laleo

Simon: Well, I'm relieved. But just so you know, there's some oddball running around the GreaseSpot Diner in a tweed jacket, carrying your punctuation in his briefcase, interrupting tame, gentle, quiet exchanges among other peace-loving patrons, babbling about confrontations and the like. I knew it couldn't have been you. Back to the topic. Let's see. After one drink, I'm relaxed. After two, I'm even more relaxed. By three, I'm starting to get loopy. Any more than that and I'm ready to take to my bed . . . with walls spinning, in need of a cold compress, or maybe a hot water bottle. Or both. Philosophy can wait. Do you really think you suspended your journey during the Way years? I'm not sure what to make of it. At one time, (obviously) I thought I was on the right (only) path. Then I thought the whole thing was an embarrassing mistake. Now I'm somewhere in between. Not sure where, though.

Simon, I think I like the perspective that no matter where you are, you're heading toward your destination, even if you've missed your exit. I'll read your post again later, though, since I don't start feeling philosophical until sometime after ten. But I have to ask: "I like the general subject matter" -- Does this mean you no longer think I'm a creep? I was a little worried about that.

I used to watch Jay Leno all the time. Don't know why I don't anymore except more often than not I'm sitting in front of my computer screen around that time trying to come up with something profound to say (which is more than what you're doing right now). Except usually what I end up with is about as profound as some of those answers Jay gets when he does his little nighttime interviews. At least I made the effort. But, hey, how come I have to do all the thinking around here? Is that it? Just a beer can? You couldn't come up with anything more? I'll try comedy next time, except that will only make things worse. Much worse.

Occasionally I hear a reference or two to Robert Frost's poem The Road Not Taken, usually small quotes and mis-quotes, interpretations and mis-interpretations, especially in reference to someone who is faced with a choice -- a crossroads, perhaps, or a moral dilemma. The well-meaning advisor makes reference to the road less traveled, as if that is the better, obviously more moral and correct, choice; as if taking the path that others haven't traveled inevitably leads to some sort of greater awareness, or virtue, or discovery, or spiritual understanding, as if the wisdom of the ages resides on that pathway most others have declined. While that may be the case (is it?), any fair reading of Frost's poem would suggest that he meant otherwise. When the speaker in Frost's poem stood at the crossroads, he looked one way, then the other, then back again, comparing the two. While one was slightly less traveled than the other, giving it "perhaps the better claim," the speaker also acknowledged that both paths "equally lay" and were "really about the same." When faced with a choice about which path to take, the speaker knew that "way leads on to way" so that no matter which he chose, he would end up at a different destination, and would likely never be at this particular crossroads again. At the end of the poem, the speaker imagines looking back in hindsight to this day, but with no more wisdom than he had while standing at the crossroads, only knowing that he ended up where he did because of the choice he made, without knowing what might have been had he taken another path. Frost understood the elusive nature of "truth." When he thought he found it For Once, Then, Something quickly distorted his view, so that truth again became clouded. What was initially recognized with clarity as being possibly true, or right, or correct, or originating from another dimension, became less clear on further inspection, its essence puzzling. As one who was Acquainted With the Night, Frost didn't lecture others on moral correctness. Neither God, nor time, nor the universe, nor nature helped to guide him on his journey. Maybe Jesus, or Buddha, or Ghandi, or Confucious might have understood some aspect of the nature of truth, but Frost, like most of us, only recognized it from a distance, and even then, wasn't so sure of what he had seen, or what it all meant.

Hmmmm . . . good point. I have to think about that one. Okay, my daughter was rewarded for desired behavior. But is candy a reward? All the baby books I was reading at that time sort of frowned on my child-rearing strategies. By the third kid, though, I just went with what worked. Or maybe you mean Krysilis. The cowboy suit does seem like more of a reward.

I think bribery is totally underrated. My youngest first used the potty before she was two, then she changed her mind and it was another year before she took any more interest in it. I was only able to revive her interest after buying a stash of those little peanut-butter M&Ms. When she used the potty, not only did she get one (only one) for each hand, but so did her sisters, so there was a little peer pressure happening, too. Anyway, she was "trained" within a week. I hear girls are easier, though, so your results may vary. I've been bartering with my kids since before they could talk, and they all are (mostly) happy, healthy, and well-adjusted. And potty-trained, too.

Steve!, When it comes to literary definitions, they aren't as absolute as, say, the definitions of Greek words in PFAL. Having said that, you're not giving irony enough credit. For instance, there's situational irony, like when it rains the day you wash your car. There's irony in, say, a computer technician lecturing a poet on the meaning of irony; or, say, a physics major who can't figure out how to change a flat tire. There's irony in an all-powerful God who can't alleviate human suffering. There's Socratic irony, where one simulates ignorance in a discussion, in order to trap the other person in error. In fact, that was the beginning of irony, as a literary form, not that there wasn't plenty of irony before then. It just wasn't recognized as such because it didn't follow a form. Discrepancies between words and meanings, between actions and results, between appearance and reality -- are all ironic without necessarily being sarcastic. All sarcasm is irony, but not all irony is sarcastic. In fact, irony is often more subtle, more polished, more complex than simple sarcasm. Satire most definitely employs sarcasm, but even satire is a highly artistic form. Any jerk can be sarcastic. You don't have to have any aesthetic sense to be sarcastic. But there's an artistry to satire. A satirist is a keeper of standards. He takes it upon himself to ridicule other people's follies and vices, insisting they uphold a civilized norm. "Satire is a sort of glass wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own, which is the chief reason for the kind of reception it meets in the world, and that so very few are offended with it." (Jonathan Swift) "Satire is born of the instinct to protest; it is protest become art." (Ian Jack) Yo, Paw, buzz off if you can't find something literate to say. . . said with sarcasm, or is it irony?

excathedra: Just a few points for clarification: I did not say that "Zixar's crap" (your mischaracterization, and misrepresentation, not mine) started with Dot. What I said was that *I* became aware of the conflict when Dot posted her farewell post. From that point, Zixar's involvement seemed to me to be on behalf of Dot. It still is, though not necessarily for the poster, "Dot," but for the issues that that particular conflict raised. Again, the only reason I even mentioned Dot was for a timeline. As far as what your relationship with Dot is all about, I don't know, nor do I care. Other than the fact that you two knew each other years ago, I don't know much more about your relationship than that. I'm not interested. What does interest (and concern) me is the way Dot was publicly ridiculed. Maybe it was because she used Christian terminology to articulate her concerns which caused people to consider her a fair target. I don't know. Whatever the cause, I cringed at the way "friends" responded to her here, and almost cried when I read the comments about her at JWO. She did nothing to deserve that. If you're interested in her perspective, it is posted here, at the LES site (linked with Dot's permission). Between Dot leaving, the putrid JWO posts, satori's curious entrance, Zixar's outrage (justified, IMO), the whole thing combined stirred up some old resentments of my own. So here I am. As tempted as I am to indulge my vindictive side, I'm not going to tell you what I think of you or your post, except to say that I would be most appreciative if you would restrain yourself from dragging my name around to any other threads, or forums, which might have the (unintended, I'm sure) effect of generating hostility toward me. Enough said. Take care, excathedra.

Steve!, Sarcasm is a form of simple irony, but irony itself can be (and usually is) more complex, including all sorts of incongruities and paradoxes, which may or may not be sarcastically communicated. If there is a discrepency between words and their meanings, that is irony.

excathedra, Do you really think that calling me dishonest makes me so? Come off it. first of all laleo whatever you think about my friendship with dottie is none of your business This is ridiculous. Whatever I think about anything is most definitely my business. I brought up Dot only because of the role she played in this most recent conflict. For a timeline, and also because it seemed to me that Zixar was misunderstood insofar as what he was trying to accomplish. His "heart" was right. He was trying to help Dot. one of my indicators about heart and cruelty, is how one treats someone who just lost their very own brother That's fair enough. I didn't really follow what was going on with Chuck and his brother. Maybe this was common knowledge to everyone else, but not to me. Did Zixar know? Did Dot know? Did he tell them he was lashing out because of his loss? If so, that would change things. But there's a whole lot more going on here than Chuck's loss. your referring to dot and the sting of her making a choice to leave greasespot (as compared to the sting of death) reminds of the big toe analogy I thought the toe analogy was funny. Maybe a little misplaced, but funny nonetheless. I wasn't comparing Dot's choice to Chuck's loss. If I had, then you would be correct. It's an unfair analogy. I didn't make any analogy, though, between degrees of loss. Yes, excathedra, she felt the sting of betrayal and the sting of indifference. What's so crazy or hard to understand about that?

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but I know what I'm talking about, regardless of what I know or don't know about any private communications. It's all right here, on the public threads.

Tom: You brought her up, not me, Dot is my friend but I didn't know that this place needed to be "preserved" for her or anyone else. As I've said before, from reading her posts on the subject, she said she was not happy with herself for not taking a stand earlier and that she preferred to post at a "Christian" site. That's her prerogative. I don't know what you're referring to. Yes, I brought her up, because that was the point where I became aware of, and began following, this conflict. But when did I say anything to you or about you insofar as Dot is concerned? My post isn't even directed at you. As far as whether or not Dot is your "friend," well, considering your advice to her, I'd be surprised if you were anything more than a friendly internet acquaintance, a relationship she maintains more out of politeness than anything else. Your indifference to her well-being would pretty much smother any feeling of friendship, I would think. As far as whether GreaseSpot needs to be "preserved" for anyone, it is most definitely "preserved" for the "victims," who are routinely fed a diet of pity and flattery (which has only increased their bitterness, to judge from the tone of some of their posts), and anyone who offers anything less is quickly shown the door. So, yes, this place is being "preserved." I don't understand why it isn't also "preserved" for those who want a place to express their Christianity. You have posted before that she was "publicly berated". When? Where? I think she was, but I don't remember saying so before now. Unless you mean that when someone posted that they didn't agree with her but wished her well on her journey, I just didn't see ANY public berating of her. I did see "other posters" get into arguments back and forth over things THEY said about the situation... but I didn't see anyone publicly berating her HERE. Maybe you're not aware of your own callousness, but when someone is upset about something (in this case, being publicly ridiculed), and she (I'll keep the pronouns feminine, since maybe this is one of those male/female divides) is told by a friend to "Let it go," "Disregard it," "It doesn't matter," it only adds the sting of indifference to the sting of betrayal. Translated, it says to me, "Don't bother me with your petty concerns. I'm not interested." Zixar: I think I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but I don't think more rules are the solution. Internet communities are dynamic, always shifting, adjusting to changing forces. There is an ebb and flow to any relationship, and this may be one of those times that you are standing alone on the beach watching helplessly as the tide goes out.

Chuck, I read through your rebuttal, even though it is a little hard to follow. I'm not even sure exactly what point you're refuting. Is this an attempt to clear your name? To further prove your point that the Bible is BS? Why did you write this? Your major point seems to be that because we did not form ourselves, we also have no responsibility for ourselves, and are incapable of making choices that affect our own lives. Do you really believe that's what the Bible teaches? If so, you're right to dismiss it. It's nonsense. So why make a point that is so obviously ridiculous?

excathedra, If you don't mind, could you please describe a person with "heart"? What does a person with "heart" say or do? How does a person with "heart" behave on an internet discussion board? What do you use as indicators to identify those with "heart" and those without? You have described Zixar as "cruel." While he's about as polished as Oakspear's WOWmobile, and can sometimes be too brash, or too crude, or too low in his search for a fitting analogy, what makes him "cruel," and how does his cruelty differ in degree from your almost constant derision? I walked into this latest conflict when Dot wrote her post about why she was no longer comfortable posting at GreaseSpot. From what I read on the threads, it seemed to me that Zixar's interest in this whole thing (and, Zixar, please correct me if I'm wrong) was to preserve a place for Dot to post, so that GreaseSpot wouldn't lose yet another thoughtful, caring, articulate poster. I admired her for her honesty, for making such a private decision so public, and even hoped that her announcement might lead to a thoughtful discussion. Instead she was publicly berated, first here, then worse at JWO, while most of her friends stood silently by. Except Zixar. One of the things I've enjoyed about GreaseSpot is that the conversation can turn to movies, religion, politics, art, ethics, whatever, without becoming stuffy and intellectual, which I think is because we, by and large, are an introspective bunch. Sometimes during these debates, things get very personal, and we get lost in issues like whether a thread or a post or a person belongs here or not. I like to think that is because (again, for the most part) there are people here who still care about right and wrong, and who value goodness. But is there really a "fundamentalist" attitude here? For as long as I've been here, people have been accused of WayBrain, and usually that label is used for those who are opinionated, or submissive, or argumentative, or conciliatory, or unyielding, or flustered, or stubborn, or compromising. In other words, most of us have been diagnosed with it, and made the diagnosis in others, most likely without even knowing what it means. I don't think there is a "group think" here, as much as people like to say so. However, at one time or another, most of us have been called into question over a belief, or an idea, or a perspective, or an opinion. If nothing else, GreaseSpot is a good place to practice self-defense. But what makes it "fundamentalist?"

Of course she has a point, Oakspear. GFO is simply amazed that Zixar can cram all that wit, brilliance, and insight into one succinct post, and register besides! Impressive what he can cram into one afternoon. What stamina! Simply astounding. -->

Just over that threshold. I have one eye that sees up close, and other sees far away, so between the two of them, I manage to get around. Mostly. Except I can't read these posts. It's probably just as well. Be grateful. ;)-->

I've never had reading specs but was beginning to think I needed them. Yes, it is all squished together.

Zixar, If I said that this thread might be therapeutic, I only meant it in the sense that watching back-to-back reruns of Seinfeld might be therapeutic. Except I prefer Fawlty Towers.

Simon, I've read and re-read your post to me, and, honestly, I don't know how to answer. You seem to have a lot of confidence in me, which I appreciate, and I thank you for that. I agree with you that beyond my monitor, at another keyboard, are real fingers attached to real hands, into which blood flows, pumped by a human heart. However, I don’t really know what my obligation is to those others who are typing into the night, or what my role would be in defusing the current situation. I saw this thread as a light poke at the JWO site in general, and a place to indulge in a little arm-chair analysis of the flame war(s) in particular. Also, the fight began here, not there, so if we're going to keep it anywhere, I'd think this is the place for it. As I understood it (and maybe I'm wrong) certain posters felt constrained by the rules here, and deliberately went to an unmoderated board to hash it all out. Has anyone (besides Rocky) been banned from GreaseSpot? Maybe I'm making a false assumption, but I didn't think so. I thought the objection was to the (arbitrary and capricious) enforcement of rules governing fights, and people went there in search of a free-for-all. Because of that, it seems irrelevant to me, given the circumstances, if satori is being an "insensitive prick," and, besides, I wouldn't describe him that way, anyway. Now, having said that, satori has long argued for an unmoderated forum at GreaseSpot. For me, watching the arguments develop at JWO is enough for me to support moderation (in moderation). If "uncensored" means what it means over there, I'm not interested. Now, as far as anger and tantrums go, even in "real" life I would strongly object to anyone using me as a target for his wrath, deserved or not. Even if he just lost a spouse, a parent, a sibling. Depending on how much I cared for the person, I would communicate it differently, but I doubt I would absorb his rage for his sake at my own expense. I don't mind if you question my motives, and I don't mind explaining them. I don't think you have anything other than the best of intentions for the posters here. I hope I haven't disappointed you too much.

In my own defense . . . No, Simon, it didn't go over my head. But satori said he didn't know Chuck lost his brother. If he didn't know, then he didn't know. After explaining that, and acknowledging Chuck's loss, Chuck continued to lash out at him. (I'm relying on memory, and don't feel like rereading the thread, so if it happened differently than what I'm saying, then I misunderstood the sequence of posts the first time around). Now, obviously, as far as what *I* would have said to Chuck . . . yes, the conversation would have been much different. I very much agree with you about death. In fact, I just found out today that my closest friend died. Her obit was in the paper. I'm not big on the afterlife, and spirituality, and that sort of stuff, but, funny, I had a dream about her two nights ago (the night she died), and woke up full of regret that I hadn't kept in touch with her. I don't have many beliefs about God, but I do believe that people come into our lives at a time when we need them, and I was so very grateful to have her friendship when I did. However, we lost touch over the past few years -- mostly because I got involved in so many GreaseSpot dramas, and didn't make as much time for her. Then today I found out she was dead. Anyway, I do understand the anger. I've been ticked off all day. And the sadness. And the finality of it all. Having said that, I also think that if you put yourself in Zixar's shoes for a moment and read those JWO posts as if they are directed at you, you would understand why Zixar NEEDS a thread like this. It's a place to work it all out. Just like Chuck needs his space, give a little to Zixar, too. I'm not sure what to say about avoiding satori's wrath. I'm not trying to avoid it on any conscious level. Satori's going to say what he's going to say. This is his fight, not mine. Besides, I did let him know what I thought about his interaction with Chuck. He read it, understood, responded, and that is that. If you don't mind being a little more specific, what is it you expect from me? I'm curious, if you're willing to explain.

Abigail: I think "backstabbing" is the correct term. These little anti-GreaseSpot forums have cropped up from time to time, usually by one or more disgruntled posters who find some sort of satisfaction in spilling every putrid thought from their brains into the universe via their computer screens. The only difference here, that I can tell, is that the disgruntled few joined up with an existing disgruntled board. As best I can tell, the JWO forum was formed as an anti-ex-Jehovah's Witness Discussion Board. The thing I can't figure out (any insight, Zixar?) is why they spend so much time discussing what they can't discuss on the other JW board, rather than just discussing what can't be discussed. I'm not sure I have an answer to your question ("Why must one post here about people and issues from over there? and vice verse?"), except to say that if Zixar (et. al.) is being trashed over there, I think he should be given a voice over here, if he feels the need to speak. Some posters are very content to ignore every derogatory comment made about them. They aren't fazed by misrepresentation, or even outright lies. Others need a place to put it all into perspective, to think out loud, or to take the sting out of it. To each his own. I don't really feel sickened reading that stuff, but I also wouldn't want a regular diet of it. However, I don't see the benefit in pretending that board doesn't exist. They're talking about us. Fine. Now I've got a few things to say about them. Tom: When you said that we were circumventing the rules by posting this thread at GreaseSpot, and that there is a prohibition against cross-site posting (since when? I'm not aware of that rule), and also admonished us to "Let it go," it seemed to me to be an attempt on your part to silence this thread. Hence, "censorship." Now, as far as I know, you and Zixar may be best friends, former college roommates, and even brothers-in-law. But as I remember it, six months ago you were following him around, undermining him on practically every post he had written. It doesn't seem like much has changed. I agree that all you are doing is "posting your thoughts." That's fine with me. But your "thoughts" seem to include a strong suggestion to end this thread. That isn't fine with me. So I posted MY thoughts. Okay? Zixar: More on your analysis later.

You're absolutely correct, Tom. Those who want to watch a flame war will go and look for themselves, and those who want to know about Momentus will sign up for themselves, and those who want to know about The Way will take some of their classes for themselves, and go to fellowship for themselves. So what's the point of this or any other conversation? This is the sort of "censorship" that gets on my nerves at GreaseSpot. If I want to pull up a seat beside Zixar and offer some commentary on the show, what is it to you? Those who don't need the updates won't read the updates. After the first post, whoever is interested will participate, and whoever is not, will not. Why is it any more complicated than that? Why do you have a stake in what I talk about or comment on? I understand and can accept reasonable limits -- like no profanity, harassment, stalking, etc. But I don't think censoring a thread about the anatomy of a flame war, using a specific one as an example, breaks any rules. Zixar: If you haven't been intimidated into silence, what is the game strategy? I haven't quite figured out what sport I'm watching, whether this is one on one, like boxing, or a team sport. What's your take?

satori, My sentence wasn't worded well. I stand corrected. Yes, you were clear. As far as the unmoderated site goes, I can understand the attraction. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a lot of evidence of the "creative people . . . who flourish in that same freedom" (other than you, of course), not that I've spent a lot of time searching for them over there. Anyway, I didn't mean to drag the topic over here, although I am curious why Zixar hasn't posted there, considering his (understandable) interest in the goings-on.

Hey, thanks for the link, Zixar. For those who don't want to visit the site, here's a synopsis. Chuckk3 begins a thread, The Holy Bible is Bull$h*t! What are his reasons for believing the Bible is bull$h*t? 1. Jesus himself said so. 2. God is a "tyrannical monster." 3. Some (i.e. Zixar) at GreaseSpot have made the Bible into a "cheap, dirty idol." JanH agrees, adding that the Bible cannot be true because it does not declare itself to be true. Sudo agrees. Miscellaneous greetings, questions, and irrelevant observations. houseisarockin wants to know Chuckk3's reasons for posting such an inflammatory thread topic. Chuckk3 says he needed to. "Besides you can tell the idol worshippers from the sincere if you use offensive tactics." Huh? housisarockin values honesty and wonders aloud why Chuckk3 disregards it. Chuckk3 offers a self-serving and convoluted justification for his "lies." Ga-Darach and the ManifestationofDan respond to the original thread topic. Chuckk3 tells them to f*** off. satori001 asks Chuckk3 to explain his "idol worshippers" statement. Chuckk3 tells him to f*** off. satori001 asks again for clarification. JanH, not bothering to follow the dialogue, sees a cyber war brewing and wants to jump in, randoming choosing a side to flame. satori001 repeats the question (paraphrased): "How can the use of 'offensive tactics' distinguish between an 'idolator' and a sincere worshipper?" Chuckk3 tells him to f*** off, and adds that no one has "free will." RefinersFire understands, and agrees with, Chuck's point. RF has confused "free will" (the ability to make a choice) with the ability to control every variable that influences that choice. satori001 again summarizes Chuckk3's argument and asks again for clarification. Cynic, responding to JanH, notes that a thing is true regardless of whether or not it is recognized to be true. JanH responds to Cynic that the Bible cannot be independently verified, therefore it is not true. Various posters offer outrageous Bible interpretations, and speculate on who is and who is not involved in a cult. Thelma defends Chuckk3. Houseisarockin defends satori001. JanH insults satori001. Pages and pages of swearing, insults, and thread derailments follow. Cynic repeats his point. Truth is truth regardless of what is declared to be true. JanH asks Cynic for evidence (if he could have troubled himself to actually read the thread before responding, he would have known it was already provided). More random insults follow. satori001 insults Chuckk3's now deceased brother in order to make the point that Chuckk3 is actually using his own recent loss as an excuse (rather than a reason) for his own hostility. I agree with his point, but . . . well . . . his wording could have been a little more delicate. Thelma makes a public announcement that she will hereafter "ignore" satori001, and encourages everyone else to do the same. Chuckk3 follows suit. JanH (who has completely abandoned the thread topic) concurs, but gives no indication that he actually plans to do so. One little note of irony: JanH comments on satori001's use of the "royal we," which I can't find evidence of in satori001's posts, although JanH flaunts his own exalted position at JWO by frequently speaking for others. So, Zixar, why are you here and not there?

Actually, GFO, I think I know what you mean. Even considering all the flirting here, there aren't too many "light" exchanges about sex. But I think that may have to do with the fact that the subject of sex is a trigger for some of the posters here, because of their own bad experiences while in The Way. For some of the former members, there was a lot of sex, a lot of exploitation, and a lot of bad memories. I don't know why or when your thread was moved. I found it here earlier today, so I don't know where you started out. I guess I'm feeling a little defensive if only because Paw (who, I think, is one of the kindest admins around) has come under so much criticism lately for (what I think are) petty reasons. But I know some of this stuff -- like where threads are located, whether a particular post is off-topic, and all the rest of it -- seem extremely important to others. I can't figure it out. I think we've been hanging around each other so long, and have gotten to know each other so well, that we often devolve into bickering. As they say "familiarity breeds . . . " whatever. You know the rest. Anyway, I've got lots of relatives in the Canberra area. I need a map to see where that is compared to Melbourne. When they come to visit, I can barely understand a word they say, so they have to speak s l o w l y for me to catch the meaning. Welcome to GreaseSpot. I hope you enjoy your stay. And the conversation, too. It can only get better. Right?