Tom and Skeptic

[editor]

Brent,

As I said, from the very beginning I understood you to be calling the girl a whore.  I used that term because it is ugly and demeaning.  I believed that you were demeaning the girl in question, and I felt that was over the line.  I did not get the words from your post.

Please point out where I used the word "slut".

BTW, what did you mean by your statement?

As to whether or not my apology will "fly", I can only say that it was sincerely offered.

Thomas Maddux

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

[Oscar]

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

[editor]

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

[M2]

.....
3. What happened was that in my reply to Brent I used the word "serviced", which was what I understood him to mean.  Then when I went back to read and reply later, I remembered my own word as having come from him!   
My self-defense was based on my erroneous belief that he had actually used that word.
.....
Thomas Maddux

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.

Brent,

I have admitted my error, and I have apologized.

What you do with that is up to you.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

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.

.....
6. My story about the crawdads was intended to point out that being nasty to one another does not further the purpose of the BB, which, to my understanding , is to help people understand, exit, and recover from the George Geftakys assemblies.

Again, my sincere apologies to all.

Thomas Maddux

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

[Margaret]

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."

[Oscar]

Marcia,

You said:

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.

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

[editor]

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

[editor]

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."

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."):

Well, in your case, it's entirely possible for almost anyone on the board to more to know more....

Nevertheless, if you read my post you will see that I caution people that it may not be legit...but then, you probably didn't read what I posted for information, only for an angle to educate and inform the board members.

If you look at the dating sites, read between the lines, listen to the phone calls, read the testimonies...you will see that many of these women have several men to choose from.  Certainly she is isn't going to turn down good opportunities waiting for a middle aged man to graduate from school!

This hardly qualifies for slander, quite the opposite, perfesser.

You need to wear an aluminium foil deflector beanie, triple thickness.  Obviously, you are under the influence of Psychotronic mind control.

the skeptic's skeptic

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

[Margaret]

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

[editor]

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

[M2]

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.

.....
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.
.....
Brent/Skeptic

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.

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

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

[Margaret]

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

[skeptic]

"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

[Oscar]

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.”

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.

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

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.

As Marcia says, "Good will to all."

Margaret

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

[editor]

Margaret,

1. I wasn't reading the board very much during that period.

  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.

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.

  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.

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. 

  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.

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.

  You ninny, I didn't "say 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.

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

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

  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.

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

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

Brent