The Big Picture (BP)

[Oscar]

Sorry, this isn't going to fly.  You also used the words whore, client, slut etc.  You made them up, and didn't get them from my post.  Furthermore, you stuck with your story and even re-enforced your error. 

Why did you do this?  Why did you continue to stick with your error until massive pressure was applied?

Brent/Skeptic

Brent,

I have the gift/curse of being able objectify my thought processes much of the time.  I didn't "feel" any massive pressure.  I thought I was right, so I stuck to my guns. 

I also have a tendency to analyze things quickly and come to a conlcusion.  In this case, I messed up.

When so many people began to talk about what I had done, I realized that I had better read the relevant posts again.  When I re-read your original comments, I saw what I had done.  My retraction/apology followed as soon as I could type my post.

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

.....
I also have a tendency to analyze things quickly and come to a conlcusion.  In this case, I messed up.
.....
Thomas Maddux

In this case and multiple others.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

As a lurker i will make this one obsevation. it seems all issues and disagrrements are viewed in the context of how it relates to george or the assembly. people no longer seem to have their own character flaws or strengths. every thing is held up to the light of the assembly. Can a person not have a character quality independent from george? I'm sure we all had lives before the assembly. Do we not have them now? we all had a personality before george. is it possible that we may still have one.

I find it rather disconcerting that in order for one to make a point they conpare the individual they disagree with to georege or to assembly ways. It seems to get the greatest impact of the point and deliver the greatest insult. Alliances are formed for strength. People are attacked, there character maligned, their perspective ridiculed.

Well I don't post here because of that. There is no way of healing here. There seems to be no way of putting things in the past. there seems to be no way to go forward when all that is done is rehash the past. There seems to be no way to be just me.

At Brents invitation this is my one and only post.

regards.

Hi Marty:
Thoughtful observations. I think the key is to find some balance. What happened in the assemblies ought never to be dismissed or forgotten. You are quite right in that some of our innate pre-dispositions were exacerbated in that environment. I wonder if the fact that occasionally the kind of animated exchanges we are seeing mean that there may still be a few areas (boils) in some of us that have not been lanced. I agree with you that we ultimately want to edify one another and I will keep that in mind as I post. Thanks! 
Verne

p.s. Some have speculated about what it was in each of us that drew us to a man like George and a place like the assemblies - perhaps feelings of insecurity that were lessened by the notions of elitism we got there? That may have been true for me at the beginning. I stayed as long as I did because of the friendships.
 In view of the shattered notions of elitism on the part of some, who were treated horribly, one wonders why they remained as long as they did...

[Margaret]

To finish up my comments on the BP, I think the summary would be that five old-timer key players are controlling the board and this is bad because:
1)   They are causing people to become fixated on their Assembly identity
2)   They’re ineffective because of a pathological reluctance to admit personal wrongdoing
3)   Their advice and practices are not healthy and are actually counterproductive
4)   They relate to each other in the old leading brother way of supporting each other despite the facts.
5)   They take it upon themselves to teach and correct everyone, as if they themselves have come so  far. It is very bad if anyone actually takes anything they say to heart.
6)   They have a proud and enlightened carriage
7)   These people teach through action that false spirituality and vapid God-talk is OK
   They teach that truthful straight-forward communication is bad.
9)   They protect the LPs (leading posters?) even if they are undeniably wrong.
10)   They are weak leaders who are afraid to take a hard stand or tell the truth if it’s controversial

The bottom line is that these people’s input on the board stinks, and it’s bad for those who spend much time here.

This is pretty heavy-duty broad-brush excoriation. All of these folks have articles on ga.com that have been positively received. Is there just the slightest possibility that Brent’s BP is written in a fit of pique against those who have dared to stand up and criticize him? (The boondoggle with Tom unfortunately obscures this possibility.)  We've been down that road once already, let’s not repeat it.

On another note, I have often wondered about the fact that the board is dominated by old-timers, with very few of the recent generation of escapees posting. In view of what I am beginning to understand this week, I think it’s entirely possible that the presence of former leaders may be oppressive, even if we’re not entirely the ogres Brent seems to think.

Maybe if all the old-timers withdrew from the board, the new generation of post-Assemblyites might make more use of it? (I'm thinking all the old-timers here, not just "The 5".) There's therapist-led support group for the "new" post-Assemblyites that began about two years ago. I realized that it wasn't really an option for me to attend, that my presence would be scary, it would put a damper on their discussion, and that my post-Assembly issues fifteen years down the line are very diferent from theirs. Something to think about, maybe.

OK, one last thing I want to get off my mind, and then drop it. As I said previously, I was not yet convinced that Tom’s initial interpretation of Brent’s original post about Edna entertaining men was off the wall. So last night I asked Jeeves (ask.com) about “entertain men,” and even Jeeves has the same initial reaction—his first five results are about Japanese Geishas. So the ambiguity with the way Brent put it was not just in the choice of the word “entertain”, but with the sentence structure as well. I rest my case . And now I do think Brent owes Tom an apology—many insults have been hurled over this.

[matthew r. sciaini]

All:

I know that this is slightly off topic, but could people limit how much they put in one posting on a subject, or use bullet points to mark off things?  The large paragraphs that some of us use can be pretty daunting when they are on fairly obscure and forensic subjects such as the most recent (re: "skeptic's" statement on David G's Filipina adventure). 

This reminds me of the assembly big time, that people would just ramble and call that communication.  (Can someone say "GG's seminars from about 1996-2003?)

Matt Sciaini

[matthew r. sciaini]

All:

Just my thinking out loud again, but my thought is that this site should serve as an information (not necessarily a REVELATION) source--in a former post I mentioned through an analogy of the BB as a way-station for healing that people do not (or should not) stay in such way-stations forever, nor plan dances and social activities there.  Some of us may well still need healing, but the BB may not be the place for it any longer.  There is such a thing as home care, outpatient recovery, etc. 

By all means report on the movements of what is left of the old system, and provide us with places to go as options to our assembly experience.  But I would not any longer advertise the forum as a place for healing per se.  Just advertise it as an opporunity for communication.

Matt Sciaini

[Suzie Trockman]

Next time you post Brent you really should "ask Jeeves" first about definitions and only use the first definition of a word.  NEVER use the second definition because some people can't read simple sentences and result to calling you a slanderer and requesting an apology.  This is so ridiculous, I can't quite believe it.

[M2]

.....
Maybe if all the old-timers withdrew from the board, the new generation of post-Assemblyites might make more use of it? (I'm thinking all the old-timers here, not just "The 5".) There's therapist-led support group for the "new" post-Assemblyites that began about two years ago. I realized that it wasn't really an option for me to attend, that my presence would be scary, it would put a damper on their discussion, and that my post-Assembly issues fifteen years down the line are very diferent from theirs. Something to think about, maybe.

And let the Mauldin types run circles around them

I like MattS suggestion:

All:

Just my thinking out loud again, but my thought is that this site should serve as an information (not necessarily a REVELATION) source--in a former post I mentioned through an analogy of the BB as a way-station for healing that people do not (or should not) stay in such way-stations forever, nor plan dances and social activities there.  Some of us may well still need healing, but the BB may not be the place for it any longer.  There is such a thing as home care, outpatient recovery, etc. 

By all means report on the movements of what is left of the old system, and provide us with places to go as options to our assembly experience.  But I would not any longer advertise the forum as a place for healing per se.  Just advertise it as an opporunity for communication.

Matt Sciaini

OK, one last thing I want to get off my mind, and then drop it. As I said previously, I was not yet convinced that Tom’s initial interpretation of Brent’s original post about Edna entertaining men was off the wall. So last night I asked Jeeves (ask.com) about “entertain men,” and even Jeeves has the same initial reaction—his first five results are about Japanese Geishas. So the ambiguity with the way Brent put it was not just in the choice of the word “entertain”, but with the sentence structure as well. I rest my case . And now I do think Brent owes Tom an apology—many insults have been hurled over this.

I beg to differ here, Margaret for 2 reasons:
1.  The whole mess started because Tom was careless and got fixated on "his knowledge".  If he had read the whole post carefully, the meaning and tone would have been abundantly clear.
2.  Even after Tom's fixation, which led to his misunderstanding, Tom repeatedly ignored skeptics posts that clearly stated that he(skeptic) had not used the word "servicing".

It would almost be like if my daughter caused a ruckus with my son, and then to even the balance of scolding, I would have to find something to scold my son for as well.  When in actual fact my daughter is the guilty party and frustrated my son.  Believe it or not, these things do happen.

Thank you Al, for your wise and well chosen words.  You have articulated many of the things that I have been feeling over the past few days since this terrible storm of words began. 
Dear Everyone else,
I know that I have no right to weigh in on any of this, being a newcomer.  I don't know the history behind your offenses with your fellow bb brothers and sisters, but you all are breaking my heart with your bickering.
Do you remember back when you first were saved? (30 years in Oct. for me)  Do you remember the first scriptures that you studied?  Before you waded out and swam into the deep waters of doctrine and studied deeper things, you walked along the beach as you became accustomed to the waters; simpler concepts.
I am going to share some scripture that most of you will be able to recite from memory, but this is what has been going through my heart since Sunday.  Many may think it too simple and only for simple minds.  May my mind learn to  always be this simple.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbol.
If I have the gift of prophesy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all of my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I Cor 13: 1-7

I know I fall very short on a daily basis of the blueprint for life listed above.
Blessings,
Your sister,
Gay

You don't have a stomach for swashbuckling eh?? 

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

I think, I hope, Al understood that this was a sarcastic response to his post.  The 2 added words were words he used in his post to describe others.

Marcia

P.S.
We watched Coach Carter.  Coach Carter's perspective reminded me of Brent and the welfare thread.  Quite a movie.
MM

[Margaret]

Marcia, just to clarify--I was thinking of old-timers as those who left a long time ago. That includes Dave Mauldin. But Brent would still be around anyway to take care of things.

[editor]

To finish up my comments on the BP, I think the summary would be that five old-timer key players are controlling the board and this is bad because:
1)   They are causing people to become fixated on their Assembly identity
2)   They’re ineffective because of a pathological reluctance to admit personal wrongdoing
3)   Their advice and practices are not healthy and are actually counterproductive
4)   They relate to each other in the old leading brother way of supporting each other despite the facts.
5)   They take it upon themselves to teach and correct everyone, as if they themselves have come so  far. It is very bad if anyone actually takes anything they say to heart.
6)   They have a proud and enlightened carriage
7)   These people teach through action that false spirituality and vapid God-talk is OK
   They teach that truthful straight-forward communication is bad.
9)   They protect the LPs (leading posters?) even if they are undeniably wrong.
10)   They are weak leaders who are afraid to take a hard stand or tell the truth if it’s controversial

The bottom line is that these people’s input on the board stinks, and it’s bad for those who spend much time here.

This is pretty heavy-duty broad-brush excoriation. All of these folks have articles on ga.com that have been positively received. Is there just the slightest possibility that Brent’s BP is written in a fit of pique against those who have dared to stand up and criticize him? (The boondoggle with Tom unfortunately obscures this possibility.)  We've been down that road once already, let’s not repeat it.

OK, one last thing I want to get off my mind, and then drop it. As I said previously, I was not yet convinced that Tom’s initial interpretation of Brent’s original post about Edna entertaining men was off the wall. So last night I asked Jeeves (ask.com) about “entertain men,” and even Jeeves has the same initial reaction—his first five results are about Japanese Geishas. So the ambiguity with the way Brent put it was not just in the choice of the word “entertain”, but with the sentence structure as well. I rest my case . And now I do think Brent owes Tom an apology—many insults have been hurled over this.

I really do think this board, for the last year or so, has been a complete and total waste of time.  The old posts and threads have many nuggets, which can be of help to people who want to figure things out.  What is happening now is bad in every way.  That's my opinion.

Regarding me apologizing:

I'll do it, as I have countless times before, as soon as someone can explain to me what I am apologizing for.  Mark was able to do it, and I was forthcoming with an apology withing an hour or two of his post.  I didn't need days, and everyone drilling it into me to get it.  I received his entreaty.

The way I see it, the situation between Skeptic and Tom is different.  Skeptic's (my) post was lighthearted, straightforward, and without a hint of slander towards the woman.  (No one has a problem with saying things about David or George.)  The spirit of the post was clearly a caution to make sure we had the facts.  I was suspicious that David would post this on the web, but subsequent events proved that he did indeed do this.

Tom mis-read, mis-understood, and then refused entreaty and correction.  The initial entreaty was done in a lighthearted manner, and he could have easily used humor to apologize, IE  "I should have been wearing my beanie, NO WONDER I read you wrong."  I gave him mulitple opportunities to do so....but I also knew, from experience, that he wouldn't do it.  I also know that Dave Sable won't do it, and he is nearly as guilty as Tom.

Let's not forget that it didn't end with the word "servicing" but with all sorts of crazy talk about cows, the sex trade and "decent" folk.  Tom acted like a total jackass.

Yes, I used a large dose of sarcasm in my many responses to his nonsensical, doltish posts.  A bridle for an ass and a rod for the back of fools.  That's biblical...deal with it.  I couldn't use a real rod on his back, so I must use the verbal equivalent...insults.   We have those words and ideas for a reason.

I fear that many of you value false peace, and false holiness more than the real thing.  The fact of the matter is that Tom has behaved this way for some time, and has ignored many entreaties, both direct and subtle, over a long period of time.  He would have ignored this as well.....had I not been so persistent.

Does anyone honestly think I should have just let it go?  It would have been easier to do so, but IMO it wouldn't have been honest.  I'll let certain things go if I don't care for the person, but I do care for Tom and it really bothered me to see him act this way.

So, at present I am blind to my fault in this matter.  It's not that I refuse to see what I did wrong.  That's definitely not the case.  I honestly don't know what I did that  needs apologizing for with regard to Tom's slander of me and persistant misrepresentation of my words, coupled with careless reading.  Let's be clear, Tom wouldn't be apologizing unless I was persistant.  Should I apologize for bringing it up time and time again?  How else to you reconcile with a person in this situation, without bringing it up?  It got thicker and thicker, because his self defense got increasingly bizzare.  That's not my problem, it's his.

If someone can help me out here, I'd be happy to apologize.

Regarding insults, I think that they serve a purpose.  When someone is behaving like a jackass, it becomes impossible to inform them of that fact without calling the behavior by it's proper name.  I did that, and I don't regret it.  I am truly open to being told where I am blind in this regard.

Regarding heavy-duty broad-brush excoriation of the BB: let me use an analogy.  If a football team has a losing record, and has poor stats and poor sportsmanship, one is correct in stating,  "This is a terrible team."

The players and coaches are free to take offense and accuse the person making the above statement of "broad-brushing," but the fact remains that the team is dreadful, regardless of what an individual player may do from time to time.

The BB is a lousy place.  Some of the old posts are really good, but the last year is pretty much worthless.  You need a big brush to paint a big barn, and my opinion is as stated.

Finally, the suggestion that I am having a fit because someone dares criticize me is laughable.  I have always invited criticism, and have received far more than my fair share in this whole ordeal.   Certainly more than the likes of Tom or Dave.  If there is anything I want people to do it's that they would stand up for what they believe, especially if it means they disagree with me.  Why do you think I invited John Malone to post here?  He dedicated an entire website that was largely critical of me, in which he identified me as "vile."  Why do you think I encouraged Sondra to post here?  She has been very openly critical of me, yet I engage her in conversation all the time.  If someone is going to suggest that I can't handle criticism, I will laugh in their face.  They don't know me, and they have short, selective memories.  None of you has stuck your neck out and made themselves open to criticism as much as I have, with regard to this matter of the Assembly. 

The fact is I have great respect for anyone who has the courage to state what they believe and stand by it.  I have almost no respect for people that remain quiet and reserved in order to avoid conflict.  These are the types that enabled George.

I have disdain for people who will compromise what they believe to be good and right, in order to serve their own ends, or protect themselves.  Sadly, too much of this has gone on right here in our pseudo-sanctified midst. 

I'd much rather cross swords with a worthy opponent, than spew silly Christian lingo and pretend peace and forgiveness with a bunch of jackasses!

If I come into contact with someone who is behaving like a jackass, I'm going to confront such a person with a measure of intensity commensurate with the degree of care I have for that person.  My kids are going to get more heat from me for bad grades than the neighbor's kids.  I really don't care if a kid is failing math who lives in the next town, but my OWN kids?  I'll be very involved in that case.

So, if a person is going to criticise me, that's great.  I'm asking all of you to do so, and tell me why I need to apologize.  If I'm a jackass, I'll listen to what you have to say, and I am quite easily turned.

However, If you're going to hit and run, like Dave Sable, or try to defend your idiocy like Tom,  I have very little respect for that!  In fact, I think insults are in order for a person who does that sort of thing.

Open and honest relationships are what I'm after.

Tell what you think,

Brent

[Margaret]

Chihuahua, Brent....I was trying to keep it light, but you and Suzie see that only as ridiculous, which I suppose it was, so I think I'm damned if I pursue this, and damned if I don't. 

Anyway, first let me be more specific about what, in my opinion, you could apologize for. If the dictionary and a common reference search both come up with definitions similar to what Tom jumped to, then I don't think it's true to say things like "any fool can see," "anyone with a sixth grade education would understand," "it's stupid to think..."etc. (I'm doing this from memory and not looking up the quotes to get it right, so please bear with me if I quoted you wrong--I think these are in the ballpark). That's all--just to acknowledge that Tom wasn't a complete idiot to have thought that at the beginning (the very beginning). I wasn't implying that you should let the rest of it pass.

Second, the issue of insults. To answer you on this is really a double bind, because I don't know how to do it without risking more offenses in the vein of "teaching and correcting" and "false spirituality and vapid God-talk", etc.  I have the feeling that you're baiting us, so when we reply to your questions, you can say, "See there--just like a told you", since in your view, everything we have to say is ineffective because of our pathological refusal to admit personal wrongdoing. But anyway, here goes, because I think these issues matter.

"A rod for the back of fools"--the NT tells us not to consider fellow-believers fools. Jesus used this language on the pharisees, but not on Peter even when he denied Him. Paul came close to it with the Galatians, where the issue was the gospel itself. The NT seems to me to teach very consistently that believers are to treat each other with respect even when they're dead wrong, unless the gospel is at stake. You know the references--"Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other" "Clothe yourselves with kindness and gentleness" etc. I don't think that means you sit passively when you "see a brother overtaken in a fault", it means there's a way to address it with respect for the person.

Last, since you devoted 4 or 5 paragraphs to me in your BP, and only 1 or 2 to Tom and everyone else (except where you lump us all together as "a team"), I have to assume that I am by far the biggest offender on this board.  I somehow doubt that, with only 100 or so posts to my discredit. That's partly what I meant by painting with a broad brush. But maybe just the fact of who I am makes it so, no matter what I've said.

Whatever, I am sure that apologies from me are in order. What I will do is go back over all my posts in the last year to identify the error of my ways. I'm sure I'll find a lot. It bothers me to be so narcissistic to keep this going on and on about myself. But maybe it will be helpful, what do I know.

Margaret

[M2]

I just spent 4.5 hours in the emergency room, so I been chewing on this a bit.

A brief commentary:

Margaret, you are on a wild goose chase here with the "Brent needs to apologize" bit.  By Tom's own admission, Tom read "servicing" where the word "entertaining" was used by skeptic.  Then he was careless to not recognize the tone of the post, and adjust his perspective.  He then proceeded to be doubly careless by only reading posts that directly affected him, like the one where I stated that he had some residual LBisms, BUT he neglected to read the posts that told him that skeptic had not ever even used the word "servicing".  Incredulous, hence the skepticism at the authenticity of Tom's apology.  AND talk about poor BB etiquette; no wonder Tom cannot recognize Lenore's poor BB etiquette, and Mauldin's circular logic.

Take Al in the other corner, who has a pet peeve about language usage, mainly because that language usage was directed at him.

And Mark gets quite irate when his own character is being assasinated, but goes into subtle mode when the truth is being assasinated.

Tom did not have the guts to take on Lenore and expose her error directly to her, so he sidestepped it by indirectly stating, "I'm not going to take on the evangelical community".  I was under the impression that a discussion forum was all about discussing error and truth.  But Tom is afraid of Lenore, because he remembers what happened on the welfare thread. So it is better to throw his infinite wisdom around the BB and take Brent to task for something Brent never even did, and then not even bother to read Brent's response.  Incredulous.

I perfectly inderstand that these men were young and impresionable when they became LBs for the Geftakys assemblies.  I also understand that some took some stands and even became victims of the system.  What I do not understand is that after all these years, these men are still unable to see what is staring them in the face and call it for what it is.  Hence the residual LBism comment.

The mark of a good leader is to have the guts to do the right thing and to have the guts to apologize when one messes up.  It is the Brent-types and the Coach Carters, and the Vernes and the Mike Harris'(former Premier of Ontario) that have the good leadership skills.  Tom is a fake as is Dave Sable and....

I guess that wasn't as brief as I thought it would be.
Marcia

[editor]

Chihuahua, Brent....I was trying to keep it light, but you and Suzie see that only as ridiculous, which I suppose it was, so I think I'm damned if I pursue this, and damned if I don't. 

Anyway, first let me be more specific about what, in my opinion, you could apologize for. If the dictionary and a common reference search both come up with definitions similar to what Tom jumped to, then I don't think it's true to say things like "any fool can see," "anyone with a sixth grade education would understand," "it's stupid to think..."etc. (I'm doing this from memory and not looking up the quotes to get it right, so please bear with me if I quoted you wrong--I think these are in the ballpark). That's all--just to acknowledge that Tom wasn't a complete idiot to have thought that at the beginning (the very beginning). I wasn't implying that you should let the rest of it pass.

Second, the issue of insults. To answer you on this is really a double bind, because I don't know how to do it without risking more offenses in the vein of "teaching and correcting" and "false spirituality and vapid God-talk", etc.  I have the feeling that you're baiting us, so when we reply to your questions, you can say, "See there--just like a told you", since in your view, everything we have to say is ineffective because of our pathological refusal to admit personal wrongdoing. But anyway, here goes, because I think these issues matter.

"A rod for the back of fools"--the NT tells us not to consider fellow-believers fools. Jesus used this language on the pharisees, but not on Peter even when he denied Him. Paul came close to it with the Galatians, where the issue was the gospel itself. The NT seems to me to teach very consistently that believers are to treat each other with respect even when they're dead wrong, unless the gospel is at stake. You know the references--"Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other" "Clothe yourselves with kindness and gentleness" etc. I don't think that means you sit passively when you "see a brother overtaken in a fault", it means there's a way to address it with respect for the person.

Last, since you devoted 4 or 5 paragraphs to me in your BP, and only 1 or 2 to Tom and everyone else (except where you lump us all together as "a team"), I have to assume that I am by far the biggest offender on this board.  I somehow doubt that, with only 100 or so posts to my discredit. That's partly what I meant by painting with a broad brush. But maybe just the fact of who I am makes it so, no matter what I've said.


Whatever, I am sure that apologies from me are in order. What I will do is go back over all my posts in the last year to identify the error of my ways. I'm sure I'll find a lot. It bothers me to be so narcissistic to keep this going on and on about myself. But maybe it will be helpful, what do I know.

Margaret

This is good Margaret.  Thanks.

I maintain that in the context of what I posted, Tom should never have arrived at the conclusion he did.  Nevertheless, having arrived at it, what he did from that point forward was surreal. 

I was with a group of men, and for about 90 minutes, we were entertained by a woman, Reba Macintyre.


Run the above phrase through the online dictionary and see if I am talking about a group of men visiting a whore.  You're grasping at straws, Margaret.

With regard to calling other believers fools,  I think I need to be more clear about that.  I expect believers to behave in a way that honors Christ.  Not all the time, everytime...none of us do that.  However, when any of us behave FOOLISHLY,  then our friends should step in and call it to our attention.  When someone is behaving foolishly, they are a fool, in that sense.  If one of my Christian friends and his wife decided to "swing," (I mean this in the sexual sense)  I would rightly call him a fool.  I would rebuke him harshly, and not fellowship with him.  That's a much stronger application than what we have here, but the principle holds.

Jesus did use this language on his followers, calling them foolish and hard of hearing...and Satan.

Last, since you devoted 4 or 5 paragraphs to me in your BP, and only 1 or 2 to Tom and everyone else (except where you lump us all together as "a team"), I have to assume that I am by far the biggest offender on this board.  I somehow doubt that, with only 100 or so posts to my discredit. That's partly what I meant by painting with a broad brush. But maybe just the fact of who I am makes it so, no matter what I've said.

I can see how you would think that, and no, I don't think you are the biggest offender on the board.  Actually, I consider myself to be the biggest offender, because I pretty much created most of it, and I seemed to have attracted people to it, and I have the most to say.  That makes me the greatest offender.

I see that all of us, together, form one sick little support group that merely rehashes Assembly garbage in one form or another.  I used you and Tom as examples in order to make a point.  I can see how you were bothered by that, in light of how you looked at it.  I probably would have drawn the same conclusion.

I don't think you are going to able to remember half the apologies you need to give.  I know I certainly can't.  The fact is that I remember a really bad thing that Steve did to Suzie and I....but I won't bring it up here, because we understand why he did it, and know that he would apologize for it if he remembered it.  That's not the point. 

The Big Picture is that this BB, and our mutual interactions here is counterproductive towards our goals of "recovering."  It's like bad medicine, that acutally keeps the patient sick.

Keeping the BP in mind, we all can offer a service when it comes to identifying the problems with George and his Assemblies, but I don't think any of us are able to offer more than first aid when it comes to helping a person heal from it.

Brent

[vernecarty]

I really do think this board, for the last year or so, has been a complete and total waste of time.  The old posts and threads have many nuggets, which can be of help to people who want to figure things out.  What is happening now is bad in every way.  That's my opinion.


Tell what you think,

Brent

Any BB rises or falls in porportion to the calibre of its individual particpants. One only has too look at AB to conclude that. Brent is certainly right that things are not as they used to be. There was a time when if you logged  onto the BB, there would be any number of very interesting conversations taking place with a whole colorful cast of players. Of course a good moderator is needed to deal with disruptive influences or the occasional family spat but by and large does not ultimatly determine how interesting or readable any BB is. The very best time I have ever had on a BB were the first few hours of the launch of RFTW.
The only posters were Arthur, Brent and myself. The level of unadulterated fun, comraderie, witty jibing and friendly banter has been a source of many a fond memory. We had no moderators!
It seems as if when interesting folk depart, someone feels as if they have to carry the weight so to speak. I get the impression that this is what David M was trying to do with the numerous threads he started.
However, merely voluminous threads do not an interesting BB make. You also need thoughtful, intelligent posters.
I am going to take Margaret's advice in the hope that a new crop of witty, interesting, informed and don't- take- themselves- too -seriously posters will come out of hiding and make the BB as fun to read as it once was.   
Verne

[matthew r. sciaini]

Brent and others:

People have been speaking about the five main contributors on this board, that they should step back and allow a new group to have their conversations on the board re:  the assembly.  One person put it this way:  a "new generation" of posters. 

I was thinking about this today while I was walking during my lunch break.

Has anybody ever heard the phrase "Live and let die" ?

It may well be that a new generation of posters, unhampered by the old hands on this board, might rise up and make this a profitable (at least spiritually and psychically) venture for people.  But if the trends of the past year are any indication, I would not hold my breath waiting for such a thing. 

As I was thinking about this today (this idea of a "new generation" of posters)  I had in my mind the old assemblyites (such as the family Geftakys, at some moments) that would intimate the aura of a spiritual dynasty, a spiritual pedigree, something that would carry on "forever".  (Can you remember how often GG would use the phrase "spiritual pedigree?  I remember it frequently and had no idea at the time what he was saying, but I think it had to do with people around HIM.) 

It is so natural for us to think that anything on this earth should continue and will continue to the end of the world or until the Lord comes back.  Some things should (big commitments such as marriage and family), but a chatroom?  Do we want to propagate something that perhaps should just be let alone?  Do any of us remember the outreaches we kept doing, year after year after year with nothing to show for all the activity and preparation, because the time for it was up (and there was sin in the big camp)?

I don't say "kill it", but let it be and see.  Maybe my information idea could be extended to state that only NEW things can be posted.
An information forum, after all, is supposed to inform.  Re-hashing stuff from the past is not informing people. 

As far as Dave-Mauldin and others like him taking over the board, I have this to say:  when the board is reduced to table scraps and leavings, only desperate souls will find any nourishment there.  As some have said with regard to their Assembly involvement, "I voted with my feet".  This board will have the same result, except they will say "I voted with my mouse and keyboard".

I say DNR if it goes into a coma.  Just as "buildingup.net" did.  No great fanfare, no great wrenchings of heart.  The young people were done, and had moved on. 

Matt Sciaini