Reinstated to CCG A bad dream [Archive]

View Full Version : Reinstated to CCG A bad dream

onesimus (onesimus)

10-03-2005, 10:02 PM

I dreamed that this email came from someone calling themselves "Peacemaker."

Dear Steve,

I have a plan that will miraculously add serotonin to your system and, if accepted by Dave Kenady and co., result in your reinstatement to CCG. The plan involves 6 steps.

1st. You and Dave will reenact a scene from the movie Anger Management. You will be Adam Sandler and he will be Jack Nicholson. On cue, you will sing along with Dave/Jack, the West Side Story tune, I Feel Pretty. Also present will be Freedom Lover and SJM.

2nd. Dave will repeat the lie that your problem with your brother's web site predated the Chapel board's existence. Your reaction will be to sing - enthusiastically - the entire song I Feel Pretty. You will not mention that the Chapel board was the first web site you ever visited, or that you wouldn't have known your brother's site existed but for the Chapel board.

3rd. SJM will remind you that you are an unChristlike troublemaker. You will sing the song.

4th. FL will wax indignent that you brought your family dispute onto the CCG. You will sing the song.

5th. Dave will repost the link to the picture of your estranged son that Yabut/Phil put in a response to your post, and then remind you how difficult you have been. You will sing the song.

6th. Certain acquaintances of yours will again post how they have been rejected because hosannas have not been forthcoming at their every utterance. You will not remind Dave and co. that you tried to warn them about these people. You will sing the song.

At such time as Dave, SJM, and FL feel that you been have sufficiently emasculated, you will be back in good standing on CCG!

Peace,

Oh, and Agape too.

Peacemaker

silverbee (silverbee)

10-04-2005, 01:20 AM

1st. You and Dave will reenact a scene from the movie Anger Management. You will be Adam Sandler and he will be Jack Nicholson. On cue, you will sing along with Dave/Jack, the West Side Story tune, I Feel Pretty. Also present will be Freedom Lover and SJM.

That's not such a bad idea. Singing would definitely be an improvement.

Dave will repeat the lie that your problem with your brother's web site predated the Chapel board's existence. Your reaction will be to sing - enthusiastically - the entire song I Feel Pretty. You will not mention that the Chapel board was the first web site you ever visited, or that you wouldn't have known your brother's site existed but for the Chapel board.

"Dave will repeat the lie... " Flattery will get you nowhere. Your words are too kind. I've found that calling people liars tends to shut down dialogue, blacken eyes, stuff like that. What apparently predated the CCG board was the problem you brought to my attention. I say predated because I had previously copied the article in question about the Chapel to my hard drive after reading it on your brother's site. When the allegation was made by you, I searched my copy and his site to no avail. I then found out from your conversation with him that the statement you claimed was slanderous had been removed at your request. And since my hard drive showed no passage, I deduced that this hasd been rectified before I captured it -- meaning also before I was aware of your brother's site. It's that simple.

But of course, the real problem here is that you've changed the subject. My previous comments about this were only to illustrate why I didn't just do as I was told (by you) and delete the link I had to his site. You wanted the deletion because he was slandering you. I investigated and found nothing there. And discovered that this very problem had been recitified at your request -- so what was the problem???? Changing the subject to my "lie" about whose website existed first is a diversion. Who cares whose site existed first? That wasn't the issue.

Dave will repost the link to the picture of your estranged son that Yabut/Phil put in a response to your post, and then remind you how difficult you have been. You will sing the song.

Never saw the photo and never had the link. I actually went looking for it in the archives last week because I went back to your brothers site and spent the evening re-reading the whole issue from start to finish. I never found the photo there and I never found the link in the archives. Now maybe it was taken down, maybe the link didn't actually go to the photo but you found it as you clicked around the site -- I don't know. But I never saw it and you never mentioned this that I recall until recently. I don't know what you expect of me. If you are so disturbed about the content of your brother's website, start your own and pull all the stops out. Its really not that hard.

Certain acquaintances of yours will again post how they have been rejected because hosannas have not been forthcoming at their every utterance. You will not remind Dave and co. that you tried to warn them about these people. You will sing the song.

True. And I see this now. It is kind of a different flavor of the same formula. But here I agree with you. I don't owe anyone hosannas for their every utterance.

At such time as Dave, SJM, and FL feel that you been have sufficiently emasculated, you will be back in good standing on CCG!

That was a well executed guilt trip.

Hey Steve, how about a compliment. I found your "Logos" treatise on the web and enjoyed it immensely. You were casting pearls before swine but I appreciated it and saved it to my hard drive. Quite a contrast to this site. An excellent paper.

By the way, I've also read with interest your Book of Joe, part 1. Looking forward to part 2.

Dave

onesimus (onesimus)

10-04-2005, 11:01 PM

I've found that calling people liars tends to shut down dialogue...

Which would be a shame if there was any dialogue to shut down.

There was/is no dialogue because you refused to discuss the matter privately.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

Your statement was a lie, rather than a misunderstanding, because you used it to berate me publically, rather than answering my private communications to you.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

...the article in question about the Chapel...
I was completely unaware of until finding it linked on your board, and I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same article.

When the allegation was made by you...
You told me to email you the details. Before I could do so, you sent me an email in which you read me the riot act - the first of your many accusations that I was motivated by hate.

I deduced that this had been rectified before I captured it -- meaning also before I was aware of your brother's site. It's that simple.

Not quite. You made your decision before getting input (that you requested) from me, and I'm not sure we are even talking about the same article. Furthermore, I wouldn't have known about the article but for the Chapel board.

Changing the subject to my "lie" about whose website existed first is a diversion.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

"Diversion" from what?

The "subject" - as far as I'm concerned - is your public berating of me, in which you implied that there was never any substance to my original complaint, based on your assertion that said complaint predated the Chapel board.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

Your tirade against me included several factual errors (eg. Steve Born one of the original participants), all of which I didn't (and still don't) have time to address, though I'll always wonder if some things might have been cleared up had you been willing to converse privately.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

Never saw the photo..
I did. It was obviously meant for me, coming as an ambush from an anonymous person responding to my post. Of course, I only have forty years experience with this stuff, so naturally your insights are more keen than mine.

But I never saw it and you never mentioned this that I recall until recently.
Like it would have made any difference. Lots of things I haven't mentioned. You saw "Yabut's" ambush, the fabricated death threat, and the real (though not realistic) threat against your board. In response, you gave him what he wanted - since he didn't mind being banned from a place that never gave him proper honor, anyway.

I don't know what you expect of me.
I expect you to continue to justify your lies and distortions about me. To disregard all biblical guidelines for dealing with disputes. To blame me for many difficulties that you brought on yourself. To make many assumptions while asking no questions. To deny that other people might know something about matters pertaining to their own lives.

Now you know what I expect of you.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

If you are so disturbed about the content of your brother's website, start your own and pull all the stops out.

You're incredibly presumptuous.

Did I mention that we could have discussed this privately?

I'm not all that disturbed that a dozen or so people are reading lies about me on some website. I just didn't want it as part of (what for me was) a family reunion.

...True. And I see this now.
Hmmm. Any chance I might have been right about anything else? Never! I was just full of hate!

Hey Steve, how about a compliment.

Thanks. I'd reciprocate, but I'm a little out of sorts just now. None of my past compliments to you have been rescinded, though. I went to that forum to test my ideas and, having done so, made my exit before losing any limbs.

Steve

steve (steve)

10-04-2005, 11:59 PM

It is kind of weird how, once wielded, the weapon of banning from the board is hard to put down; and how the habit seems to have carried over from Community Chapel itself to the present community of ex-members of the Chapel. It's almost as if a Chapelite has no toleration for dissent and no idea of how to deal with it except by expelling the voices it doesn't want to hear.

The list of those banned just keeps growing. I of course would have been banned had I not agreed to Dave's suggestion that I take a break from posting. Now JFJ has recently called for the banning of the fellow who posts under the name of Apostolic Ministries (or something like that) as well as for the banning of Thomas F. O'Neil.

What a circus it is over there.

silverbee (silverbee)

10-05-2005, 12:47 AM

You guys are a lost cause. I'm outta here. What a waste of my time.

onesimus (onesimus)

10-05-2005, 05:34 AM

Dave! Don't leave! I have a question!

You said,

What a waste of my time.

Earlier you also said,

...I went back to your brother's site and spent the evening re-reading the whole issue from start to finish.

!!!!

The issue that you:

*are sick of hearing about
*don't want to be bothered with
*never asked me even one question about

you spent an evening rehashing?

It must have been excruciating, spending all that time on a subject in which you have no interest.

Mein Kampf makes interesting reading, I admit. But I wouldn't read it to the exclusion of asking WWII vets about the war.

I don't think I'm ever going to feel pretty.

onesimus (onesimus)

10-05-2005, 06:18 AM

Steve,

I remember once when I was especially agitated about something you had said on CCG that you exhorted me to not read your posts if they upset me.

That was sound advice.

All those people had to do was not read your posts. I am still amazed that one of your last ones got 100 responses.

They can't control themselves, so they ban you.

In my case, they also could've just ignored the offensive posts, though I'd have preferred that they exercise some discernment, and put a stop to the abuse to which I was being subjected.

Oops - can't exercise something they don't have.

I appreciate the 20 or so souls who voted against banning you, including many who do have disagreements with you. There would have been three more if our family had been allowed a vote.

But fifty-plus voted against you, which is more than enough to make a mob, and to ensure that group think will be in vogue at CCG for the forseeable future.