It is ridiculous how..........

Been thinking further while eating my bread and marmalade (the bread machine element seems to have siezed up after eleven years of almost daily service so I'm letting it do the mixing and kneading, then making plaited loaves to cook in the oven; the results are really nice. You needed to know this ).

I remembered something That Man Dawkins said when someone told him that he shouldn't 'attack' religious beliefs because people found them consoling. His reply was this: "I'm not interesting in what's consoling; I'm interested in what's true."

That is blunt. People find bluntness difficult, which is understandable. However, what he said is not offensive. He was simply stating where his interest lies, which is fine. He's not always that blunt, but in any case, there is nothing intrinsically offensive about succinct straightforward honesty, even when other people don't like it. In a recent interview on Swedish and Norwegian TV, where he was speaking to a Mormon rock star (so famous that I've forgotten his name ), RD was pretty forthright about the fact that the inventor of Mormonism was a convicted fraudster so how on earth could people believe his story about how the Book of Mormon came to be written. The Mormon chappie was a little non-plussed. One wonders if he'd ever come across that Truth before. Unfortunately the Mormon had to leave the chat show soon after this exchange. RD had not realised the Mormon would not have time to respond to him (bit mean on the part of the chat show organisers, perhaps, or perhaps they did it deliberately to give Mormon an easy get out from an uncomfortable situation, in which case it was kindly done), apologised to the Mormon on that understanding and shook hands with him. I daresay I can find a link if anyone wants to see this.

My point? What RD said was not offensive but the Mormon could easily have decided to be offended.

To be honest though, Mormons who come out of their comfort zone, must be used to that kind of comment, musn't they? I have Mormon friends in Utah who very rarely mix with people other than Mormons. I was an exception and we're still friends even though they didn't manage to convert me. I think I'm their only non-Mormon friend. Their whole lives revolve around their church, even their work. I suppose it's a bit like an 'open' monastic existence. Lovely people but highly indoctrinated from birth and utterly misguided in their beliefs.

The wife in this Mormon family are quilting soul-mates and have a lot in common with regard to child-rearing. Her kids were at school with mine in Oxfordshire for a while. That's how we became friends.

I saw she was new, standing waiting in the playground for her kids with no-one to talk to and started chatting. Eventually I said "You must come round for a coffee sometime". Her reply: "We don't drink coffee".

Note the "we".

"Apple juice, then", I said.

The wife and I...

Thus she made a friend, Bags. That's all it takes.

I don't think it is necessarily the case that one person is simply 'being blunt' and the other party 'takes offence' where none is intended. Any intelligent reasonably sensitive person knows when a 'blunt' comment will give offense. People who pride themselves on telling it how it is get away with it because the rest of us, who are sharper ( see what I did there?) don't challenge them. We should. But assertively, not in a passive/aggressive fashion.

POGS, when this happened to me Gransnet pointed out that there is no way that they can know for sure if two posters are one and the same person. Apparently you could set up two email accounts. I suppose this is right when you think about it. And adds to the frustration the accused feels!

I see what you're saying, lily, and I agree with you. Trouble is, people have different conceptions of what "saying it how it is" means. For some people what seems like a pefectly ordinary way of speaking, may seem like a horrid way of speaking to someone else. Sorry to keep going back to "That Man" but he's a good example to use. People often accuse him of being strident, aggressive, and so forth. He isn't. He's actually a very polite man. But why beat about the bush? If you feel something is plainly wrong and have reasons for thinking it, surely it makes sense to say it in a straightforward way that as many people as possible will understand? Whether they agree or not is another matter. Dawkins' aim is to be understood and for people to see why he has arrived at the conclusions he has arrived at in the clearest possible way. Being agreed with is a bonus. But if someone doesn't agree with him, he wants to know why, and what evidence they have for thinking something different. In most cases, they have no evidence so they, perhaps, feel at a disadvantage. I think that is what sparks the feeling of being offended rather than anything their opponent has said, or the way he has said it.

Plenty of people do agree with him so he has that bonus much of the time. Lucky him. But it's largely down to his ability to communicate clearly and without unnecessary padding. He's a good communicator. I admire that even when I don't agree with him.

JO4

Thanks. I know you are aware of my position as you were on a thread G.N. decided to delete,' in part' by a G.N. member naming another as a sort of troll, which I gather is against Forum Etiquette.

I am simply saying had the thread carried on then other G.N's could have made their own adault decision as to who they agreed with. I for one can cope with someone calling me me names and disagreeing with my view, just as long as I am allowed to defend myself or my point of view.This cannot happen if a thread is removed. It also makes other G.N's wonder what 'terrible' words were said and they will probably continue with their view of things in their own head. That is just as bad as in my opinion, possibly worse, especially for the accused member. If no complaint has been made, just let it run a while, it will die a death anyway.

I do, as I say, understand G.N. position and if they remove a thread it must have been in their opinion potential for trouble.

I like that, Geraldine – "leave it at the thread door"

I agree, too! There are lots of threads where I share the views of some posters, but don't agree with them on other threads. It's never personal for me, unless someone clearly says it is.

Oh right!!!!

So, you knew all along that I'm not Johanna. That's not what you said at the time!!!

I am going back a bit now.

The Internet provider of every member will be known to Admin. it is easyseesaw entity sock puppets.

Was that a response to Geraldine, Jingle?

Don't know what happened there. It should read

It's easy to identify sock puppets.

But surely you could use two computers with different internet providers? (theoretically, of course!).

Yes. 'course it was when.

This is fun innit?

But I've got jobs to do.

Reagrding disappearing threads due to technicalities, chocolate will not cut it!

Geraldine, you couldn't possibly know that Member 1. using their own home computer, and Member 1. calling herself Member 2. using (for example) her friend's computer a few miles away with a different internet provider were one and the same person! The person would obviously give different details when applying.

he he he !!!

(that was to Geraldine when)

Well, I'm not going to try it to find out....