Comments on: Sexual identity therapy: What it is and what it isn’t

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:13:09 +0000

I’m glad you took the opportunity to check us out, and for admitting it 😉

I hope you end up commenting, just be civil and expect the same, understanding that everyone has their own history and many are painful, just as here.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:39 +0000

OK guys, I’m officially tired of the “Timothy is mean” mantra. Perhaps we can give it a little rest?

By: Eddy

Eddy — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:39:01 +0000

Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa!

Did my homework and followed the links and even read about 60% of the comments. That’s a lot of homework for one night. Anyway, apologies to the gang over at XGW. Pam and Dave, I was struck by your sincerity in particular. Don’t think I’m ready to comment over there but I will check back in. And, Timothy…you were actually more well-behaved on your home court. (I’ve got to go back at least once more–maybe tomorrow–to finish through the comment threads.)

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:48 +0000

Jamie & Leo — Thanks, of course you are correct. I have posted a comment at the Straight Guise blog to correct Joe Kort’s comments.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:12:00 +0000

Thanks Warren, Pam and David for your comments. I’m sure curiosity will lure me back over to XGW from time to time. Like many of you, I’m a lay person juggling blog visits in my spare time and I’ve already found this site consuming more of my time than I had planned. If this particular thread ever gets back to actual discussion of the stories that were featured on XGW, I may HAVE to ‘do the links’ just to keep up. 🙂

And, Timothy, although I’m not sure I want to thank you for your comment…it was good to hear from you all the same.

Now, where’s Jayhuck, Mary, Ann, Ginger and the Skipper?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:55:52 +0000

Wait, this is better:

I will not derail the thread to belittle you by insinuating that you are distorting the facts. (that one is less accusatory)

By: pam

pam — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:39:57 +0000

Eddy,

There are folks who strain at gnats on any site. I’d like to invite you, as an ambassador of XGW to use the strategy Warren suggests and give some dialogue a go over there from time to time, or at least scan and read through things of interest to you occasionally. While the subject matter is serious and the dialogue can at times become tense or emotional, there are still many there who don’t take themselves so seriously as to not find some humor on occasion. And we do work very hard at keeping the debate civil and on-topic.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:09:58 +0000

Eddy, I disregard comments which have no basis (and in fact we do not knowingly let anyone get away with claiming something as fact without some verifiable reference) but we do have commenters from all sides of this debate participate. If you can’t handle being one of them, then don’t complain if you don’t find your point of view discussed there – it’s easy to scoff at a distance.

As for Joe Kort, I’m quite certain we will analyze his new site at some point but, with no disrespect to Joe, he has not been a major source of debate or protocol on this issue up to now, so we have not jumped into his work yet. Instead we are trying to assess the SIT guidelines, a job which is already overdue. We are volunteers with lives and jobs of our own, but this is very important to us so we don’t want to provide shallow views of either.

As to your other comments about me/XGW, I’m sorry you feel that way.

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:03:45 +0000

Eddy — I agree that reluctance to comment is not a sign of fragile views. I do however, hope you will consider the invitation to read through the comments over there. Some of them are thoughtful and interesting. The one’s that are not, I ignore. I would advise the same here to all. I want to support thoughtful dialogue here and on other blog devoted to this topic. I try to ignore those who deliberately spin and deceive. I say try because I give in sometimes 🙂

I will say that David over at XGW seems genuinely interested in what we are doing with the SIT framework.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:50:50 +0000

I’ve been to the Ex-Gay Watch site before and I’ve witnessed TK’s ‘serious debate’ style here. I have already learned all I care to about straining at gnats and swallow camels. Any recent examples of this? How about the fact that you chose to major on my ‘sin of omission’–not visiting this topic on Ex-Gay Watch–rather than Joe Kort’s far more serious ‘sins of commission’–pretending to be knowledgeable yet making blatantly false statements?

So, no David, it isn’t that my views are that fragile…it’s that my patience has worn that thin. Good use of the group strategies by the way…first insinuate that my views are ‘fragile’, toss in the ‘spoon feed’ imagery to belittle me on top of that, then wrap it all up with a distortion of reality. (Please note: Sometimes Warren makes it clear that we need to follow the links to understand the discussion; other times, he provides them as a convenience. Although he ‘invited’ us to check out the Peter Toscano comments, Warren’s words to begin were ‘I want to link to a couple and comment’.)

Repeat after me: Insinuate, belittle, distort, derail. Insinuate, belittle, distort, derail.

So, does anyone want to discuss the topic?