So what, we need a new branch, the “F.U. Quakers” if we want to retain the Joe G’s? Might be worth it. I have thought we might do well by more freely using the word bullshit when the stench of self-deception rises to the olfactory level. Apparently this use of bull was well established by Fox’s time:

“Sais christ to ypocrites … yee ar … all ful with wickednes, tresun and bull.” [“Cursor Mundi,” c.1300]

“I can say from experience that it’s a little embarrassing to realize you’ve
just given someone the finger when dressed in broadfalls…”

Now, see, I might still be a Quaker you had did this to me at FGC, let’s say…

So is it a good thing or not to be less unfair in public?

I think there’s got to be a middle ground that can include a dry sense of humor but not the inflammatory finger…

My favorite parts were indeed the quotes from the Discipline. Didn’t see the debate, so can’t imagine the tie-in.

I hope it was a worthwhile experiment, either way.

Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

The problem of the Inner Snark? Well, I’m less worried about God, who of
course know me in all sorts of imperfections, than I am with others who
might extrapolate that my behavior is Quaker behavior.

One of the arguments ancient and current for plain dress is that it holds us
responsible for our behavior outside our immediate religious community. I
can say from experience that it’s a little embarrassing to realize you’ve
just given someone the finger when dressed in broadfalls, especially when
you imagine the later reportage (“Honey you’ll never believe this, some
Amish guy flipped me the bird today when I almost ran him down on his
bike!”). The dressing becomes a reminder of what we aspire to. I think
adding #qqtalk made me less likely to Tweet grossly unfair things last
night.