15 November 2007

Overreact Much

dearest readers: please read the following dialog between RealNeal and myself and let me know if I'm overreacting when I wonder if I'm in danger

RealNeal said...

I can and do respect your right to have different beliefs, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. If you can show me the basis for your beliefs, I may come to respect them, but to date no one here has been able to do that.

And I feel quite sorry for you too. Unless you're a REALLY old Y student I have decades of experience and learning on you. When someone sounds a voice of warning to another its not necessarily an "attack" on you as a person, or because they think they are somehow more righteous than you, or better than you. Perhaps its because they've been where you are and hate to see others make the same mistakes they made. You can choose to take offense, or to accept it as a heart felt gesture from someone who's been around the block a few times. I've looked around this big ole world with a doubtful eye myself, only to find that the truth was right in front of me all along. But that's my experience, of course, and you must have your own. Ultimately, we'll all find out for sure how right or wrong we are...

Respectfully Yours,

playasinmar said...
I'm listening, Neal. I'm always listening. For example, I heard you call iwonder's beliefs "baseless" in your last comment.

Congratulations on being old, by the way. i don't know what years of living is supposed to automatically grant you in our conversations. I think I should point out that some of the most wrong people I've ever met are also the oldest.

RealNeal said...

Yes, you're listening; and you also seem to have an agenda to criticize/slam the Church and those who believe in it every chance you get. You actively tear down. Mock. Disparage. Your blog is clear evidence of this, as are your comments on other blogs.

And please, let's not put words in my mouth. I plainly said no one has explained their basis, not that they don't have one.

Some of most wrong people I've ever met are young people who think they know it all. Experience is something you simply have to gain - you can't fake it. It takes time. And I think it has everything to do with conversations like these. Perhaps you can't understand that if you don't have any.

Making fun of someone's age, calling them "old", is really an irrelevant and juvenile gesture. That is, if you consider being in your 40s "old". You too will be "old" one day, if you live that long...


playasinmar said...
Wow, Neal. Threatening my life makes you way more… interesting.

I have experience. I also have the humility to know my experience is just that: Mine. And no qualifier, be it education, priesthood office, or age, can inflate it.

You called you old, by the way. Can you blame me for agreeing?

realneal said...
Threatening your life!? There you go putting words in my mouth again.
You really do have a persecution complex, don't you?

And the humility thing has me laughing so hard I probably won't be able to sleep tonight!!! Maybe I've got an Ambien* laying around here somewhere...


*According to WebMD these are the unlikely but serious side effects of Ambien: fast/pounding heartbeat, unusual tiredness, mental/mood changes (e.g., new or worsening depression, rare thoughts of suicide, hallucinations, aggressive behavior, anxiety), memory loss, unsteadiness.


good tune


Pan said...

Looks like Neal missed an article for an adjective. Otherwise he might have credibility putting us young ones in our place.

Some of the most wrong people I've ever met are (delete "young") people who think they know it all.

That's a statement I can agree with.

(Comment box won't allow strikethrough HTML code. It could have been so much cooler!)

Kengo Biddles said...

No, you don't need to be worried for your life, as I know RealNeal from elsewhere. But then, it was your intent to be funny here, wasn't it.

J G-W said...

I assumed you were being funny. I assumed the "if you live that long" reference meant, If you don't prematurely croak in a car accident or from Bird Flu or in a Provo Lake tsunami. I didn't assume he was threatening your life, though it was vague, and he didn't exactly spell out the means of your potential demise.

playasinmar said...

Pan: I too have wished for strikethrough code!

Kengo: I can be funny when I want to be, it's true.

John: It’s possible he was randomly speculating about the relationship between my future and my mortality.

I suppose I'd be less concerned if he hadn’t finished the thought with a dastardly ellipsis. Those dots make me wonder where Neal suddenly ran off to after speculating about the relationship between my future and my mortality.

Jake said...

At first while I was reading iwonder's posts and the interaction between you, iwonder and realneal I was horrified. Not at realneal's position (one we've heard so many many times) but at his combativeness.

Then I began to shake my head and just chuckle at his inability to see how his own behavior was wrong. I think that maybe he was confused that everyone was more upset at his tone than his argument.

At least he's taking Ambien and not Lunesta cause then you'd have to worry that he could sic the freaky Lunesta butterfly on you.

Neal said...


I didn't know a few ellipis could cause so much angst!

I'm flattered that you dedicated a whole thread to me. I must have struck a nerve or two...



P.S. Oops! There I go with those darn ellipsis again...

Neal said...


It cracks me up that people think the "iwonder" dialog was so combative. That was milk toast compared to some of the blogs and forums I've seen.

What I found interesting is that no one had any valid arguments against the doctrinal content. No one could provide a basis for their point of view. I think Chedner's trying to put something together on his moderated blog about it, so I'm waiting...


P.S. Oops! Those ellipsis again!

playasinmar said...

No, Neal, we aren't discussing the doctrine or proper issue at hand. That's because of your unruly and frankly inappropriate behavior.

It means nothing that the conversation on iWonder's blog was "milquetoast" compared to other conversations elsewhere. The content of conversations on other blogs means nothing at all.

Your comments have been (in order) self-aggrandizing, belittling, and threatening. Your wholly inappropriate behavior continually and selfishly draws the conversation to the only subject you really care about: You.

And you never did apologize for calling Chedner an "alleged Mormon."

Neal said...


Amzing how the attackers cry fowl when attacked.

Looking at the acidic, belittling, and smart-*** comments you make on this blog and others, you have no room to talk...


Kalvin said...

What an ass. I'm so sick of everyone being so presumptuous and telling how the know the truth. All you mormons and your complete misunderstanding of the word "knowledge". I swear, the more I learn of the world and people, the more certain I am that the church is an absolute abomination and one of the most horrible things on the face of the earth even if some members are okay.

playasinmar said...

!! Oh... [phew]. "some members are okay"

I was afraid you weren't going to afford me a loophole!

Forester said...

Playa, I don't believe your words have been totally against the church or that your purpose in writing has been to tear down and destroy others. I think you are just like the rest of us mohos, looking for answers, weighing the questions and seeking truth on a very confusing and difficult topic. You have a strange way of voicing your ideas in a quirky and often funny way, but that is just who you are. I don't think you ever really mean to hurt anyone.