i obviously am not wanted in the conversation [...] it doesn’t matter that ben or ken or mon(k)ey think i added to the convo, if you’d believed so then you wouldn’t have asked me to leave.

Sorry, you’re wrong there. If it were that simple, I’d have had no trouble banning you years ago.

That conversation is also not my conversation I feel, so my opinion also doesn’t count. No-one else could ask you to leave, so I did it “on their behalf” (on behalf of the conversation and the participants). I was obviously misguided.

i’ll still lurk and may chirp in if the convo seems to get too polarized but i probably should stay out of the main convo anyway.

“Don’t try to win”. Or even “try not to win”. Like I said: I need to write whole posts to explain what I mean by that.

@Bad Ben #8 and @gerhard: there’s an interesting dynamic that happens when people are given a choice… well, they can choose! OK, that sounds silly I know. It’s like a friend of mine that says if some girl’s with him, he wants it to be because she wants to be with him, not because they have some marriage contract. If she’s actually given the choice to leave, it means she gets to choose to stay. How’s that for something about what negative impact a “no divorce, else burn in hell!” ideology can have on people’s relationships? Intricate…

Likewise, I don’t want to barge into a conversation where people don’t actually want me. If they have a choice, it means they can *choose* to have me join in. Empowering and potentially transformative with regards to our relationships and conversations, though the dangerous flip-side of possible abuse of some piece of technology is also always present.

(I’m hoping the vapourware I have in mind can serve to create spaces for new conversations to occur, that wouldn’t otherwise occur, while hopefully not breaking the conversations we’re already having.)

feeling the love people

I can give you your very own blog post, and thus blog thread, in which you can discuss whatever you want in whatever way you want. Let me know if you’d like that, and what the topic(s) should be. (And there’s #126 which I was still hoping to build a discussion on.)

I must add though: I’m working towards a point where people can more easily choose who they intend to have a conversation with. Others will always be able to comment, but if they aren’t specifically part of a conversation, and none of those that are part of the conversation want the comment included, he will be a kibitzer, together with all the other kibitzers. That way we can have a zany kibitzing culture without interrupting serious conversations people are trying to have.

And I will probably choose to have some conversations focused around those I feel are part of the community that don’t shun the guidelines (even if they don’t quite commit to them). I’ll still read all the kibitzes, and include those that I feel add to the conversation I’m trying to have. And anyone else will also be able to include new people into a conversation, or just individual comments.

The goal: encouraging earning the privileged of being included in conversations.

love that tho , thanks for not wanting to play thought police…

Conversations are about dialogue.

If you are interseted in a conversation, refrain from lengthy closed statements about the dangers of cults, and other theses about why “certain religious groups” are generally to be avoided. These are monologic, and kill conversation.

A more dialogic approach could entail sharing a story that would substantiate such claim, from your perspective, and inviting other people to share stories that might coincide with or contradict your experience.

In this way, we can all imagine that we do not have exhaustive insight into any particular subject which stirs us emotionally. Heck, we might even learn something.