OK.

But the thread will remain open.

At some time someone else affected by Trinity may wish to comment.

Don't say I am not qualified to be Trinity's spokesperson as if to implicate that I've thought I was, or have tried to be. Of course I'm not Trinity's spokesperson. I am one individual who has questioned and resisted your case. What you are saying does not line up with what I have seen. Pity me if I am decieved. Otherwise, you've done TFI evil.

Even if I did read your wife's book and go live at TFI for a while, you'd likely still disagree with me. If anything, you've suggested that you respect my case above Michelle's even though she has read the book and still lives there. Ex-members are the ones you say are credible. I can understand why you say that. However, I see Trinity as a tight-knit group that tells people things they don't like to hear. Their's is a very uncomprimising view of christianity. They have to be very transparent because of the kind of work they are doing. In my view, the level of accountability there is pretty high. In fact, I think it is so high that plenty of people can't take it and leave in the night. Then they run off and say TFI is a cult.

NathanA:

At this point you are just flaming.

And flaming is against the rules.

What does that term, "flaming" mean? I'm not familiar with it.

Thanks.

From Wikipedia


[en.wikipedia.org]

I am sorry if I am just ignorant of how I come across. Can you please explain to me in what sense I am 'flaming'?

There is no dialog or meaningful discussion.

You seem to be here to insult and bother people without much else to offer.

Read the book, visit the Block, do your homework...or else you have nothing to say. My offer still stands, Nathan. Free book for you. Give counselor47 an address to which it can be mailed and its on me. No strings attached. If you refuse to look at the evidence, then you have no right to come here.

Causes of flaming

There is no general agreement on the causes of flaming, although a recent study has led to somewhat conclusive evidence. Some common hypotheses are:

1. Egocentrism causes us to think we know a writer's tone 90% of the time, although we only are correct about 56% of the time. This leads us to misinterpretation of the writer's intended meaning, causing flame wars.

2. The lack of body language and voice inflection make it difficult to show emotions in a nuanced way, and the relative anonymity means that it is felt less dangerous to use heated language.

3. In forums and chats, there is usually no other way to express your opinion than by writing. Not writing can be interpreted as "giving up". And opinions and ideas stated a long time ago can be forgotten, causing a need to repeat them. According to this view, a good system for Computer Supported Argument Visualisation (CSAV) might help to clarify the issues without repetition. Sometimes, however, there is a disagreement on so fundamental criteria, that it is not even possible to agree on a structure of the issues and arguments.

4. It is reasonable to consider that some forms of flaming can be attributed to deeper social or psychological weaknesses, probably from lack of exposure to a broader spectrum of disciplines that result in self-control issues.

From the Wikipedia article on flaming:

[b:a647313d87]A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished by its intent. A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Other times, the flamer is simply a closed-minded or biased individual whose conviction that theirs is the only valid opinion leads them to personally attack any "dissenters". Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls.[/b:a647313d87]

If the shoe fits...