying.. not in an instance where it's something that could be proven with facts, because that would be different.. but in an instance where it's difficult enough to try and explain an experience to begin with and it's a touchy subject in the sense that most of the world believes such things are "insane" anyway.. to be told that I'm wrong or I'm making it up, does sound to me like I'm being called a liar.. it just sounds like a nicer way of saying it.. I hope that makes sense in where I'm coming from..

[luwana.livejournal.com]

It does depend, and I think a lot relies on tone. Some people have this delightful ability to say "you're wrong" with bigsubtext saying "snerk, lying bitch."

When put just.... normally though, often people are just saying "I think you're wrong" (and there a lot of people I think are wrong no doubt XD) as opposed to flat out accusing someone of lying, because lying seems to require a concious knowledge.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

I suppose in an instance like that I should double check and ask what they mean before I get upset over it..

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

I mean, is a schizophrenic talking about their hallucinations lying? Noup. Are there really dead people crawling out of the floor though. Noup again. So they're wrong, but they're not lying because they're just relaying what they 'know'.

Right, but then instead of just saying "I disagree", you're implying that they're insane rather than lying. In most cases, this is the worst of the two things to be accused of.

I also just want to point out that as far as schizophrenic hallucinations go, "dead people crawling out of the floor" isn't a typical one. More like, "Hey, God and the Devil just showed up 'cause they just clocked out of work and want to hang out and listen to your Leonard Cohen tapes-- turn it up REAL HIGH --who cares if the neighbors complain? HEL-LO, this is God here, I kind of trump those neighbors don't you know-- oh, and make a sandwich. A good ham-cheese. Lots of Mayo. MORE MAYO.-- Don't listen to him, why do think Satan's built like a cheese tub?" ...and so on. (Paraphrasing from a specific man with schizophrenia we know, mind.)

So, like, I can see someone who liked horror movies and the macabre having hallucinations along the lines of The Dead Are Rising, but I find it more likely that someone who worked at a dog shelter will hallucinate that they understand What Dogs Say When They Bark and that the stray dogs that were put to sleep by the Humane Society now live in their basement "but they're doing well otherwise and want some more wicker baskets to sleep in, if it's not too much trouble."

[luwana.livejournal.com]

The example I took is from a person I talked to a goodly while back who was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Take it up with her :P She also said she got subliminal messages from 'potato chips' if that makes you happier ;)

It wasn't a perfect example but the point was still fairly sound. The schizophrenic is not lying. somebody relaying what they are experiencing is not lying. That doesn't mean they are *right*, they can indeed be wrong (or, yes, insane). My point was that one can be wrong and accused of being wrong with being a liar or being accused of lying :)

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

The example I took is from a person I talked to a goodly while back who was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Take it up with her :P She also said she got subliminal messages from 'potato chips' if that makes you happier ;)

She saw dead people crawling up out of the floor? Wow. What was the context? Did she have any idea why it was happening (as far as she saw it)? From what I've heard, one person's hallucinations tend to make sense in the context of everything else-- "if you saw everything I do, you'd do this too". So, an ex-Catholic hallucinates God and the Devil, a dog shelter worker hallucinates dogs, and all put together, it makes enough sense to them that they can't really tell it apart from any other part of reality.

The schizophrenic is not lying. somebody relaying what they are experiencing is not lying. That doesn't mean they are *right*, they can indeed be wrong (or, yes, insane). My point was that one can be wrong and accused of being wrong with being a liar or being accused of lying :)

Exactly. You're right that being wrong and telling a lie are entirely different: to lie, you have to know that what you're relaying isn't true. This is why it's usually not considered morally wrong to be mistaken about something.

What I meant is that, like the people with the "delightful ability to say 'you're wrong' with bigsubtext saying 'snerk, lying bitch.'", there are a lot of times in this community where someone is going "you're wrong" with bigsubtext saying "you're fucking out of your mind and probably eat babies". And sometimes, there isn't even bigsubtext, but a direct accusation. (But not of eating babies.)

Fact is, seems that a lot of multiple systems want to believe that other multiple systems are insane or a lying singlet, for no benefit to either party, on the basis of otherkin system members, or events in inner/otherworlds, or even just system organization and behavior. That's going to throw a kink into any attempt at a rational debate...

[luwana.livejournal.com]

It was so long ago, sadly. All I remember of the conversation was that she told me those two examples as some things that she saw/heard if she wasn't on her meds.

Could be as simple as having watched a nasty horror movie when she was younger, who knows.

Believe me, not denying that some people do accuse all sorts of stuff :)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

OTOH, if you tell everyone that you saw Jesus in a potato chip, or the Virgin Mary, you can get thousands of dollars for it on eBay... ;p

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Heh.

Well, that's an example of a case in which it's all right to see something that most people would agree is not objectively there, because it fits with a subcultural norm.

See anything that *doesn't* fit any kind of norm, though, and you're screwed...

[threedog.livejournal.com]

Right, but then instead of just saying "I disagree", you're implying that they're insane rather than lying. In most cases, this is the worst of the two things to be accused of.

I think that's why it's a good idea in a discussion like that, to use words like "I think" and "I feel." Whether the person is insane, or just percieving something differently, or even if you're just involved in a normal old debate about "ordinary" topics, prefacing most disagreeing or denying statements with that small disclaimer seems to help with open-mindedness. At least, in my experience.

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

I think that's why it's a good idea in a discussion like that, to use words like "I think" and "I feel." Whether the person is insane, or just percieving something differently, or even if you're just involved in a normal old debate about "ordinary" topics, prefacing most disagreeing or denying statements with that small disclaimer seems to help with open-mindedness. At least, in my experience.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There's always going to be someone who's going to go "Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's not WRONG."

I wish there was more distinction between "wrong" as in "made a mistake, oops" and "wrong" as in "morally deplorable". The way some flame wars go, you wouldn't think there was a difference.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

icon love!

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

thank you! :) I made it from a stock photo.. here is the regular version of it that I offered in kasiya_icons, if you'd like it.. :)

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

I consider it morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. What do you do when the community which supposedly understands you doesn't share your values?

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Empiricist !

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Why morally wrong? and what criteria are you using to determine what evidence is sufficient?

I've never supposed that this community or any other understands me. Currently there are 711 members of multiplicity and I only know two of them personally. There's maybe a dozen I've interacted with enough to consider them real friends rather than just online acquaintances, but most of the people here, I don't know at all. So... how could we be expected to understand each other, or to know which values we share and which we don't?

Individuals hold values; individuals may understand each other (though it's not neccessarily a good idea to assume that they do without sufficient evidence) - a community can't, though. A community is nothing but a bunch of individuals who may have nothing at all in common besides their membership in the community.

Anyway, what does one do? Well, when one's posts to a community engender too many unfavorable responses, the sensible thing is to stop posting there; when the posts one reads on a community engender too much annoyance, the sensible thing is to stop reading them.

However, in a community this big, it's a good idea to remember that the annoying posts and unfavorable responses are coming from a minority of the members, and don't necessarily indicate any kind of 'consensus'.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

M) ...I'm not going to argue the point of this entry, partly because I don't want to get involved.

All I want to know is this: why, why do you intersperse your sentences with random capital letters!? Why!? All it does it jarringly disrupt the flow of your speech and make it sound ridiculous, what do you get out of it!?

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

You do realize that this is an example of a spelling flame (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22spelling+flame%22&btnG=Search), yes?

Pot's calling Kettle black here, because in a lot of your posts you've enumerated points by writing (ay) (bee) (cee) (dee) and so on, which is even more jarring and ridiculous than random caps. What did you get out of it, eh? Inquiring Minds Want To Know!

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

M) *checks* No... No, not if I understand what you mean by that. That mode of writing makes it difficult to read and understand the main text (or at least makes one less likely to want to put in the effort), but, while it may make the flow of speech sound ridiculous, that has nothing to do with the content of the message. If I wanted to argue with the content, I would first want to read it through thoroughly, and then address it directly. Basic grammar is an entirely different matter.

That's an interesting question, and there seems to have been little point to that quirk: however, one may note that such usage was always in cases denoting a list, the contents of the list itself being written normally (which makes it no less ridiculous). In any case, I cannot remember when it was last used, but agree that it is both foolish and pointless.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

M) The points about the grammar's quality hereby rescinded due to given (possible) reasons.

Re: interestinly of topic fact

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

Before the enlightenment capital letters were used to denote words of importance [...] and not the beginning of sentences.

A good example of this would be more or less anything Benjamin Franklin ever wrote. (http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf1/contents.htm) Standardized "modern" capitalization was only seen as a sign of intelligence (and the lack of it as a lack of such) in the 19th century, when it was an important way to distinguish the poor and working class from those who could afford lengthy private education. (Penmanship also served this purpose, but it's fallen into disuse since the typewriter...)

Also, in German and many other Teutonic languages, they're used to identify all nouns, just not proper ones, but this hasn't been the practice in English for several centuries.

Re: interestinly of topic fact

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

M) Oy. That would explain it, then; both of you, thank you.

[vinik.livejournal.com]

'Begins to bang head repeatedly against the desk'

-David

[threedog.livejournal.com]

So you're saying, never question anything ever to avoid offending someone who's telling you something you know is ridiculous? Um, no thanks.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

No, that wasn't my point.

If you belive what someone has said to be completely un-realistic to you, then don't belive it.

No One in this community should be trying to force their beliefs upon anyone else.

If It does seem Implausible, Then perhaps instead of stating outright "I don't believe you" try showing them Realistic avenues in which they can cope or perhaps eliminate their problems.

If it seems something that you absolutely Can Not cope with. Then leave it alone.

I'm not saying don't question. There are better ways to get more detail about what the person is experiencing than just straight disagreement.

Perhaps with further Constructive Dialogue, you and they can reach an understanding that is acceptable to your perceptions and theirs.

Receptive listening skills are a must when dealing with someone who is possibly dealing with a situation/Place/person that they've never come across before. Be It in their head or in real life.

~M~

[pengke.livejournal.com]

Since this is obviously a hissy fit stemming from your inability to read my post appropriately, I would like to point out that the post was not about why or when someone might disbelieve another person, nor was it about whether you would tell the person. There have been extreme statements made to this community but what one person might find extreme another person won't. The statement that might makes you stop and think, "I don't believe you," could be something perfectly ordinary but you have reason to believe it isn't true. The post was about the differences between what people think about the poster or the situation when they do read statements that they don't believe, because in this community it's not as simple as thinking the person is automatically lying. So you're having a fit over nothing.

Further, if you're being whiny because I told elenbarathi that I don't believe in elves, that's even stupider. I needed a specific example to explain the differences between the statements and I knew she was mature enough that she wouldn't care what I thought or perceive it as an attack on her beliefs.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Since this is obviously a hissy fit stemming from your inability to read my post appropriately"

Woah... perjorative and unsupportable statement there. The fact that he doesn't like some of the implied assumptions behind your post - and yes, there definitely are some - doesn't mean he was "unable" to read your post "appropriately". What exactly do you mean by "appropriately", anyway? How does one determine whether or not someone has read another person's post "appropriately"?

He wasn't having a "hissy fit" - I happen to know this because I was in the same room with him while he was typing this, as you were not. Nor was he "whining". Your use of prejudicial language is a classic example of a logical fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php), and since that seems to be the entire basis of your argument here, I don't think much of it. If you think a person has not understood what you meant, it is possible to clarify your position without resorting to childish insults.

As for the "elf thing" - actually I think we're substantially in agreement on that point, because I don't believe that beings like Tolkien's fictional characters ever walked this earth either. I also don't believe that King Arthur had a magic sword given to him by a lake spirit, or that the Trojan War was caused by a dispute between the Goddesses over who was prettiest, or that James Fenimore Cooper's depiction of the Indians is even close to accurate. However, I do think King Arthur was a real person, the Trojan War occurred, Native Americans exist... and the Alfar people of Denmark existed and left descendants in the general population.

Your insistence on defining "elves" as "magical immortal beings such as those depicted in fiction" is an example of the logical fallacy known as straw man (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php). Obviously the ancient Scandinavians, Teutons and Celts did meet, have dealings with, and sometimes marry some people they considered to be quite different from themselves, and the name by which they referred to those people was elves - as noted, there is ample historical evidence that this was the case.

You may disbelieve this, and that's okay with me - hey, there are people who don't believe the Holocaust ever happened, or that peoplke ever walked on the Moon - but if you're attempting to make a logical case for your disbelief, you need to do it with real logic, not fallacies.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

In this comment, I'm using appropriately to mean that the reader applied basic reading comprehension skills.

Out of all of the people who read my post or commented on it, he's the only one who chose to be offended by it. Then instead of commenting to the post itself he chose to take a more dramatic route by making a new post. Even if he had had legitimate complaints about my post, I would still see this post as whining and having a hissy fit.

I'm not really interested in debating the existance of elves but I can since you insist. I think your arguments are silly. To me, it sounds like you are saying that an outside group of humans married into the people of Denmark and became the basis for the myth of elves so therefore you are descended from elves. It could be that I am misunderstanding you because I don't see how you would see that as you being anything other than human but you said you have a different genetic make-up due to your elven blood. I wouldn't say that reptiles are part dragon even though I think dinosaurs were probably the origin of the dragon mythology and reptiles are descended from dinosaurs.

Further, I've noticed lately that you've fallen into the habit of spouting debate terminology when you want to disagree with someone without bothering to go into the terms of the disagreement. That in itself is a bad debate technique. It doesn't do anything to get your point across unless you were merely using it as a ploy to make yourself look smarter.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Out of all of the people who read my post or commented on it, he's the only one who chose to be offended by it."

Ah... "chose to"? You're obviously offended by HIS post; does that mean you're choosing to be? If so, why are you making that choice?

You have no way of knowing whether or not anyone else who read your post was offended by it. Further, since he didn't comment to your post, nor say anything at all about it, you have no supportable basis for claiming that his post was a response to yours and yours alone.

"I'm not really interested in debating the existance of elves but I can since you insist. I think your arguments are silly."

Oh please. I'm not "insisting"; you are the one who brought the topic up in the first place. And I know you think my arguments are silly; nothing I could say would possibly convince you otherwise, because they conflict with your belief-system. Therefore I'm not really interested in debating the point with you either.

"To me, it sounds like you are saying that an outside group of humans married into the people of Denmark and became the basis for the myth of elves so therefore you are descended from elves."

Wrong. Perhaps another application of those basic reading-comprehension skills is in order.

"you said you have a different genetic make-up due to your elven blood."

Wrong. I did not say that. I have never had my DNA tested, therefore I have no basis for making any statement at all about my genetic make-up. Unlike some people, I do not confuse untestable hypotheses with beliefs.

"Further, I've noticed lately that you've fallen into the habit of spouting debate terminology when you want to disagree with someone without bothering to go into the terms of the disagreement"

Ayup. This is because I don't think the terms of the disagreement are worth bothering to go into.

"It doesn't do anything to get your point across unless you were merely using it as a ploy to make yourself look smarter."

I don't need to "make myself look smarter" than people who use logical fallacies in their debating, dearie, and I don't figure such people would get my point no matter how I tried to put it across, because they don't want to get it. And I would tell you which logical fallacy your statement there exemplifies, but my kid's got a concert, so... look it up yourself, if you care. I'm guessing you probably don't, though. Whatever.

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

In this comment, I'm using appropriately to mean that the reader applied basic reading comprehension skills.

Nyet.

"Reading comprehension is the process of understanding and constructing meaning from a piece of text. Connected text is any written material involving multiple words that forms coherent thoughts. Phrases, sentences, paragraphs and so on are examples of connected text that can be read with comprehension. Reading difficulties become most apparent when the reader is unable to grasp the meaning from a text passage. Reading comprehension may be affected by the difficulty of the text, the vocabulary words used in the text, and the reader's familiarity with the subject matter, among other factors."

jhonathand doesn't seem to be having issues understanding what you've written or grasping the meaning, as if he did, he wouldn't have been able to write this post to begin with. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with his reading comprehension skills. He applied them well enough to write a reply post that you were able to recognize as a response to your own.

He does, however, disagree with what he believed was the spirit of the post. This is an opinion based on a perception of subtext. An opinion can be right or wrong, and the subtext may or may not actually be there, but both have nothing to do with reading comprehension.

Out of all of the people who read my post or commented on it, he's the only one who chose to be offended by it. Then instead of commenting to the post itself he chose to take a more dramatic route by making a new post. Even if he had had legitimate complaints about my post, I would still see this post as whining and having a hissy fit.

Perhaps he made a second post because he wasn't sure if that was your intended implication, and decided to start a new (though related) discussion that was separate from the first. Or, even more likely, maybe he was inspired not by your original post, but by some of the comments by other members in response to it. Would you have preferred a long tangent thread in response to a specific comment rather than a new post that forks away from it?

[pengke.livejournal.com]

When you read a post asking you what you think when you come across a statement that you disbelieve, and you respond with a post saying that you shouldn't tell people that you disbelieve them; that tells me that you're having a reading comprehension problem. Understanding subtext is also a part of reading comprehension but I do see the point you are making.

If he was inspired by comments in response to my post, he wouldn't have directly quoted my post. I prefer tangent threads in posts unless the discussion is entirely unrelated to the parent thread and is receiving enough attention to warrent a post of its own.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

"When you read a post asking you what you think when you come across a statement that you disbelieve, and you respond with a post saying that you shouldn't tell people that you disbelieve them; that tells me that you're having a reading comprehension problem."

-Having just re-read my post I didn't ever say "shouldn't tell people that you disbelieve them;" You cry 'Foul' that I quoted you. And Admittedly I Changed the word "You" to "Them" (A Second person Pronoun to a Third Person Pronoun, Because it was contextually necessary.) Yet You're Free to Misquote me?

Either way, I was merely pointing out some of the different alternatives one can take Instead of directly telling people that you disbelieve them. So Once again, Let's not belabour the Reading Comprehension skills.

"If he was inspired by comments in response to my post, he wouldn't have directly quoted my post."

-The Phrase "I Don't Believe You." Is A Declarative Statement. You are not the first to use it and I know you won't be the last. I could have gotten that "Quote" From any number of places, not just your post. That is the Only Reference to your post that I made in mine.

"I prefer tangent threads in posts unless the discussion is entirely unrelated to the parent thread and is receiving enough attention to warrent a post of its own."

-My post was unrelated. It involved thematic elements that were present in yours, but the subject matter was and still is wholly different. In an Open Forum Community in which I am a member in good standing (I.E. not banned, screened, asked to leave) I can post about whatever topic I wish, as long as it in some way pertains to Multiplicity, or even if it doesn't, as long as it's kept short.

As well; Just because you prefer something your way doesn't automatically mean that you are going to get it.

And I would say that this post has received More than its Due attention.
So I will say Good Night and Adieu

~M~

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

" Since this is obviously a hissy fit stemming from your inability to read my post appropriately, I would like to point out that the post was not about why or when someone might disbelieve another person, nor was it about whether you would tell the person."

-No I think I read your post just fine. You made a broad sweeping gerneralization of all the people on this community for your own personal devices. Whatever point you were trying to make got lost long before I made my post. Assuming that Others are not thinking Critically about what's said here is a huge supposition. One that I know I didn't want spoken on my behalf, from you. I never elected you to be my conscience or guiding standard to which I should hold all Multiples.

"There have been extreme statements made to this community but what one person might find extreme another person won't."

-Isn't that the privilege of the person reading the post? And Only Theirs? Who's place is it to put an Outline/Codex on what should be determined Extreme or unbelievable?

" The statement that might makes you stop and think, "I don't believe you," could be something perfectly ordinary but you have reason to believe it isn't true."

-Wouldn't that be a cause for some more Clarification of the subject? Why wouldn't that thought occur to anyone who wanted to truly know more about the situation? Simply asking for Clarification is something that we should all encourage and support if we are to encourage Growth and understanding in this community.

"The post was about the differences between what people think about the poster or the situation when they do read statements that they don't believe, "

-You must be careful when speaking about what people Do or Do Not Believe. People don't take kindly to having Their beliefs thrown in their faces, trampled upon, Or Generalized in such a way that they seem insignificant. Beliefs are often privately held. To have someone Publicly denigrate (Directly or Indirectly) Their Beliefs is both Egregious and Rude.

Put yourself in Their shoes for a moment if you will. If *You* had made "outrageous claims" How would you take the post that was made on 3/29/2006 @ 15:03:00 hours? If It were me I would never return to this community because of the multitude of persons who answered and the disgorged amounts of skepticisim that you helped Spawn.

" because in this community it's not as simple as thinking the person is automatically lying. "

-Doesn't this statement kind of reveal what your opinion is?

" So you're having a fit over nothing."

-I thought a fit was a physical action. not a Grammatical one. And Thank You, I haven't thrown a fit since I was about 14 years old.

" Further, if you're being whiny because I told 'elenbarathi' that I don't believe in elves, that's even stupider."

-elenbarathi is perfectly capable of handling those accusations herself. She doesn't need me to take Any action either on her behalf or Not.

" I needed a specific example to explain the differences between the statements and I knew she was mature enough that she wouldn't care what I thought or perceive it as an attack on her beliefs."

-And If it was Specifics that you needed, why not ask those things in private? rather than dragging the credibility Of Other Multiples down with Generalizations and models that Can Not Be Applied To All In This Community?

I'm not saying that everyone should walk on eggshells. I'm merely stating that there are *Different* ways of finding out the Information that you need. Less Public ones at that. And Again, Supposition about what elenbarathi Believes or Thinks, Is no one's purview but her Own.

~M~

[vinik.livejournal.com]

LOL!!!

You get the win for appropriate icon placement!

[vinik.livejournal.com]

And one liner! :))

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

In My home land, We use Mandarin Oragne slices,...

and Krispy Wonton Crunchies!

~M~

P.S. Dearly Love the Icon

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

No Doubt!

I truely feel that she should be the president of everything.

~M~