A principal difference between us is that, in all the years I've been on GH, I have never been upset or worried in any of the discussions I've been involved in. If people agree, or disagree, or present different arguments, that is very interesting because I will respond and await with interest their replies. It has never cost me a moment's anxiety if a thread or topic ends without a conclusion - all the better, since that means there is more to talk about later. If at any time I had let it get under my skin or cause me upset, I'd have left. The whole enjoyment of being involved in discussion is being involved.
So you did not "weep" when you read about the paranormal?
And you are really taking part in the discussions with everybody by sending a PM?
Your passive agreement is more like a passive disagreement, and so much for your discussions. Right up at the start you backed out when you noticed a disagreement in spite of you liking the criticisms of the church. And then you wept.
How can anybody weep without being upset. Crocodile tears maybe?
Susan Doris Wrote:
> How you perceive and think about my posts is yourQuote
To me it seems you are more lecturing about
> your brand of philosophy and always wanting
> scientific explanations on everything.
> problem, not mine!
> Again, your definition of discussion is not myQuote
That is not discussing.
> That is incorrect, but I can't remember off handQuote
And there has not been one AOM in the years
> I have been here that you have liked.
> the artist/author's name. And that does not mean I
> agreed with his views on the non-natural.
> Would you prefer hypocritical, passive agreementQuote
Maybe this one because he criticises the
> Christian belief. Then, to your horror - makes you
> weep, remember? - he believes in the paranormal,jn
> because he has experienced it with his own eyes
> and mind and body.
> So, you have to correct him so he can join you
> and no challenge/request for more convincing