I have issued Scott with a RED STRIKE for breaching a number of the terms of use which constitute a red strike offence that have been exhibited in the following thread:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=194
I decided it was prudent to update the terms of use to tackle to area of immoral/unethical behaviour, particularly when used under the guise of experimenting with God's Laws as I believed Scott's initial post showed that this is exactly what he had been engaging in up to this point in time.
I felt it was very important to raise this directly with Scott in his thread and share my feelings with him. I also felt that I should give Scott an opportunity to read my post and understand the update to the terms of use rather than just issuing him with a red strike when the terms of use at the time of his initial post did not include this newly prohibited behaviour. I felt as though it would have been harsh of me to do this.
However, upon reading my feedback, Scott responded in a resistive, arrogant and condescending manner and was quick to dismiss my feelings about the situation. This can be observed in the very first line of his response:
Due to his facade and resistance to potential new information about himself, he has attributed the information that I had raised with him as an error on my part in misunderstanding his intentions and feelings,which is actually quite manipulative. Ironically, in my initial post on his thread, I stated that I could feel a degree of denial and resistance he has at searching internally within himself for potential emotional injuries/errors in his soul and confronting them.I disagree with some of your feels Nicky, as they are not what I know of me. Words can often betray intentions, as I feel they may have done in this case.
It is also evident that Scott responded without engaging in any self reflection to determine the efficacy of what I had said:
When presented with new information about themselves (whether it is the truth or not), a person acting in humility would first self-reflect and feel about what had been raised before responding. It is clear to see that Scott did not do this here.But your reply has indeed triggered some emotions in me that I will explore further ... whether presently vague or not.
Scott felt as though his thread was sincere and was acting in humility to seek potential assistance from the community by reading this part of his post:
I attempted to provide him with the assistance he was seeking. When I came to him in the truth of my feelings to try to help him in his confusion, he quickly dismissed me. Therefore I cannot agree with his assessment that he felt as though he was being sincere. It shows me that his thread was actually all about wanting to get an addiction met. As I did not meet this addiction of his and he did not want to self reflect on what I had raised with him, it caused him to respond in an unloving manner towards me.the question I posted was sincere even if I did attempt to bring others into the specifics of my confusion. Sometimes I feel that is necessary to illustrate where I am, so that another might find me and better guide me into greater understanding.
This is also evident in the final line of his response:
The reason why Scott felt as though Amanda's response was helpful to him and mine wasn't as much was because her response actually met his addiction and therefore fulfilling the goal of the creation of his thread. He really just wanted someone to agree with his current intellectual understanding of the LoA and pacify his method of experimentation (use of casino). I simply could not do this.I did find Amanda's response helpful ... as I have had the same experiences with computers and she reminded me of that.
I have emailed Scott with a copy of this thread.
Thanks
Nicky