Di Da Is Alpha,
I recall mixing it up with you, but I confess I do not remember the specific argument.

I'd like to know for two reasons. A) to stand my ground and defend myself against your comment that I resorted to behavior less than respectable. and B) complementing this forum/experiment, your tone seems far more reasonable here than I recall of you elsewhere. Maybe here we can come to a better result.

disclaimer: I won't be overly shocked if I did indeed behave in some manner I have since learned the better of. I reserve the right to improve myself.

I can think of a few reasons, none of which are good.

1. re the "friends" thing... unhealthy obsession. A stalker is a stalker.
2. re the "mentioning" he's taken to of late... intimidation. A stalker is a bully that is just more careful and/or restrained. Either self-restrained or conditionally restrained. But he's nonetheless a bully and intimidation is natural.
3. whatever respect-capital I've established here, I'm willing to cash in a bit on a blatant trespass of Godwin's law. I've used the term "bully" several times to describe Roger's behavior. But its more than behavior. Its deliberate tactics and strategy. He's culturally and politically motivated, with a streak of ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian rationale. Politically speaking, I think of him as an Internet Brownshirt. Perhaps a better fit is a Christian-variation of a jihadist.

...of course, with the supremely important caveat that when I say "internet-version", I acknowledge that he is of course not committing violence here.

Intimidation, yes. Actual violence, no. Not yet at least.

perfectly understandable. So many missteps occur due to the tone-deficient aspect of the medium.

for example, it may be hard to imagine this, but I actually really just made that comment in response to the preceding comment's content only. I wasn't until after the reaction of the comment that it occurred to me to consider the gender of the commenter. it hadn't crossed my mind whatsoever, believe it or not.

I take your point. let me say it again with a bit more punch.

Not only does stalking seem like a thing that Jesus would not partake in, but it seems to me that Jesus would object to stalking and bullying. I think he would admonish a real life stalker... someone behaving in a manner that bullies and harasses and tries to intimidate.

I don't think that Jesus would either bully, or approve of a bully. I think that Jesus would call out or even cast out a bully. Or the spineless variant of a bully, which is a stalker.

But that's just how I picture Jesus, from what I have gathered about him.

No doubt Roger has a different conception of Jesus. In contrast to me, Roger will tell us that he has a personal relationship with Jesus. I suppose that the Jesus that Roger "knows" tells him that bullying and stalking and intimidation are perfectly consistent with the general notion of Christian behavior.

So, in Roger's mind, err, I should say, in Roger's faith stalkers can be perfectly Christian. Just like stamp collectors.

Well said. I aspire to that as well.

"there's no keeping them chained in the barn"

I love that show.

...Braaaaaaaiiiiiiins...

good to know! thanks

My parents did not use physical punishment very much at all.

I respected my folks, certainly. And I've never been in court, not counting some traffic court over a speeding ticket.

so many folks like to tell themselves the world is going down the drain because parents aren't smacking their kids up enough. I don't buy it. Nothing is so simple.

This article here is pretty interesting on this subject, and has some surprising statistics to shed light on this.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/...

Don't get me wrong. No where in my comments here should you take away that I'm against discipline.

Parents should discipline and they are right to care about showing their kids right from wrong. The WORST thing is a parent that doesn't care at all.

But what I am also saying, is that there are more and less effective ways to discipline. Violence is overrated.

Also- teens are supposed to rebel a little bit. Its a healthy sign.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/03/144495...

I meant that in sympathetic humor. sorry if anything otherwise was perceived.

I did not mean "Grrrrrr".