Law of One Religion?

[Monica]

but also contain your feeling that Bring4th members (with whom you disagree) are mistreating/misunderstanding/misapplying this information, that is, are being dogmatic-fundamentalist.

There is nothing in any of those quotes that say anything about them disagreeing with me. I have observed fundamentalist thinking here, independent of whether they happen to agree with me or not.

My objection was to your strong pronouncement, which you just did again, that it was because of the disagreement.

That is patently absurd. As stated previously, I've observed fundamentalist thinking in areas in which I agree! It has nothing to do with agreement.

Yet you continue to insist that it does...

That is rather audacious, for you to tell me why I think a certain way, after I repeatedly told you that I don't think that way. Who are you to tell me what I think?

If you read all of those posts, you will see that I said nothing about agreement, and in fact said the exact opposite. It is you who are reading more into my words.

But what that post also does is further substantiate the assertions made by Parsons, myself, and others.

Gary, you walked into this conversation with veiled jabs, and immediately fanned the flames of discord. You, Parsons, "and others" have made it very clear that you were distracted by my sig, and all of this off-topic stuff has been about my sig. You seem to have had your minds made up at the beginning of this thread, and when people's minds are already made up, they can read anything as 'substantiating'.

You also initiated talk about my 'strong views' which had NOTHING to do with the conversation. And then you tell me I should have tried to keep the thread on-topic?? When you helped take it off-topic?

I myself am befuddled that you can write a post like that while simultaneously stating that you are not charging other members with exactly the scenario your OP questions identify.

Again, you twist my words, and leave out key points. I do not deny, and in fact have reiterated, that yes, I do observe fundamentalist thinking here.

BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME.

Can you please re-read the above sentence a few times? I have stated this numerous times already, and I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I think I get that post. You are trying to understand how and why other members disagree with you

OMG NO!!!! WHY do you keep insisting it's about disagreement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

I don't care if others disagree! I don't expect agreement!

and have the reactions they do to your positions,

I know exactly why they react as they do to my positions, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

and one of your conclusions, it seems, is explained in Post 225. Your conclusion, though, is exactly what I was saying.

WTF??? Post 225 does the exact opposite! It lists examples of fundamentalist thinking! It says NOTHING about disagreement!

Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?

Gary, you are crossing a line here. Have things changed so much since the days when I was mod? Back then, I would NEVER have asked another member to analyze some other member publicly!

And as mod, I would NEVER have analyzed any member publicly! We handled matters privately as much as possible. I haven't violated any guidelines, and you know that. And even if I did, this isn't the right way to go about it. You don't have any right to add fuel to the fire, and let people think it's OK to start analyzing someone. A lot of what happened in this thread started with you and got perpetuated by you, by your continual insistence that I expect others to agree with me, despite me telling you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with agreement.

I am stunned!
 

There are different ways to explain why you clash with others here.

From my own limited view in the corner of a very big room, it’s not so much the convictions, per se, but how you go about the discussion process.

That's just bullshit and you know it, Gary. You know damn well that in the early days of the meat discussions, my comments were exceedingly polite and it DID NOT MATTER. It never mattered how nicely I stated my views. I got exactly the same reaction back then as I do now.

So don't start telling me it's because of 'how' I 'go about the discussion'. That's just BS.

You are showing your own biases here, Gary. You dare to publicly confront me...for WHAT??? For remaining firm on my convictions? While you ignore people who directly, blatantly call me names? which is a direct violation of the guidelines!

So it's ok for people to call me a bigot and other vile things - that is OK??? But it's not ok for me to express my own views in my signature?

PS: I seldom create threads, but were I to create one, and were it to veer from its intended course, I might diligently and gently shepherd it back to its original course. Or attempt it.

I DID attempt it! REPEATEDLY!!! I am astounded that you dare to tell me that, when I attempted it numerous times and you are one of the people who took it off-course!

I direct you once again to this exchange:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid170808