To Cathy Sears, the MSDAOL Administrators, and to All:
First of all, I would like to apologize for my angry tone in my previous reply to Cathy Sears. I was wrong to allow my feelings to govern the tone of my reply; and for that, I apologize.
I want to thank you, Edward, for pointing this out to me; it was definitely wise advice. Thank-you Edward. I definitely could have presented my objection in a very different manner.
When I first reviewed this site for registration consideration, I was very impressed to see how everyone conducted themselves, particularly when they did not agree with each other, for even then, everyone remained respectful.
Prior to registering with Maritime SDA Online, I frequented Club Adventist (CA). I was really seeking an atmosphere such as can usually be found here at MSDAOL, but CA was where I ended up. Perhaps some of you are familiar with the climate there; blanket and unfounded accusations and name calling runs rampant there, and "judge not lest ye be judged" rebuttels are commonplace.
One person was continually arguing with me over things which I never said. (I wasn't the only one she did this to) I was patient with her and had clearly shown her countless times that I did not say what she thought I said, but it did absolutely no good whatsoever. You could say something today, and she'd wholeheartedly agree. But when you say the same thing later on, in the same or different post, she would vehemently argue against you.
The straw which broke the camel's back for me was when I noticed a harsh (to put it mildly) response from someone who obviously misunderstood what the original poster was saying. I had not participated in that thread's discussion, nor did I have any desire to do so, but I did submit a polite and respectful post to help clear up the misunderstanding: "Mr. B, I believe you have misunderstood what Mr. A was saying. Mr. A may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Mr. A was saying ..." Mr. A later confirmed that I was correct and he thanked me.
What was the result? Mr. B, and perhaps a few others, started a barrage of nonsensical, unrelated, and inflammatory attacks in several subsequent posts, calling me a Jesus-hater, and a Jesuit infiltrator among other things.
I haven't been back since. I immediately went looking for some other place, hopefully where meaningful conversations could take place. I found MSDAOL.
This does not excuse the tone I used while stating my objection, but it may help you all understand why it bothered me so when I saw something similiar happen here on MSDAOL, especially from a Moderator.
Cathy Sears, please accept my sincere apologies for being spiteful and bitter towards you in my last reply.
There are some issues in your latest reply which I would like to discuss, and I sincerely hope we can do so rationally and respectfully.
Cathy:
You should not be so quick to jump to conclusions and take offense. My comments were not directed at you personally. If they were, I would have mentioned your name at the beginning of the post, as I have done in this one. While you may not have ever stated that the plumber whose case opened this thread was breaking the Sabbath by doing his charitable works on the Sabbath, others have, and my words about not judging were directed, once again, to them and to anyone else who may be inclined to agree. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
It is not necessary to formally address a response
(e.g. Dear ABC) in order to direct that response to a certain individual. Explicitly quoting something which only that person has said and then commenting on it specifically is clear indication, in and of itself, of whom you're addressing.
Suppose you were conversing with several people in a room, and immediately after you heard someone say something which you did not like, you then snapped your head, looked right in that person's eyes and made a harsh statement about what was said. Would the fact that you did not mention that person's name in your statement mean that no one in that group of people would know who you were directing that comment to?! No! It would have been exceedingly clear to everyone present about whom you were talking to.
Likewise here, you explicitly quoted me with something which I alone have said, and then you argued against that quote. So it was exceeding clear, even though you did not mention my name (save for the automated "Originally posted by DenBorg"), that you were directing your comments to me.
I can even point out an example, contained elsewhere in this thread, where you have directed comments at someone personally, without explicitly typing that individual's name. On page 1 of this thread, you will see where you replied to Won Bae directly, twice, and only in one of those two times did you mention Won Bae by name. In the first one, you just quoted Won and then asked him/her: "How do you know the plumber's reason for doing what he did?" When Won questioned you about it, instead saying that you did not direct that comment at him/her personally, you said "Won, You made a statement about the motives of a person you have never met..."
This is a very clear example of a different instance where you have directed comments at a particular individual without formally addressing that person at the onset of your post.
I said nothing any different in that last post than I’ve said before, except in relation to the quoted words about the gold-plated fixtures, which have been repeated several times in this thread since you first mentioned them. I had no objection to your saying that in the first place, only to the fact that it has been repeated so often since. ... ...Nobody has made even a hint of a suggestion that anything like installing gold-plated fixtures for someone could be even remotely considered appropriate for the Sabbath. But the phrase has been repeated so many times since you first injected it into the discussion, as to give the impression that the whole point of this discussion is luxury vs. necessity. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
Cathy, what constitutes "
repeated so often?" I find that, up to the point of your outburst, the phrase "
gold-plated fixtures" was repeated
ONLY ONCE since the post in which I first mentioned the phrase! That phrase was mentioned in only two different posts, and
only four times total (3 times in my original post, only once since, and that was 2 months later!)So how is it, Cathy, that you say you object to the phrase being "repeated so often since" the post in which I first mentioned it? For it was only mentioned one time since then up until your outburst. How do you justify that statement?
I am curious to know, Cathy, why haven't you taken offense to the phrase "mow" or "mowing"? For this phrase has been mentioned in more posts, and has been mentioned more than twice as many times! This phrase has also been mentioned by twice the number of people! (2) Also, this phrase was introduced three months before the phrase with which you took such great offense to.
Shall we expect a post from you in the near future exclaiming, "ENOUGH WITH THE MOWING ALREADY! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!"?
Any mention of such luxuries as gold-plated fixtures is totally irrelevant to the original intent of this discussion, which is supposed to be focused on meeting the real needs of those around us, whether it is acceptable to do so on the Sabbath, and whether it is appropriate to make judgments about someone else’s Sabbath missionary work. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
So, one of the items of focus is about "
meeting the real needs of those around us," but it is totally irrelevant to discuss and define what "real needs" are?
I disagree.
It has been indicated more than one once that any and everything people desire are needs; or they are merely wants and that there is no such thing as a need except for hearing the gospel. It has been suggested that any activity is commendable as long as it is done in the name of "doing it for your neighbor". Again, I disagree.
Perhaps you disagree with me, Cathy. That is fine; doesn't bother me a bit. But please don't attempt to put down my point that there is a definite difference between "wants" and "needs" by trying to tell me that "meeting the needs" is what is being discussed here, and defining those needs is not pertinent to that discussion.
And I am getting sick and tired of encountering the phrase. So all I really was trying to say in my last post was, "ENOUGH WITH THE GOLD-PLATED FIXTURES ALREADY! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!" |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
It was quite clear, Cathy, that you were trying to say much more than merely "I'm tired of the phrase". If this were truly all you were trying to say, then your reply would have been very short, something like:
ENOUGH WITH THE GOLD-PLATED FIXTURES ALREADY! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!
But instead, your comments say much more and different things:
peple who are poor ... are not in the habit of wanting things like gold-plated fixtures.as for when this particular plumber chooses to do ... charity work..., you do not know his circumstances ... It is all well and good for you to speculate as to what you would do..., even though you likely don't have the faintest idea... if you are going to take it upon yourself to sit in judgement on this plumber himself, I say to you, "Who are you that judgest another man's servant?..." Romans 14:4 ... God, and only God, has the right to tell him when he should do it. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
Absolutely nowhere in your post do you state that you are sick and tired of the phrase, although one might extrapolate that sentiment from your hostile and antagonistic tone of your accusatory comments to me.
Instead, you made it very clear that you believed me wrong for thinking the poor and needy wanted frivolous luxuries, that I was wrong about criticizing the plumber's conduct and for assuming that his circumstances permitted him to do these things some other time other than Sabbath, and that I was wrong in taking it upon myself to sit in judgement of this plumber. I don't see how you can possibly deny any of these things which you've stated in your reply to my comments.
But, so as not to offend you any further, Cathy, I shall refrain from using the phrase "gold-plated fixtures" since you seem to perceive this phrase as one heavily used throughout this thread, even though I have spent very little time on that phrase and no one else has even mentioned it.
Cathy, are you also feeling the same animosity towards the phrase "mow" or "mowing"? This has been mentioned much more than the other phrase. What about other phrases, such as those related to dental, or healing, etc. I would hate to witness another encounter should you suddenly take issue with some other repeatedly-used phrase.
As for my previous statements that you feel are contradictory, if you would read everything I’ve said on this thread, instead of just looking for things to criticize in retaliation for my perceived offense against you, you would discover that I have also stated that no one could possibly make a correct judgment of the plumber’s case without a personal knowledge of his situation. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
Contrary to your accusations here, Cathy,
I have read everything you have said on this thread. In fact, I have read them more than once. I
always try to give
everyone's comments an honest and fair reading, and honestly attempt to understand what they really mean. And when things are unclear, I give them the benefit of the doubt and may ask them to clarify.
How many times must I read them, Cathy, to satisfy you?
Neither is your accusation true that I was just looking for things to criticize you for.
I am quite aware of the comment to which you are referring (about not knowing enough about the plumber's situation), nor have I forgotten about it. And it was precisely because I felt the same way that I refrained from discussing the rights and wrongs of this plumber and his actions; but then you lambasted me with one of your patented Romans 14:4 pink-slips, accusing me of sitting in judgement of this plumber. It was to this which I objected.
I don’t see any contradiction in my mentioning two opposing possibilities, especially in light of my above, already stated conviction. |
| quote: Cathy Sears |
Neither do I see any contradiction in your mentioning two opposing possibilities concerning the plumber's circumstances. If you were to read or reread my post in its entirety, you would see that this is not what I was calling contradictory.
The contradiction is this: Others, yourself included, commented and/or agreed with statements about also doing missionary work on other days and not only on Sabbath, and you expressed no problem with these statements. But when I expressed this same thought, you then retorted back with "and as for when this particular plumber chooses to do this charity work..., you do not know his circumstances... but if you are going to ... sit in judgement on this plumber himself, I say to you, 'Who are you that judgest another man's servant?...' Romans 14:4 ... God, and only God, has the right to tell him when he should do it."
Now do you get it, Cathy? The contradiciton was not in your giving two different plausible potential descriptions of the plumber's circumstances, but rather in the fact that you exhibited two different and opposite responses to the same thought: "one does not have to wait for the Sabbath hours before he/she can perform acts of kindness"
Cathy, and this is not meant as a dig, just a personal observation, you seem so quick to correct others and quickly hand out your Romans 14:4 pink slip to them, but yet find it so hard to admit when you are in the wrong. I can relate to that, though, because I've been there myself.
My prayers are with you, Cathy. And I sincerely hope we can conduct further discussions in a respectful and meaningful manner; and that neither of us nor anyone else, serves as agents in bringing down the quality of MSDAOL to the level which can be found at CA.
-Dennis Borg
