Defining a Christian Identity

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why do you have to do this?

I notice you did not address any of her complaints.

Suzi, Duchess64 has demonstrated an aloofness which assiduously avoids addressing posters to her threads in the first person since she returned from a sabbatical. Jamming nickname words together cheektocheek is an amusing effort to further distance herself, almost catatonically, from those with whom she presumes to hold court or have conversation. Why so uptight I have no idea but do know that meaningful conversation is literally impossible with such a remoteness gulf fixed unless or until the individual behaving in this manner calms down. All the more difficult if the individual appears to be impervious to humour or teasing; and takes attempts in that vein as an effrontery. I'm glad Duchess64 has befriended you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm guessing she also didn't come here to be preached at.

... nor is she by yours truly (only hope was that she would consider a few points of view different from her own).

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's my point.

For the lack of a space, who knows the value of a friendship lost.

Suzi, the lack of site nickname spacing is symptom of disengagement from the person being addressed. Until the sponsor of a conversation accepts mutual selfhood status friendship is impossible. Even household pets are called by their given names.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I would think that one must have this 'leap of faith' to become Christian. I don't think one can claim to be Christian if one does not believe in Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection. I mean after all, that is the entire point of Christianity. Things change over time. People have 'epiphanies'. If you ever do, I am sure any Christians worth their belief would welcome you at that time. And it's good that you see that just converting "for your friends" actually does disrespect their beliefs. Christianity cannot be "pretended".

I find it incredibly unfortunate that things sometimes seem to inevitably be this way between Christians and Jews. For we believe in the exact same God. Some Jews have accepted Christianity despite familial consternation, and they are brave souls, indeed. Someday we might come together more fully under the same God. I feel this kind of disrespect and confrontation disrespects this same God we share. It doesn't have to be this way.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What? Where did I say that? I think you can gather from context that I'm NOT part of that club, and furthermore that I would not wish to be. Similarly, I would not "endorse" it for anyone else, either. I simply agree with what CalJust said (his bolded comment above, and that you quoted earlier, not his entire post), and not on any 'spin' you wish to app ...[text shortened]... at club and not "rating" his comment, which is what I initially thought the "minus 1" was about.

We agree. The "...-1" reply was in effect saying, "less one" (count me out). Nothing more. Yes, misinterpretation occurred.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You already know that I am prejudiced toward Christianity. So you should have no doubt as to what I would say.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Suzi, Duchess64 has demonstrated an aloofness which assiduously avoids addressing posters to her threads in the first person since she returned from a sabbatical. Jamming nickname words together cheektocheek is an amusing effort to further distance herself, almost catatonically, from those with whom she presumes to hold court or have conversation. Why s ...[text shortened]... easing; and takes attempts in that vein as an effrontery. I'm glad Duchess64 has befriended you.

Did you know that English is not her first language?

Many conventions (humor, teasing, implied familiarity) that native English speakers take for granted are missed by those who think, speak and write in another language. That she makes herself understandable at all is a testament to her intelligence. Would we be as facile in her language? I doubt it.

Why don't you demonstrate your Christian tolerance and give her the benefit of the doubt? The motives you attempt to impugn her with don't exist. Would you treat someone in person the way you've treated her here?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You already know that I am prejudiced toward Christianity. So you should have no doubt as to what I would say.

She knows, Ron. We all know.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Did you know that English is not her first language?

Many conventions (humor, teasing, implied familiarity) that native English speakers take for granted are missed by those who think, speak and write in another language. That she makes herself understandable at all is a testament to her intelligence. Would we be as facile in her language? I doubt it. ...[text shortened]... impugn her with don't exist. Would you treat someone in person the way you've treated her here?

With respect to Duchess64's threads and posts on this forum, it's readily apparent that her fluency in Contemporary Online English is on a par with yours and mine; further to the point, her academic background and ongoing education thanks to an appetite for voracious reading may be on a par with yours but certainly exceeds my own. There is no language barrier. there may be an acceptance friction and selective disconnect with some contributors of male persuasion. You misread my motives and high regard for this many faceted woman. It's becoming apparent that her firepower and mine combined to change the date to July 4, 2014, on more than one occasion: a synergy multiplier gone terribly wrong because of the potency of the theist/atheist substantive posts in play. Personalities were the least of it, though in retrospect the possibility that they were dominant factors may have been seized and magnified. I give benefit of doubt to all. And also forgive and forget on a dime.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, yes, that was my (perhaps poorly presented) point.

I did not mean to say you were not fluent. What I tried to say is that your style (perhaps too formal, as you say) is not in the style of most native speakers, and yes, it's "a kind of linguistic prejudice" that you do not speak 'as they do'.

Still, my other point is that, perhaps, GB should 'cut you some slack'.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
With respect to Duchess64's threads and posts on this forum, it's readily apparent that her fluency in Contemporary Online English is on a par with yours and mine; further to the point, her academic background and ongoing education thanks to an appetite for voracious reading may be on a par with yours but certainly exceeds my own. There is no language b ...[text shortened]... een seized and magnified. I give benefit of doubt to all. And also forgive and forget on a dime.

But, she and I had similar friction between us at first also, until I saw I was being judgmental. We've learned to make allowance for each other, and we have very little of this friction left at this point. I felt maybe you could take the lead in the tolerance department and perhaps showcase some Christian 'love' for your fellow man.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, yes, that was my (perhaps poorly presented) point.

I did not mean to say you were not fluent. What I tried to say is that your style (perhaps too formal, as you say) is not in the style of most native speakers, and yes, it's "a kind of linguistic prejudice" that you do not speak 'as they do'.

Still, my other point is that, perhaps, GB should 'cut you some slack'.

Originally posted by Duchess64 (Page 4)
"I am telling you--GrampyBobby--to stop harassing me.
I believe that you contribute practically nothing of value.
I am telling you that I have no interest in any 'discussion' with you.
Is that clear enough? I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Now all I can do is wait for GrampyBobby to find another dishonest
rationalization for why what I wrote does not apply to himself.

Edit: And Grampy Bobby has just provided such an extremely dishonest
rationalization. Obviously--and I have no doubt that he knows it--I am
referring to the only person with a handle like 'GrampyBobby' who has
written in this thread. There's only one such person.

*Grampy Bobby* seems to be making a vastly exaggerated objection
about the precise spelling of his handle, complaining that my omission of
one space makes it impossible to identify him. That's absurd and shows
the extreme depths of Grampy Bobby's dishonesty. For the record, many
writers have referred to me as 'Duchess', 'Dutchess', 'Dutchess64', or
even 'D64', and I never have complained about being misidentified.
It's obvious from the context to whom these writers were referring.

Now I have concluded that *Grampy Bobby* is a pathological liar."
________________________________________

"Still, my other point is that, perhaps, GB should 'cut you some slack'." -Suzianne

Suzi, how can a guy possibly 'cut someone slack' when the someone has summarily cut the guy out of the loop? lol