Why Did Linda Buy The Pregnancy Test Kit?, Spin off from the “Thompson Respond to Abrahamsen” thread. Options

[Bystander]

Bystander,

Since PrincessDi has ordered you not to call sonshineonme "dear" in a condescending manner, I will cease from calling you "Dear" Bystander even though I mean it as a Christian sister to a Christian brother. I don't want to give the impression of talking to you in a condescending way.

I didn't make an issue of it when you called me "dear" even though it felt like you were being rather condescending, because it just didn't bother me.

Di,

while you have charged Bystander not to use that tone with sonshineonme, as far as I am concerned he may continue to use it on me as my skin is quite thick and I hold out the hope that someday he may even mean it in the sweet way.

PB

PB the truth is, I got it from you. You addressed either Lee or Aletheia the other day with a very condescending "dear". You can say you meant it in a good way, nevertheless, that is how it came across. I guess Di didn't feel the need to do anything about it, since which ever person it was said to, didn't feel the need to run to an administrator.

[Clay]

PB the truth is, I got it from you. You addressed either Lee or Aletheia the other day with a very condescending "dear". You can say you meant it in a good way, nevertheless, that is how it came across. I guess Di didn't feel the need to do anything about it, since which ever person it was said to, didn't feel the need to run to an administrator.

and you said that to say what?

[PeacefulBe]

and you said that to say what?

Well, Clay my take on it is he either feels like I set him up by teaching him to speak that way, is blaming me for getting him into trouble for copying me, or is tattling to you "administrators" that I used the term in a post to Aletheia the other day. As it turns out, I didn't mean it in a condescending way but since it could be interpreted as such I will attempt to no longer use it.

PB

[princessdi]

Here's the thing, nobody contacted th Admins, at least not me. I asked him to stop because Sonshine did, and he still said it in his next post to her.

Well, Clay my take on it is he either feels like I set him up by teaching him to speak that way, is blaming me for getting him into trouble for copying me, or is tattling to you "administrators" that I used the term in a post to Aletheia the other day. As it turns out, I didn't mean it in a condescending way but since it could be interpreted as such I will attempt to no longer use it.

PB

[watchbird]

Here's the thing, nobody contacted th Admins, at least not me. I asked him to stop because Sonshine did, and he still said it in his next post to her.

It is offensive to most women to have a strange man call her "my dear". This is quite different than the formal Dear Ms _______, with which one begins a formal letter. It is condescending, rude, and sexually suggestive... as though the woman addressed were one of his harem... or an intimate female relative. It has no place at all in polite discussion on a public forum.

Of course.... if a man is so in the habit of addressing women... or even men.... in this way... so it comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even notice he does it.... and if some know of certain people who habitually speak this way.... then I suppose we should be grateful for this clue as to the identity of the unidentified person who speaks in thie condescending and rude way.


Thank you Di and other Admins for keeping a tight rein on those that seemingly don't know how to hold themselves to appropriate behaviour in public places.

[lurker]

I have noticed that the "dear" often comes from men who try to be a little too free with their hands without being invited and who disrespect women in other ways. Makes me suspect the morals of all who defend child abusers and philanderers especially when they are not respectful. Do they do the same things? Do they agree that it is proper behavior and a man's privilege? Do they think that all women have extramarital affairs and are fair game because they "want it"?

This post has been edited by lurker: Mar 13 2007, 05:54 PM

[Bystander]

It is offensive to most women to have a strange man call her "my dear". This is quite different than the formal Dear Ms _______, with which one begins a formal letter. It is condescending, rude, and sexually suggestive... as though the woman addressed were one of his harem... or an intimate female relative. It has no place at all in polite discussion on a public forum

Wow, and this from someone who doesn't find it the least bit offensive, that her friend had a relationship with another man while still married. Even if it had been limited to confiding in another man about her problems it would still, have been, inappropiate and very offensive. What do you lindanites call this? Doublespeak? Or, is it that you say or do whatever you need to, to justify the actions of the one whose feet you kiss. (and that is putting it kindly)

WB you're endless wealth of useless information on the english language leaves us cold. Why? Because, again, you use your little reprimands only against one side.
Do you really think that remarks like: You couldn't find your backside with both hands and a map by mr. J to one of the 3abn defenders, is polite on a public forum? Yet, I noticed he did not receive a "social skills" lesson.

Being called "demons" by DrRe certainly would be offensive to anyone but, again, no comment from you. Also her "lerdy lerdy" is offensive to several but, obviously, not to you.
Last but not least, I dare say you must have overlooked the fact the PB started the "dear" stuff in a very condescending post to (I believe) Aletheia. Where was your useless trivia lesson then?
As long as you don't correct, advise, and "teach" your own, who can take those ridiculous little tidbits, seriously?

[lurker]

Dear is very different when used by a little old lady or by one female to another than to a lady by a man who is not a relative. Also using childish nicknames such as Bobby boy and dissing the admins shows lack of respect.

I notice that you are unwilling to admit that Linda's relationship with friends could be anything other than respectful and innocent. As I was saying some men have no platonic relationships because they are unable to see this other group of people (females) as worthy of respect. They may also have had no relationships that are not quid pro quo but which seek to just benefit others expecting nothing in return. So they wouldn't be able to recognize kindness but keep trying to figure out what another other person is getting out of a friendship and attributing the worst possible motives to them.

I notice you seem to fail to see the humor in some of the posts just because they are on the other side of the discussion. Is everything in your life so serious that you can't laugh at yourself or your side a little in a debate? We expect you to give it back when it is dished out to you but there is a line that is better not crossed.

This post has been edited by lurker: Mar 14 2007, 04:29 AM

[Observer]

I notice that you are unwilling to admit that Linda's relationship with friends could be anything other than respectful and innocent. As I was saying some men have no platonic relationships because they are unable to see this other group of people (females) as worthy of respect. They may also have had no relationships that are not quid pro quo but which seek to just benefit others expecting nothing in return. So they wouldn't be able to recognize kindness but keep trying to figure out what another other person is getting out of a friendship and attributing the worst possible motives to them.

Most of us live in a society where men and women, not married to each other, are expected to have relationships. Those relationships are not expected by society to be sexually focused. Most of us work in situations where males and females work closely together, and it is expected that those working together will have close friendly relationships. But, if those people develop sexual relationsips, it is believed to be counter-productive, and one of both are often either transfered, or fired.

Some SDAs live and work in a fortress, behind a moat and a draw-bridge. The expectation is that one can build defenses that will keep evil out. The reality is that such does not work. The Monks of the Middle-Ages attempted such. Alone in a cave, they discovered that they had not escaped temptation. I think of the monk, Simon Stilites (sp). He was the first so-called flag-pole-sitter, for those who remember the in-thing of a few years ago. He climbed to the top of a column, and remained there, without comming down for some 30 years! Each meal he took went up to him by rope and bucket. The same for everything that went down. (I hope that different buckets were used.)

I am reminded of a well-known SDA pastoral team--male and female, of a few years back. They became sexually involved, and their marriages ended. I was talking to a relative of one of the team, and I was informed that such is what happens when you have men and women working together. That stems from a philosophy that says: 1) Women should not be in ministry. 2) Men are helpless to remain faithfull against an attractive women. [NOTE: All women are attractive to someone.] 3) The problem stemed from the female.

I disagree with that position. I will suggest that the problem that SDAs sometimes have with inappropriate relationships, and violations of boundaries, stems from some ingrained constructs of sexuality. Some SDAs cannot admit to themselves that they are sexually attracted to someone not their spouse. To acknowledge such would be to acknowledge their sin, they think. My position is that all of us are free moral agents. If I am to make appropriate decisions in regard to the relationships that I have with another person, I must first acknowledge (to myself, I am not saying that I should tell the other person) any sexual attraction that I might have toward that person. It is only then that I can make appropriate decisions as to how I will relate to that person.

Folks, sexuality is a gift of God. It is not sinful to be attracted to one to whom you are not married. But, how one acts on that attraction may be sinful.

I will suggest that in the history of the SDA church, we can see many examples of people who got into trouble because they were unable to acknowledge their attraction to another before it was to late.

In this 3-ABN mess, both Danny and Linda have been accused of having inappropriate relationships with one or more people not their spouse. The issues regarding whether or not the relationships were inappropriate are valid questions, for both, regardless of what the answer is.

But, that does not mean that the question is whether or not either had a relationship with someone else. It is a given that both Linda and Danny did have relationships with people to whom they were not married. Danny had working relationships with females to whom he was not married. Linda had the same, with males. Both, undoubtedly spoke to a person of the other gender for more than 10 minutes on some occasions. But, that does not make either guilty of an inappropriate relationship. It is likely that each reached a point where they were frustrated with their marriage. It is highly likely that each at some time shared some aspect of that frustration with someone of another gender to whom they were not married. Again, that does not make that relationship inappropriate, and it does not indicate Biblical grounds for a divorce.

There is something to be said for the following quote: "I was saying some men have no platonic relationships because they are unable to see this other group of people (females) as worthy of respect. They may also have had no relationships that are not quid pro quo but which seek to just benefit others expecting nothing in return. So they wouldn't be able to recognize kindness but keep trying to figure out what another other person is getting out of a friendship and attributing the worst possible motives to them."

I will suggest that some people project onto others what they cannot acknowledge in themself.

This post has been edited by Observer: Mar 14 2007, 06:27 AM

[Clay]

good stuff Greg.,...... that is a keeper.....

[awesumtenor]

If you watch and listen closely though, this same smugness can be detected with certain people on 3abn TV.

Maybe it's something in the water...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

Even if it had been limited to confiding in another man about her problems it would still, have been, inappropiate and very offensive.

So Bystander, are you willing yet to be a man and admit that the pregnancy test was just a joke since it is impossible to get pregnant over the telephone?

[PeacefulBe]

Lurker,

Well said! While we can all benefit by heeding this advice, I wish Bystander and his "side" would hear it and see the value in what you say. Thank you!

Greg,

Those are all excellent thoughts and we would do well to take them to heart!

[Bystander]

So Bystander, are you willing yet to be a man and admit that the pregnancy test was just a joke since it is impossible to get pregnant over the telephone?

You're kidding pickle. YOu can't? Wow the 3abn board, Ds, JL, they all thought you could. That certainly is why they owe LS an apology.

Yes Pickle, accept it Pickle, 3abn actually has information that you and your buddies do not have.
Try fishing somewhere else. You have reached a dry hole here.

I will suggest that some people project onto others what they cannot acknowledge in themself.

Boy, you really have been deprived of the facts.

Dear is very different when used by a little old lady or by one female to another than to a lady by a man who is not a relative. Also using childish nicknames such as Bobby boy and dissing the admins shows lack of respect.

Once again just more proof of how onesided the lindanites are. Childish nicknames? I believe clay and Mr. J. started all that with Danny apologists, dannyscribes....today I believe it was "lapdog." Or have you missed all of that. If you didn't miss it, why did you fail to tell them what you have told me. Because there is unbelievable bias here.

I notice you seem to fail to see the humor in some of the posts just because they are on the other side of the discussion. Is everything in your life so serious that you can't laugh at yourself or your side a little in a debate? We expect you to give it back when it is dished out to you but there is a line that is better not crossed.

Oh believe me, I see the humor allright, and laugh until tears come to my eyes. Sad thing is, again, you say there is a line that shouldn't be crossed? That line has been crossed time and time again by those on your side and I have never seen you comment about it. I could sit here all night and put on the quotes as examples to the points I am making. But, why should I? You know it and they know it. How can one appreciate your comments if they are not across the board?

[Pickle]

You're kidding pickle. YOu can't? Wow the 3abn board, Ds, JL, they all thought you could. That certainly is why they owe LS an apology.

Yes Pickle, accept it Pickle, 3abn actually has information that you and your buddies do not have.
Try fishing somewhere else. You have reached a dry hole here.

So then you maintain that Linda thought she got pregnant over the telephone, and that's why she bought the pregnancy test, and it wasn't a joke, and the May 6, 2004, email was forged?

Or do you instead think, rather than that Linda thought she got pregnant over the telephone, that she wasn't sure she was pregnant, even though it had been 13 weeks since she had left Norway, which would make her perhaps 15 weeks pregnant by that time, since we'd have to start gestation two weeks or more before conception? Why does someone need a pregnancy test if they are 15 weeks pregnant?

Now if you propose that she is that off her rocker, that dingy, to not know she was pregnant after 15 weeks, or to think she got pregnant over the telephone, is it at all possible that she really does have, as one caller told me, battered woman syndrome?

Or are you instead claiming something new, that she fooled around with someone else in April, or that she went off to be with "the doctor" at some time Danny has thus far kept secret from everyone?

Or are you struggling in your spiritual life so much right now that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge a valid point when it is made by those you wish were wrong?

If you can't confess to man whom you can see, how can you confess to God whom you cannot see? (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20.)