AssemblyBoard

Brother Al posted this, when he was making his "Brent is like George play."


When Al tried to score one on me by using the impotent "George" play, he mentioned that some of you are my groupies.

I'm not sure which ones, but perhaps Al should use the boldness he has in Christ to come out and name them.  In this way, he would be serving us all by stripping me of my support system, and putting my groupies on notice that there is a new sheriff in town.

Who are they Al?  Who are my groupies?

Your cowardice is exceeded only by your thinly veiled contempt and envy for others.

Name 'em.

Unlike Al, I won't end this message with a bunch of sickening God talk, about no rancor, and not wanting to speak about a brother of like minded faith, the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords....etc.

I'm angry at Al, I don't respect him, and I think he needs to come clean about who the groupies are, if he's going to bring them up as part of his Brent is George charge.

Brent

Who's your groupie?  They should call themselvesThe Virtual Brent A. Tr0ckman fan club or TV Bat Club.

By the way Al forgot another similarity between George and Brent: Age.  Or maybe Lenoore is the only one you thinks Brent is an old man. Where is that post where she says Brent is in his seventies?  Couldn't let anyone else think that because that would make me 70!!

Suzie

CAgirl, loved your post and am still thinking about it 5 hours later.

Suzie,
   Can you let me know if you’re a groupie cause if your one I want to be too. Do we get cut little t-shirts?? ;)

Recently I learned, from Al's post, that people are looking to Brent as a shepherd.

IMO this is a BB for discussion.  When we agree all is OK and great and wonderful.  But when we disagree some of us get down in the dumps and things look pretty bleak.  It's not much fun being the focal point when Brent gets a bee in his bonnet, but if one can sift through the language and the emotions then there is a message and a lesson (maybe).

more later, maybe..

Marcia

We went through this a couple years back.  I'll say it again, please don't look to me as a spiritual leader!

I'm just a guy.  Yes, I understand certain things about the Assembly, but I'm not wanting to lead anyone.  Quite the opposite, I want all of you to be free and think for yourselves.

Brent

Marcia,

I doubt that it is an issue that folks look to Brent to be a shepherd.  I, for one, don’t look to him as a leader.  As others have noted, folks may identify with some of his ideas, but are repulsed by the caustic and self-serving way in which he presents them.

I see Brent more akin to popular radio talk-show hosts.   In this arena, it is not enough for the host to make valid points; in order to boost their ratings, they have to make points in such a way so that it elicits emotions, provokes responses, and puts them (the host) into the center of the conversation - even if it means castigating others.

These hosts do gain loyalists (or, as Al put it “groupies”).  These loyalists identify with the hosts because for the first time folks hear their internal beliefs and prejudices articulated boldly and unashamed; that brings a sense of connection.  The host becomes their vicarious mouthpiece because most people who are governed by a sense of decency would not say things so crassly in public.

-Dave

Dave,

What you are saying above is about 99% accurate,  except the part about decency.  Everything else I agree with, totally.

At a dinner party, you would never hear me talk this way, ever.  There is a time for politeness and less crassness.  Same with Sunday morning at church, at work, at pretty much every public gathering.  Manners and etiquiette are super important.  Brown nosing the boss, small talk, smiling at someone when they tell you about their recent divorce party, chuckling along when you hear about how drunk so and so got, all of that is part of being decent and polite.

To cross the line and say,  "I don't think it's good you had a divorce party," would be indecent and crass, under the context of modern manners.

This place is different

I look at this BB as pretty much the one forum where I can talk about things that can't be said elsewhere.  Where else can you talk about the Assembly without people thinking you are bizarre and wanting to avoid you?  Not many places, and even if you found a small group were people were willing to listen, after a while they'd get pretty tired of it, don't you think?   

We are a small group, totally unique, as ex-assembly people.  This is a BB, and as such it's not a dinner party.  The same rules don't apply. 

Every single post becomes, "The center of conversation."  That how it is.

Caustic?  Absolutely
Self-Serving?  Definitely.  I want people to understand how I think, and why.  I am so self serving I think I have some really good ideas.
Promoting responses?  Without a doubt.
Castigating others?  Who here hasn't done that?  You betcha!

We would have like, one post per month if we followed dinner party rules of engagement.  I see this place as being safe for presenting bold ideas, putting one's foot in one's mouth, or perhaps getting through to others in the only way possible.

Am I trying to be a leader?  NO!

I can't help it if people agree with me on things, but if I think they are starting to follow me, I'm going to scare them off.

All in all, I think you nailed it Dave.  I'm using "Limbaugh" methods here. 

Brent

I'm gonna get crass here, and type what some of you are thinking:

There are a few here who really, really value their stature on the BB.  They take way to much pleasure and esteem from it, and secretly wish they could make a big splash, like I do.  They resent me for doing so in a way that is not "Christlike," and so they castigate me for being a bad example.

I don't think there are more than one or two people like that here, and I do wish they would stop it.  It's NOT Christilike.

Brent

Excuse me for the interruption, but I'm looking for a poker playing gentleman,
rumored to be in his seventies, though really in his forties, who is also the king
of irony, that I could follow to the ends of the earth in loving adoration. Anyone
have any idea where I could find him?




Thanks, Joe

Yes! He is grazing with the lambs, leading them to green pastures of rest. He is the most. There are non like him! He sells prayer hankies, too. I like them better than LHal's hankies.

Joe,Moonie,  Hilarious ;D

Just a note, I do not believe that the money changers were happy when the Lord overturned their tables,  nor were the keepers of the swine when they saw their wallets er swine fall over the cliff and drown.

Marcia

P.S.

Brent, my opinion is that the message gets lost to some because they get distracted by the method.

Dave, apparently some are looking to Brent as a shepherd.  I did not know that but I was told so.

Marcia

My methods, I suppose, are not the most gentle.  If I was a contractor, I would enjoy the demolition part of the job the most.  I'd probably hire out the finish work to someone else. 

The point is that I'm just being open and honest here, which is really bothering some people. 

I am thinking about making a change, but I'm not sure which way to go.

If I move towards a sensitive, decent, restrained persona, I won't be able to say anything with certainty, and I'll probably have to just chime in here and there when something nice is being said.  Taking a stand on a topic that is controversial requires a person to be insenstive to others.

On the other hand, I have been contemplating going into full-blown mental illness.  I have been told from one poster that I am probably mentally ill, and if this were the case I see some advantages.

I can say anything I want, as long as it doesn't get too profane, and people will say, "Amen" in order to not upset me.

I can make huge mistakes without worrying about it.  I won't be expected to make sense all the time, and I don't have to back up what I say with my lifestyle.  I can talk about how great God is, but I need not show it with my life. 

There are advantages to both, but I haven't totally made up my mind which way to go.  If I can't decide, I'll have to just stay the way I am, which is really unfortunate, because I'm not near as nice as I should be.

Brents

Brent----

I hope sincerely that you just post as you always have. I misunderstood you once,
due to being in the wrong mind-set, and having a "knee-jerk" reaction about it. But
I would never want you to think you have to tip-toe around me, or anyone else for
that matter, due to someone being too "sensitive" about something you've said.

The Bible even says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend", meaning of course that it
is better when someone speaks to you forthrightly, rather than holding back. There are
points where we can all cross the line, and go from being "forthright" to "insulting",
and that should definitely be avoided. But I think we'd all lose a lot if you became a "tame",
non-committed person and didn't state your views the way you always have. Just my opinion
of course.

--Joe

Hmmm,

so the sincere, senstive angle might not be best?  What about the mentally ill approach? 

I'm already more than half-way there, ya know?   ;)

Brent

Brent---

Definitely go with the mentally ill approach. By the way, I like how you signed your
prior post as "Brents" with an "s"--that really puts you on the way to a full blown
mental illness. You know you're going mentally ill when you start to say things
twice. You know you're going mentally ill when you start to say things twice.

All the best,  Joe   ;D

Most importantly the old assembly rules don't apply here. If you have the need to tell someone to 'kiss my grits' without going off the deep end you can.
I have enjoyed the different points of veiw shared here from different people who experienced involvement in the assembly. This place is not my church or where I find direction in life, it's a opportunity to hear opinions from people I otherwise never would. I think this is a good thing.

PS I think comparing George to Brent is funny because the idea is so bizarre.

At a dinner party, you would never hear me talk this way, ever.  There is a time for politeness and less crassness.  Same with Sunday morning at church, at work, at pretty much every public gathering.  Manners and etiquiette are super important.  Brown nosing the boss, small talk, smiling at someone when they tell you about their recent divorce party, chuckling along when you hear about how drunk so and so got, all of that is part of being decent and polite.

Brent:

At the risk of being ignored and putting my foot in my mouth again,  I would like to venture some words.

I don't think that the last two instances you shared are manners and etiquette, necessarily......

Perhaps cowardice and duplicity....

Matt Sciaini

If you mean to say that condoning such activity is wrong, I coudn't agree more.
The spirit of my post was that there are times when a person needs to speak up, even if it's not "polite," or "decent."

Nevertheless, I don't laugh or smile at a person who glories in their sin.  I also stand by in silence 99% of the time when I am in a social setting and this sort of thing takes place.  It's polite to do so, and to do otherwise is rude.

If someone tells me about their divorce party (which has happened) I respond by saying, "I'm sorry that your marriage didn't work out, or remain silent."  If it's a christian (has never happened) I'd say something different.

Hopefully people understand what I am trying to say.  Politeness only goes so far.  It is always impolite, and rarely well received to tell somone they are going to hell...yet Jesus did it, and He is the Love of God personified.

On the other hand, if we walk around spouting god-talk all the time, that's just rude.  We assembly people were always incredibly dense when it came to social grace.

BAT

Belfry:

Humor me.  Why were you shouting via e-mail?  I'm perfectly willing to be skewered on-line.  I doubt that I even know you, and if I do, so what?  Perhaps we laugh it off later over some refreshments.

Matt Sciaini

Hi Matt,

I was just reacting to an old assembly reaction of yours to Brent's reaction to the reactions of Lenore's reactions to Brent's reaction to Lenore's reaction to Brent's original reaction to welfare as we know it and to the responses against Brent's reactions to Lenore's responses.

Brent, who is my vicarious mouthpiece, covered it all pretty well in his response to your response to his response to negative input from responses from others responding to his responses to Lenore's responses to Brent's view of welfare as we know it.

FYI, he is feeding among the Lilies today.

Moonie  :)

Belfry---

Great explanation!! ;D

--Joe

Belfry/Moonie-----

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Matt Sciaini