Holy crap! He's telling bald faced (bald-headed?) lies now!

Oh really, he is cool, I like him more now! I'm coming Stef... These people are nuts! They like this cage of mentality. Insults and lies.

Ha ha ha. See? I think they watch us more than we watch them. I am not miserable, last time I checked.

Stalking? Interesting...

I get angry when I see that kind of hypocrisy from someone claiming to speak he truth. pcrs, you're welcome to engage us here, and offer me, or any of us, some "curiosity." I promise, we wont rat you out to The Forehead, though I think he watches us, too.

fantastic post by Derrick!

and fantastic post by davidngo
can Bockman be any more sucking-up-to-Stef?

put this post in a frame and hang it on the wall

although the parent-stuff is not necessarily relevant

Quote:

Right, it's everybody else's fault for not being curious about about you. Your curiosity about Tyler? Basically non-existent. You didn't ask him reasonable questions about his parent's faith, you didn't ask him about the anxiety he was feeling about leaving him. No, none of that. You jumped right into an anti-religious tirade, and implied that his parents advocated your murder. And when he took offense to your characterizations--which were based on no actual facts about his family's behavior--you told him to take a hike. It couldn't possibly be that you made a mistake, that you banned Tyler from these boards for basically no good reason, could it? It has to be that other people are twisting your words, trying to make you look like a big, bad bully. I'm not too concerned about Tyler. I think he handled himself just fine. What I'm concerned about is the lack of independent thought on this website, and your apparent encouragement of that phenomenon. "Oh I love familes! Familes are great," you say, and yet (1) you don't actually have any, and (2), basically everyone you allow to stay on this site is asked to indict their parents for something when the subject comes up. And you love to bring the subject up, don't you? There are all these call-in shows where someone will be feeling bad, or will be having relationship trouble, and you'll walk them through your little step-by-step -- with your characteristically manipulative "..., right?" at the end of every other sentence, as if it was really a question -- until finally they're convinced that all their woes, and all the woes of the world, are because of abusive, 'corrupt' parents. But then some teenager shows up and doesn't have anything terrible to say about them, you basically tell him that he's in denial, and not to come back. Again, you had zero information about his family and their behavior. Whatever you think about them, whatever horrible beliefs you attribute to them, is all coming from within yourself. As far as I can tell, Tyler had no real complaints about them. You, and a few other rabid interrogators are the only ones who even seemed to care what his parents think about God. He only mentioned it in passing in his original question. Why not just be honest about it? You seem to think that anyone who is religious, no matter to what extent, is beyond redemption. You apparently believe that parents who are religious are necessarily abusive. And please, please just be honest about how you really feel about families. Stop all these disclaimers about how great families are, and how wonderful families can be. I doubt you've ever given an example, certainly I've never heard it, of a family that you actually approved of. Well, apart from your own "family" of course, which is just absurd. Your little family of two, right? With all the chid-rearing experience you don't have, all the difficulties you never had to face yourself, you get to sit in your empty house and take pot-shots at all the "horrible" families out there who have the corruption and arrogance to make mistakes as they raise children, or to teach their children things that they honestly believe are truth. Shame on them, right? You're like a guy who can't stomach musical performances because of all the mistakes he hears from the players. "Oh they're so terrible," he exclaims, "They shouldn't be allowed near an instrument." But when asked whether he'll ever pick up the craft himself, he says, "Nah, it's not for me." It's convenient. It's very easy to criticize others for something that you yourself are immune to. It doesn't take much courage or insight to accuse people of mistakes that you, yourself, don't ever have to worry about. And, no, you do not need to whip our your banning gun on my behalf. I don't plan on coming back. Reading through this thread, and seeing your renewed inability to take responsibility for your own mistakes and biases is, I think, reason enough to abandon this environment.

Did Derrick change his name to Sir Bible face when he left, or was that Stef/Greg's idea of a joke?

i reckon he changed it himself, but not sure...

To be fair, I switched my picture and my sig after leaving FDR, though I left my name alone. So it could be Derrick's idea of a joke/protest.

Direct question
Tyler post 1: but how do your really know if you have a good family? I mean, everybody thinks that, don't they?

Response
Stef response 1: You're right, of course people who have good and happy families should love and embrace them - that is what I do with mine now!
Did your parents teach you about religion? Do they believe in gods and so on?
Is this a direct response?
How Stef chooses direct or indirect response?
Stef later post: Well if someone asks me a direct question, I will do my best to answer it honestly and directly.
If I am trying to prove anarchism to someone, I will try to take it step by step.
If someone asks me: "Are you an anarchist?" I will say: "Yes."
If I am trying to disprove God, I will try to take it step by step.
If someone asks "Why aren't you responding to my posts" I will tell them why.
Does that help?

Can anyone help me make sense of this? Since it seems to me to be an indirect reponse I assume he wasn't answering but ignoring Tylor and trying to prove or disprove something to Tyler. But he says he answers direct questions directly and doesn't try to prove or dis-prove anything.
Is he simply not curious and won't answer Tyler or is he saying that asking questions is a direct answer?

he is saying:

Quote:

it is okay for me to say (and prescribe to others) one thing and do another because I can always think of some ad hoc reason for my behavior that will be accepted by the people who pay my salary and who give me the ego-shower that I need