|
Home > Archive > Abuse recovery > January 2005 > How To Not Read A Participant In AAR
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How To Not Read A Participant In AAR
|
|
|
| it is a simple matter to refrain from reading the words of any poster
in AAR. Let me explain how.
the first step is to killfile the person. This is relatively easily
done in Outlook Express, Agent, or any number of news readers. Help
files will explain this fairly well.
the second step is to avoid secondhand reading.
each post is set up somewhat like this:
____________________
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:40:38 -0500, "Tuna" <Tom_Collins@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"croupy" <croupy@vicksvaporub.net> wrote in message
>news:39a0bd6d29c2add05892.4b0396560cd814@asarian-host.net...
_____________________
in this example, "Tuna" is the originator of the post being read.
"croupy" is the originator of the post that "Tuna" is quoting. The
">" marks designate quotes. in other words, they signal the fact that
the following remarks are written by croupy, not Tuna.
therefore, a simple way to avoid reading a killfiled poster is to STOP
READING whenever one sees a paragraph that looks like this:
"killfiledperson" <that.persons.email.addy> wrote in message
<messagenumber>
these quotes usually have a very stable format, are almost always
announced well in advance, and are usually prominently displayed at
the very front of the post. quoting someone while not leaving any
attributes is possible, but frowned upon and seldom performed, even in
the heady lawlessness of alt groups.
unfortunately, there is one thing that does not work. the act of
announcing one's acts of killfiling to all and sundry, does nothing to
prevent those pesky posts from showing up so legibly and irresistably
readable on one's monitor. no matter how often it is announced, and
how many times it is repeatedly worked into the conversation.
azure,
whose helpful efforts won't be read
because she, of course, is killfiled
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:57:56 -0600, azure <none@this.time> wrote:
>it is a simple matter to refrain from reading the words of any poster
>in AAR. Let me explain how.
>
>the first step is to killfile the person. This is relatively easily
>done in Outlook Express, Agent, or any number of news readers. Help
>files will explain this fairly well.
>
>the second step is to avoid secondhand reading.
>
>each post is set up somewhat like this:
>
>____________________
>
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:40:38 -0500, "Tuna" <Tom_Collins@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>_____________________
>
>
>in this example, "Tuna" is the originator of the post being read.
>"croupy" is the originator of the post that "Tuna" is quoting. The
>">" marks designate quotes. in other words, they signal the fact that
>the following remarks are written by croupy, not Tuna.
>
>therefore, a simple way to avoid reading a killfiled poster is to STOP
>READING whenever one sees a paragraph that looks like this:
>
>"killfiledperson" <that.persons.email.addy> wrote in message
><messagenumber>
>
>these quotes usually have a very stable format, are almost always
>announced well in advance, and are usually prominently displayed at
>the very front of the post. quoting someone while not leaving any
>attributes is possible, but frowned upon and seldom performed, even in
>the heady lawlessness of alt groups.
>
>unfortunately, there is one thing that does not work. the act of
>announcing one's acts of killfiling to all and sundry, does nothing to
>prevent those pesky posts from showing up so legibly and irresistably
>readable on one's monitor. no matter how often it is announced, and
>how many times it is repeatedly worked into the conversation.
>
>azure,
>whose helpful efforts won't be read
>because she, of course, is killfiled
I don't read you myself. I only saw this second hand on my monitor.
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-01, 4:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>
>I don't read you myself. I only saw this second hand on my monitor.
and I don't read either one of you, I only say your posts and
responses when I posted my response to your response to her
post....but I definetly do not read either one of you.
this is me, not reading you, not getting involved, not going there,
not reacting to you because I have a real life, and I normally don't
respond to your posts which are responses to someone elses responding
to a post I did not read.
but thanks for letting me not read you, I appreciate it....and that's
is not political.
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| Panther 2005-01-01, 4:06 am |
|
"azure" <none@this.time> wrote in message
news:c2hct0tttt3r7ot796b1hmc8pfjnh8n6bg@4ax.com...
> it is a simple matter to refrain from reading the words of any poster
> in AAR. Let me explain how.
>
> the first step is to killfile the person. This is relatively easily
> done in Outlook Express, Agent, or any number of news readers. Help
> files will explain this fairly well.
>
> the second step is to avoid secondhand reading.
>
> each post is set up somewhat like this:
>
> ____________________
>
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:40:38 -0500, "Tuna" <Tom_Collins@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> _____________________
>
>
> in this example, "Tuna" is the originator of the post being read.
> "croupy" is the originator of the post that "Tuna" is quoting. The
> ">" marks designate quotes. in other words, they signal the fact that
> the following remarks are written by croupy, not Tuna.
>
> therefore, a simple way to avoid reading a killfiled poster is to STOP
> READING whenever one sees a paragraph that looks like this:
>
> "killfiledperson" <that.persons.email.addy> wrote in message
> <messagenumber>
>
> these quotes usually have a very stable format, are almost always
> announced well in advance, and are usually prominently displayed at
> the very front of the post. quoting someone while not leaving any
> attributes is possible, but frowned upon and seldom performed, even in
> the heady lawlessness of alt groups.
>
> unfortunately, there is one thing that does not work. the act of
> announcing one's acts of killfiling to all and sundry, does nothing to
> prevent those pesky posts from showing up so legibly and irresistably
> readable on one's monitor. no matter how often it is announced, and
> how many times it is repeatedly worked into the conversation.
>
> azure,
> whose helpful efforts won't be read
> because she, of course, is killfiled
Hey, do we get a new azure soap opera story this new year????
Ohhhhh pleasssssssse!!!!!!!! It's just the way to start the New Year off
right.
Panther (who doesn't have azure killfiled )
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:11:47 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>and I don't read either one of you, I only say your posts and
>responses when I posted my response to your response to her
>post....but I definetly do not read either one of you.
Me, neither. I'm not going to read this, either. Seems like an awful
lot of effort to go to tell someone I won't be reading them.
>this is me, not reading you, not getting involved, not going there,
>not reacting to you because I have a real life, and I normally don't
>respond to your posts which are responses to someone elses responding
>to a post I did not read.
It amazes when I read this kind of thing second hand when someone I
*do* read says something in response.
>but thanks for letting me not read you, I appreciate it....and that's
>is not political.
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 03:36:55 -0500, "Panther"
<panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>"azure" <none@this.time> wrote in message
>news:c2hct0tttt3r7ot796b1hmc8pfjnh8n6bg@4ax.com...
>
>
>Hey, do we get a new azure soap opera story this new year????
>
>Ohhhhh pleasssssssse!!!!!!!! It's just the way to start the New Year off
>right.
>
>Panther (who doesn't have azure killfiled )
I miss those, too.
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-01, 4:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"Panther" <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>Hey, do we get a new azure soap opera story this new year????
>
>Ohhhhh pleasssssssse!!!!!!!! It's just the way to start the New Year off
>right.
>
>Panther (who doesn't have azure killfiled )
I wish we could respond to this...but until someone responds to your
response to that one whom I wasn't reading, I can't respond because I
can't see your response.....because I don't read your posts except
when they are replies to someone's response to her posts.....
so... i can't respond because I don't know what you wrote.
d
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| hornpipe 2005-01-01, 4:06 am |
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:53:05 GMT, Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:11:47 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Me, neither. I'm not going to read this, either. Seems like an awful
>lot of effort to go to tell someone I won't be reading them.
>
>
>It amazes when I read this kind of thing second hand when someone I
>*do* read says something in response.
>
but then I just think "you incredible sucker" and wonder that there is
no god to provide instant punishment.
drats
>
>
>~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
--
hornpipe
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>"Panther" <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>I wish we could respond to this...but until someone responds to your
>response to that one whom I wasn't reading, I can't respond because I
>can't see your response.....because I don't read your posts except
>when they are replies to someone's response to her posts.....
>
>so... i can't respond because I don't know what you wrote.
Could people PLEASE learn to snip so I don't have to see responses
from people I don't to people whose posts I don't read?
*knocking on monitor*
HELLO!!! Is anyone reading this??
>
>d
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
| hornpipe 2005-01-01, 4:06 am |
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:29:49 GMT, Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Could people PLEASE learn to snip so I don't have to see responses
>from people I don't to people whose posts I don't read?
>
>*knocking on monitor*
>
>HELLO!!! Is anyone reading this??
nope
--
hornpipe
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:34:33 -0800, hornpipe <hornpipe_2@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:29:49 GMT, Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>
>
>nope
I SAID is anyone reading this????
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| =x
"azure" <none@this.time> wrote in message
news:c2hct0tttt3r7ot796b1hmc8pfjnh8n6bg@4ax.com...
> it is a simple matter to refrain from reading the words of any poster
> in AAR. Let me explain how.
>
> the first step is to killfile the person. This is relatively easily
> done in Outlook Express, Agent, or any number of news readers. Help
> files will explain this fairly well.
>
> the second step is to avoid secondhand reading.
>
> each post is set up somewhat like this:
>
> ____________________
>
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:40:38 -0500, "Tuna" <Tom_Collins@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> _____________________
>
>
> in this example, "Tuna" is the originator of the post being read.
> "croupy" is the originator of the post that "Tuna" is quoting. The
> ">" marks designate quotes. in other words, they signal the fact that
> the following remarks are written by croupy, not Tuna.
>
> therefore, a simple way to avoid reading a killfiled poster is to STOP
> READING whenever one sees a paragraph that looks like this:
>
> "killfiledperson" <that.persons.email.addy> wrote in message
> <messagenumber>
>
> these quotes usually have a very stable format, are almost always
> announced well in advance, and are usually prominently displayed at
> the very front of the post. quoting someone while not leaving any
> attributes is possible, but frowned upon and seldom performed, even in
> the heady lawlessness of alt groups.
>
> unfortunately, there is one thing that does not work. the act of
> announcing one's acts of killfiling to all and sundry, does nothing to
> prevent those pesky posts from showing up so legibly and irresistably
> readable on one's monitor. no matter how often it is announced, and
> how many times it is repeatedly worked into the conversation.
>
> azure,
> whose helpful efforts won't be read
> because she, of course, is killfiled
| |
|
|
"sloopy" <sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:5b6188e6375.60cbcb3eabc89781021515@asarian-host.net...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Panther" <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I wish we could respond to this...but until someone responds to your
> response to that one whom I wasn't reading, I can't respond because I
> can't see your response.....because I don't read your posts except
> when they are replies to someone's response to her posts.....
>
> so... i can't respond because I don't know what you wrote.
I'm not actually responding to *anyone, because I have *everyone killfiled -
at least on this computer =x
If I go on a different computer and see all of your annoying posts, I won't
have the self-control to not read whom I prefer not to read... and so I
will. And once I have finished reading all of your annoying posts - I will
announce to you the conditions under which I read your posts. I will
respond, but you will not see my response, because you of course, have me
kill-filed.
Kc
>
> d
>
>
>
>
> --
> For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
> help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
> If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
>
> https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy
<sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
<5b6188e6375.60cbcb3eabc89781021515@asarian-host.net> the
following:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>"Panther" <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>I wish we could respond to this...but until someone responds to your
>response to that one whom I wasn't reading, I can't respond because I
>can't see your response.....because I don't read your posts except
>when they are replies to someone's response to her posts.....
>
>so... i can't respond because I don't know what you wrote.
>
And the ridicule you so willingly participate in is intended
to accomplish what? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
>d
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:42:57 +0800, James
<James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy
><sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
><5b6188e6375.60cbcb3eabc89781021515@asarian-host.net> the
>following:
>
>And the ridicule you so willingly participate in is intended
>to accomplish what? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
>your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
She would answer, but she isn't reading you because I have you
killfiled.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
| windswept 2005-01-01, 11:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
news:413dt053tqekd71brcintdoakn08inil6i@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy
> And the ridicule you so willingly participate in is intended
> to accomplish what? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
> your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
Sadly - it is the ugliest part of this place - the propensity for
ridiculing by a group. When I participated it was all of those things -
except friendship - that was never the goal. But I think probably the most
overwhelming thing was always approval or respect from your peers. There
was much approval expressed on irc when someone would post something that
surely *got em. And shame? Plenty of it here that I ever participated in
something like that and its probably karma that I am now the target. If it
is - its a karma I legitimately owe. I hate to see it be here though. I've
been here long enough to know how to step around it. But I think thats
probably a big reason there aren't many newbies around anymore.
>
>
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| Laurels 2005-01-01, 11:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
Don't you think, though, that it's part of every group? I've seen it happen
at work, in classes, in study groups, in church (oh, yea, especially in
church) - everywhere two or more are gathered there is a group dynamic that
sorts folks and usually finds someone that "we" all dislike. Sometimes I've
been the one disliked, sometimes I've been in the group doing the disliking.
But it's always there. I can't think of an exception (but then I've not had
my coffee yet, so maybe there are lots of obvious ones). I've worked for
the same company for almost 30 years, so by this time, I take it all with a
grain of salt. Folks everyone scorns today are one promotion away from
being the people everyone reveres.
When I found ASAR eons ago, I wanted approval - I wanted to belong to the
group. Being excluded was painful; being attacked was unbelievably painful.
It felt like my favorite novel suddenly turned on me. Newbies - genuine
"what is this thing called the Internet" newbies - are scarce on the ground
in this digital age; most people come to Usenet pretty savvy about what the
medium is. What never ceases to surprise me is the ease with which people
toss around labels that would get them decked if they weren't using this
cyber telephone pole. But then again, I've never really believed that
'nice' was shorthand for weak.
Catherine
"windswept" <windswept@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:a6e2203.21334a8cb2b2c8f9c977ba1931@asarian-host.net...
>
> "James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
> news:413dt053tqekd71brcintdoakn08inil6i@4ax.com...
>
>
> Sadly - it is the ugliest part of this place - the propensity for
> ridiculing by a group. When I participated it was all of those things -
> except friendship - that was never the goal. But I think probably the
most
> overwhelming thing was always approval or respect from your peers. There
> was much approval expressed on irc when someone would post something that
> surely *got em. And shame? Plenty of it here that I ever participated in
> something like that and its probably karma that I am now the target. If
it
> is - its a karma I legitimately owe. I hate to see it be here though.
I've
> been here long enough to know how to step around it. But I think thats
> probably a big reason there aren't many newbies around anymore.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| tempest 2005-01-01, 11:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
I hear you. One thing I have found so common is that people have a lack of
acceptance for those who are different from them. There is always this need
to "change" .... "conform" ..... and judgment! - well, that I have had much
of and I don't think anyone has the right to sit in judgment on another.
tempest
"Laurels" <laurels@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:471a829961ed33.d5b7419077115e7ad28@asarian-host.net...
>
> Don't you think, though, that it's part of every group? I've seen it
happen
> at work, in classes, in study groups, in church (oh, yea, especially in
> church) - everywhere two or more are gathered there is a group dynamic
that
> sorts folks and usually finds someone that "we" all dislike. Sometimes
I've
> been the one disliked, sometimes I've been in the group doing the
disliking.
> But it's always there. I can't think of an exception (but then I've not
had
> my coffee yet, so maybe there are lots of obvious ones). I've worked for
> the same company for almost 30 years, so by this time, I take it all with
a
> grain of salt. Folks everyone scorns today are one promotion away from
> being the people everyone reveres.
>
> When I found ASAR eons ago, I wanted approval - I wanted to belong to the
> group. Being excluded was painful; being attacked was unbelievably
painful.
> It felt like my favorite novel suddenly turned on me. Newbies - genuine
> "what is this thing called the Internet" newbies - are scarce on the
ground
> in this digital age; most people come to Usenet pretty savvy about what
the
> medium is. What never ceases to surprise me is the ease with which people
> toss around labels that would get them decked if they weren't using this
> cyber telephone pole. But then again, I've never really believed that
> 'nice' was shorthand for weak.
>
> Catherine
>
> "windswept" <windswept@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
> news:a6e2203.21334a8cb2b2c8f9c977ba1931@asarian-host.net...
>
> most
There[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
> I've
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| windswept 2005-01-01, 11:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"Laurels" <laurels@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:471a829961ed33.d5b7419077115e7ad28@asarian-host.net...
>
> Don't you think, though, that it's part of every group?
Yes, that definitely is a dynamic I've seen in a lot of groups, but not to
the degree that its acted out here. But then I've noticed that things on
the net tend to function like they are on steriods compared to their slower
more compassionate real life counterparts. In real life there are definite
limits - on the net there aren't many of those. So while - yes I agree that
is often a factor in groups - the net seems to take it to a different level.
I've seen it happen
> at work, in classes, in study groups, in church (oh, yea, especially in
> church) - everywhere two or more are gathered there is a group dynamic
that
> sorts folks and usually finds someone that "we" all dislike. Sometimes
I've
> been the one disliked, sometimes I've been in the group doing the
disliking.
Its hard to walk the middle line there isn't it? But dipping down to pick
up on the *decked thing - there is a civility included in the real life
thing. While you may have issues with someone as a group - you don't treat
them rudely or alienate them from the group when all are present. I think
there is a code of behavior that is present face to face that is missing on
the net.
> But it's always there. I can't think of an exception (but then I've not
had
> my coffee yet, so maybe there are lots of obvious ones). I've worked for
> the same company for almost 30 years, so by this time, I take it all with
a
> grain of salt. Folks everyone scorns today are one promotion away from
> being the people everyone reveres.
When I have issues with someone I work with I try to keep my perspective and
my eye on what the task at hand is. The issues I have usually involve how
that person functions in their job rather than personalities. But then I
work at night and that helps when the staff is much smaller. I'm rarely
active in office politics, I just hear about them. What you say about
promotions is very true - you just never know.
>
> When I found ASAR eons ago, I wanted approval - I wanted to belong to the
> group. Being excluded was painful; being attacked was unbelievably
painful.
> It felt like my favorite novel suddenly turned on me.
I really like this description - it suits the situation nicely.
Newbies - genuine
> "what is this thing called the Internet" newbies
Yeah - they seem to hit the ground running nowadays - I remember having to
learn about the technology and the net at the same time. It was all very
new back then.
- are scarce on the ground
> in this digital age; most people come to Usenet pretty savvy about what
the
> medium is. What never ceases to surprise me is the ease with which people
> toss around labels that would get them decked if they weren't using this
> cyber telephone pole.
Amen to that. I finally just became ashamed of my behavior here - most of
which would have been totally unacceptable anywhere else but on the net.
But then again, I've never really believed that
> 'nice' was shorthand for weak.
Me neither. Its a lot harder to be nice than weak. Nice at times is a
lonely road. Its easy to be rude and combative - it doesn't take much
thought.
>
> Catherine
>
> "windswept" <windswept@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
> news:a6e2203.21334a8cb2b2c8f9c977ba1931@asarian-host.net...
>
> most
There[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
> I've
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| Alan B. Mac Farlane 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
| in article c2hct0tttt3r7ot796b1hmc8pfjnh8n6bg@4ax.com, azure at
none@this.time wrote on 12/31/04 10:57 PM:
> azure,
> whose helpful efforts won't be read
> because she, of course, is killfiled
hey you and me both...
head in the sand makes for short breath ...
go ask the tsunamio survivors ...
happyjonestown day in jesusland ...
....
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>And the ridicule you so willingly participate in is intended
>to accomplish what? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
>your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
>
none of the above. and leave me alone ...you are following me around,
dogging me from post to post...and not saying anything to anyone other
than judging, criticizing and chastising...constant, never ending.....
d
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| Panther 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
|
"Liz" <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote in message
news:89rct05ok3fnt7e54j2c18h1mo4vtlinst@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:05:36 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
> wrote:
>
off[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Could people PLEASE learn to snip so I don't have to see responses
> from people I don't to people whose posts I don't read?
>
> *knocking on monitor*
>
> HELLO!!! Is anyone reading this??
>
I have you kill filed so I can't read your words. You have a nerve
responding to people I don't have killfiled.
Panther
| |
| Panther 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
|
"sloopy" <sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:5b6188e6375.60cbcb3eabc89781021515@asarian-host.net...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Panther" <panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I wish we could respond to this...but until someone responds to your
> response to that one whom I wasn't reading, I can't respond because I
> can't see your response.....because I don't read your posts except
> when they are replies to someone's response to her posts.....
>
> so... i can't respond because I don't know what you wrote.
>
> d
>
>
I wish you would have consideration for my right to killfile anyone I see
fit. I realize you can do what you want and that is your choice but it
would be much easier for me and my killfile if you would stop responding to
people who I DO read. You.. I DO NOT read and your insistent responding to
people I read you are making my life more difficult because each time I
click on a post of a friend I do read and you have responded just before
them on a thread I do not anticipate seeing your words.
Panther
| |
| tempest 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
I don't get, I really don't get it. Why this need to break people down, to
ridicule them? If u have been wronged then forgive, move forward, don't
hold on to the past. I read these threads and I ask myself why? Why try to
tear another person down? Why the bitchiness? Why the need to make snide
comments? If someone has wronged you and has no wish to make it right, move
forward, don't hold on to that anger and bitterness. What purpose is it
serving? Let it go.
tempest
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-01, 7:06 pm |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
tempest <tempest@asarian-host.net> wrote:
>
>I don't get, I really don't get it. Why this need to break people down, to
>ridicule them? If u have been wronged then forgive, move forward, don't
>hold on to the past. I read these threads and I ask myself why? Why try to
>tear another person down? Why the bitchiness? Why the need to make snide
>comments? If someone has wronged you and has no wish to make it right, move
>forward, don't hold on to that anger and bitterness. What purpose is it
>serving? Let it go.
>
>tempest
I know it may not seem this way --- but none of this was intended to
be ridicule --- it was intended to be satirical --- to point out the
silliness of it all.
And I'm sorry this is affecting you --- but yet, It appears that there
are some folks (and I am NOT speaking of myself - just for the record)
, that no matter what they say, no matter how compassionate or kind
they attempt to be, no matter how many times they have extended the
olive branch, made amends, moved on, or how level headed and
articulate they are .....they continue to receive backhanded cruel
remarks by the same angry people, continue to be misinterpreted over
and over and over --- these folks are NOT deserving of the treatment,
and are some of the nicest, gentlest people -- but yet, they get
railed at, then the next day the one railing makes it seem that
everything is normal again..... no apology, no remorse, just a swift
kick in the face, and on to others and then has the audacity to
question why the big deal while making a dismissive "I don't go there
or I"m moving on" type of comment.
It is infuriating, to say the least, especially given that
dismissiveness was one of the most common ways the abusers in our
lives used to rock our emotional worldr; and quite frankly, there
comes a point when folks decide to stand up, stand together, and shove
it right back in their pie hole --- this may indeed be one of those
times.
be well,
deb
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:12:16 GMT, windswept
<windswept@asarian-host.net> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>"James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
>news:413dt053tqekd71brcintdoakn08inil6i@4ax.com...
>
>
>Sadly - it is the ugliest part of this place - the propensity for
>ridiculing by a group.
*I* prefer to ridicule you one on one, but I don't read you.
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| I think, too, that in any group where more than one person may dislike
another person, you are going to be accused of attacking en masse.
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:54:11 GMT, Laurels <laurels@asarian-host.net>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>Don't you think, though, that it's part of every group? I've seen it happen
>at work, in classes, in study groups, in church (oh, yea, especially in
>church) - everywhere two or more are gathered there is a group dynamic that
>sorts folks and usually finds someone that "we" all dislike. Sometimes I've
>been the one disliked, sometimes I've been in the group doing the disliking.
>But it's always there. I can't think of an exception (but then I've not had
>my coffee yet, so maybe there are lots of obvious ones). I've worked for
>the same company for almost 30 years, so by this time, I take it all with a
>grain of salt. Folks everyone scorns today are one promotion away from
>being the people everyone reveres.
>
>When I found ASAR eons ago, I wanted approval - I wanted to belong to the
>group. Being excluded was painful; being attacked was unbelievably painful.
>It felt like my favorite novel suddenly turned on me. Newbies - genuine
>"what is this thing called the Internet" newbies - are scarce on the ground
>in this digital age; most people come to Usenet pretty savvy about what the
>medium is. What never ceases to surprise me is the ease with which people
>toss around labels that would get them decked if they weren't using this
>cyber telephone pole. But then again, I've never really believed that
>'nice' was shorthand for weak.
>
>Catherine
>
>"windswept" <windswept@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
>news:a6e2203.21334a8cb2b2c8f9c977ba1931@asarian-host.net...
>
>most
>it
>I've
>
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:59:31 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>tempest <tempest@asarian-host.net> wrote:
>
>
>I know it may not seem this way --- but none of this was intended to
>be ridicule --- it was intended to be satirical --- to point out the
>silliness of it all.
>
>And I'm sorry this is affecting you --- but yet, It appears that there
>are some folks (and I am NOT speaking of myself - just for the record)
>, that no matter what they say, no matter how compassionate or kind
>they attempt to be, no matter how many times they have extended the
>olive branch, made amends, moved on, or how level headed and
>articulate they are .....they continue to receive backhanded cruel
>remarks by the same angry people, continue to be misinterpreted over
>and over and over --- these folks are NOT deserving of the treatment,
>and are some of the nicest, gentlest people -- but yet, they get
>railed at, then the next day the one railing makes it seem that
>everything is normal again..... no apology, no remorse, just a swift
>kick in the face, and on to others and then has the audacity to
>question why the big deal while making a dismissive "I don't go there
>or I"m moving on" type of comment.
EXACTLY. No matter how hard you have tried in the past to be
understanding or kind, you are labeled a piece of shit person who
never tried anyway. And after a while, after a certain amount of time
goes by it gets to be satirical whether you point it out or not.
But this whole discussion (especially by James and Suzanne) only
shines a huge light on the whole POINT: here she is, insisting she
doesn't read certain people (and tries not to read them in replies
from other people) yet here she is commenting on every bloody word
written.
Azure's point is clear: it is possible not to read things you don't
want to read. If there is a convo I know will set me off in some way,
I can avoid it by, um, not opening any of the posts. This thread in
particular makes it very, very clear what the point of the thread is:
why would either of them read then cry foul?
There's something about the behavior of them both that just makes me
go 'ew' on a regular basis.
>
>It is infuriating, to say the least, especially given that
>dismissiveness was one of the most common ways the abusers in our
>lives used to rock our emotional worldr; and quite frankly, there
>comes a point when folks decide to stand up, stand together, and shove
>it right back in their pie hole --- this may indeed be one of those
>times.
>
>be well,
>
>deb
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:20:50 GMT, sloopy <sloopy@asarian-host.net>
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>none of the above. and leave me alone ...you are following me around,
>dogging me from post to post...and not saying anything to anyone other
>than judging, criticizing and chastising...constant, never ending.....
How do you know? You don't read him .. .DO you?
>
>
>d
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:31:40 -0500, "Panther"
<panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>"Liz" <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote in message
>news:89rct05ok3fnt7e54j2c18h1mo4vtlinst@4ax.com...
>off
>I have you kill filed so I can't read your words. You have a nerve
>responding to people I don't have killfiled.
I killfiled everyone and only read them in responses from other
people.
>
>Panther
>
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
|
| On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:34:59 -0500, "Panther"
<panther@asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>
>"sloopy" <sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
>news:5b6188e6375.60cbcb3eabc89781021515@asarian-host.net...
>I wish you would have consideration for my right to killfile anyone I see
>fit. I realize you can do what you want and that is your choice but it
>would be much easier for me and my killfile if you would stop responding to
>people who I DO read. You.. I DO NOT read and your insistent responding to
>people I read you are making my life more difficult because each time I
>click on a post of a friend I do read and you have responded just before
>them on a thread I do not anticipate seeing your words.
I have you kill filed, but I had to respond to this:
Deb is one of those people who really make me mad, because not only
does she respond to people I have killfiled, thereby including their
drivel in her responses, but she reaches through the monitor and
FORCES me to read the stuff from the people I had killfiled. And not
just the bit she is responding to, either. She makes me read EVERY
SINGLE UNRELATED WORD! She makes me scour the post HOPING to find
something I can be wounded about.
It's my single biggest beef with deb.
>Panther
>
~*~ I am incredibly silly, so I emphasize you. My tropical liaison won't improve before I say it ~*~
| |
| James 2005-01-01, 10:06 pm |
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:59:31 GMT, sloopy
<sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
<7a4ed11e5c01294a75e2.c64aa5daa87214@asarian-host.net> the
following:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>tempest <tempest@asarian-host.net> wrote:
>
>
>I know it may not seem this way --- but none of this was intended to
>be ridicule --- it was intended to be satirical --- to point out the
>silliness of it all.
>
>And I'm sorry this is affecting you ---
>but
But... the great negator.
It wasn't intended to be ridicule, and I'm sorry it affects
someone who isn't the intended and deserving victim...
BUT...
Quite frankly, I can rationalize and justify every bit of
the ridicule and in my judgment the chosen victim deserves
to have it shoved right down their throat by the gang.
Read it again, Deb...
Quite frankly, I can rationalize and justify the abuse of
one by myself and others.
No matter how you paint it, Deb... it doesn't change what
it is.
>yet, It appears that there
>are some folks (and I am NOT speaking of myself - just for the record)
>, that no matter what they say, no matter how compassionate or kind
>they attempt to be, no matter how many times they have extended the
>olive branch, made amends, moved on, or how level headed and
>articulate they are .....they continue to receive backhanded cruel
>remarks by the same angry people, continue to be misinterpreted over
>and over and over --- these folks are NOT deserving of the treatment,
>and are some of the nicest, gentlest people -- but yet, they get
>railed at, then the next day the one railing makes it seem that
>everything is normal again..... no apology, no remorse, just a swift
>kick in the face, and on to others and then has the audacity to
>question why the big deal while making a dismissive "I don't go there
>or I"m moving on" type of comment.
>
>It is infuriating, to say the least, especially given that
>dismissiveness was one of the most common ways the abusers in our
>lives used to rock our emotional worldr; and quite frankly, there
>comes a point when folks decide to stand up, stand together, and shove
>it right back in their pie hole --- this may indeed be one of those
>times.
>
>be well,
>
>deb
| |
| James 2005-01-01, 10:06 pm |
| On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:20:50 GMT, sloopy
<sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
<cedda64f.75e306c7586a878d55e3854c2@asarian-host.net> the
following:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>none of the above. and leave me alone ...you are following me around,
>dogging me from post to post...and not saying anything to anyone other
>than judging, criticizing and chastising...constant, never ending.....
>
It is ridicule, Deb... and you are very willingly
participating in it. You've just posted your
rationalization and justification for participating in the
ridicule and for condoning and supporting others
participating in the ridicule.
You can blame and shame anyone who notices, comments, or
objects all you want... but it won't change the simple and
obvious fact that it has been you choice, and your choice
alone, which is responsible for your rationalization,
justification, and participation... no one else. Just you.
There is a very good reason it bothers you so much... and
it doesn't have anything to do with me or anyone else other
than yourself. Why not try to dig down and figure out
exactly what that reason is.
>
>d
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-02, 2:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>It is ridicule, Deb... and you are very willingly
>participating in it.
I never said it wasn' , I said it wasn't intended to be ridicule -- of
course, I cannot speak to what the other posters intended their words
to be....why not ask them.
> You've just posted your
>rationalization and justification for participating in the
>ridicule and for condoning and supporting others
>participating in the ridicule.
I am posting to the thread because I believe, and continue to believe
that az's initial satirical post was FUNNY....it was FUNNY
james.....no matter how much you blame me, ridicule me, point it out
to me, I'm not the only participant here dude. And it was FUNNY,
especially considering the constant reminders and protests.....folks
should occassionally be reminded at how silly it all is........
YOU certainly have no issue with pointing out what YOU consider to be
annoying, rude etc..... --- even when the manner in which you choose
to do so is considered ridicule by others --- the difference is, that
when YOU want to point out something that you think someone has done
wrong, you have zero humor....you do it in such a way that it's
offensive and arrogant. and .
I'm pretty sure that YOU would consider anyone daring to tell you that
your shaming commentaries are the worst form of ridicule as refusing
to see YOUR truth. and would post a 1000 word post just to say so.
uh...anyway.
>
>You can blame and shame anyone who notices, comments, or
>objects all you want...
now....james --- I wouldn't take that job from you...you're terrific
at blaming and shaming.....every chance you get. You rarely engage in
conversation ---except to point out the screw ups, but certainly
nothing of substance....no discussion, no adding to the
conversation....just a quick whack, and you're off to the next person
who states something you object to ....
>but it won't change the simple and
>obvious fact that it has been you choice, and your choice
>alone, which is responsible for your rationalization,
>justification, and participation...
ah...the great negator. but, but but....
>no one else. Just you.
Oh...just me?? well....then ---- I heard this somewhere
earlier.....Quite frankly, I can rationalize and justify every bit of
the ridicule and in my judgment the chosen victim deserves
to have it shoved right down their throat by the gang.
>There is a very good reason it bothers you so much... and
>it doesn't have anything to do with me or anyone else other
>than yourself. Why not try to dig down and figure out
>exactly what that reason is.
And the ridicule you are so willingly participating in is intended
to accomplish what James? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
Why not try to dig down and figure out exactly what that reason is
that you continue to police my every move? why are you so fascinated
with me? why am I your current object of ridicule?
d
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
|
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:24:44 GMT, sloopy
<sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
<59b0094be36.21e938f9ec28a69567dde5@asarian-host.net> the
following:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>I never said it wasn'
I never said you said it wasn't either, so what... what
difference does that make... didley squat.
I'm saying it is ridicule.
> , I said it wasn't intended to be ridicule -- of
>course, I cannot speak to what the other posters intended their words
>to be....why not ask them.
>
It's more than obvious, Deb.
>
>
>I am posting to the thread because I believe, and continue to believe
>that az's initial satirical post was FUNNY....it was FUNNY
>james.....
Making fun of someone at their expense is *NEVER* funny,
Deb. It simply isn't. Never has been. Never will be.
>no matter how much you blame me, ridicule me,
There is no need to blame. Your actions speak for
themselves. And it really is that simple.
You'll also be unable to find even one instance where I've
ridiculed you. Again, your actions speak for themselves.
There is no need to ridicule the ridiculous. What would be
the purpose other than to hurt someone?
>point it out to me,
Yes, absolutely. I will point it out to you... and the
more you come out with your rationalizations,
justifications, the more you ridicule, and the more your
insist that you be left alone to be abusive to someone in
peace... the *more* I will point it out to you.
You want to be left alone... then do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. Simple. Easy.
>I'm not the only participant here dude.
So what... Does being part of a gang brings you some solace
or feeling of being "right"? It makes absolutely no
difference to me. Your decisions and actions are your
responsibility, and some "But they did it too" faux defense
is simply infantile.
There has *always" been a gang of people here who take
*delight* in any chance to be abusive to someone...
*anyone*... they gravitate toward each other and
congratulate and reward each other for how "good" and
"clever" they can be in *hurting* their chosen target.
For the most part, the core list of people in that gang
hasn't changed, and most likely never will. Read down that
list and remember how prominent they have been in every
incidence over the years of trying their best to hurt
someone. Some claim to fame, huh.
>And it was FUNNY,
Making fun of someone at their expense is not funny. Never
has been. Never will be.
>especially considering the constant reminders and protests.....folks
>should occassionally be reminded at how silly it all is........
>
But she... but she... but she...
Enough rationalization and justification. Everyone with a
lick of common sense recognizes the "But she" faux defense
as what it actually is... the all too common "I know I'm
behaving very poorly, ***But She*** (insert your favorite
rationalization and justification).
>YOU certainly have no issue with pointing out what YOU consider to be
>annoying, rude etc..... --- even when the manner in which you choose
>to do so is considered ridicule by others --- the difference is, that
>when YOU want to point out something that you think someone has done
>wrong, you have zero humor....you do it in such a way that it's
>offensive and arrogant. and .
>
You want hot air blown up your XXX, look elsewhere. You are
precisely right that there is zero humor... it is *not*
funny. Not in the least.
You might also spend a moment considering *why* pointing out
reprehensible behavior, and doing so without shaming,
blaming, ridicule, or humor, is felt to be so offensive.
I'll even give you a hint. The reason is precisely the same
reason pointing out admirable behavior is felt to be
praise... **because** of the behavior being pointed out...
**because** you *know* how the behavior reflects on *you*.
>I'm pretty sure that YOU would consider anyone daring to tell you that
>your shaming commentaries are the worst form of ridicule as refusing
>to see YOUR truth. and would post a 1000 word post just to say so.
>
I know my truth, and it is what it is, irrespective of what
anyone else feels or believes. No reason to comment.
The simple reason you feel any comment on you ridiculing
someone to be shaming is not because anyone comments, but
*because* you *know* ridiculing someone *is* shameful
behavior. You *know* it is. You may have a difficult time
accepting that you would participate in such behavior...
you may have an even more difficult time seeing clearly
around all the rationalizations and justifications... and
you may find it almost impossible to see around the blame
you direct at anyone who notices and comments... but you
**know** it's shameful behavior... and you *know* it's your
choice... in the end, you simply can not escape that it's
you who is responsible for your actions and choices.
>uh...anyway.
>
>
>now....james --- I wouldn't take that job from you...you're terrific
>at blaming and shaming.....every chance you get. You rarely engage in
>conversation ---except to point out the screw ups, but certainly
>nothing of substance....no discussion, no adding to the
>conversation....just a quick whack, and you're off to the next person
>who states something you object to ....
>
You in a gang being abusive to someone ridiculing them...
*IS* substantial.
>
>
>ah...the great negator. but, but but....
>
Yes... of course, the great negator... *because* all the
blaming and shaming of anyone who notices, comments, or
objects... as well as all your rationalizations and
justifications **ARE** negated by the simple and obvious
fact that it has been your choice, and your choice alone.
That's rather simple, straight forward, and easy to follow,
isn't it.
>
>Oh...just me??
Yes... just you. No one else is responsible for your
choices, decisions, or actions. Just you.
>well....then ---- I heard this somewhere
>earlier.....Quite frankly, I can rationalize and justify every bit of
>the ridicule and in my judgment the chosen victim deserves
>to have it shoved right down their throat by the gang.
>
Yes, you most definitely did hear that somewhere earlier...
because that's what you said as you rationalized and
justified your choices, decisions, and actions. It *should*
be *very* familiar.
>
>And the ridicule you are so willingly participating in is intended
>to accomplish what James? Friendship? Ill will? Respect among
>your peers? Hurt? Embarrassment? Shame? What?
>
There is no ridicule present in anything I've said to you.
The purpose should be rather clear. I personally would
rather you realize that your behavior, as you so willingly
ridicule someone, is not only not justified as you believe
it to be, but that it reflects totally upon you... and not
in a good way.
>Why not try to dig down and figure out exactly what that reason is
>that you continue to police my every move? why are you so fascinated
>with me?
Because I knew you once to be a better person than the
vengeful mean person you currently project.
> why am I your current object of ridicule?
>
There has been no ridicule of you by me, despite how you may
feel.
Don't get me wrong though... I could very *easily* choose
to be angry, vengeful, and feel justified in ridiculing
you... but there are some severe problems with such a
choice... it would negatively affect me in many, many ways
much more than anyone else, it would negatively affect
others, and it's not who I am. In other words, not only
would it be a very alien thing, but also a very senseless
and destructive thing to do. Why anyone would choose such a
draining and destructive course of action defies logic and
is beyond my understanding.
>d
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-02, 4:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
Liz <nexttogodly@heaven.net > wrote:
>I think, too, that in any group where more than one person may dislike
>another person, you are going to be accused of attacking en masse.
yes, there's that.
there's also the dynamic that when two people are clearly at odds, and
others pipe in with their agreement or disagreement for one side or
the other, the "gang" issue gets thrown around == drives me nuts be
labeled as part of a "gang" because one agrees or disagrees or posts
responses.
I remember once when I was having a conversation here with windy, and
pat made a innocent comment...windy's response was [paraphrasing]
"this conversation is over"....I was....dumbfounded.....it was over
simply because pat entered.
I don't do gangs....I say what's on my mind, I try to have a little
fun, and try to not be egregiously cruel......
d
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| sloopy 2005-01-02, 4:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>I'm saying it is ridicule.
ok....
>It's more than obvious, Deb.
ok
>
>Making fun of someone at their expense is *NEVER* funny,
>Deb. It simply isn't. Never has been. Never will be.
I did not consider az's satirical post to be making fun of anyone in
particular, but rather, everyone for the silliness...me, windy, you,
liz, jean, everyone.......that's how I read it. Making fun of the
silliness displayed.
>There is no need to blame. Your actions speak for
>themselves. And it really is that simple.
I have taken, and contiue to take responsibility, like I said earlier,
it isn't always pretty...yet there comes a point when the
sanctimonious "I'm above that" I often hear from those throwing
backhanded crap in my face...because old, and sometimes, I throw
back....
>
>You'll also be unable to find even one instance where I've
>ridiculed you. Again, your actions speak for themselves.
>There is no need to ridicule the ridiculous. What would be
>the purpose other than to hurt someone?
james -- this is where you and I continue to differ.....I believe and
feel and know and see that you most definetly "have" ridiculed me. YOU
may not see it as ridicule, but much as you've stated above, that
doesn't mean didly squat.
>
>Yes, absolutely. I will point it out to you... and the
>more you come out with your rationalizations,
>justifications, the more you ridicule, and the more your
>insist that you be left alone to be abusive to someone in
>peace... the *more* I will point it out to you.
no...point out where I have shamed or blamed any specific person in
this thread.
>
>You want to be left alone... then do unto others as you
>would have them do unto you. Simple. Easy.
James....my behavior good, bad or indifferent, is never going to
satisfy you. You have been riding me for two years now, and from
where I sit, it's because I occassionally get a good poke in after
receiving a ton of backhanded cruel remarks that I do NOT respond
to....sometimes it gets to me, and I react. and there you go.
>So what... Does being part of a gang brings you some solace
>or feeling of being "right"? It makes absolutely no
>difference to me. Your decisions and actions are your
>responsibility, and some "But they did it too" faux defense
>is simply infantile.
Oh I know all that...my comment about "I'm not the only participant"
was intended to invite you to share with me your reasons for honing in
on me, and no one else?
>
>There has *always" been a gang of people here who take
>*delight* in any chance to be abusive to someone...
>*anyone*... they gravitate toward each other and
>congratulate and reward each other for how "good" and
>"clever" they can be in *hurting* their chosen target.
I wasn't attempting to hurt anyone james....stop defining it that way.
You've never even ASKED me what my intent was, and don't tell me it's
obvious ....because if I wanted to hurt someone....poking fun at
silliness is not the manner I would chosoe.
>
>For the most part, the core list of people in that gang
>hasn't changed, and most likely never will. Read down that
>list and remember how prominent they have been in every
>incidence over the years of trying their best to hurt
>someone. Some claim to fame, huh.
there is no gang james.
>Making fun of someone at their expense is not funny. Never
>has been. Never will be.
I wasn't making fun of anyone, I was making fun of a silliness that
needed to be brought out and pointed out....using humor is a way to do
that. ...you can define it how you wish.
>
>You want hot air blown up your XXX, look elsewhere. You are
>precisely right that there is zero humor... it is *not*
>funny. Not in the least.
yes, az's post was funny.
>
>You might also spend a moment considering *why* pointing out
>reprehensible behavior, and doing so without shaming,
>blaming, ridicule, or humor, is felt to be so offensive.
I don't consider satirical humor reprehensible. If I were being
egregious cruel and stating falsehoods, lies and calling names and
using profanities, THAT would be reprehensible. I made a couple of
posts regardign the silliness of claiming something to be true that
clearly is not.
>You in a gang being abusive to someone ridiculing them...
>*IS* substantial.
oh please...I'm in no gang...I have NO problem stating it when I see
egregious cruelty, and I don't care who is perpetrating it...so stop
with the gang crap.
>
>Yes, you most definitely did hear that somewhere earlier...
>because that's what you said as you rationalized and
>justified your choices, decisions, and actions. It *should*
>be *very* familiar.
no actually, it was a direct quote that YOU said.
>There is no ridicule present in anything I've said to you.
that is your belief, not mine.
>Because I knew you once to be a better person than the
>vengeful mean person you currently project.
currently project? in this thread? in general? mean and venegful?
you don't consider the above comment as shaming?? what would you call
it?
and a person can only "turn the other cheek" so many times, before
they run out of cheeks james.
d
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
|
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:20:51 GMT, sloopy
<sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
<e6af570ac74e535e3.a51fe08d5d6b84911@asarian-host.net> the
following:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>James <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>ok....
>
>
>
>ok
>
>
>I did not consider az's satirical post to be making fun of anyone in
>particular,
It was very obviously in response to a specific incident and
the ridicule was pointed and specific. Call it whatever you
wish, it simply will not change, diminish, or negate the
context in which it was done.
>but rather, everyone for the silliness...me, windy, you,
You can leave me out of that particular gang, thank you very
much. You will be unable to find one instance where I've
felt it necessary to tell anyone I have them killfiled or
don't read them, the primary reason being that I don't, as
I've said before, rely on some software crutch to "killfile"
anyone, and secondarily the only reason to tell someone
would be for the level of angst it would cause, which in my
opinion and practice is senseless and unnecessary. If I
wish to ignore this or that babbling fool, I simply do. No
fanfare necessary.
>liz, jean, everyone.......that's how I read it. Making fun of the
>silliness displayed.
>
Ridicule is ridicule.
And perhaps you don't know what satire actually is, since
you seem so approving. Satire is irony, sarcasm, or caustic
wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. The
key word that should catch your attention there is *ATTACK*.
Only a hair line separates it from ridicule, especially
given the very similar intent behind ridicule and satire.
>
>
>I have taken, and contiue to take responsibility,
Responding to something said which in no way was directed at
or concerned you, and ironically expressing identical
concerns, wishes, desires, and beliefs you claim as your's,
in a distrustful manner while twisting it round into an
accusatory "so don't you do it"... and then lamenting about
how you weren't being treated as a friend, directly saying
it was something they had "poof" done... when in reality
you were the one behaving as anything but a friend from the
get go... does *not*, in my book, equate to taking
responsibility.
You've also been badly confused on multiple occasions in
recent threads and chose to make accusatory remarks due to
your confusion, yet never once have you retracted or
apologized... that does *not*, in my book, equate to taking
responsibility.
Shall I go on or be more specific, or is that enough said?
>like I said earlier,
>it isn't always pretty...yet there comes a point when the
>sanctimonious "I'm above that" I often hear from those throwing
>backhanded crap in my face...because old, and sometimes, I throw
>back....
>
>
>james -- this is where you and I continue to differ.....I believe and
>feel and know and see that you most definetly "have" ridiculed me. YOU
>may not see it as ridicule, but much as you've stated above, that
>doesn't mean didly squat.
Then it would seem you don't know what ridicule actually is,
despite you participating in just that.
To ridicule is to evoke contemptuous laughter or feeling
toward a person or thing... and to further define that,
contempt is the feeling or attitude of regarding someone or
something as inferior, base, worthless, scorned, despised,
dishonored, disgraced, or with open disrespect.
In no case have I attempted to do or done any such thing.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>no...point out where I have shamed or blamed any specific person in
>this thread.
Immediately above, though no one said "in this thread".
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>James....my behavior good, bad or indifferent, is never going to
>satisfy you. You have been riding me for two years now, and from
>where I sit, it's because I occassionally get a good poke in after
>receiving a ton of backhanded cruel remarks that I do NOT respond
>to....sometimes it gets to me, and I react. and there you go.
>
And specifically what backhanded cruel remarks did you react
to? Nothing was said to you or about you. You *chose* to
take issue with something that wasn't directed at you and
didn't concern you and you did so in a confrontational
manner out of ignorance. Then you chose to escalate. So
what exactly were you "reacting" to?
Now might be an appropriate time to remind me of how you
take responsibility for your actions.
>
>
>Oh I know all that...my comment about "I'm not the only participant"
>was intended to invite you to share with me your reasons for honing in
>on me, and no one else?
>
>I wasn't attempting to hurt anyone james....stop defining it that way.
>You've never even ASKED me what my intent was, and don't tell me it's
>obvious ....because if I wanted to hurt someone....poking fun at
>silliness is not the manner I would chosoe.
>
>
>there is no gang james.
>
Yes there is, and it's very easy to see who is in that gang.
If you don't like being part of that gang, it's your choice
to stop participating in the same behavior as the rest of
the gang.
>
>
>I wasn't making fun of anyone, I was making fun of a silliness that
>needed to be brought out and pointed out....using humor is a way to do
>that. ...you can define it how you wish.
>
It was directed at someone specific in response to a
specific incident... painting it as something else won't
change that in the least.
>
>
>yes, az's post was funny.
>
>
>I don't consider satirical humor reprehensible. If I were being
>egregious cruel and stating falsehoods, lies and calling names and
>using profanities, THAT would be reprehensible. I made a couple of
>posts regardign the silliness of claiming something to be true that
>clearly is not.
>
>
>
>oh please...I'm in no gang...I have NO problem stating it when I see
>egregious cruelty,
Personally I would like to see that before I would, at this
point in time, believe it. You have had numerous and ample
opportunities to do exactly that, and I haven't seen even
one instance. I'm not, as you know, very big on "Believe
what I say, not what I do" hollow statements.
>and I don't care who is perpetrating it...so stop
>with the gang crap.
>
Stop being part of the gang.
>
>no actually, it was a direct quote that YOU said.
>
It's what you said in your post, restated by me for
emphasis. Your words, attitudes, and sentiments. Go back
and read.
>
>
>that is your belief, not mine.
>
>
>
>currently project? in this thread? in general? mean and venegful?
>you don't consider the above comment as shaming?? what would you call
>it?
>
The regrettable, but current, state of affairs.
>and a person can only "turn the other cheek" so many times, before
>they run out of cheeks james.
>
Convince me of that... I've steadfastly stood by people,
whom I could not realistically have ever been expected to
stand by due to the reprehensible way they chose to treat
and lie about me, and defended them when others lied about
them solely and specifically to incite others to harass and
attack them... only to have the same people I've defended,
and will continue to defend, against lies and attacks... lie
continuously about me at every opportunity and obviously
take delight in doing so.
Convince me you can only be true to yourself so many times
before you decide it's Ok to be abusive and behave the same
as you've been treated by some who delight in being abusive.
You'll have to try really hard though, because I personally
know that's not true.
And while you're convincing... tell me again how you won't
stand by silently while others are being treated cruelly.
>
>d
| |
| tempest 2005-01-02, 7:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"sloopy" <sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
news:7a4ed11e5c01294a75e2.c64aa5daa87214@asarian-host.net...
>
> tempest <tempest@asarian-host.net> wrote:
>
to[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
snide[vbcol=seagreen]
move[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I know it may not seem this way --- but none of this was intended to
> be ridicule --- it was intended to be satirical --- to point out the
> silliness of it all.
>
> And I'm sorry this is affecting you ---
Hey deb,
I read your response and I hear what you are saying and I also see that you
have been hurt by this thing for a long time now. I am not going to comment
further on this specific topic, taking heed of liz's and az's advice to not
read that which is triggering me. What I would like to mention though, and
did not know what to call it thus starting a different thread, is the above
sentence --- since I read it last night, it has echoed over and over in my
head and I have tried to go back and find out why this thread was bothering
me so much.
A memory came, something which I have not thought of for many many years. I
was part of the "in-crowd" at school, the "gang leader" so to speak. The
anger I was carrying around inside spilled over and I used it to the best of
my ability ---- to hurt, lash out, ridicule those that I deemed weaker than
I was. We, at my leading, would start fights on the trains (our mode of
transport to and from school), we would walk behind over-weight kids singing
"hey fatty boom boom" and laugh. I was tough and hard and never had any
remorse over my behaviour until now ..... that one sentence made me go back
and think why.
Now hear me --- What I have written above is in no way saying this is how
you are. This is about me and not you. This is about what your sentence
wakened in me. So if you can think up another subject line to put this
under, I would appreciate it (mah brain does not function well sometimes).
tempest
>but yet, It appears that there
> are some folks (and I am NOT speaking of myself - just for the record)
> , that no matter what they say, no matter how compassionate or kind
> they attempt to be, no matter how many times they have extended the
> olive branch, made amends, moved on, or how level headed and
> articulate they are .....they continue to receive backhanded cruel
> remarks by the same angry people, continue to be misinterpreted over
> and over and over --- these folks are NOT deserving of the treatment,
> and are some of the nicest, gentlest people -- but yet, they get
> railed at, then the next day the one railing makes it seem that
> everything is normal again..... no apology, no remorse, just a swift
> kick in the face, and on to others and then has the audacity to
> question why the big deal while making a dismissive "I don't go there
> or I"m moving on" type of comment.
>
> It is infuriating, to say the least, especially given that
> dismissiveness was one of the most common ways the abusers in our
> lives used to rock our emotional worldr; and quite frankly, there
> comes a point when folks decide to stand up, stand together, and shove
> it right back in their pie hole --- this may indeed be one of those
> times.
>
> be well,
>
> deb
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| windswept 2005-01-02, 7:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
news:to5ft0p7q8o0s9qaafq2vnr2g67vevics7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:24:44 GMT, sloopy
> <sloopy@asarian-host.net> wrote in message
> <59b0094be36.21e938f9ec28a69567dde5@asarian-host.net> the
> following:
>
>
>
> So what... Does being part of a gang brings you some solace
> or feeling of being "right"?
I can answer that for me. Yes it did - it made behavior, that would be
judged awful in any other area in my life, acceptable. It was an outlet for
my anger and it justified it and made it acceptable. And it afforded me
admiration of the group you specify and garnered compliments on my
technique. The feelings of the target were never considered or they were
laughed at because the targets were always in the wrong and therefore
inconsequential. Posts were pasted into channel and were laughed over. That
is exactly how it went and goes to this day.
All in all it is behavior that would be judged appalling anywhere but here.
And it is a choice - although it is often described as being justified and
therefore noble - it sure wasn't when I did it. And when I was offline away
from the group and my anger subsided - my behavior frightened me and then I
had to further justify it to cover up the fear that crept in around the
edges. So it was back on to irc to get in infuse of justification. I think
part of the draw, but no excuse, for me may have been that I was always the
target as a child - it was heady to be the one dishing it out and to be part
of the gang. But at my age I looked rather comical and pitiful I imagine.
Then one day, if you are lucky, it hits you - the person being targeted is
indeed a person and what I was doing was so wrong and I had no one to blame
but me because doing it was totally my choice.
It makes absolutely no
> difference to me. Your decisions and actions are your
> responsibility, and some "But they did it too" faux defense
> is simply infantile.
There are lots of people in this world doing lots of things - some noble and
some awful. Who anyone gravitates toward and who they emulate is completely
their choice. No one made me do what I did - I always had a choice and you
are your choices. Each and every person always has a choice in how they
behave
>
> There has *always" been a gang of people here who take
> *delight* in any chance to be abusive to someone...
> *anyone*... they gravitate toward each other and
> congratulate and reward each other for how "good" and
> "clever" they can be in *hurting* their chosen target.
> For the most part, the core list of people in that gang
> hasn't changed, and most likely never will.
I hope that it does - I'll never lose that hope.
Read down that
> list and remember how prominent they have been in every
> incidence over the years of trying their best to hurt
> someone. Some claim to fame, huh.
Its a claim to nothing but poor choices.
>
>
> Making fun of someone at their expense is not funny. Never
> has been. Never will be.
You have to imagine the persons face - thats what controls a lot of it in
real life - you see the reflection of your cruelty in their face and most
often that stops one in their tracks. On the net that is not present. I
wish it could be somehow.
>
> But she... but she... but she...
>
> Enough rationalization and justification. Everyone with a
> lick of common sense recognizes the "But she" faux defense
> as what it actually is... the all too common "I know I'm
> behaving very poorly, ***But She*** (insert your favorite
> rationalization and justification).
>
> You want hot air blown up your XXX, look elsewhere. You are
> precisely right that there is zero humor... it is *not*
> funny. Not in the least.
>
> You might also spend a moment considering *why* pointing out
> reprehensible behavior, and doing so without shaming,
> blaming, ridicule, or humor, is felt to be so offensive.
Because it cuts like a knife to the core of the issue. Hurtful behavior is
hurtful behavior and in reality there isn't any justification for it. Its
wasn't an easy pill to swallow that I had the capacity to be purposely cruel
and had a good time doing it. Its a choice and its a bad one.
>
> I'll even give you a hint. The reason is precisely the same
> reason pointing out admirable behavior is felt to be
> praise... **because** of the behavior being pointed out...
> **because** you *know* how the behavior reflects on *you*.
You are what you eat and you are your choices.
>
> I know my truth, and it is what it is, irrespective of what
> anyone else feels or believes. No reason to comment.
>
> The simple reason you feel any comment on you ridiculing
> someone to be shaming is not because anyone comments, but
> *because* you *know* ridiculing someone *is* shameful
> behavior. You *know* it is.
Yep. I did and as long as I was around the group doing it and getting the
kudos for cruelty I didn't think about it. Until I turned the box off and
had to be there alone with my behavior and it took a long time to acknowlege
the shame.
You may have a difficult time
> accepting that you would participate in such behavior...
> you may have an even more difficult time seeing clearly
> around all the rationalizations and justifications... and
> you may find it almost impossible to see around the blame
> you direct at anyone who notices and comments... but you
> **know** it's shameful behavior... and you *know* it's your
> choice... in the end, you simply can not escape that it's
> you who is responsible for your actions and choices.
In one paragraph you have described exactly what I ran from and didn't want
to look at. It is a very difficult decision to make because of that self
examination. Being part of that group was heady and addicting and in that
it allowed you not to look at your choices because they were always part of
the group's choice. There comes a time when you have to take stock of where
you are in all of that. I did it to please me- I rationalized that others
had a part in my decision because I wasn't the only one doing it. But truth
is - I chose for me and no one else.
>
> You in a gang being abusive to someone ridiculing them...
> *IS* substantial.
> Yes... of course, the great negator... *because* all the
> blaming and shaming of anyone who notices, comments, or
> objects... as well as all your rationalizations and
> justifications **ARE** negated by the simple and obvious
> fact that it has been your choice, and your choice alone.
>
> That's rather simple, straight forward, and easy to follow,
> isn't it.
No - it isn't until something snaps it into a clear picture. How could it
be wrong when everyone was having such a good time?
>
>
> Yes... just you. No one else is responsible for your
> choices, decisions, or actions. Just you.
>
> Yes, you most definitely did hear that somewhere earlier...
> because that's what you said as you rationalized and
> justified your choices, decisions, and actions. It *should*
> be *very* familiar.
Thats the mindset that propells it - imagine if it happened in read life -
five six seven or so people ganging up around one person and hurling insults
at them - making them cry or whatever and laughing. That would get you
arrested or at least profiled on the news with a gasp - but on the net its
perfectly acceptable - even gets you compliments from some. At some point
hopefully it kicks in. I used to marvel at the people who stayed out of
those attacks and refused to join in. I wondered how they could do it. All
the while they were probably looking at me and wondering how I could be so
cruel and heartless. One day it dawned on me - they were much closer to
*normal than I could hope to be. They were aware of choices - I wasn't.
>
> There is no ridicule present in anything I've said to you.
> The purpose should be rather clear. I personally would
> rather you realize that your behavior, as you so willingly
> ridicule someone, is not only not justified as you believe
> it to be, but that it reflects totally upon you... and not
> in a good way.
Everyone who does that kind of behavior *knows that on some level - they
just haven't paused long enough to take a good long look at themselves. Its
not a very pleasant thing to do. And its a lonely thing to do - there isn't
any gang who wants to be with you whooping it up when you are seriously
taking stock of your choices and how they reflect you to the world.
>
>
> Because I knew you once to be a better person than the
> vengeful mean person you currently project.
>
> There has been no ridicule of you by me, despite how you may
> feel.
>
> Don't get me wrong though... I could very *easily* choose
> to be angry, vengeful, and feel justified in ridiculing
> you... but there are some severe problems with such a
> choice... it would negatively affect me in many, many ways
> much more than anyone else
Amen to that. It took having two gastric bleeds and a whole lot of
depression to get me to the point where I would look at my choices. Knowing
you have choices and that you always have can be really really awful at
first because then you of course have to realize that you are responsible
for all the bad ones as well as the good ones. Once you get past that
hurdle and deal with that stuff - the concept of choices is very impowering.
And the fear level goes down a a good bit.
, it would negatively affect
> others, and it's not who I am. In other words, not only
> would it be a very alien thing, but also a very senseless
> and destructive thing to do. Why anyone would choose such a
> draining and destructive course of action defies logic and
> is beyond my understanding.
I can't answer that one - its probably a rhetorical question anyway - but
what I was doing on the net was not who I was and am in everyday real life.
And I'm still trying to pull that into balance. But in real life - I'm a
dependable person but not terribly consistent in some areas. And in real
life I tend to be kind and giving - its where my comfort zone is - again I'm
not always consistent in that but what I was on the net with all the flame
wars and angry acting out and that wasn't consistent with who I was in real
life. Thats not to say I can't still get really angry with someone and let
them know precisely how I feel and not terribly quietly - but nowadays it is
always one on one - and pretty much in the here and now. I just gotta work
on my delivery a bit more. ;-)
Interesting thread here Mr. James - seems like a conversatoin to me.
>
>
>
--
For more information about this NNTP posting service, contact:
help@asarian-host.net -- for all info about our server.
If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page:
https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi
| |
| gardenia 2005-01-02, 7:06 am |
|
have you reached a point where you can say you are sorry *and mean it* to
the person(s) you did this to?
windswept wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
> news:to5ft0p7q8o0s9qaafq2vnr2g67vevics7@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
> I can answer that for me. Yes it did - it made behavior, that would
> be judged awful in any other area in my life, acceptable. It was an
> outlet for my anger and it justified it and made it acceptable. And
> it afforded me admiration of the group you specify and garnered
> compliments on my technique. The feelings of the target were never
> considered or they were laughed at because the targets were always in
> the wrong and therefore inconsequential. Posts were pasted into
> channel and were laughed over. That is exactly how it went and goes
> to this day.
>
> All in all it is behavior that would be judged appalling anywhere but
> here. And it is a choice - although it is often described as being
> justified and therefore noble - it sure wasn't when I did it. And
> when I was offline away from the group and my anger subsided - my
> behavior frightened me and then I had to further justify it to cover
> up the fear that crept in around the edges. So it was back on to irc
> to get in infuse of justification. I think part of the draw, but no
> excuse, for me may have been that I was always the target as a child
> - it was heady to be the one dishing it out and to be part of the
> gang. But at my age I looked rather comical and pitiful I imagine.
>
> Then one day, if you are lucky, it hits you - the person being
> targeted is indeed a person and what I was doing was so wrong and I
> had no one to blame but me because doing it was totally my choice.
>
> It makes absolutely no
>
> There are lots of people in this world doing lots of things - some
> noble and some awful. Who anyone gravitates toward and who they
> emulate is completely their choice. No one made me do what I did - I
> always had a choice and you are your choices. Each and every person
> always has a choice in how they behave
>
>
>
> I hope that it does - I'll never lose that hope.
>
>
> Read down that
>
> Its a claim to nothing but poor choices.
>
> You have to imagine the persons face - thats what controls a lot of
> it in real life - you see the reflection of your cruelty in their
> face and most often that stops one in their tracks. On the net that
> is not present. I wish it could be somehow.
>
> Because it cuts like a knife to the core of the issue. Hurtful
> behavior is hurtful behavior and in reality there isn't any
> justification for it. Its wasn't an easy pill to swallow that I had
> the capacity to be purposely cruel and had a good time doing it. Its
> a choice and its a bad one.
>
>
>
> You are what you eat and you are your choices.
>
>
> Yep. I did and as long as I was around the group doing it and
> getting the kudos for cruelty I didn't think about it. Until I
> turned the box off and had to be there alone with my behavior and it
> took a long time to acknowlege the shame.
>
>
> You may have a difficult time
>
> In one paragraph you have described exactly what I ran from and
> didn't want to look at. It is a very difficult decision to make
> because of that self examination. Being part of that group was heady
> and addicting and in that it allowed you not to look at your choices
> because they were always part of the group's choice. There comes a
> time when you have to take stock of where you are in all of that. I
> did it to please me- I rationalized that others had a part in my
> decision because I wasn't the only one doing it. But truth is - I
> chose for me and no one else.
>
>
> No - it isn't until something snaps it into a clear picture. How
> could it be wrong when everyone was having such a good time?
>
>
> Thats the mindset that propells it - imagine if it happened in read
> life - five six seven or so people ganging up around one person and
> hurling insults at them - making them cry or whatever and laughing.
> That would get you arrested or at least profiled on the news with a
> gasp - but on the net its perfectly acceptable - even gets you
> compliments from some. At some point hopefully it kicks in. I used
> to marvel at the people who stayed out of those attacks and refused
> to join in. I wondered how they could do it. All the while they
> were probably looking at me and wondering how I could be so cruel and
> heartless. One day it dawned on me - they were much closer to
> *normal than I could hope to be. They were aware of choices - I
> wasn't.
>
> Everyone who does that kind of behavior *knows that on some level -
> they just haven't paused long enough to take a good long look at
> themselves. Its not a very pleasant thing to do. And its a lonely
> thing to do - there isn't any gang who wants to be with you whooping
> it up when you are seriously taking stock of your choices and how
> they reflect you to the world.
>
> Amen to that. It took having two gastric bleeds and a whole lot of
> depression to get me to the point where I would look at my choices.
> Knowing you have choices and that you always have can be really
> really awful at first because then you of course have to realize that
> you are responsible for all the bad ones as well as the good ones.
> Once you get past that hurdle and deal with that stuff - the concept
> of choices is very impowering. And the fear level goes down a a good
> bit.
>
>
> , it would negatively affect
>
> I can't answer that one - its probably a rhetorical question anyway -
> but what I was doing on the net was not who I was and am in everyday
> real life. And I'm still trying to pull that into balance. But in
> real life - I'm a dependable person but not terribly consistent in
> some areas. And in real life I tend to be kind and giving - its
> where my comfort zone is - again I'm not always consistent in that
> but what I was on the net with all the flame wars and angry acting
> out and that wasn't consistent with who I was in real life. Thats
> not to say I can't still get really angry with someone and let them
> know precisely how I feel and not terribly quietly - but nowadays it
> is always one on one - and pretty much in the here and now. I just
> gotta work on my delivery a bit more. ;-)
>
> Interesting thread here Mr. James - seems like a conversatoin to me.
| |
| windswept 2005-01-02, 11:06 am |
| X-No-Archive: Yes
"James" <James@RemoveThis.whocares.org> wrote in message
news:i5hft0575uaop9ifodmmqd35reu6vm70l1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:20:51 GMT, sloopy
>
> You can leave me out of that particular gang, thank you very
> much.
I didn't find much on the thread funny and it didn't really teach me
anything - on the other hand......
You will be unable to find one instance where I've
> felt it necessary to tell anyone I have them killfiled or
> don't read them, the primary reason being that I don't, as
> I've said before, rely on some software crutch to "killfile"
> anyone, and secondarily the only reason to tell someone
> would be for the level of angst it would cause, which in my
> opinion and practice is senseless and unnecessary. If I
> wish to ignore this or that babbling fool, I simply do. No
> fanfare necessary.
What you said to me about this, in other posts and here, hit home with me
and it gave me a lot to think about. How and why I killfile. And why I
would talk about it. The way you presented it was without ridicule - it
wasn't taken in by me without embarrassment - but that wasn't your fault -
it was my realizing that I was doing something good for myself but also
using it as a form of pay back. Sort of like holding my hands over my ears
and yelling - ignoring you - ignoring you. It was kind of a silly way to do
something and momentarily embarassing upon realizing it. But it was an
opportunity to rethink my actions.
I will continue to use the filters on threads and individuals because some
of the stuff in the posts hurts to read and its presented to do so. And it
makes it | | |