| Subject: Re: Challenge to Donald |
Author:
Donald
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05:32:07 06/07/04 Mon
In reply to:
Vince
's message, "Challenge to Donald" on 16:39:30 06/05/04 Sat
Vince,
When I read the article about Harry Potter it was part of my reading for an essay I was writing about the decline of religion in Britain since the 1950s. I thought about you when I was reading it since I knew that you had an interest in Harry Potter and thought to myself that I would share some of the ideas with you when I found the time to see what you think. I had some time a few weeks later, so I wrote the message. I was very disappointed by your response because it seemed that instead of responding to the ideas you had decided to dismiss out of hand not only the idea that I had tried to present, but also the article (which you had not read) and the author himself, whom you almost seemed to ridicule. I was just looking to see if you agreed that there was something distinctly modern and secular, or 'de-mystified', about the magic in Harry Potter, but instead I got all this guff about ivory towers and attacks on 'academics'. It reminded me about the way that you had admitted that have not read any Watchtower books before writing your critiques and frankly I was annoyed by your smug attitude.
I was certainly not interested in having a personal confrontation with you and I tried to keep the discussion focussed on the original issue in my previous post. It is regrettable that you have decided to forget about the original topic and embark on a full-scale attack on my character. If you please re-read my posts it can bee seen that I have not been interested in going down this road. It is probably too late now to ask that we could go back to talking about Harry Potter and secularisation as I had wished, but can I ask at least that you will stop these personal attacks and unprovoked distortions of what has happened in the past. If you want to resolve anything you feel needs resolved then you could email me, if you are only interested in making me look bad and scoring points then you can continue what you are doing.
Donald
>Hi Donald,
>
>Some more comments.
>
>I said: "Remember that you have also made some
>admissions in the past as well (which I will give you
>the courtesy of not revealing to others here)!"
>
>You replied: "I can't think what you have in mind."
>
>Don't come that one Donald. You know 'exactly' what I
>mean. You are either in total denial or have a very
>short memory indeed. It was even mentioned in this
>thread that when you posted as "Ruler of the World"
>(ROTW) (before you were rumbled) on the Reachout board
>that you called your own meetings "boring". Would you
>really like me to post the rest here to jog your
>memory?
>
>I said: "I don’t know whether you are on a personal
>crusade to hurt and insult those who try and befriend
>you Donald"
>
>You replied: "That is not the way it is."
>
>Isn't it? You 'say' that but I am finding it harder
>and harder to believe as time goes on. What are your
>motives, 'really?' Is it simply to get one-up-manship
>all the time? This HP disussion is a typical example
>of this. I say something is black, you will argue that
>it is white. If I say it, it must be wrong in your
>eyes - end of story. I see you are giving Mike Thomas
>similar treatement on the Reachout board these days
>also. He is trying to be courteous (and I have met
>him. He really is a nice guy who cares for people).
>But you are starting to get some personal digs in
>there against him. Not very nice is it? Do you come
>away from all this really feeling satisfied? I doubt
>it. The whole thing looks pretty carnal to me.
>
>If you think I am being hard with you, then you are
>right. I am. As was mentioned here in this thread,
>Jesus Himself was hard on the religious people of His
>own day. I have had a few years of pussy footing
>around you and maybe it is time to be a bit more
>blunt. I am also sick and tired of your constant
>personal attacks, as of late, and implying that I am
>this or that.
>
>I said: "I dread to think what the post was that you
>put up on the reachout trust board against me a few
>weeks back that caused one of the moderators to take
>it down because it was “way too personal?"
>
>You said: "What you don't write is that your message
>was also removed. Mine was simply a response to what
>you had said - there is no need to "dread" it. Please
>ask Mike to see it if you want."
>
>Yes, my post was deleted also. From what I recall this
>was a response to something you had said, that was
>'becoming' personal against me. From the way you were
>acting at that time, I suspected that you would become
>even more personal, and my suspicions were confirmed
>when the moderator removed that section of the
>discussion. I knew you must have posted something as
>you had also posted elsewhere.
>
>I said: "I believe in honesty and when we spoke on the
>phone, and you asked me if I had read a WT book right
>through, I could never have imagined you would use my
>answer to ridicule me like you have done."
>
>You replied: "And some of your actions came as a
>surprise too, but we won't go into that again."
>
>Hey Donald, if you really want to put all this out on
>the table publically, right here, lets have it out. I
>have nothing to hide. Have you? I really mean this
>though Donald. Think long and hard about how you are
>going to go about this rather than taking sly digs and
>implying things to others about me. Maybe we can start
>by introducing ourselves to the people on this board
>here by letting them know our full names? Tell you
>what, I will introduce what I know about you then you
>can introduce what you know about me. Oh, I just
>realized, everything there is to know about me is
>already on my website. But if you want to add anything
>please feel free.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 