Non-Naive

[Lurker]

Honestly, I really don't understand why he feels the need to comment on every flippin' post that's made on this forum.

I'll get back to you on that one with an answer as soon as reality and not your paranoid perception of it includes me commenting on every post on this forum. Hell, I'll do it as soon as reality includes me commenting on every plot- and character-related post on this forum.

Do I comment on a lot of them? Yes. Am I going to apologize to you for that? No. I've already told you that I have opinions on many things and that I'm not afraid of or ashamed to have them. It should also be obvious that I enjoy discussing things with people by my very nature. If you don't care for that, then why act like you want to have a discussion and then get pissed off at me for taking you up on it?

Your approach to this whole thing - and, in fact, your approach to me for the last week - has been nothing but antagonistic. It looks more like you wanted a flame war than a discussion. Well, mission accomplished. You got your wish.

He certainly never overlooks an opportunity to correct someone he perceives as being wrong.

For someone who doesn't care about the inner workings of my mind, you certainly seem to think you're an expert on them. But you're not, so quit strutting around here like you are.

But for me, he's crossed the line in advocating kidnapping and traumatizing a minor.

... Grow up. Seriously. I could say "Luminous has crossed the line in advocating not trying to help a kid who has abusive parents in a dangerous organization masquerading as an authentic religion. Some civil responsibility that is, huh?" but I haven't. In fact, I haven't said that to anyone who's disagreed with me on this issue. So grow up. Really.

The writers can turn it into anything they imagine it to be - why on earth encourage and support such an appalling story line.

Perhaps because I thought it was good? Because I appreciated that it presented these characters and us with something more complex and thought-provoking than straightforward "Here's the good guys. Here's the bad guys. The good guys do 100% good things, the goodness of which could never be questioned by anyone on any level, while the bad guys do exactly the opposite"?

All I can say is thank God he wasn't a neighbor of mine when I was raising my children.

Yeah, Luminous ... I randomly kidnap people's kids ...

What the f**k?

In the time I have been here on the forum, I've seen person after person, who's posting I've enjoyed immensely, discontinue posting because they don't want to be subject to the scrutiny of his "democratic discourse".

Name them and I'll attempt to contact them and apologize.

I would like to ask, though, if these supposed forum members who have left because of me were asking for others' opinions or putting forth theirs at all in a manner that invited response.

In my opinion, because he feels the need to comment on a large percentage of the posts on the board to either sanction or correct them, and argues relentlessly until he wins his point (very rarely does he conceed) there is certainly an air of trying to prove himself superior.

You do know what the objective of debate is, right?

You don't debate for the pure hell of it, and you don't overwhelm people with your arguements. You make your point, and you allow them to make theirs.

You think I don't let people make their points? Have you ever read any discussion I've been involved in? Where in the hell have I told someone to shut up because I didn't want to hear what they had to say? Christ, I'm not even telling you that.


You know what, just to make you happy, Luminous, I'm going to extend this invitation to the entire forum. Perhaps I'll make a thread for it in Off the Cuff or GTKEO. If enough people here are unhappy with my style of discussion, I'll either stop with it or just leave. Whichever one they prefer. If my presence here really acts as such a pair of pliers yanking on their fingernails, I'll go.

Mods, I ask that you don't remove or edit any of our posts. When I make the thread in question, I'd like to link to this "discussion" so that everyone can understand what led to it and precisely what the context is.

Either way, though, one thing: Don't you fucking question my capacity for compassion. That pisses me right the f**k off. If I didn't have compassion, I would have used much more choice words for you here, and I wouldn't give a shit about asking whether people want me to change in some way. I'd also appreciate it if I didn't have to take anymore crap from you like this in the future, whether I end up staying or going. It's up to you, of course, but show us how all considerate you really are, eh?

[Lurker]

Alright, the thread's ready. Everyone's invited. Regular forum members, Moderators, Ambassadors, the Admin, and even the Creators.

Present your voice here.

[Luminous]

You do know what the objective of debate is, right?

Yes, I do understand what the objective of debate is, and I'm not interested in engaging in it with you. I really don't see that any amount of discussion is going to change things. And No, I'm not interested in a flame war. I apologize for loosing my cool. I already said I will go back to gritting my teeth and ignoring your posts. All I ask from you is that you do the same for me.

[Haether]

All I can say is thank God he wasn't a neighbor of mine when I was raising my children.

This was uncalled for. You keep saying this phrase over and over, like you think Lurker is some kind of child-stealing freak.

Support for this particular kidnapping =/= support for all kidnappings. I'm sure that Lurker would be just as horrified by a different kidnapping by someone who will harm the child. This is not the case in this situation. The kidnapping scene in LG15 was not followed up by some snuff film worthy footage. Bree and Daniel are not running a kiddy porn ring or molesting Julia. They were talking to her, and even untied her. They were trying to help her. They were keeping her from harm.

I keep seeing people on this forum saying we don't know what the ceremony is--it could be spin art and pizza. I've even said similar things. However, we have to assume the ceremony is a negative thing. We have to assume some harm will come to the girl chosen for the ceremony. Otherwise, this whole series is a waste of our time. If the ceremony was such a positive thing, or a neutral thing, Bree's parents wouldn't have let her get out of doing it. They knew something bad was about to happen to Bree.

In all likelihood, Julia was/is in imminent danger. Therefore, BDJ's act was to protect her. Maybe I can try to phrase it differently. It would be like smacking a toddler's hand away from a hot stove burner or electrical outlet. Yes, your action could hurt the child, but not nearly as much a being burnt or electrocuted would hurt the child. The same thing is occuring here. BDJ took quick action to remove Julia from a dangerous situation. The Order could have been outside Julia's door ready to take her to the ceremony, or even just to a non-disclosed location. When they saw Julia in her house, they had no way to know if they'd ever be able to find her again--or if she'd be around to find. So, they took her.

I will say Daniel blogging in front of her door was a little...much, however. It was stupid to hang around like that, too. Her parents could have been home at any minute.

[Luminous]

All I can say is thank God he wasn't a neighbor of mine when I was raising my children.

I don't remember having said that before. If I did, I apologize for repeating myself.

Support for this particular kidnapping =/= support for all kidnappings. I'm sure that Lurker would be just as horrified by a different kidnapping by someone who will harm the child. This is not the case in this situation. The kidnapping scene in LG15 was not followed up by some snuff film worthy footage. Bree and Daniel are not running a kiddy porn ring or molesting Julia. They were talking to her, and even untied her. They were trying to help her. They were keeping her from harm.

I keep seeing people on this forum saying we don't know what the ceremony is--it could be spin art and pizza. I've even said similar things. However, we have to assume the ceremony is a negative thing. We have to assume some harm will come to the girl chosen for the ceremony. Otherwise, this whole series is a waste of our time. If the ceremony was such a positive thing, or a neutral thing, Bree's parents wouldn't have let her get out of doing it. They knew something bad was about to happen to Bree.

In all likelihood, Julia was/is in imminent danger. Therefore, BDJ's act was to protect her. Maybe I can try to phrase it differently. It would be like smacking a toddler's hand away from a hot stove burner or electrical outlet. Yes, your action could hurt the child, but not nearly as much a being burnt or electrocuted would hurt the child. The same thing is occuring here. BDJ took quick action to remove Julia from a dangerous situation. The Order could have been outside Julia's door ready to take her to the ceremony, or even just to a non-disclosed location. When they saw Julia in her house, they had no way to know if they'd ever be able to find her again--or if she'd be around to find. So, they took her.

I will say Daniel blogging in front of her door was a little...much, however. It was stupid to hang around like that, too. Her parents could have been home at any minute.

Debating the merits of "ethical" kidnapping is really not a conversation I'm even interested in having, and so far afoot from why I began watching this series to begin with - there is a thread that already speaks to my opinion about this very fluently - "This kidnapping video is DISGUSTING". Nuff said.

[Haether]

Debating the merits of "ethical" kidnapping is really not a conversation I'm even interested in having

Five pages of discussion suggest otherwise.

Do you at least agree not all acts can be classified as "good" or "evil"? Can homicide, for example, be justified?
As for kidnapping, allow me to suggest this example. You are at the playground with your family, and you observe a parent hitting their child. Which act is more ethical: going over and taking the child away from the parent and either to a police station or hospital, or leaving and calling the police--not knowing whether they'll be able to find the family and help that child.
This is how I view this situation.

[Luminous]

Debating the merits of "ethical" kidnapping is really not a conversation I'm even interested in having

Boy, you don't really get it do you? And by the way, I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Haether]

Boy, you don't really get it do you? And by the way, I think you have me confused with someone else.

You've replied to all the posts. No one is making you do that. That action implies that you are, in fact, interested in debating this topic. This entire thread has been about whether BDJ were justified in their action, or if the kidnapping was gratuitious and unnecessary.

And you can continue to be as patronizing, disdainful, and condescending to me as you like, I'm a big girl and I can take it. It just shows everyone else the kind of person you are.

[Luminous]

Boy, you don't really get it do you? And by the way, I think you have me confused with someone else.

You've replied to all the posts. No one is making you do that. That action implies that you are, in fact, interested in debating this topic. This entire thread has been about whether BDJ were justified in their action, or if the kidnapping was gratuitious and unnecessary.

And you can continue to be as patronizing, disdainful, and condescending to me as you like, I'm a big girl and I can take it. It just shows everyone else the kind of person you are.

Look. I apologized for loosing my cool. What do you want?

[Languorous Lass]

For the most part, I bite my tounge and scroll past his lengthy posts.

Which is, IMHO, the appropriate response to lengthy posts one doesn't feel like reading. (E.g., I've dipped my toe into the Gaylien thread on occasion, but usually my response is simply to think, "Oh my." And leave.)

Honestly, I really don't understand why he feels the need to comment on every flippin' post that's made on this forum. He certainly never overlooks an opportunity to correct someone he perceives as being wrong.

I don't view his posts that way; I view them as enthusiasm for reasoned discourse.

This is all fine and good. But for me, he's crossed the line in advocating kidnapping and traumatizing a minor.

Again, I don't view Lurker's position that way at all, for several reasons.

First, it appears to me that he's been explaining why the kidnapping makes sense in terms of the series and of Bree's development as a character. In fact, he's managed to convince me that his view is the only way to view the kidnapping as anything other than a sign of complete creative bankruptcy on the part of Miles et al.

Second, as you yourself pointed out, "This is a fictional drama for heaven sakes." Explaining why a development makes sense in terms of the plot and character development of an Internet video series is not at all the same thing as "advocating kidnapping and traumatizing a minor."

All I can say is thank God he wasn't a neighbor of mine when I was raising my children.

Really, Luminous, this statement is out of line. As I stated above, all Lurker is doing is theorizing about a kidnapping as a development in a fictional series. That's far different from advocating real-life kidnapping as a method of developing one's character. And it's light-years away from threatening actual children.

In the time I have been here on the forum, I've seen person after person, who's posting I've enjoyed immensely, discontinue posting because they don't want to be subject to the scrutiny of his "democratic discourse". I realize there are people here who are in awe of this, but I would venture to guess there are just as many if not more of us who are annoyed and frustrated by it.

Can you name names? If so, I'd be willing to credit your statement. If not, I'm afraid I'll have to view it as an example of the innuendo I referred to earlier.

It seems clear to me that Lurker engages in "in depth dissection" of posts that he finds interesting or worthy of intellectual analysis. There's nothing related to "prov[ing himself] superior." On the contrary, he's always careful to keep personal comments out of his posts and to maintain a calm and reasonable tone -- unless he's pushed to the limit. Which he clearly has been in this case.

In my opinion, because he feels the need to comment on a large percentage of the posts on the board to either sanction or correct them, and argues relentlessly until he wins his point (very rarely does he conceed) there is certainly an air of trying to prove himself superior.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

I feel sorry for you, Luminous.

You don't need to, really.

You're right, and I'm sorry -- when I read it now, this statement comes across to me as really condescending.

So you're missing out on some of the best parts of the LG15 community.

No, actually, I'm not. I enjoy this community immensely. I participate pretty actively, and for the most part, I have a wonderful time here. I definitely don't consider debating with Lurker the best part of my LG15 experience. I avoid it if at all possible.

Again, I think my statement comes across as condescending, and I apologize for it.

I've been trying to formulate an end to this post that conveys my hope that you can put your feelings aside and participate in the forum, but I really don't know how to say what I'm thinking and feeling, so I'll stop right here.

Honestly, I really don't understand what you mean by this. In case you haven't noticed, I do participate in the forum.

I have noticed. I was just struggling to come up with some graceful, or at least understandable, language to end my post -- obviously without success.

I'd like to finish this post by saying when it comes to debate and democratic discourse, you, Lass are someone I respect. You have solid opinions, and you support them well. You also don't go overboard. You don't feel the need to respond to every post on the board. You make a point when you have something of substance to offer, and you know when to quit. You don't debate for the pure hell of it, and you don't overwhelm people with your arguements. You make your point, and you allow them to make theirs.

Thanks for the kind words. I've appreciated many of your posts as well -- just not those in this thread.

This being said, I fully understand and support the forum policy of attacking ideas, not people. I apologize for stepping out of line on this, and I will do my best not to do it again.

Believe me, I understand -- for me, the temptation to go after somebody I think is an idiot is overwhelming sometimes. But thanks for the apology. I'll take your statement as a reminder that I need to hold to the same attack-ideas-not-people policy (known in 12-step circle as "Principles Before Personalities").

[Haether]

Look. I apologized for loosing my cool. What do you want?

for you to stop it.

I think this thread is pretty much talked out. Now just to see where the series will go from here.

[Luminous]

I was going to stop posting in this thread, but I don't want to neglect your post Lass, I appreciate your interest and concern.

For the most part, I bite my tounge and scroll past his lengthy posts.

Which is, IMHO, the appropriate response to lengthy posts one doesn't feel like reading. (E.g., I've dipped my toe into the Gaylien thread on occasion, but usually my response is simply to think, "Oh my." And leave.)

Yes, this is the civilized response, and I shall do my best to return to that. I apologize for becoming so reactionary.

Honestly, I really don't understand why he feels the need to comment on every flippin' post that's made on this forum. He certainly never overlooks an opportunity to correct someone he perceives as being wrong.

I don't view his posts that way; I view them as enthusiasm for reasoned discourse.

Believe it or not, I have an appreciation for reasoned discourse myself, but in limited doses. And I don't want to have to be put on the spot to defend every statement I make to the mat. For the most part, I come here to relax for a break - to lighten up and have a little fun. I'm up for a rousing discussion every now and then - but just that.

This is all fine and good. But for me, he's crossed the line in advocating kidnapping and traumatizing a minor.

Again, I don't view Lurker's position that way at all, for several reasons.

First, it appears to me that he's been explaining why the kidnapping makes sense in terms of the series and of Bree's development as a character. In fact, he's managed to convince me that his view is the only way to view the kidnapping as anything other than a sign of complete creative bankruptcy on the part of Miles et al.

Second, as you yourself pointed out, "This is a fictional drama for heaven sakes." Explaining why a development makes sense in terms of the plot and character development of an Internet video series is not at all the same thing as "advocating kidnapping and traumatizing a minor."

I've pretty much had my say about this, as have alot of other people on the forum, so I'll move on to the next point.

All I can say is thank God he wasn't a neighbor of mine when I was raising my children.

Really, Luminous, this statement is out of line. As I stated above, all Lurker is doing is theorizing about a kidnapping as a development in a fictional series. That's far different from advocating real-life kidnapping as a method of developing one's character. And it's light-years away from threatening actual children.

I'm sorry if that was misinterepreted as an accusation that Lurker advocates real-life kidnapping. It wasn't. What I am saying is that his support of the kidnapping scenario appears to come from a mindset of passing judgement on what is right or wrong/good or bad based on his own personal morals, ethics and culture. As a parent, I would not have wanted to live under his scrutiny. If anything, I fear he's the kind who would call CPS at the drop of a hat based on cirucumstance, hearsay and innuendo if he thought something didn't jive with his standards. Yes, I fear that.

In the time I have been here on the forum, I've seen person after person, who's posting I've enjoyed immensely, discontinue posting because they don't want to be subject to the scrutiny of his "democratic discourse". I realize there are people here who are in awe of this, but I would venture to guess there are just as many if not more of us who are annoyed and frustrated by it.

Can you name names? If so, I'd be willing to credit your statement. If not, I'm afraid I'll have to view it as an example of the innuendo I referred to earlier.

No, I'm not willing to disclose names. These people chose the high rode and simply bowed out gracefully, rather than stirring up a fuss like me. I'm not going to drag them into a fight that isn't theirs.

It seems clear to me that Lurker engages in "in depth dissection" of posts that he finds interesting or worthy of intellectual analysis. There's nothing related to "prov[ing himself] superior." On the contrary, he's always careful to keep personal comments out of his posts and to maintain a calm and reasonable tone -- unless he's pushed to the limit. Which he clearly has been in this case.

In my opinion, because he feels the need to comment on a large percentage of the posts on the board to either sanction or correct them, and argues relentlessly until he wins his point (very rarely does he conceed) there is certainly an air of trying to prove himself superior.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Yep

I feel sorry for you, Luminous.

You don't need to, really.

You're right, and I'm sorry -- when I read it now, this statement comes across to me as really condescending.

So you're missing out on some of the best parts of the LG15 community.

No, actually, I'm not. I enjoy this community immensely. I participate pretty actively, and for the most part, I have a wonderful time here. I definitely don't consider debating with Lurker the best part of my LG15 experience. I avoid it if at all possible.

Again, I think my statement comes across as condescending, and I apologize for it.

No problem. You and I can both be pretty snarky at times - one of the things I respect about you, actually.

I've been trying to formulate an end to this post that conveys my hope that you can put your feelings aside and participate in the forum, but I really don't know how to say what I'm thinking and feeling, so I'll stop right here.

Honestly, I really don't understand what you mean by this. In case you haven't noticed, I do participate in the forum.

I have noticed. I was just struggling to come up with some graceful, or at least understandable, language to end my post -- obviously without success.

Again, no problem.

Believe me, I understand -- for me, the temptation to go after somebody I think is an idiot is overwhelming sometimes. But thanks for the apology. I'll take your statement as a reminder that I need to hold to the same attack-ideas-not-people policy (known in 12-step circle as "Principles Before Personalities").

I appreciate your understanding. Like most people, I have my bad days, and this certainly has been one of them

[longlostposter]

Luminous, you have said you dislike Lurker's posting style, but you are using the exact same style he does...LMAO.

[garnet]

Yeah, I will confess that I didn't read most of the above post, but from what I did read, I got the jist that part of the problem is that some people prefer a more in-depth analysis, while others would prefer a more relaxed and less intense discussion. Could this be resolved through changes in the forum's layout?

I used to post a lot on The-Leaky-Cauldron. I really LIKE analysis, so I always went straight to Obscurious Books (lit crit section). I know part of the difference is that this is a video series and not a book, but still . . .

[Luminous]

Yeah, I will confess that I didn't read most of the above post, but from what I did read, I got the jist that part of the problem is that some people prefer a more in-depth analysis, while others would prefer a more relaxed and less intense discussion. Could this be resolved through changes in the forum's layout?

I used to post a lot on The-Leaky-Cauldron. I really LIKE analysis, so I always went straight to Obscurious Books (lit crit section). I know part of the difference is that this is a video series and not a book, but still . . .

I think you are definitely on to something here, Garnet. IMO it would really be nice to be able to choose whether or not to become involved in an indepth critcal analysis, rather than to have it bulldoze over you whether you want it or not. I'm not quite sure how it would be done, but I think it would be great if the Mods could find a way to accomodate something like you are suggesting.