AssemblyBoard

Tom, there are two whole threads that document this history.  Read them before you respond, please.

Don't even think of asking me what I meant by my statement without going back and reading it, and the many explanations I have already given.  If you still can't figure it out, I'll explain yet again, but not until you have read what's already there.

You most recent "no apology forthcoming" post claimed that I said a woman was "servicing clients."  You then went on to talk about bulls and cows, and artificial insemination, with a small dose of Dr. Laura.

I made it quite clear that not only did I never call her a whore, etc. but that you were off base.   You, of course, argued your false imagninations even louder, following Dave S's lead.  He manufactured the words "boyfriend" and "slut" in his post.  You invented, "whore" and "client."

Those were not my words.

The fact is this:

You made a huge blunder by misreading what I said.  Then you dug in your heels and got downright strange about it, even to the point of your livestock lessons.

It's outrageous.  This recent thing won't cut the mustard.  I don't accept it, and I deem it phony and insincere.

Am I making myself clear?

Brent/Skeptic

Brent,

I have admitted my error, and I have apologized.

What you do with that is up to you.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom, you haven't admitted your error.  You went way over the top with your whores, clients and cows.  You even said that decent people everywhere would understand that I was calling the woman a whore.  You were stunningly, extraordinarily wrong.  You slandered me, assigning all of this to me, calling me a slanderer, when in fact it was you and your blockheaded reading skills that was at fault.

So, here's what I am going to do with this sham of an apology:

Having entertained (considered) [please understand my use of the word entertained here does not imply doling out sexual favors] your many words on this topic, I'm going to laugh at it, then I'm going to reject it.  Having done that, I'm going to hound your sorry posterior each and every time you give out your lectures here.

I am shocked that you aren't able to see what you've done.  I never called the woman a whore, neither did I insinuate it.  It was only you who did.

I hope this is of some service (help) to you. 
[In this case as in the last, I don't use the term "service" to imply sexual favors for money.  I hope you can understand my unconventional use of the word in this case]

Brent

Even after, on multiple occasions, skeptic specifically pointed out to you that he had not used the word "servicing" and he reposted the "offensive" post to prove it ???  It is baffling to me that you missed it.  It does make the PHTML overlay thing more credible.

It also gives the impression that there was something else happening and that you dishonestly handled your moderating responsibilities, because you had a bone to pick or something.


Your response is so different from Mark's and Margaret's.  They showed real repentance when Brent referred to matters that they had previously apologized for.


If you would only stop stumping every discussion with your wise sidetracks, this (the helping part) might actually happen.

Marcia

P.S. to Margaret and DaveS.

Upon further reflection, it is even clearer now that skeptic's response, that DaveS reacted to, was actually accurate.  skeptic saw then what the rest of us are voicing now.

MM

Marcia --would you mind pointing out which post you are referring to here -- "Upon further reflection, it is even clearer now that skeptic's response, that DaveS reacted to, was actually accurate.  skeptic saw then what the rest of us are voicing now."

Marcia,

You said:

Marcia,

1. I admitted publicly that I was wrong.
2. I apologized to Brent and to the rest of the board.

What is it that "true repentence" requires that I have failed to do?

Thomas Maddux

Yep, I'm gonna compare your to George.

George apologized...for not dealing with David.  He did it publicly, in SLO.
What is it that "true repentence" requires George failed to do?

I wrote a piece about it called,  "Eyewitnesses to the Farce."

It was a fake apology, and he neglected to mention plenty of other things he needed to apologize for, which things he denies to this day.

You're doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale.

Brent

While I haven't spoken to Marcia regarding what post she is referring to, I strongly suspect she means the second post Skeptic made on the New Info on David Geftakys thread (the first one was the one where Tom got the words "service" and "entertain," mixed up with "Whore" and "clients."):


Let me "clarify" what I meant when I posted that.

The first sentence was in insult directed at Tom for his blockheaded response to my post.  He missed the meaning of what I had to say in the previous post, repeated in many places on three threads on the BB.

In the second paragraph, I was trying to communicate that Tom didn't read my post carefully, and suggested that his motive for being such a lousy reader was that he wasn't interested in information, but only an opportunity to instruct and correct.  In other words, I was saying that he didn't get it right.

The third paragraph made it crystal clear what I meant by "entertaining other men."

The fourth paragraph was meant to discredit Tom's claim that I was slandering a woman.  The word "perfesser," was a jab at Tom.

The last paragraph was an appeal to the absurd nature of the whole discussion, hence the reference to the AFDB, and Psychotronics, a ridiculous notion that nevertheless is actually a cogent explanation for Tom and Dave's behavior, due to the fact that what they said and did was so totally absurd and fanciful.

I responded the way I did based on many months and scores of posts where I observed Tom miss the point by a mile, ignore what others were saying, and pontificate with an air of great wisdom, all the while completely missing the point and insulting the intelligence of others.

I hope this clears it up...again.

(I seriously doubt anyone had any other impression about what I meant, but then again, they put labels on hot coffee now, so people don't pour it on themselves in ignorance and get a burn.)

Brent/Skeptic

This post is directed to Tom and it kind of leap frogs over Bent's because I was already writing it.

Tom,

I have the strong impression that you aren’t taking this very seriously—“It’s a tempest in a teapot”. I didn’t jump in on the hue-and-cry for an apology from you, because I thought the case was being made. But apparently there is still more that needs to be said.
 
Your apology is lame, to be blunt, although I have no doubt it’s sincere, so far as it goes. You asked, “What is it that true repentence requires that I have failed to do?”  Please read the article, “Apology”, on ga.com, for some sugestions. (The points made there are not by me, they’re from the book, “The Power of Apology”.)

It would be great if there could be an example on this board of a meaningful apology from a former Fullerton leading brother. Who knows, maybe someone like a Mark Miller might be lurking here and he’ll get a clue about apologies he still needs to make! That would be so wonderful. 

Here are some further things that, in my opinion, your apology fails to cover. If you don't see a problem with some of these, feel free to ask.

1) You haven’t apologized for continuing your misinterpretation on 8/6 and 8/9, days after Brent clarified what he meant.

2) In that post on 8/6 you go into great detail about the possible lifestyle of the Filipina women on the website, which was understandably incendiary to Brent, because your uncomplimentary statements about them are intentional, lengthy and detailed, while his was brief and unintentional, and yet you severely took him to task. That requires an apology.

3) You haven’t apologized for your comment at the end of that post on 8/6, in which you say, “Finally, the way I was brought up, decent folks just don’t go around calling girls whores.”

5) On 8/9 you say about Skecptic, “This genderless and anonymous troll, IMHO, is only here to cause trouble.”

As Marcia says, "Good will to all."

Margaret

What she said.  WORD

Brent, you were right on the money re. Tom's apology and the post referral.  Re. Tom's apology, I would add that his "tough luck" attitude is another indicator of incomplete repentance.  Mark and Margaret did not have that attitude.  I'm glad no one went into the forgive and forget routine.


That is what Dave and I discussed at length.
see: www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=995.msg26256#msg26256

Mark and others speak of Tom's help extended to them when they left the assembly.  Me thinks that Tom is resting on his laurels.  That was then and this is now.


Fascinating!
Interesting that Margaret was able to pick it out, and Tom needed someone else to step through it for him.

Marcia

P.S.  Al, I would add criticize and immature to your list "fool, idiot, stupid, vapid, hypocritical, sanctimonious".
MM

??? "What she said.  WORD"  I don't get it....

This is one instance where your Grandmotherly status is a most worthy excuse.

In the street lingo that was popular about a year ago---which is why I am just now getting to be aware of it---when someone said something that was really good, a person would respond by saying,  "WORD!"

That means,  "Wow!  I couldn't have said it better, you are saying exactly what I believe.!"

Brent

Margaret,

1. I wasn't reading the board very much during that period.
2. Brent's original  explanations were mixed in with the tinfoil hat routine.  I just glanced at those since I wasn't interested in that line of humor.   I have never cared for slapstick style humor.  That is, I believe, why I got it so wrong.

Then I compounded the problem by remembering my own terminology as having come from Brent, and insisting that he had said what had actually come from me.  :-\

 I have already stated this.

3. My apology was posted within 20 minutes of the time when I finally realized what I had done.


My point was that the girls involved in the Asian sex trade are usually victims of a hideous satanic system.  I wanted him to understand that. 

Margaret, in all sincerety, decent folks don't do that. I sincerely believed that Skeptic had done so.  I am sorry I falsely accused Brent, but I would say that to anyone who actually did so.


Which is exactly what I believed to be true.  Perhaps it was clear to other people who Skeptic was, but I didn't see it.  Anonymous posters do not identify their sex or name.  They are therefore genderless and anonymous.  In addition, it appeared to me that Skeptic was causing trouble.  Trolls are people who go to BB's to do just that.  Hence, I said what I believed.

Having said all that, I have admitted that I was careless and made a serious blunder.  I have also apologized to Brent.

I have read responses that say my apology was false or insincere.  This is not the case.

Some who post here seem to feel that they can see into minds and hearts by reading posts.  They have informed me what is in mine.   They are, quite simply, wrong.

My admission of my blunder, and my apology, are sincere.   

Thomas Maddux

  Shame on you.  If you're going to accuse someone of slander, you should damn well read what they wrote.  This is entirely your fault.

  The absurdity of your position, similiar to Mauldin's in scope, but not in content, is why I used the silly AFDB thing.  Your reponses may well have been written by someone from another dimension and they grew increasingly bizarre with every new defense.

  Where do you get off assuming I don't undertand this?  You are more concerned with informing people about things they already know than dealing with the discussion at hand, even when you were being a jackass.  This is a real problem.

  You ninny, I didn't "say so." 

  When you first registered, you went by the name "Oscar."  I remember you being taken to task for being anonymous at the time. 

  This is looking better here, too bad you said everything else, because it really negates this statement.  Also, I really don't think you have been clear with regard to this whole thing, but the above sentence is a little more like it.


No one is reading minds.  We're just observing facts and reading words.  There's a big difference.

Brent

You are certainly free to do so...  and have.

I prefer to add to that list jackass and ninny.

---

That I find certain posters' criticisms to be immature is merely my opinion, and does not make it so.  For that reason, I state it as opinion only and do not hold such posters answerable to me.  I have, as previously stated, made more than my share of critical and immature posts, and have repented of the same.

I have been maligned on this board, called a liar, quoted as having said things I never said, and have not made an issue of it.  Why?  Because those who have said these things, and those who admire their posts, are predisposed to believe them and to disbelieve anything said in disagreement with them.  On the other hand, those who genuinely seek God for knowledge of the truth will not be deceived, regardless of who is right or wrong.  I am even foolish enough to pray toward this end.

I have neither received, nor asked for apologies, but have forgiven the offenders and pray for them.  Why? because the Bible teaches doing so; because I don't hold any grudge against them; because they are still, despite some appearances, brethren in Christ and in the fellowship of the church, His bride-to-be; and because they are each answerable to the same Lord as I am and from Who I hope to be judged in mercy and not in anger.

Sanctimony?  Vapid God-talk?  Not my call... or yours.  This is how I believe God wants me to live in His presence, and how I choose to obey Him.  I encourage others to do so as well.  He will judge me and reward me as He sees fit.  If He does not, then I have been wrong about Him.  Either way, I will bear the consequences of my actions.

---

Posted on: Today at 05:10:55 AM  by: Brent T:

Assumption may not be the best foundation for a post, but neither is it a crime for which one has to "get off."  Every one of us makes assumptions about others every day, for which we each must take personal responsibility before God. 

To state one's assumption that another's heart and/or mind has engendered an insincere statement, then to accuse that same person of making an assumption about oneself seems oxymoronic; self-contradictory.

Oh, yes, it's all there in print for everyone to plainly see, and interpret according to each's preconceptions.

The science and art of natural (godless) humanity is to assume that all disagreement is of hostile intent and therefore to go on the attack.  "The best defense is a strong offense," and all that.  And if there's one thing mankind excels at, it is being offensive, both toward God and toward His image in our fellow-man.

---

I have known Tom Maddux since the late 1960s, and have butted heads with him off-and-on over nearly all that time.  There are a few non-complimentary adjectives I could aim at Tom (as I'm sure he could toward me), but I would not express them publicly to humiliate him, simply because in all the time I have known him, he has never given me a reason to doubt his integrity.  If Tom has more to see regarding his conduct on this board, he will eventually see it, and when he sees it, he will express himself as is needed and without hesitation.  He will not, however, be coerced into "confessing" to something he does not see he is guilty of.

One may ask, "How can he not see it when it has been repeatedly spelled out so clearly?"  Does it occur to the asker what an absurd situation would exist if we all saw the same things at the same time?  Where then would be the need to exercise faith, to practice the New Testament's description of love, which believes, in the face of doubt, the best about the object of affection: one's brother?

---

Let's be willing to get beyond the notion that our acquaintance in cyberspace, or from brief encounters in person, has allowed us to truly know each other.  Our experience of living for years in close proximity to, and daily involvement with, a community of others of like faith, only to be amazed by their recent bizarre (as we see it) behavior, should clue us in to the reality that none of us ever truly knows the heart and mind of another.  I have never met a married couple, regardless of the length of their union, who are not either still getting more intimately acquainted or have given up on ever knowing what makes the other tick.  Why should we think we can jugde the innermost workings of another soul, based upon a few posted paragraphs?

---

Each of us has a race of his own to run-- let us learn to run it for the pleasure of Him who both has assigned it and who enables us.  And let our relationships be based upon pleasing Christ, and not upon justifying ourselves.

As He has loved us and shown us mercy,
al

Tom, apparently you haven't read the article on Apology. Here's the link http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/Apology.htm. Please read it.

Brent, (and Suzie)

This morning as I awakened the intent of Margaret's long post to me about apologizing came to me.  I have been dealing with it on the basis of "I did a dumb thing and I'm sorry".   I have not been thinking of how this debacle affected you.

It must have been very frustrating to be falsely accused of doing something, then to have your attempts at explanation turned back upon you on the basis of something I imagined you had said. Since wives tend to empathize with their husbands, I would imagine that this has been unpleasant for both of you.

This situation was caused by my careless treatment of the issue and my unwillingness to consider the entreaties of a number of people.

All I can say is that I sincerely apologize to you both, and that I will try to be more entreatable in the future.  Please forgive me.

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Tom.

Suzie and I appreciate it  Are you apologizing for what you said, as well as why you said it?

Brent

Eveybody knows that Tom and I have butted heads on an occasion or two.
Rough edges on both our parts notwithstanding, the above is an example of why I love the man.   :)
Nuff said!!
Verne

This is an excellent example of why every BB needs at least one savvy moderator. As has been stated before, and for manifest reasons, this practice is in very poor form and no  moderator worth his/her salt would permit it. Just my two cents.
Verne

Verne,

I deleted the link for reasons I will explain under a new thread.

Tom M.

All of it.

Thomas Maddux

OK, I'm cool with this.  I accept your apology and we can talk face to face now, with no hinderence. Thanks.

I do have a question for you.  Why did you feel so strongly about insisting that I called the woman a whore?   What I mean to say is you went to great lengths talking about farming, etc. 

Why so exercised and vigorous on this point, but so lacadaisical on others?

Brent

I agree Verne. That makes four cents.

(The read itself isn't worth that much.   :) ) 

I shall  gladly take your word for it...!  :)
Verne

p.s O.K folks, I got a zillion kids from piano camp coming to our home ( the new house has a scandalously huge back yard) today and I am in charge of the grill so I gotta go fire up the kingsford...hot and spicy ribs will definitely be on the menu - for the adults of course...ciao..  :)  :)  :)

Brent,

That is the way I understood your comment about "entertaining" men.  The rest flowed out of that "understanding".

As to why it bothered me so much...probably has to do with the culture I grew up in.   During my high school years girls were treated differently.  That, of course, had good and bad aspects.

The good side was that every decent boy/man felt that it was his duty to protect women.  Not only from physical harm, but from even being exposed to filthy talk or insinuation.  When I was in high school, if you swore in front of a girl, you might well have to fight her boyfriend for the affront to her honor.

If you swore at a girl you would probably not be dating anyone for quite a while...plus you would probably have to fight her brother, her father, (not a good idea), or just a bystander!

Once when I was in the USAF (18-21 years old) a group of us had quite a time regaling each other about the times when we had slipped up and said something foul, (especially the "f" word) in front of a girl.....or even, horror of horrors, someone's mother!  We all understood the humiliation of doing such a thing because we all shared common values on the subject.  In retrospect, the incidents sounded funny...someone else had suffered the pain.

In the 70's this all changed.  The women are frequently as foul mouthed, or fouler mouthed, as the men.

If you called a girl a whore...you would probably have to fight every guy she knew....if there was anything left of you.


As for "lackadaisical", see my new thread on "Ruth".