 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
churchmouse522
03/06/01 8:10 PM
Stereotypes and other short-cuts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Since the thread where I was dealing with this issue was getting kinda long, and since it was kind of off the topic anyway, I'd like to throw a thought out for everyone's consideration. In the "What about Hitler?" thread, I was dialoguing with Lion-Lamb about stereotypes. He initially thought I was asking him whether he had any stereotypes about open theism, but what I really wanted to know was whether he thought he had any stereotypes about open theists (the people, not the ideas). It's kind of a weird question, but I think it has a lot to do with the problems we have discussing various issues.
We all sort information in one form or another. There's just too many bits of information to deal with in our environment so we develop ways of managing it. We delete some of it, we distort some of it, and we make generalizations (Props to TNT). Everyone does this or we would go insane.
Lion-Lamb said he didn't have any stereotypes about open theists, but I suspect that he does, even if he is unaware of them. I suspect we all have handy little short-cut ways of thinking about one another. I just wanted to point it out in the hopes that bringing it into our awareness will help us critically examine some of the prejudices we bring to this board. I am certainly not directing this to Lion-Lamb. In fact, this whole discussion started when I told Mephi that he was shattering my stereotypes.
By the way, check out the thread Modes started about clarifying Mephi's thinking. He makes a really good point. I know that this board tends to magnify what is different in our ways of thinking about certain theological issues, but we need to remember what we have in common. It's much more important than our disagreements.
Let me know what you all think.
Meekly,
The Mouse
To Lion-Lamb: Hey, do you remember the fable about the mouse who removed the thorn from the paw of the Lion? No particular point, I've just been having fun thinking about it.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
03/06/01 8:55 PM
RE: Stereotypes and other short-cuts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchmouse,
You said,
Meekly, The Mouse To Lion-Lamb: Hey, do you remember the fable about the mouse who removed the thorn from the paw of the Lion? No particular point, I've just been having fun thinking about it.
I do remember the fable. In fact, I was pondering how I could work that in to one of my notes to you. I decided not to do so, lest no one else remembered the fable. How mistaken I was! I still have vividly etched upon my mind the picture of the lion and the mouse from that fable that was in my third-grade reader. Fond memories!
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/07/01 12:38 AM
How's your paw, Dude?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Lion,
Cool. We were thinking the same thing. I love that.
Still maintain you have no handy little box you put me in? No short-cuts about what you think open theists are like? Come on. Confession is good for the soul.
Interested in what my stereotypes are about Calvinists? I'll tell if you tell.
Let's get rid of that nasty thorn,
Churchmouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/08/01 4:48 AM
The Pedant Speaks: Points of Clarification Regarding "Stereotypes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Note: This is an important post to the openness theology discussion. Tell all the neighbors and friends, open view theists and otherwise, to read and comprehend the things within!!}
Dear Mouse,
You said:
"We all sort information in one form or another. There's just too many bits of information to deal with in our environment so we develop ways of managing it. We delete some of it, we distort some of it, and we make generalizations (Props to TNT). Everyone does this or we would go insane.
Lion-Lamb said he didn't have any stereotypes about open theists, but I suspect that he does, even if he is unaware of them. I suspect we all have handy little short-cut ways of thinking about one another. I just wanted to point it out in the hopes that bringing it into our awareness will help us critically examine some of the prejudices we bring to this board.
Meph:
I'm up early, so I'd figure that I'd do this. I think that I've found the issue, Mouse. The first thing that we have to understand is that there are some very important distinctions that need to be addressed here. You seem to have equivocated "stereotypes" and "generalizations" You said that many people have "stereotypes." Unfortunately, this is true. But this is also not right. You are very correct that human beings want to make coherent sense of their world. However, some people do this at the expense of diligent observation of their respective worlds AND critical analyses of their own worldviews. This is "stereotyping" All definitions heretofore are from the New Oxford dictionary
Stereotype: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
Generalization: a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
Now allow me to show you something. Stereotypes are distinct from generalizations. How? Appropriate generalizations are based upon INFERENTIAL thinking that uses a decent amount of evidence, in whatever form that evidence may take. In other words, generalizations are not only based upon supposedly cogent argumentation, but also keen self-reflection of the presuppositions held. If you will note, there is a negative form of this called "overgeneralization" or "sweeping generalization" This takes place when a generalization is clearly made without good basis for doing so or when it goes much farther than is warranted. Overgeneralizations can become caricatures, if not careful. For example, it is the hope and responsibility of compentent sociologists to be able to make generalizing statements about different ethnicities WITHOUT moving into OVERgeneralization or outright caricature. Speaking of which, more definitions...
Caricature: a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
Characterization: describe the distinctive nature or features of.
Surely, you've seen this distinction in some of my posts. I will make the statement that I am using characterization and NOT caricature. What I mean by this is that, when I try to give salient attributes about open view theism, I am NOT trying to present an obviously exaggerated form of what I think it is. I am relying upon my knowledge and reading of open view theists THEMSELVES and presenting the distinctives of that theological positions, using some of their emphases. This is crucial. Remember my "Open View Convert" thing. I guarantee that if you look at that, you will see exactly what I'm talking about, when I say a characterization. Contrasting this, if you look at Shine's attempt to portray a classicalist perspective on the Anthropmorphism board, you will see a pretty evident caricature.
[Digression: I think this is VERY important to note, especially in this discussion. It has been well noted here before that, many times, Calvinism is CARICATURED here by many. It is almost like Calvinism was only about "predestination" when that is quite far from the truth. Moreover, hardly any distinctions are every made about Calvinism before and after the Synod of Dort, which bothers me, particularly. I have always personally believed that the reason this happens so much is because many don't understand the difference between characterization and caricature]
What're the MAIN differences?
I believe that there are 2 mains differences between stereotypes and generalizations (as well as caricatures and characterizations)
1. The amount of work involved, with respect to properly gathering good information about a subject. It is HERE that I think Lion-Lamb has his basis in saying that he has no real stereotypes about openness theology and theologians. His quote...
"No, I don't believe I have any stereotypes (i.e., oversimplified conception) concerning open theism. I make every effort not to misperceive or misrepresent open theism. I am current on all the literature on open theism. (I will surely read Greg Boyd's forthcoming books, Satan and the Problem of Evil and The Myth of the Blueprint.) I have engaged in extensive dialogue with open theists here and elsewhere. Consequently, I believe I can reasonably say that I understand open theism very well."
In other words, Lion believes that he has read and understood the perspectives of sufficient data from open view theists to the point that he can make accurate generalizing and characterizing statements about them. I think this is a justifiable claim. Note this well. If you REALLY want to know if a person is has the ability to make a generalizing claim or not, often a good thing to do is to ask them to give you a personal reading list of material about the subject in question that they have researched. I know that this, at times, could be considered prying and being anal, but I guarantee you, it gives you a really good indication.
[Sidebar Note: This is one thing that, I must admit, frustrates me. People that have opinions on things that are quite ILL informed about those things. However, due to the nature of internet communication, it seems that ALL opinions, whether good or bad, have the SAME weight. So, an relative expert in the field has NO MORE CREDIBILITY online than a person who has read pieces of articles in the same field, and makes obvious caricatures and overgeneralizations as a result. I'm not saying that all discussion should be limited to the experts. I do believe that everyone should have a voice on these matters, if for any reason, because if affects everyone. Moreover, much learning can be facilitated in this type of discussion, IF people are willing to learn. What I AM saying is that a sense of humility in understanding has been taken away due to this phenomenon that enforces the "egalitarianism of ideas" such that ranks idiotic notions can be claimed to be brilliant and "fresh", and coherent, logical argumentation can be claimed to be of the SAME weight as the aforementioned idiotic notion. But hey, that's the nature of the beast, I suppose. Rant over. Let's move on...]
2. Epistemological humility. In other words, in generalization and characterization, one always remembers that generalizations and characterizations are NECESSARILY LIMITED because of the sources of information and the particularity of individuals. Not every individual will fit the mold, so to speak, and people need to take that in mind. It's evident that Lion does this, to some extent. His quote:
"Since, of course, not all open theists are identical and I would not want to think stereotypically concerning your own beliefs, I have a request. Please help me understand your version of open theism, particularly concerning lamentation."
Do you see what I'm saying? There's a HUGE difference between what Lion is doing and "stereotyping." Stereotyping doesn't bother with particularities at ALL, nor does it bother with attempting self-reflection regarding the very beliefs that it holds. For example, it's rare that you will find a racist that will admit that he or she MAY BE WRONG concerning their beliefs about a certain race. Why? Because that, God forbid, may require enquiring of the racial constituency to find out the truth. And no good bigot would waste his/her time doing that, now would they? LOL!
Summing Up:
Y'all, this is SOOOOOOOOOOO important to this discussion. I hope that EVERYONE reads and understands this. Why? Because frankly, it ticks people like me off when a person like me takes SO much time, effort, and patience to research and learn about a perspective other than my own AND makes various attempts at perception-checking and self-reflection according to holders of said perspective...only to be told that I am "caricaturing" other beliefs. It's quite an insult. (If you want to see a GOOD bit of my personal frustration on this matter, please check the "Open View Convert" thread) When people cannot discern between stereotypes and generalizations, as well as caricatures from characterizations, communication breakdown and frustration on both sides is INEVITABLE. Thus, both sides must work to eliminate the error!
Now I will say this. Lion, I think that you have to admit the possibility that you MAY have SOME type of stereotype in your conceptions somewhere. This is not to say that your conception is PRIMARILY based upon stereotypical information in the least. I think that you have a quite formidable grasp of open view theism and open view theists. However, sometimes, we can possess blind spots that we are not aware of, that could be categorized as stereotypical. Acknowleding this is, as you know, simply a part of the epistemological humility that I've just discussed. Mouse, hopefully, you can see WHY Lion said that he had no stereotypical views of open view theism. He has done extensive reading and research on the subject, and this precludes the type of stereotyping to which your posts have been alluding. For a person who understands the term, being accused of stereotyping is not very cool at all, especially in the context of meaningful discussion. I feel his pain, so just be careful of that from now on, ok?
Readers, if you don't get anything else from this, remember the following:
Stereotypes are DISTINCT from generalizations, just as caricatures are distinct from characterizations. Stereotypes and caricatures are NEGATIVE while valid generalizations and characterizations are POSITIVE.
Holla...
Attempting to Pull Out A Thorn and Distribute Some Cheese,
Mephi2K
PS: Hmmm..a Faustian devious, malevolent being placating a lion and a mouse for the sake of mutual understanding...how ironic is THAT? LOLOL!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/08/01 11:07 AM
RE: The Pedant Speaks: Points of Clarification Regarding "Stereotypes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa Daddy,
Mephi, I think you misunderstood what I was going for, and I'm sure it's my own fault for not nailing down exact definitions as you have done. All I was trying to point out was that we need to be careful to check our personal assumptions about individuals who hold a view that is different from our own. Like I said, I was not insinuating that Lion does not understand open theism. He probably has studied it more than I have. I'm not even really directing this at Lion: he just happened to be the one who answered me. I am the first to admit that I do this, to my own detriment. It's really a danger, especially on a discussion board where none of us have to bother with the real life messiness of getting to really know one another. I'm positive that you would agree whole-heartedly with my intentions.
But now that I have more carefully read your definitions, I'm wondering whether "stereotype" isn't exactly the correct term. I don't hang out with a lot of Calvinists (for example) so I am in danger of typing them out of convenience. This typing is oversimplified precisely because it is never nuanced by interaction with real life examples. In fact, this is UNAVOIDABLE unless I consciously check these assumptions and come to this board or any other point of contact with an open heart. That's all I'm asking people to do: open their hearts to one another and notice that the Spirit of Christ is our common bond.
By the way, I disagree with you that stereotypes are distinct from generalizations. Generalizations are a broad catagory. They can be formed from very little information or a lot of information. It's possible for a person to form a generalization from only one incident, or only second hand information. So stereotypes are just poorly formed generalizations. The only way to avoid them is through honest, open-hearted interaction.
And now, to prove to you that I was not laying a trap to make Lion look bad, I will confess the content of my own stereotypes concerning Calvinists. They come from within my own self. When I try to imagine living in a Calvinist belief world, it evokes a very strong emotion in me, and it has given birth to my oversimplified idea of what it must be like to live in such a world. I'll confess "Mary Cathryn Galliger style". My feelings about what it must be like to be a Calvinist can best be described by an excerpt from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground,
"...it was from feeling oneself that one had reached the last barrier, that it was horrible, but that it could not be otherwise; that there was no escape for you; that you never could become a different man; that even if time and faith were still left you to change into something different you would most likely not wish to change; or if you did wish to, even then you would do nothing; because perhaps in reality there was nothing for you to change into. And the worst of it was, and the root of it all, that it was all in accord with the normal fundamental laws of over-acute consciousness, and with the enertia that was the direct result of those laws, and that consequently one was not only unable to change but could do absolutely nothing."
Now, I understand that this is not real. It's just that on a gut level, it SEEMS like this should be true. I understand that I have to fight this on a conscious level. But the only way I can even begin to try to understand Calvinist theology is to get past my assumptions about Calvinists. I'm honestly trying. I'm only asking that everyone here would try to notice their own gut level assumptions that have nothing to do with knowledge, and set them aside for a while.
Are we OK with this?
Blessings,
Churchmouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/08/01 1:12 PM
Sweet Stuff, Mouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mouse,
Cool stuff.
You said:
"Mephi, I think you misunderstood what I was going for, and I'm sure it's my own fault for not nailing down exact definitions as you have done. All I was trying to point out was that we need to be careful to check our personal assumptions about individuals who hold a view that is different from our own. Like I said, I was not insinuating that Lion does not understand open theism."
Meph:
Oh, I hear ya. I understood what you were pointing out...and I thought that it was very cool. My whole purpose for writing the previous post was not to justify Lion or anything like that. It was to make sure that we could effectively distinguish between "generalization" and "stereotype" (and "caricature" and "charaterization") I was fairly sure from your post that you had not made a clear distinction and THAT lack of distinction was the cause of much hubbub, not only with Lion, but also with other communication that has gone on before in this room.
****************************
You said:
"By the way, I disagree with you that stereotypes are distinct from generalizations. Generalizations are a broad catagory. They can be formed from very little information or a lot of information. It's possible for a person to form a generalization from only one incident, or only second hand information. So stereotypes are just poorly formed generalizations. The only way to avoid them is through honest, open-hearted interaction." Emphasis mine
Meph:
You have just given the distinction. Generalizations can BECOME stereotypes, if the people making the generalizations are not careful. In other words, ALL stereotypes are forms of generalization, but NOT all generalizations are stereotypes. That's the distinction. It seemed that your statement made stereotypes and generalizations equivalent, because you used the words INTERCHANGEABLY. It was this that cause me to write my post.
Moreover,I said the following:
"Appropriate generalizations are based upon INFERENTIAL thinking that uses a decent amount of evidence, in whatever form that evidence may take."
and...
"If you will note, there is a negative form of this called 'overgeneralization' or 'sweeping generalization' This takes place when a generalization is clearly made without good basis for doing so or when it goes much farther than is warranted."
and...
"Stereotypes and caricatures are negative while valid generalizations and characterizations are positive.
As you can see, I tried to make that distinction as well in my response to you. Generalizations have good and bad forms, and the bad forms lead to stereotypes based upon the amount (or lack thereof) of the two factors I set forth. Just making this clear in my little pedantic way...
*****************************
You said:
"And now, to prove to you that I was not laying a trap to make Lion look bad, I will confess the content of my own stereotypes concerning Calvinists. They come from within my own self. When I try to imagine living in a Calvinist belief world, it evokes a very strong emotion in me, and it has given birth to my oversimplified idea of what it must be like to live in such a world."
and...
"Now, I understand that this is not real. It's just that on a gut level, it SEEMS like this should be true. I understand that I have to fight this on a conscious level. But the only way I can even begin to try to understand Calvinist theology is to get past my assumptions about Calvinists. I'm honestly trying."
Mephi:
BRAVO! Well SAID!! Well, Mouse, it seems to me that you've already taken a crucial first step. You've recognized the CRUCIAL point that your emotional dispositions on a subject do NOT dictate it's truth! Oh, if everyone would learn this. You've also recognized the immense power of one's presuppositions.
[Note: This is quite important to the discussion as well. How many people do YOU know that just say: "Well, it just doesn't FEEL right." or "It doesn't give with my intuition." It's often very hard to get people to understand that, though intuition may play a part or the gestalt of worldview building and analysis, it is NOT the main or sole criteria upon which verity of any worldview should be based. And everyone wonders why I don't like naive realism...hehe...]
And I can tell from your statements that you are trying very hard to be an understanding person, in this regard. If you don't mind, I'd like to make a suggestion. I'm one who has tried the same thing you are...and this is what worked for me. You truly have to INUNDATE yourself with the other side. Almost to the point that you would BECOME one of them, if you were not careful. What I mean by this is to truly try to see things completely from the other person's perspective. To be sure, this is hard work for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons that I can think of is that you genuinely open yourself to be changed as a result. In other words, before you can truly get to know a view, you have to get away from some type of "journalistic objectivity" and truly try to see any rational and emotional motivation behind said view. I've heard this essentially said once by a missionary who main thrust was Islam...
"Unless you have studied Islam enough to the point that you are almost tempted to become a Muslim, you have NOT truly understood Islam."
Some may say that he was overstating his case, but I think his main thesis was sound. Unless you can understand the view so clearly, that, if you needed to, you could argue for it, then you truly don't understand the view at its core. At the risk of being redundant, please check the "Open View Convert" thread, and some of the remarks Lion makes there. Personally, I would LOVE for someone to do EXACTLY what I did on that thread...and become a Calvinist. Or become a non-openness theologian. I would absolutely love it. Why? Because it would show that THAT person has a grasp of Calvinism AT ITS BEST and most salient attributes. Only then could they be able to truly show WHY they believe that Calvinism is untenable and give credible reasoning why. In my humble opinion, this entire discussion for all parties concerned is, far too often, motivated by reasoning that stems from an INADEQUATE view of the other side. This is why I can sometimes find myself laughing at some of the takes on "classical theism" or "Calvinism" because the vast majority of them are caricatures. (Some would even call them straw men!) And so you are right on, Mouse. The only way to stem this is for people to constantly check their presuppositions and perceptions in the spirit of genuine humility and learning to make sure that they are truly indicative of reality.
Will it take time? Yes. Will it take initiative and work? Yes. Will you get frustrated? HECK, yes. But I believe that the payoffs are well worth it. So, I encourage applaud you on your quest...and I pray that we will all of us take your advice and your example.
Always in Christ,
Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/08/01 7:42 PM
Sheesh, You mean I have to study???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mephi,
I would put myself in the category of "knows more about this stuff than most, but nowhere near you or Doc." I guess I could be satisfied with that, but you won't let me, will you? OK. I officially remove myself from this message board until I get a solid, sympathetic grasp of the opposing views. Any suggestions on good resources?
Be nice though. I have a family, a job, I go to school and I help with a non-profit organization. I don't have all the time in the world to devote to this. However, when I do come back I will expect some bandages and hot coffee. I have submersed myself in questions such as this before, and I actually came away with new beliefs. It sucks. It sucks big time.
By the way, before I go, I wanted to tell you that I really regret saying all that stuff about the gospel being a lie if you're right. I tend to say things straight from my gut, and I may even tend to say things a little bigger than they really are to make a point. After reading Modes' thoughts on 1st and 2nd order discourse, I have to admit that I should have been more careful and thoughtful. Sorry.
Anyway, get back to me with those resources, and I'll get back to the board when I've waded through them. I hope you're happy, poopy-head.
Until then,
Churchmouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/08/01 8:06 PM
Not so fast bookmouse!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no you don't!! I forbid you to leave and that comes with the authority of my new title ha!
Please don't go. Nobody here has all the answers including Doc and Meph. We can learn from each other. You don't have to be an expert
to dialog with us. Besides the board won't be the same without your cheesy humor.
Remember the guy on the ice
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/08/01 8:20 PM
Chill my friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Springs,
You like me! You really like me! (Think Sally Fields) Don't worry, I am too thoroughly addicted to stay away too long. It's just that I really do want to get a better grasp of this so that I can contribute to the conversation in a more thoughtful manner. Besides that, I was going to take a little break anyway because I have some projects that really need my attention. I should have it under control to some degree in about a week or two.
Ah, the guy on the ice. For those of you who are not privy to this reference, allow me to share. It is from an old MASH episode in the words of the wise Sidney Friedman:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Take my advice:
Pull down your pants
And slide on the ice.
Na we pita, zanmi mwen,
The Mouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/08/01 8:24 PM
Whew I'm cool
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can handle a week or two I just didn't want you running off
till you got your Doctorate.
You will be missed little one.
God bless you
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
03/08/01 11:36 PM
RE: Chill my friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mouse, Mwen espere ou etidye byen
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/09/01 12:06 AM
Whoa, Small world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bondye Bon, Oui? (Mwen pale piti piti creole.)
M'ale,
Sourit
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/09/01 4:28 AM
RE: Sheesh, You mean I have to study???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mouse,
I'll get back to you with the list. It's about how deep you want to go. Do you want library type resources? Perhaps some stuff online to make your research simpler? I don't want you going into debt over this stuff now, and I surely don't want to overwhelm you in any way. So I want some information about how to craft this list of information for you.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
might-be-don
03/09/01 6:56 AM
RE: RE: Sheesh, You mean I have to study???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi,
Here's my reading suggestion, "How to grow your own Calvinist in 5 easy steps" . I don't think it's available online.
Smack, Smack.
I'd love to see what online stuff you are aware of that will help Mouse in his quest.
Doc,
I know you think you were making some progress with me, but I'm quite intrigued with the take that Mephi has on this stuff.
don
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/09/01 5:08 PM
Research Wish List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mephi,
Well, since I don't know what the resources are, it's a little hard for me to tell you what I want. Why don't you mix it up a little? Your best on-line and print resources. You know: Calivinism for Dummies, I Was a Teenage Arminian, Predestined and Loving It...whatever. For now, tell me what you would want me to read if you only had one book to convince me.
See Ya, Wouldn't Want to Be Ya,
(But I'll keep an open mind anyway.)
Mouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/09/01 5:21 PM
Lion, Still There?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Lion,
I was just re-reading the post in which Mephi objected to my misuse of the word "stereotype". He said the following:
"For a person [Lion]who understands the term, being accused of stereotyping is not very cool at all, especially in the context of meaningful discussion. I feel his pain, so just be careful of that from now on, ok?"
It kind of sounds like you contacted him because you were upset about my dialogue with you. If that's true, I just wanted to be perfectly clear about what I was trying to do. I was trying to point out the UNIVERSALITY of the baggage we bring to these discussions, not any particular weakness or flaw on your part. Now, having said that I really apologize if it seemed like I was hounding you. I should have dropped it.
If I am mistaken about your contact with Mephi, I still wanted to make sure we're cool.
Forgiven?
Churchmouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
03/11/01 8:04 PM
RE: Lion, Still There?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchmouse,
Forgiven! Actually, there is nothing to forgive. No, I wasn't offended by your questions or comments. I also did not contact Mephi concerning your messages. Everything's cool. I'm just not having easy access to the web these days. I'm on for just a very short time this evening. So, don't worry. Please. I assure you everything's cool between the two of us. Hey, if I have a thorn in my paw, to whom else can I go?
Thornless,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/11/01 9:50 PM
Incommunicado
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey there,
Just wanted anyone who cares to know that I'm going to be incommunicado for a while so if you address something to me in the next week and a half or so, I won't be able to get back to you right away. I was hoping to hear from Mephi before I had to bug out completely, but I guess I'll have to start my quest out blind. I heard "Bondage of the Will" might be a good source.
Lion: Glad to know I didn't ruffle your mane.
No one has ever died from quitting a coolboard cold turkey, have they?
Deep in the mousehole,
Churchmouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/11/01 11:14 PM
RE: Sweet Stuff, Mouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: much of your stuff has a lot of good points, but, to be frank, most of it is much too long. Sorry...oh, by the way, Dinesh D'Souza said in "The End Of Racism," in every stereotype there exist a grain of truth from which the stereotype emerged."
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|