laleo

It was funny, Zixar. Took me a second to figure it out, though. But I laughed.

Only for you, George. ;)--> Zixar: I wasn't really feeling courageous. Just a little annoyed. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that original question contained a smug appraisal of GreaseSpot's (collective) repressed sexuality, as if she stumbled into a Puritan enclave, and we'd be somehow horrified at the mention of S-E-X (shhhhhh), like she invented it, or something, and we have yet to consider its mystery. Anyway, GFO, ask away. What is it about sex that you want to say? If the moderators start to blush, they can look away. Al said: "Now I was once 'called down' for 'speaking for others' . . ." Who would say something that to you, sweetie? You can speak for me anytime.

GFO, You may be making a few mistaken assumptions about our backgrounds. Any graduate of The Way's classes knows that "sex is a part of life:" a very casual part, at that. While teachers in The Way may have conceded that there's a cultural prohibition against sex outside of marriage, they couldn't find a single verse in the Bible (correctly interpreted) that would support that prohibition. So, anyway, we're all having sex, then and now, in case you are worried about us. I don't really know the answer to your question: "How come sex isn't ever mentioned on this site?" It seems to me that it is, although I'm not one to make a big public display of my sex life. Is that what you think is lacking? Conversations about technique, frequency, performance? I think you're correct that those threads would probably be moderated, but, again, it isn't because of a constrained background. We heard all the terms, saw all the pictures, and, in a pinch, could probably still demonstrate all seventeen positions, assuming our hamstrings are still up to the task. I have a question for you. While I agree that GreaseSpot is over-moderated at times (and I think that may be the gist of your complaint, if I'm reading you correctly), what, to you, are the benefits of an unmoderated forum? If you care to answer, I'm curious. After the initial cathartic thrill of publicly determining whether someone else is a c*cks******r or a m*th*rf******r (I heard worse than that in my local fellowships), where does the conversation go from there? Edited for grammar. How did that one slip by Zixar???

I'm not sure if this post goes here or maybe more appropriately in Doctrinal, or even Politics. Perhaps suz (or anyone else with an equally impeccable sense of proper placement) can clue me in and point me in the direction of the "correct" category. I'd sure hate for any intelligent adult to become discombobulated, disoriented, or dyslexic while in pursuit of a topic of interest to her, or (the horror) stumble upon an incorrectly located controversial opinion. But I did see the movie, and, yes, it was funny and insightful. So I guess I'll start out here. The movie took me way back to my (public) high school days, when I first heard of The Way, when I was searching so hard to find the goodness that seemed to also elude the young, well-meaning protagonist in this movie. In fact, I could so identify with the main character that it brought tears to my eyes, so much so that I had to slip into my sunglasses during the final credits to escape out of the theater (at night) undetected. Everyone else was still laughing. This is a comedy, after all. As far as satires go, this one is very tame, poking gentle fun at a "fundamentalist" mindset. But what it seems to really poke fun at is the concept that morality might be a component of spirituality -- the belief that virtue brings us any closer to God. Does it? As much as I may have believed at one time that the only law that constrained me was the "law of love," even that law seemed laden with restrictions. I recently heard Thoreau quoted as saying: "Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." I'd like to believe that, but then I wonder about the consequences (mostly social) of disregarding moral law. In the movie, it all worked out okay after the main character became pregnant in high school (believing she was helping to redeem her homosexual friend by seducing him), because her friends were ultimately transformed, and became a haven of "love and acceptance." So, anyway, are truth, goodness, morality, love, acceptance, and God all intertwined? How?

Hi Dot, My mind is somewhere else at the moment -- we had a funeral, and a recital, and my daughter is now home from college, so I've been busy (plus I've developed an addiction to the PBS series "Colonial House") -- but I did want to let you know that I read your posts and appreciate the response, and also the time you took to write it. We're in agreement more than disagreement – in fact, on the points you have mentioned, we aren't really in much disagreement at all. As far as oldiesman goes, he can speak for himself (and, if he has any decency, he will). I can understand why it sounded like I was defending him. Technically, I wasn't. However, I still think (despite Raf's and Long Gone's excellent rebuttals) that the original post presented what I think is a distorted view of the social climate in The Way, as it was experienced by most "believers." In that light, I don't think oldiesman's original post was out of line. As far as what I think of him personally – I don't. You may have overestimated the amount of sympathy I have for him, even though you correctly concluded that I don't know him – never met him, never corresponded with him, have barely interacted with him on these boards, and I don't read many of the threads he participates in. Taking your analogy about inappropriate posts on a cancer board, the way I see some of these disputes is this: Pretend for a moment that PFAL is a cookbook, and many of us ended up with diabetes as a result of eating the cafeteria food. Oldiesman comes along and says that he has eaten the same food we've all eaten, in fact, he still uses the same cookbook, and his blood sugar levels continue to be at a low-normal. Diabetic #1 responds by saying that this is impossible. The Decadent Turbo Chocolate Devil's Dream Deluxe, all by itself, is enough to put the average person into sugar shock. Oldiesman searches for the recipe, doesn't find it in his book, reluctantly concedes that some of the ingredients are listed, but not all in the same recipe, and the rest of us wonder how he could have escaped dessert since we were force fed. We don't know the answer to that. What we do know is that we can have four siblings, all in the same family, eating the same food, and some end up with diabetes, and some do not. It isn't a question of fault, shame, or superiority. Maybe mom's cooking is to blame, but the diabetic is the one who has to cope with the consequences of her lousy cooking. That's what I mean by having responsibility. The diabetic is in a position of having to study his diet, and eat carefully and selectively to stabilize his blood sugar levels, regardless of whether anyone else ended up with diabetes or not. Anyway, whatever ill effects we ended up with are ours to cope with. And whatever hurt or injustice we might feel by having oldiesman around to remind us he doesn't have diabetes is part of the process, too. That's how I see it. Dot, you have a very open and caring heart, which comes through in all of your posts. I always consider what you have to say.

WordWolf: I re-read those pages you suggested. I would sum up the gist of oldiesman's posts by quoting Erica Jong: "You take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." Raf: I so agree. I really, really do. However, I still have one quibble. I don't think pointing out the role of the victim in a cycle of abuse is at all irrelevant. Cycles of abuse can be interrupted by either a) altering the behavior of the bully, or b) altering the behavior of the victim. I think a disservice is done to victims when they are portrayed as helpless and hopeless, whose prayer for salvation can only be answered by controlling or changing the actions of the bully, else they are doomed. Dot: I offer no defense of Wierwille. None. I also agree with you that oldiesman completely underestimates the level of intimidation inherent in a minister's sexual advance toward a parishioner, and doesn't even seem to understand typical sexual dynamics in most male/female relationships. I'm not sure I agree that this makes him heartless. I agree with you that "adultery" shouldn't replace the word "rape" or "sexual harassment," when talking about what any reasonable person would conclude is criminal activity among Way "clergy." However, I still think that oldiesman's points can be debated rather than dismissed, because the victim does have a role, whether we want to acknowledge it here or not. In your examples of rapists, and Oprah, and women who meet men who suck their life savings from them -- none of us wants to be that person. Those predators will always exist, not only in The Way, where many of us met people who should have been in prison long before we crossed paths with them, but also outside of The Way. Simply leaving The Way is no more a guarantee for happiness than was being in The Way. At some point, the changes have to come from within. Anyway, I think very highly of you, too, and it sure isn't my goal to stifle any of your dialogue, or to dismiss your experience. Okay, Goey. I misunderstood. And you may be right about the "outside looking in." I do often feel removed from what people still in The Way might be experiencing. However, I still think that the "why" of compliance might better be answered by understanding the person who complies rather than the person who elicits compliance.

"From the outside looking in." Come on, Goey. I'm hardly an outsider. If I've oversimplified anything, it's because my posts tend to be too long as it is. Figuring out who is responsible for what is anything but simple. I had to think for awhile about your question: "Was the source of the 'oppression' our own foolishness?" I agree with you that in absolute terms the answer is "No," but in practical terms, we were involved in a dance, between leaders and followers, with both contributing to the continuance of the dance. So, with that in mind, I would also answer, "Yes." Without a dance partner, the song would have ended. Anyway, I fully expected to be skewered, so thanks to all for at least considering what I have to say. Zixar: You make it all sound so simple. The thing that really threw me off was your thread: Whom Do You Trust in the Media? I've been thinking about it ever since. I tend to think in terms of who I trust, rather than whom I trust. I'm not sure how Steve's him and he fits in here. And, besides, what if it's a woman? I have to admit, though, that I am shocked, stunned, appalled, by this statement: "If it's your husband that's doing the loving . . . " Just exactly what are you suggesting? THAT!?! What are you trying to say about him? Isn't he a who? Thank you, imbus. I appreciate that. More than you know. Dot and Raf. More later.

While I completely agree with Long Gone's and Rafael's (and many other posters') assessment of The Way and Victor Wierwille, I don't agree with the assessment of oldiesman. His posts may be unwelcome, but they are not irrelevant, off-topic, or even insensitive. Here's why. In my opinion, the opening post of this thread is beyond an overstatement. Based on my experience in The Way, it presents a sensationalized view of the relationship that existed between leaders and followers. The photographs of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib says nothing to me about my involvement in The Way, dysfunctional though it was. It doesn't describe my experience. I think oldiesman's first post on this thread is absolutely correct in the context of Abu Graib. I think oldiesman has more respect for "victims" than anyone here is giving him credit for. He isn't "blaming the victim." He is saying that in this situation, unlike those folks at Abu Graib, the "victim" had power over her oppressor. The only power Way leaders had was the power we gave them. Very few (if any) of us were starved, beaten, or forced into submission. We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make. I wish I were comfortable illustrating this with examples from my own life, but I have a husband who I respect, and children who I love, and my story isn't my own anymore. [Note to Zixar: Is that who or whom? How do I tell the difference between an object and a subject?] What I tell affects others, too, so I'll leave my own experience out of it (for now) and illustrate what I believe oldiesman's point to be with a few other examples. Victims and bullies. It's so simple to reduce everyone to one or the other category. But doing so gives the power to the bully, and allows him to determine the nature of the relationship. In this model, the only hope for the victim is for the bully to change. I think the legal profession has done a lot to influence psychology and social trends. An attorney represents her client. It's her job to make someone else responsible for her client's misfortunes, and to seek restitution. If an attorney were to hold her own client responsible for his own actions, it would be a betrayal. And that's as it should be, except that psychologists and other professionals have allowed the legal profession too much influence in their own professions. A psychologist's job is to hold his client responsible for her own problems in life. His job is to discover how his client is contributing to her own unhappiness, and search for solutions. Anything less would be a betrayal. Example 1: For years, I had a very close friend in The Way. At one Rock of Ages, we left Headquarters and went out to lunch to catch up. I was newly married at the time, and pregnant. Over lunch, he told me about his experience during his first year in the Corps. After he arrived at Emporia, he found out his ex-girlfriend was pregnant. He was advised by his leaders that this was all a trick of the adversary to get him to leave the Corps. He was told to tell his ex-girlfriend to get an abortion, which he did. She refused. He insisted. She refused. He insisted. It went on like that for awhile, until finally she left The Way, moved to NYC, and he never heard from her again. He was telling me this story years after the fact, and at the time he was telling me the story, he had no idea what the outcome was, or whether he had a son or a daughter somewhere in the northeast getting ready to start kindergarten. I was livid. Here was someone I knew and respected, maybe even loved, who was essentially indifferent to the knowledge of whether he had fathered a child. With all my brainwashing, coercion, group think, and everything else (I was still very much active in The Way at that point), I thought he was wrong, no matter what his leaders told him to do, and told him so. Was he a victim or a bully? Example 2: During one of my year-long excursions in The Way, I had a roommate who was incapable of refusing a sexual advance. She simply didn't, wouldn't, couldn't say no to any man who approached her. For the first few months, I was sympathetic and supportive. She had had a difficult childhood, and sexual abuse in her past. However, as time went on, her actions began affecting my reputation. The men in her life started assuming they could also be men in my life, and I began to resent her for it. As the year went on, I was involved with one (1) guy in our area, a stable, likable grad who was willing to do just about anything for anyone. And she took full advantage of that. Despite all the men in her life, she was frequently asking him for rides, and money, and favors, and attention. She was solicitous of anyone who was kind to her, and even those who were unkind, and ended up in heartache. Was she a victim or a bully? Example 3: In my early years of posting on ex-way boards, a former leader posted here, one who, in my experience with him, represented all that was wrong with The Way. For all the years I knew him, he had a big mouth, and an attitude. He was demanding, demeaning, dictatorial, and abrasive. Others at WayDale loved him. I had to sit on my hands, turn off the computer, vent to my husband (whose opinion of him is even lower than my own), and do everything within my power not to hammer out a response to him. It wasn't easy. I didn't want to contact him privately, publicly, or in any other way, because I had no interest in a relationship with him. I didn't want his apology, his understanding, or even his opinion on any topic. And then one day we were posting on the same thread. And something inexplicable happened. I laughed at one of his posts. It wasn't a spiteful, wicked laugh. He said something undeniably funny. Somehow, from that point on, I was able to read his posts with more humor and forgiveness than I had previously been able to muster. It didn't bother me anymore that others praised him. He had a sense of humor, which I began to appreciate. For me, that was much more healing, than any brief cathartic release I may have experienced by telling him what I really think. What difference would it have made anyway? Nothing we say to each other now is going to change what happened twenty-plus years ago. Anyway, despite the fact that I do not agree with oldiesman’s assessment of Wierwille, or The Way, I don't think oldiesman is insensitive when he says that "victims" have responsibility for their actions. I think he sees that as a way out of the pain, as a way to take control and help determine the outcome of relationships. It may not be a perspective that is widely accepted here, but it is valid nonetheless. And relevant. And on-topic. In my opinion. For what it's worth.

Shaz, I honestly don't mean to be nitpicky, but you are the one who implied that children raised in same-sex unions don't fare well, not me. I responded to it as a conditional. You offered it as a given. You say it's because of "stigma" and the lack of two adults to jointly make decisions. As far as asking me to prove the natural process of bonding and separation that occurs during the journey from childhood into adulthood, between parents and children, all of that is covered in Psychology 101. You are the one who is presenting a radical change in those theories, and asking others to accept those changes based on your assertions, without offering a shred of research to back up your claims. You say "we simply don't know." I disagree. I think there is a lot we do know. The part that we "simply don't know" is the long-term emotional and developmental effects on children raised in same-sex unions. So why do you say that this arrangement is preferable, when at this point it is still experimental?

"I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy." For years, I've been told that it's none of my business what goes on in people's bedrooms (I agree), and that only the judgmental and unenlightened impose their moral values on another. If you're suggesting that the State take an interest in the sexual practices of the gay community, why? Isn't "encouraging monogamy" just another form of bigotry and elitism? "I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child." In the sixties and seventies we were told that children of divorce are as happy and well-adjusted as children in "traditional" homes, and that if a marriage is intolerable, for whatever reason, for either partner, it is better for the child to live with one happy parent than two miserable parents. The thinking was that a happy parent makes a happy home, and that children suffer when their parents are unhappy. Now there's an entire body of research that indicates that children of divorce aren't quite as unscathed by the experience as the proponents of "easy" divorce first had us believe. Similarly, adoption laws have been relaxed over the years to accommodate those who feel they have a "right" to know their ancestry. Even children raised in very loving adoptive homes often go in search of their biological parents. The effects of adoption and divorce on a child's well-being have proved to be much more complex than previously thought. If a child raised in a gay home is not faring well, can you point me to the research that indicates it is because of "stigma," or the lack of parental rights of one of the partners, rather, than, say, an innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender? There's a strong same-sex identification between fathers (or father figures) and sons, between mothers (or mother figures) and daughters. Are you saying that it is insignificant to the well-being and emotional development of a child for a daughter to have two fathers, or a son two mothers? Each person born into this world has a parent of each gender. Adoption doesn’t change that. Marriage laws, as they are written today, favor a household that consists of biological children living with their biological parents. While there are many other arrangements that can be made to raise children, and where children will thrive, I don't think there's enough research to indicate that those other arrangements are somehow superior and should be preferred over this traditional arrangement. In fact, it seems that children feel the loss of their biological parent, even when love is present in the home. Any child who is put up for adoption, who has a sperm donor as a father, or a surrogate as a mother, has been abandoned by that biological parent. Maybe the parent has the best of intentions, and every good reason in the world to do it, but the fact remains that they relinquished their parenthood, and that child will have to come to terms with that at some point in his life. Why is this an arrangement that should be preferred?

Thanks for asking about me, Dot. I'm not sure what went wrong with my email. Try again. I always enjoy hearing from you.

George: That's an impressive itinerary. Your last trip to China sounded a little nerve-wracking. Are you really going back? Oh, wait. Maybe that was Cambodia. I'm losing track. Wherever it was, I don't ever want to go there. I sure can't match your travels, unless visiting relatives counts. But I did go see an exhibit of sixties poster art. So there. Plus I've seen a few movies, like Spellbound, the movie/documentary about eight students who competed for the national spelling bee championship in D.C. If you haven't seen it, and you watch it with your family, make sure you have a thick dictionary nearby to settle a few rowdy disputes. It could get ugly. My money was on Neil. In fact, I want him to be my son-in-law. Let's see. There was also Miracle, another good family flick. And that's about as adventurous as my life has been since November. Yes, I will do Japan one day. Maybe at Easter I'll mention the idea to my sisters and see who wants to take me up on it. Keep up with your travelogue, if your plans for China go through. It makes for entertaining reading.

George: Your review of Under the Tuscan Sun is very generous. It was an embarrassing sequence of superficiality and melodrama. I mean, it was so short on plot they had to rely on thunderstorms, and changing weather conditions, to move the story along. That's just lazy screenwriting. She probably did want all of those things Shellon mentions, but they relied on cliches to let the audience know that, which I thought was a little insulting. I haven't seen any of the other movies you mention, but I think I would have opted for the book anyway. Where have your travels been taking you? I was leafing through Life Magazine's 2003 photographs, and thought that visiting those macaques in the hotsprings at Yamanouchi might be a good tourist destination.

I don't know, Ginger. Your posts are a study in unintended irony. You took a shot at QamiQazi, Krysilis, Zixar, and me, meanwhile encouraging all of us to "raise the bar." Okay. Whatever. You didn't raise the bar. You just shot at a different target. If you think I ever started a thread about you and Ex to "air garbage," then all I can say is that "more is read where less is said." The only thread I recall is one in which I opened with a summary of a conflict from another thread in an attempt to move it (the conflict) away from the main thread. Wasn't that, like, two, or even three, years ago? You've got a good memory, Ginger, maybe fueled by grudge. When I started that thread (two, if not three, years ago), I had been gone from GreaseSpot for six months or more, and completely misjudged the level of hostility that had sprung up between some of the posters here. I'm sure you remember it well. I thought it was just a matter of a simple misunderstanding, since the people who were then viciously fueding had once been good friends, from what I remembered. Anyway, that thread was a disaster on many levels, successful on others, though barely. If nothing else, I found out who my friends are (and aren't), but overall it sure wasn't worth it. If you want to make a parallel between that thread and this one, go ahead, although as a parallel, it is very limited. But I think you should also note, since it's also central to this thread, that I did apologize to people for the mess that ensued from that thread, especially Pawtucket. excathedra: Once again, while Zixar didn't use a very good example, he chose it in an attempt to illustrate his point by relating it to your own experience. I think you can understand that, even if you didn't appreciate the analogy. I think you can also see that Zixar hasn't once responded in anger. Impatience, maybe. But not anger. I think that in itself speaks loudly, if anyone is listening. Krysilis, I understand. Rest and hurry back.

excathedra, I agree that Zixar used a bad analogy. But I must be missing a few synapses, because if you think that Zixar went overboard in saying he doesn't like you, why are you in agreement with Rocky who started a thread accusing Pawtucket of silencing him in his first post, a coward in his second post, and worse in subsequent posts? At least Zixar didn't dedicate an entire thread to you to let the universe know what a crummy person he thinks you are. (If that's even what he thinks, which I doubt. I think he may simply have lost a little patience since he had just read a series of posts making fun of him and belittling his efforts.) In your second quote, the point of that analogy is that even if you weren't entirely blameless in whatever happened between you and Wierwille, you were also not at fault, meaning that you have every right, morally at least, to tell the world what a scum Wierwille was, and you don't have to be perfect yourself in order to be justified in your complaint against him. In essence, what Zixar was trying to say, even if he didn't choose the best illustration, is that personalities shouldn't be the determining factor in deciding what is right and what is wrong. Moral judgments need to be made outside of our personal likes and dislikes. Honestly, do you think Rocky is justified in his relentless complaints against Pawtucket and other posters here?

excathedra, The point was that you don't necessarily have to like someone in order to agree with him or think he is right.

Radar: I think you might be getting tangled up in Zixar's wording, as far as his "demands" for an apology. He is only trying to say that Pawtucket deserves one, not that he will ever get one. I will echo Zixar is saying that "Paw never says much, but he'd tell me to stop if it had been." I am very confident that if I am speaking out of turn, or misrepresenting Paw in any way, he will let me know. Emphatically. No doubt in my mind. As far as Rocky's handle goes, I'm curious why Rocky hasn't answered that. I didn't think it was any big mystery. Linda said twice in her previous post, "Long before Rocky." My point is that there is no such thing as "long before Rocky." If I'm mistaken, perhaps Rocky should step in and clarify. And, Linda, good grief. How perfect does someone have to be before he can contribute to a topic? This thread IS about "Rocky's repeated protests." Surely you've read the opening post and every subsequent post. What is your point? Is Zixar's personality so deficient that he has no business posting his opinion? Well, hell, if there's a requirement for having achieved self-actualization, I guess that excludes most of us from posting then. I don't even get what you're trying to say with posting that exchange from another thread. What proof does it offer of what exactly? Whatever is clear to you in that exchange sure isn't clear to me. [This message was edited by laleo on March 06, 2004 at 15:33.]

Hope, I didn't think your first post was out of bounds. I was just surprised by it, considering the thread topic. As many people as there are who like to say that this is between Zixar and Rocky, I don't think it is. I think it's about preserving respect for this forum. I said posters (plural) in an attempt to keep it general. In other words, what I was trying to say is that you probably wouldn't put up with Rocky's antics coming from someone else. Again, I don't specifically mean satori, but I think that's who you are referring to. Now that his name is mentioned, in my humble opinion, I think the two of you got caught up in a series of misunderstandings, and it got worse from there. It was during a period of time when he was angry and you were depressed, and that combination made for some very bad chemistry between you. Under better circumstances, I think you might have been friends, or at least friendly cyber-acquaintances, and who knows how it will end, since the last chapter has yet to be written. I'm not sure why Rocky gets a pass in all of this. The way he answered your post is the same way that he consistently answers many others -- dismissive and rude. And from the sounds of it, he has been answering Pawtucket the same way during Paw's many attempts to settle this privately with him. I respect you, too, Hope. Thanks for posting. [This message was edited by laleo on March 06, 2004 at 14:41.]

Okay, I know this has gone on long enough, and most are tired of it, but I can't help myself! (It’s the sno-cones that are giving me a chill.) This thread was not started to trash Zixar (even though he became a target). It was started to trash Pawtucket. Radar said earlier that it takes two. Maybe sometimes it does, but please show me anywhere after page two that Pawtucket has even posted, much less "fueled the fire." He isn't even defending himself, but Rocky continues to take jabs at him. A couple of you have said that Paw is a big boy (ain't that the case), and can handle this on his own, but, still, I find it hard to believe that if a thread was started to trash you, Radar, or you, Long Gone, or you, Hope, you wouldn't appreciate someone, anyone, stepping in and offering at least a little validation on your behalf. I don't know about Long Gone, but Hope and Radar have been very vocal in the past about banning posters who "attack" others, especially unprovoked. Please show me anywhere on this thread where Pawtucket has deserved the attacks that Rocky has leveled at him, or in any way contributed to them. HAPe4me: "so what it boils down to is Zix reported Rocky's thread because it was in the wrong forum?" No. What it boils down to is that Zixar reported a thread that potentially could cause a major conflict. Evidently Pawtucket agreed, because the thread was moved. That didn't sit well with Rocky, so he started yet another thread that potentially could cause a major conflict, and here we are. Long Gone: I very much agree with what you said about privacy, maybe more than you realize, which is one reason why I don't allude to, reveal, post, or otherwise make known any exchanges that happen outside of these forums. The only thing I comment on publicly is what is posted publicly. If people want communications kept private, I respect that. Rocky has repeatedly insisted that these things be settled publicly. As far as I'm concerned, if Rocky wants a public debate out of this, he should get one. Rocky put this out on the Open forum. Not Pawtucket. Not Zixar. Not HillsBro. Not QamiQazi. Not anyone else who he loves to hate. Maybe it's time for him to take some responsibility for his words and quit blaming others for his own hostile attacks. [This message was edited by laleo on March 05, 2004 at 21:05.]

Hope and Radar: Since you're both making similar points, I'll address both of you. First of all, if this is petty, then please tell me what is important for the functioning of this site. I think this is an issue of respect, and once we've lost that, what is left to keep this place going? Maybe preserving it isn't worth it to either of you, and I can understand why since it does get messy, but I think respect on this forum is "worth it." I do not understand what it is that you're asking Zixar to stop. He is not stalking, harassing, lying, or anything else. He's only explaining his point until he is understood. If you have enough interest in this thread to post, and enough concern for Rocky and Zixar to tell them to "drop it," why not at least make the effort to fully understand what is at stake for each of them, before telling either of them to "let it go"?

Linda: Just a few small clarifications. First, no, I didn't mean to say that Zixar was somehow appointed to watch over the threads. At least not that I know about. I only meant that Zixar was using the alert feature for the purpose that Paw publicly stated he would like it used. Sorry for the miscommunication. Secondly, you may not be connecting Rocky to his former handle, but he has been around since WayDale, which is where the fighting began. Thirdly, in answer to your question (were you asking me specifically?): "I have to wonder, where was the outrage when QQ was accusing Paw?" It was about as unanimous as anything I've ever seen on GS. I think (hope) he and Paw worked it out. And, finally, whether we agree or not, I enjoy reading your posts. Good night, Linda.

It's okay. I freak out half the time after I write a post, too. Comes with the self-revelatory nature of this forum, I guess. Yours really was a good post, though.

You wrote a good post before, excathedra. I'm not sure why you deleted it, but I thought it was very honest and added a lot to this thread.

Linda: I agree with others who have said that having a seven page thread over a missing post is ridiculous. But what amazes me about it isn't that Zixar reported the thread (he was doing what Paw asked him to do, which is to keep disputes out of the public forum), but the lack of anger from GreaseSpot in general over the disrespect Rocky has shown to Pawtucket, other posters, and the site itself. Tom said above, "It's only a freaking forum in cyberspace," so for him at least these things don't matter. The reason why it should matter to anyone who cares anything about this place is that this forum won't survive without some amount of respect for either the administrator, the purpose of this site, or the rules. Rocky has no regard for any of it. Maybe one of these days some of you will figure out what the common denominator is in these disputes. It isn't Zixar, and it isn't QamiQazi, as much as people might like to blame them. They just won't put up with it, and I guess amid all that noise, the point is somehow lost, and somehow that makes them guilty, too. Fine. But once they have either been removed, or removed themselves, as targets, Rocky will find another, and another, and another, until he wears us all down. Any poster who comes on these boards without some respect for someone or something on this site will only cause harm. It surprises me that you don't recognize that and give the blame to the one who deserves it. I would have expected you to be more vocal about this, Linda. Rocky started this thread to publicly embarrass Pawtucket, and humiliate anyone else who doesn't agree with him. Why put up with it or excuse it?

Tom, I don't get where you're coming from either, so I guess the feeling is mutual. If you've said all that you've needed or wanted to say, then why are you still here? Others will also stop posting when they are done with what they have to say.