The FACTNet Answer Man

[steveb]

<hr width=75% size=2><center><font size="+2"><font face="Times New Roman">The FACTNet Answer Man</font></font></center><center>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif</center><center>Answering Everything You Wanted To Know About FACTNet But Were Afraid to Ask!</center><hr width=75% size=2><blockquote>Due to circumstances beyond our control, the FACTNET Answer Man is unable to appear live and in person among the good denizens of the Community Chapel Gathering, but we want them to rest assured that their questions and comments will be handled nevertheless through this new broadcast.

The first person stepping up to the microphone in today's inaugural broadcast appears to be quite distraught.

FACTNet Answer Man Young man, please calm down. What concerns you today?

C.T. Thank you, Mr. Answer Man. I am upset. The moderator over at CCG said to me that I don't have anything worthwhile to say. He shook the Bible at me and said, "Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom." I don't understand that. Isn't he the same man who emailed you and called you an a**hole and said the reason he was going to ban you was that you are a jerk? Why did...

[...the rest of C.T.'s question is drowned out by gasps and loud murmurs from the audience...]

F.A.M. Folks, folks, please calm down. [Clears throat] Young man, please. Ah... [Coughs] Folks, please understand, we are going to hear some rough language from time to time. In dealing with Chapelites, we are dealing with some pretty hardened characters, we are going to be exposing some pretty bad behavior, and we are, unfortunately, going to hear some pretty rough language on both sides. It just comes with the territory when you are dealing with a situation that damaged people as badly as the Chapel did.

Now, young man, to answer your question, yes, sad to say, that was the same man. What you have encountered in him is called "hypocrisy." He wishes to appear one way in public, on the supposedly Christian Web site that he moderates, while acting an entirely different way in private. He wants people to think he moderates the board in a Christian manner and is motivated by Christian love, but he sometimes slips up and reveals instead that he is in fact motivated by anger and fear - in this case, anger at me for saying things about Chapel doctrine with which he strongly disagrees, and fear of what will happen if those things are freely expressed and are widely accepted.

At the Chapel, we did not have the freedom of expression that we have here today, but it is the Chapel world he still defends and he would like to believe is the world that must prevail in the end. However, already insecure because of the Chapel's collapse, when he encounters further strong evidence that his worldview is false, he becomes angry and fearful and lashes out in the only way he knows - by silencing dissenting voices the way he saw it done at the Chapel. Learn to expect this and don't be disturbed when you see it happen; also, don't be surprised when such people then turn and admonish you to act "Christ-like" instead. They honestly do not see their own hypocrisy, since in their mind everything they do is motivated by defending the Chapel, which to them is the same thing defending the Bible and true Christianity. The harsh, unkind things they do are justified by seeing those who criticize the Chapel as unreasonable opponents, or even as evil or demonic enemies of God himself, who need rebuke and correction.

C.T. Thank you, Mr. Answer Man. That makes sense. I feel much better now that I understand his behavior.</blockquote>

[calv]

MR F.A.M

DO they ALL think that way?

Is there something wrong with me?

C.T.

[steveb]

<hr width=75% size=2><center><font size="+2"><font face="Times New Roman">The FACTNet Answer Man</font></font></center><center>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif</center><center>Answering Everything You Wanted To Know About FACTNet But Were Afraid to Ask!</center><hr width=75% size=2><blockquote>C.T. has unexpectedly stepped back up to the microphone, causing the staff of the FACTNet Answer Man to hurriedly fetch F.A.M. from backstage. As C.T. finishes his question, F.A.M. has barely reached the podium, still combing his mullet and catching his breath...

C.T. DO they ALL think that way?

F.A.M. Well, that's an interesting question, young man. Every now and then somebody shows up that doesn't think enough like they do for the comfort of the group. As soon as the rest of them notice this, it isn't very long before they start pecking away at him until he (or she - but so far - strangely enough - all the public CCG dissidents have been male) leaves by himself; or, in frustration that he won't silence himself, they cast him out by group action. So the end result is that everybody who posts regularly on the board does think the same way - the old Chapel way for the most part. People who think the Chapel way was not healthy are not treated kindly. That is a strange thing, considering the extreme failure of the Chapel way.

That is also a sad thing. We hoped in the beginning of that board that it would be a place where all ex-Chapel members could find a place to discuss their Chapel years without being restricted to the old Chapel viewpoint of the faith. We had hoped that there would be freedom of discussion and expression for all, regardless of whether or not a person held to the old Chapel beliefs and practices, or whether or not a person even considered himself or herself to be a believer any longer.

C.T. Is there something wrong with me?

F.A.M. Well, again, that's an interesting question. In the eyes of true blue Chapelites, there's lots wrong with you, young man. In the eyes of counselors outside the Chapel, there's probably nothing wrong with you - you are on the right track to dealing with the mess you were in when you were a Chapelite. So I guess you will have to pick your answer based on the authorities - Chapelite or non-Chapelite - you think have shown the best judgement in spiritual and psychological matters in the past.

C.T. Thanks again, Mr. Answer Man. That helps. I really appreciate it.

F.A.M. No problem at all, son. That's why they pay me the big bucks.

[Audience laughs]</blockquote>

[dr_ira_lee_noahlott]

Your actions remind me of those chimpanzee on a wildlife special. Screeching, grunting, posturing throwing dirt in the air, throwing objects (including dung) and charging. It's really fun to watch.

Now, since you tend to take people out of context, redefine what they're saying and blow things out of proportion, let me just clarify what I meant by that.

I'm referring only to your actions, in this case your comments posted mostly in this thread, although there are a few in other threads, too. But I am not referring to your height, body hair, facial appearance, intellect, body proportions, eating habits or any other correlation you can imagine. And I'm not implying that you eat bugs taken from the bodies of family and friends. Also, I did not say that you are a chimpanzee or any other lower primate, so don't accuse me of name calling (again).

[steveb]

<hr width=75% size=2><center><font size="+2"><font face="Times New Roman">The FACTNet Answer Man</font></font></center><center>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif</center><center>Answering Everything You Wanted To Know About FACTNet But Were Afraid to Ask!</center><hr width=75% size=2>Another day's show is about to begin. The FACTNet Answer Man is seated onstage at a desk to the right of the podium, looking over his notes and preparing for the broadcast. The audience has been seated and is talking quietly as they wait. Suddenly...

[Loud angry shouts in back]... "chimpanzee! ...out of proportion! ...name-calling!"

[...audience members turning around, craning necks, trying to see what is going on...ushers rushing toward back...]

[More angry shouts] "...masters program! ...lots of independent research! ...a book! ...I'm a counselor!"

[Final angry shout, then the loud banging of a door as somebody apparently exits with great force...]

F.A.M. [Peering over his glasses at the back of the room] I'm sorry. I missed that. Was there a question in there someplace?

[dr_ira_lee_noahlott]

[Dr. N reenters the room]

Yea, I got lots of questions, and if these ushers will chill I won't scream as loud!

[room becomes so still you could hear a pin drop]

Dr. N [still upset, but in a controlled rage]

Thank you for the condescending response.

I don't mind disagreement on issues, but it doesn't have to get personal unless the person is the issue.

If you're going to make the claims that you have against people on that board you need to back it up with facts. Innuendo, implication and exaggeration don't stack up as evidence. Twisting someone's words to fit your emotional reaction isn't good enough.

Prove your claims.

It's probably simplest to just cut through your self-righteous posturing and state the obvious.

You're as big a phony as the Wizard of Oz.

You accused everyone on that board of group-think. Your claim is demeaning and dismissive of other people's opinions and of the way that they formed their opinions. The burden of proof for such a claim is on you.

If you cannot back up such a claim then it would be appropriate for you to admit that your claim was false, withdraw the claim and apologize for making it.

Once again, innuendo, implication and exaggeration don't stack up as evidence. Twisting someone's words to fit your emotional reaction isn't good enough.

But obviously you'll dismiss all of these insults and escalations (by you) as not having been part of my motivation to challenge your claim of 'group-think'. Instead you assume that it's because of pride. Not only is that "assuming motives", but it's also a very poor assessment of my motives in light of all my persistent profound and penetrating psychoanalytical profundity.

Isn't it possible that I was just a little ticked off at all of these insults and escalations? And yes, human beings can be angry without pride being at the root of it. Proof? Jesus wasn't proud yet He got angry. And the scripture that says, "be angry and sin not" implies that it's possible yet pride is sin. So your assuming my motive for challenging your claim could have been wrong, yet you assumed it anyway?

I tried to be very diplomatic with you, and you returned that consideration with insults, escalations and allegations.

You’re stuck on stupid.

<font size="-1">edited for punctuation,brackets, italics, and bold</font>

(Message edited by dr_ira_lee_noahlott on April 25, 2006)

[calv]

( OH! no whats gonna happen next?)http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

[steveb]

<hr width=75% size=2><center><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman">The FACTNet Answer Man</font></font>
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif
Answering Everything You Wanted To Know About FACTNet But Were Afraid to Ask!<hr width=75% size=2></center>[The FACTNet Answer Man sighs deeply. Looking suddenly rather old and tired, he gets up slowly and moves to the podium.]

F.A.M. Dear Sir, let me be honest with you.

You are very angry with me.

However, I am not angry with you at all.

You are very angry with me for saying that I find the CCG board to be dominated by groupthink. You think it is a deliberate insult, deployed as a tactical weapon in argument. You think that is merely a claim that I have made in order to hurt you and express my own anger.

However, it is not a tactic and it is not merely a claim. It is a true statement - true, that is, in being an accurate description of the way I see the situation, my honest and unguarded opinion about what is happening on the CCG board.

Now, my honest opinion may well be wrong, or I could be wrong about what groupthink actually is and therefore be mistaken in the use of the word as a technical description for what I am observing, but so far I have not seen any evidence that I have been wrong in either regard.

The opposite is in fact true. As I've continued to study the technical definition of groupthink and to observe the behavior of CCG participants, the more I become convinced it is an accurate description of what is happening there.

Further, mine was not a hasty statement, made while lashing out at people I felt to be enemies, and it didn't come out of anger. It came instead out of the sadness of disappointed hopes after participating on the CCG board for more than seven years and thinking deeply during that entire time about what was happening there in relation to what had happened at the Chapel.

[The Answer Man pauses to take a sip of water from the water glass on the podium...]

[steveb]

[The Answer Man resumes his comments...]

F.A.M. I had started out participating on the Chapel board with the hope a public board for ex-Chapelites would be free of the distorted way of relating to the world that we had adopted at the Chapel from, as we later learned beyond all doubt and disagreement, a very disturbed, paranoid, and manipulative leader.

As I participated on the board, and as I thought more deeply about my Chapel experience and became more successful in articulating my thoughts about it, I found it natural to accept that the distinctive doctrine and practices that Don Barnett mandated for us as Chapel members came out of his own disturbed, isolated mind - that is, out of his pride and his alienation from the church - more than they came from anyplace else. I thought that others also would be able to see that eventually.

I had thought the CCG board was going to be a place where that Chapel experience could be freely discussed and analyzed, regardless of present beliefs (or their lack) in the participants. Though I didn't think the Chapel was cult-like when I first starting participating, I thought that even that opinion of the Chapel should not be off-limits.

I had thought the "default" position would in fact probably eventually be that the Chapel was a very unbalanced place, unhealthily isolated from real Christian churches, and that most of its distinctive beliefs and practices would be open to questioning.

None of that turned out to be true. Instead, I watched in surprise and disappointment as it became a near duplicate of the old Chapel atmosphere.

Granted, most participants admitted that connections were wrong, and that because of them Don was not fit to be a pastor at the end. But even those points were conceded only haltingly and with overly careful qualifications by more than a few participants.

Mostly, the default position has become that the old Chapel beliefs and practices are above real questioning, and the old Chapel hostility is pridefully maintained toward historic Christian belief and practice. Those who seriously question the old Chapel doctrines are either hounded off the board or publicly disfellowshipped, that is to say, banned from the gathering of true Chapel members. In either case, they end up being treated as non-persons by other ex-Chapelites, the same as dissidents were treated by Chapelites during the Chapel's existence.

It still seems to me as though that kind of behavior - the closing of ranks around Chapel belief and practice, and the rejection those who no longer share it - is a clear indication of groupthink.

[onesimus]

<font color="ff0000">"Yea, I got lots of questions,..."</font>

I wonder why Dr. Noah-Lott never asked any questions after saying he had "lots of questions?"

Nellie operates similarly. She will accuse someone of "evasion" - which by definition is the act of dodging a question - despite the fact that she never asks questions (that aren't rhetorical or loaded).

<font size="-2">edited for verbosity</font>

(Message edited by onesimus on April 25, 2006)

[dr_ira_lee_noahlott]

[in front of the building, Dr. N. and an entourage from a groupthink tank called I.M.P.R.I.M.A.T.U.R. carry signs with slogans such as ...:]

"The truth obviously means little to you but weasel-words are a way of life!"

"You won't walk away and you won't admit to being insulting!"

"I guess this means you're going to continue your chimpanzee impression as well as the cheap shots!"

"Moronica for Morons!" <font size="-1">[this man was identified as Moe Hailstone, star of <u>You Nazty Spy</u>] </font>

[onesimus]

I.M.P.R.I.M.A.T.U.R.

Imperious Meddlers Perverting Real Inquiry Mendaciously Altering Thoughtful Utterances Repeatedly

I've had dealings with these folks.

Tiresome.

[calv]

( thier going to ruin my ministwee.... when are you gonna kick them off the board?!)http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/kiss.gif

[calv]

[The reader is advised that he or she may be subject to an illusion
generated by an evil genius, and that his or her "sensory fibers" may
be falsely manipulated at any time with neither advance warning nor
any possible legal remedy.]