laleo

Linda, I like and respect you very much, too. Always have. And I also appreciate that you explain your views, rather than responding with what amounts to nothing more than a dig, however funny it's supposed to be. I'm not sure why you prefer the terminology "taking sides" to "alliance," but I'll go with your term then. When enough people have taken one side, joining together in an organized effort to trivialize or minimize the concerns of another person, they sometimes become very nasty about it, usually under the guise of humor, or even helpfulness. Like on this thread. Hence, my description: "nasty alliance." It wasn't a vague allusion. It was in direct response to this thread. I have no idea if QQ meant the same thing, and don't even remember offhand when he used the term, or who he was referring to. Ask him. I sure wasn't alluding to any "behind the scenes intrigue," intriguing as that idea may be. I like and respect Pawtucket, too, and I have no reason to believe he's orchestrating any sort of conspiracy against any poster here. I wonder why Rocky keeps making that accusation, even though it's been pointed out to him emphatically and repeatedly that no such conspiracy against him exists. There is, however, an open conspiracy against Zixar right now. A group of you are ganging up on him to shut him up. I don't know if it's in a misguided attempt to make peace, or what, but I think it's arrogant and condescending to decide for him which of his concerns are or are not worth pursuing. I could understand it better if Zixar was in some sort of a fury, but he isn't. He's making reasonable points, which for whatever reason a group of you have decided aren't worth considering. But instead of leaving the thread alone to die of natural causes, you continue to post, with no other intent (as far as I can tell) than to demean him. In your first post on this thread, I think you may have unintentionally misrepresented Pawtucket's opinion, especially when it comes to disputes with Rocky. He has repeatedly asked that these disputes be settled privately, which is why he WANTS people to alert him. And he made every effort to settle this one privately, too, until Rocky (once again) dragged it into the public forum, with unfounded accusations, if not outright lies. I hope this thread stays alive until these problems with Rocky reach some sort of a resolution. It's gone on long enough.

Zixar: For what it's worth, I understand where you're coming from, and I also understand your frustration in your exchanges with Rocky, who routinely manipulates conversations to his advantage. If it matters what I think, I want you to know that I know you aren't the bad guy here. In fact, if anything, you're trying to improve things for the rest of us by breaking up some of the nasty alliances that have formed. There's an intoxicating feeling of power that comes with persistent victimhood, which probably explains why some have such an interest in maintaining their status as a victim. I hope you don't get buried in the debris. You've got something worthwhile to say.

Georgio: I can understand your being ticked off at your mother's poor judgment in how she spent your money, especially since it was at a time you were powerless to do anything about it, but I don't understand why you would consider suing her (even though you've said you're not going to sue her, you did raise the possibility in your first post, and again in subsequent posts). I especially can't comprehend the level of vindictiveness expressed in johniam's post ("Maybe someday if your mom gets ill and calls on you for help you could say, 'sorry, I give my time and money to ______ as a gift, I can't help you.' Just a thought."). If that makes me insensitive, so be it. I mean it when I say that I'm sorry for what you lost. It sounds like your mother lost a lot, too, including her son. You asked for opinions. Mine is that it wouldn't be worth it if you have to drag your mother into a legal proceeding, considering what you've already said about your fragile relationship. But if you think legal action will somehow put your heart at rest, then that is yours to pursue. dmiller: What's wrong with McDonald's?

Hi Georgio Jessio, I'm sorry about your accident. Reading your story, I can't help but wonder what the settlement money represents to you. If it's a college education, I wonder if you've considered picking up a few evening shifts at the local McDonald's for six months. You'll not only earn back that three thousand dollars your mother spent, but it will also pay for your courses at your local community college. If you're looking for some sort of justice, I'm not sure what the current statistics are, but the last I heard it costs around a hundred and seventy thousand dollars to raise a child to adulthood. While it may be insulting to think that the money left in a lump sum made out to The Way, I doubt your mother would have any trouble proving she spent that much and more to provide for you during your childhood. I'm not sure why you would want to sue her. A legal battle with a family member will take a toll, both emotionally and physically, and likely fracture an already strained relationship. I doubt you'd gain much, even if you got the three thousand dollars, or even ten thousand. I hope you reconsider.

Hey, Cynic, thwarted again, eh? I wondered where you got off to. Now that conditions have improved, I hope you keep posting. Otherwise, make sure you send us a link so we can find you. My dictionary could use a good workout.

I hope you made big plans. I'm looking forward to hearing about your day. Happy Birthday, Wacky.

Trefor: Rather than looking to the institution of marriage or to heterosexual couples for those answers, ask your Lesbian sisters, because they seem to have figured out how to remain monogamous (87% of Lesbian unions are monogamous, I read somewhere), plus their vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases is very low, plus their relationships tend to be very child-centered, where children are involved. And all of this without the "benefit" of marriage. No one seems to be preventing them from the faithfulness, commitment, and responsibility you think can only come with a legally recognized union. My best guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the mystery of female sexuality. I think you're a very likable person, but so far I've been offended by most of the editorials you have posted. Some of the claims are downright ridiculous. I'm also suspicious about this call for solidarity between all those who are now or have ever been oppressed by the American government (heterosexual males?), which includes gays, women, and blacks. I think the pleas for equality are manipulative, and the analogies misleading. If your interest is in preserving a loving union, answers to how to accomplish that are already out there. Unless there is another agenda. Is there?

Linda: I apologize for taking so long to answer. I think same-sex marriages would jeopardize "traditional" families, because it would force a redefinition of a woman's status in a marriage. Right now, the way I see it, women benefit more from marriage than do men, and women have fared better in cultures which only allow for what we're now calling a "traditional marriage". This isn't to say that women have never been abused, used, exploited, and the rest of it, but I don't think marriage itself is to blame. I think there are inherent inequalities between men and women, whether rooted in culture or biology, which tend to give the advantage to men. In recent history, marriage laws have favored women, which is (obviously) to their benefit. Same-sex marriages would immediately redefine the roles in a marriage, giving each partner equal status. On the surface, that may appear to be a good thing, if equality is considered a societal virtue, but in reality, it would put women at a further disadvantage. Divorce and children would complicate things further, and limit the number of options a woman has. I don't see how marriage would increase the status of homosexuals. I think it would only decrease the status of women. I don't think the status quo is worth preserving for the sake of the status quo. But in this case, I think women stand to lose a lot, more so than men. And for what? What is being gained?

Trefor, I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is asking any individual to justifiy his (or her) preference for homosexuality, any more than any individual is being asked to justify her (or his) preference for group sex, in any variation thereof, or any other sexual interest. The question that's been repeatedly asked (yet not answered) is that if the decision to limit marriage to people of opposite genders is unfair, isn't it just as arbitrary to limit the number of spouses to one? And why is it that spouses have to be human in origin anyway? That sounds like discrimination to me. All creatures have a soul and should be treated with respect, dignity, and equality. Right? You keep coming back to the argument that marriage is about love and attraction, therefore any union, however it's defined, of whomever it consists, should be recognized as a marriage, as long as it originates in "love." In which case, the state is asked to take an interest in how we feel about each other, as if the state's interest in marriage is an interest in the promulgation of "love." It is not. The state's interest in marriage (what little interest remains) is an interest in social stability. I think the controversy over gay-marriage will ultimately result in a redefinition of marriage, which, in the interest of fairness, should include any sexual arrangement that is absent a "victim." In which case, what does "marriage" mean? What purpose does it serve? I don't know if the outcome of this debate will be good or bad for American society in general, but I can sympathize far more with the arguments against gay-marriage (not arguments against homosexuality) than arguments in favor.

Trefor: I can understand why Zixar felt he was being labeled a "gay basher," if only because of the way you've constructed your argument. You seem to have confused opposition to gay marriage with opposition to homosexuals, as if acceptance of homosexuality would naturally include acceptance of gay marriage. At one point, you even said that arguments against gay marriage are rooted in emotion and prejudice, rather than rational consideration of the issues. You told Zixar that "homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else," as if a "right to exist" was ever in question. If Zixar is questioning your "right to exist" as you say he is, then what is he, if not a "gay-basher"? Your strongest case in favor of gay marriage seems to revolve around the concepts of fairness and love. A few posters here have already spoken to the issue of "fairness." You, as a homosexual, CAN enter into a marriage, if you choose to, making the issue of "fairness" moot. No one is preventing you from marriage, which, by definition, means a partnership of two people, one of each gender. When it comes to the preservation of romantic or erotic love, I'm not sure anyone would really recommend marriage as a means to preserve it, which is one reason why it's a really good idea for any woman planning to have children to be married. Marriage exists beyond passion or desire, as a place for family stability, regardless of whether children are involved. You say that "marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children." While that's true enough, it's also unlikely that either partner in a marriage will be having children outside of that marriage. I think it's interesting that you answered my post claiming that marriage primarily benefits women with statistics about the failures of marriage. If that is the case, then why willingly enter into a union so historically filled with oppression, heartache, and violence? While this may not apply to you specifically, Trefor, I wonder if the whole movement for gay-marriage isn't fueled by some sort of jealousy, or maybe even hostility, toward women. You've already made a case that your two main reasons for marriage -- fairness and love -- don't even exist in the marriage relationship anyway, so why bother changing the definition to include more people into this misery? I don't question your sincerity, but I do question the motivation of those who are organizing this movement against traditional marriage.

With all respect to you, Trefor, I am very resistant to the idea of gay marriages. If I've understood your arguments in favor, they seem to boil down to two issues (or perspectives). To put it in political terms, one argument might appeal to the more liberal thinkers by urging fairness, saying that marriage laws are currently discriminatory, since they are restricted to two people of different genders. The other argument is more utilitarian and appeals to the conservative thinkers by touting traditional values found in stable, long-term, monogamous relationships, where partners can find individual happiness. Both arguments are, in my opinion, ultimately self-indulgent. I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. Homosexual couples do not need the protection of law in order to be monogamous, committed, and faithful. Neither partner is at a disadvantage, and society does not have an interest in whether that relationship endures. Society does have an interest in preserving institutions that help ensure stable families, which means marriage between one man and one woman. Trefor, if you ever decide to affirm or reaffirm your vows to whomever you choose to have as your mate, I will rejoice with you and I wish you every happiness.

waterbuffalo, Thanks for the clarification. Your other post did seem just a little abrupt, so I appreciate the explanation. Regarding your second paragraph: Me, too. And I agree. Regarding the scholars, I don't think too many scholars are doing that, unless they're staying true to the PFAL teachings, despite what they learned in grad school. What I meant about picking Auden's brain is that he strikes me as the sort of poet that deciphering his intent would be a challenge in itself, probably even more so than what a particular reader might get out of it for himself. But I won't belabor the point since you've already decided on another major. Which is . . . ? Also, you didn't derail at all. Your comments are welcome. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

Hey, I'm glad I was able to offer a little validation. I think you made the right choice, whatever it was! But I'm disappointed. I was hoping you would weigh in on Plotinus' thread and offer your insight into Auden. Now there's a poet's brain you can pick.

Hey, QQ. Glad you stopped in. Good to hear from you, George. Somehow that "humid, cricket filled evening" doesn't sound very appealing. Hope you're enjoying yourself, despite the sad circumstances of your travels. I enjoyed your post, mj412.

waterbuffalo: I disagree. I would argue that it doesn't matter what the author "meant" when he wrote his story. Whether conscious or not on the author's part, his work is an illustration of a particular worldview that is worth examining. By the way, when you say that a "good story is meant to be enjoyed for itself," you're saying that the appeal of a story is on a primal, emotional, intuitive level, where it should stay. But beyond that purely emotional response is a set of assumptions about life. How we construct meaning from a text has a lot to say about how we perceive reality. If it's on a purely emotional level, with no other awareness than whether it pleases or disgusts you, without knowing why, you may run the risk of drawing conclusions that are disordered, ill-informed, illogical, and possibly downright harmful. Every time any of us interacts with a text, a transaction is taking place. And there are some very slimy salesmen out there who are pitching a worldview through their "art" which on examination may not reflect your values at all. I understand what you're saying about "expert's sounding important" and "projection." Instead of dismissing the entire field of literary criticism, though, I would suggest becoming a critic yourself. For instance, ask yourself if you like the main character. If so, why? If not, why not? What kind of a person is she? What does she believe about life? Who are the minor characters, and why are they there? What is the significance of the setting? The images? The historical context? From there you'll be able to answer questions like: What is the basis for morality? The meaning of history? The purpose of existence? What is beauty, truth, goodness? How do these larger issues play out in a text? The fact that the writer has already elicited an emotional response from you, be it positive or negative, means you've already made some conclusions about the text. Examine those reactions. I wish I knew this stuff the first time I picked up the Blue Book. [This message was edited by laleo on January 28, 2004 at 20:12.]

JustThinking: Do you think of your years(?) in The Way as a period of adversity? I've sometimes thought of it as the wrong road taken, but maybe it was all part of the path after all. In fact, I'm grateful that I didn't spend my entire life drifting in the ordinariness of it all. All those dreams and the disillusionment that followed may have had an upside. When you take a risk like that, and fail, and pick yourself back up again, other risks aren't as intimidating. For me, that's been a good thing, if only because I'm not comfortable staying in my comfort zone. As far as your friend goes, you're right you can't take away the tragedy. But you can be there for her, if you're inclined to. And, really, that's probably just about all any of us can do for the other. johniam: I was right there with you until you said, "Getting classes together got us to do our best." How so? Great lyrics, Hope. Yours, too, Simon. In my more wistful moments, I wish I could find Ohio again, too. But it was never there. Or was it? Something was there. What?

waterbuffalo: It's more like a hodgepodge of recollections. I'd take credit for it, except I don't have too many original thoughts, so I'm sure at some point it all originated elsewhere. I'm just not sure where exactly, or else I would cite my sources. By the way, I just checked out both CliffNotes and SparkNotes, and neither offers a critique. However, there was a thread at the CliffNotes site that basically took a Marxist view of the imagery, but they have the different characters representing slightly different aspects of the Populist movement than what I wrote above, probably because I was making it up as I went. I don't really buy the Marxist interpretation for the reasons I stated, so I wasn't too concerned with making it all fit like a hand in a glove. The movie doesn't end in uprising, or any call for social change, as I recall it. It's more of a coming-of-age tale, with Dorothy finding, then accepting, her role as it is defined by history and tradition. I left out some characters, like the witches (were there two evil ones -- the East and West -- and one good one, or am I confused? How many witches in all?), and even the Wizard, because I remember them as two-dimensional, with obvious and stereotypical roles, to serve as a backdrop for the main characters: those who underwent some sort of transformation during the course of the movie. That's also why I think of this movie as a study in community, since four characters underwent significant change. While JustThinking may have a good point that together they make up one individual, I tend to think of it as an illustration of community -- how a group of imperfect individuals can comprise an (almost) perfect whole. Toto, as a minor character, might be worth mentioning simply because it was Dorothy's efforts to save him that both started her on her journey, and aided her in her efforts to return home. Like shaz mentioned above, I think there is a lot in the movie to support a Christian interpretation. How about you? Do you have another interpretation?

Yeah, I listened to that yesterday, too. It's amazing how that voice message took on a life of its own. Maybe they have a recording of it at their website: This American Life

Over the years at GS, I've read many references to The Wizard of Oz, comparing the movie with the Way experience, and even more specifically the characters in the movie with leaders from The Way, or even other posters here. Watching this movie was often a family event during my childhood. I guess a lot of other families must have made an event out of it, too, because this movie has become a cultural marker, one which most of us take for granted. We all know who is "the man behind the curtain." We can sing large portions of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, and dream about a better place. And while we aren't always sure where we're going, we know that many have followed the yellow brick road to arrive there. Truth be told, I never much cared for this movie, yet I've read so many references to it, it's made me wonder how far this analogy works in describing The Way, or even if it works, and whether the appeal of the movie lies in its use of archetypal images that describe those nameless anxieties and secret hopes that propel us toward a search for "home." Many critics over the years have given this movie a Marxist interpretation. The witches are the capitalists, the Tin Man, exploited workers, the scarecrow, non-unionized labor, the lion, politicians. This would work, except for that pesky ending which sends Dorothy back to where she began, albeit a wiser, braver, more compassionate person. "Home" turns out to be acceptance of all that is familiar, rather than the fulfillment of any utopian dreams, or any call for revolution. Maybe The Wizard of Oz is more of a study of how the individual functions within a group, the meaning of community, how to build it, and what each person's role is in its maintenance. At the beginning of the story, Dorothy is at home, feeling a little lost, insignificant, irrelevant, invisible, misunderstood. She dreams of a better place, and, as often happens in movies, her dreams become reality. If this movie can be thought of as a pilgrimage, while her goal is to meet the Wizard (her sacred destination), in the end, the journey itself is the destination, with her companions providing the means of grace for her to arrive at a deeper understanding. In fact, by the time the movie is over, the viewer understands that it is the yellow brick road (the journey) that is sacred, not the Wizard, or even the Land of Oz, no matter how dazzling and attractive it appears. Just as Dorothy lacks the skill and maturity to find her place in life, so do her companions. Each in this group is flawed, not in his character, but in his self-awareness. The lion believes he has no courage, but only because his courage has not yet been tested. As the undisputed "king of the forest" he has yet to meet an adversary that is his equal, therefore he has not known courage. This propels him into anxiety -- the fear of fear -- which turns him into the classic bully, picking on those he knows to be weaker than himself. When he meets his equal (Dorothy), he finds in himself a protective instinct which allows him to identify who the enemy really is, by recognizing those who are most important to him. He is also then able to distinguish between the powerful and the powerless, and offer his protection to those who need it, rather than using his strength to protect his own image. The scarecrow thinks he lacks intelligence, even though he often displays it, which undermines his confidence in making decisions for himself. What he lacks is wisdom, or the ability to interpret his experience. Likewise, the Tin Man thinks he has no heart, even though his empathy is obvious to the audience. For that reason, he hesitates to get involved in relationships, thinking he doesn't care enough to preserve them. So what we have is a group of people who are already in possession of the things they most desire -- a home, a heart, courage, intelligence -- and set off in search of it, believing a holy man can offer these things as gifts. In the end, as dazzling, and attractive, and promising as Oz is, it is only an illusion. Whether Oz represents a religious paradise, or a political utopia, and whoever the Wizard turns out to be, for Dorothy and her companions, the community worth preserving is the one they put effort into building, shaped as much by their faults and imperfections, as by their strengths, not the one that was effortlessly handed to them by some sort of mythical or magical presence. While most of us didn't arrive as quickly as did Dorothy in understanding the real (or, rather, imagined) force behind the promise of Oz, I wonder how many spent years in The Way in search of a home, or the courage to face life, or the intelligence to make use of the opportunities that are presented, or the heart to love life in spite of it all, or if any of that was even the main motivation for involvement, but, if so, whether it's since been found.

Zixar: Based on your recommendation, and quite a few others, I saw Calendar Girls. Everything about this movie is attractive, from Yorkshire itself, to the houses, and the kitchens, and the curtains, and the flowers, and the women, who, if nothing else, dressed with style (when they did bother to dress). It is a very warm, gentle comedy -- not too many belly laughs, but the sort of movie that reminds you that life can be fun. Our showing wasn't sold out. In fact, there were only three of us in the theater, but I think that had more to do with the impending snowstorm, than the popularity of the movie. We had to ask (twice) for them to turn down the volume. It's surprising how much echo there is in an empty theater. Anyway, thanks for the movie recommendation.

I think I felt what you felt during Cold Mountain while watching Under the Tuscan Sun. I've yet to forgive the reviewer who gave it four stars. It was torture by inanity. I stayed better entertained by watching the second-hand revolve on my watch. My husband is a movie-holic, if there is such a thing. He doesn't much care what we see, and seems to find something to like about almost any movie, but I found myself apologizing for dragging him to this one (he didn't mind). If I'm not engrossed within the first ten minutes, I start scouting out the exit signs, and plotting my escape. At least now theaters have those coffee houses attached to them, so there's a place to escape to. Anyway, the plot line in 21 Grams is depressing, but because the movie isn't character driven, it doesn't provoke that haunting sadness that stays with you for days. In fact, by the next day, I thought the movie was complex and clever enough to make it worthwhile. I've enjoyed just about every British film I've seen so far, which really isn't all that many, so I think I'll add Calendar Girls to my weekend plans.

I haven't seen either of the movies you mentioned, but I did see 21 Grams this weekend. Have you and Zixette seen that one? If so, what did you think? This movie involves the (tragic) intersection of three characters -- an ex-con who finds salvation in fundamentalism, a recovering addict who becomes a happy and contented homemaker, and a mathematics professor awaiting a heart transplant. It took me half an hour to realize that the movie isn't in chronological order, which is also how long it took me to keep the characters straight. Because of the way it is edited, the movie feels like a puzzle, but there is no real mystery involved, so for me anyway, it had a disorienting effect. I think the sequencing may have trivialized the theme. However, considering how relentlessly depressing this movie is, maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have it trivialized somewhat. There isn't a single light moment or scene or even a joke to break up the anguish. The movie is intense and absorbing until the very end, which isn't exactly a happy ending, but it is somehow redemptive, which is what these characters are seeking all along. Evidently 21 grams is the approximate amount of weight a person loses at the point of death. I seem to recall reading about unsuccessful experiments during Medieval times which tried to measure the weight of a soul, so I was wondering if this is correct. Anyway, the basic gist of the movie is that the whole of a person's character, and emotions, and beliefs, and experience can fit into 21 grams. It was well done, if you don't mind the misery these characters had to endure to arrive at that conclusion.

lil ole me: For what it's worth, I understand what you're trying to communicate about thankfulness. In other words, when wounds are still open, the slightest touch or irritation can be just as painful as the original injury, and cause a defensive reaction. In human relationships, like the broken family you're describing, lack of forgiveness causes those wounds to continue to fester, and whoever gets near the wound, and touches it, if not ever so gently, is treated as if they were the original offender. Maybe, like the child you mentioned, the only offense is to physically resemble the initial offender, which is all it takes sometimes to also be treated as an offender. I had a step-parent who once resented me for exactly that reason, but that's a story for another thread (maybe your "being thankful" thread, if you decide to post it). A classic case of projection. Most of us can relate, because we?ve also done that same thing in one form or another, though hopefully not to our children. We all have defense mechanisms, though, some healthy, some not, and it's not a bad idea to examine them, which I think is what you're suggesting. You've stretched your analogy to include the "spiritual" family, saying that we should be stronger than those who offend us -- those who either caused our wounds or irritated them -- by extending forgiveness, thereby protecting our own investment in our relationship with God and others in the "family." Not a bad life's lesson, really, as long as it isn't mandated, and as long as you don't take on the role of the omniscient judge (God's job, right?) and decide for others when and how and if this process should proceed. I think it's enough to take that journey of forgiveness for ourselves without trying to "walk the walk" for others. And I suspect that you agree with me on that, especially if you're following your own path of humility, like you mentioned. Otherwise you'd just end up with a grudge all over again, except this time instead of holding a grudge against the original offender, the grudge is against the original offendee (or victim). It wouldn't make any sense to extend more forgiveness to the offender than to the victim, would it? I don't think you're suggesting that. For me, the "fruit" I walked away with from The Way doesn't include the teachings, which I've since abandoned, or even the practices, which I've also abandoned. However, I don't regret my involvement. The Way provided a safety net, at a time when I was reeling from life?s indifference. I liked having a purpose, and answers, and formula for living, at least while I was young, before I felt comfortable living with ambiguity and paradox. Anyway, I know many of the people you've mentioned on this thread, although I haven't been in contact with them for years. I'm glad you've found joy in their company. I once did, too. I see you've only posted a dozen times. I hope you stick around for awhile and get comfortable. Your views may change, as you begin interacting with people whose experiences differ from yours. Welcome to GreaseSpot. [This message was edited by laleo on January 08, 2004 at 23:01.]

This is a movie I didn't expect to watch, much less enjoy, but when it came to my local theater (the one that probably hasn't seen a building inspector in the past century, and still only charges three dollars a seat) I decided to go. It was sweet and sad, but most of all silly, and very British in its depiction of courtly love, the only love worth pursuing to hear their poets tell it. For anyone looking for a very light Christmas comedy, this is the one. And, yes, that porno couple was entertaining, as was the rock star.

I enjoyed reading that, Hope. What a great Christmas greeting. Sometimes I sort of miss those understated Christmases spent in The Way. I don't have any Christmas horror stories from those days. In fact, I wish Christmas could be so simple again, where all it means is exchanging a few, thoughtful, simple gifts with those closest to you, and getting on with the day. Anyway, GreaseSpot has been a gift, although I haven't figured out the paradox of spending time alone with words in front of a keyboard, connecting with others. I've made and lost friends here, and a few enemies, too. I've laughed a lot, cried a little, and have been touched by those with the courage to write even while faced with indifference, maybe instead of being driven off by the fear of rejection, being even more driven to stay by the fear of not being heard. Most of all, I've been touched by the forgiveness, which usually comes just at the time I think GreaseSpot will collapse under the weight of hostility and grudge. Maybe a good slogan for GS would be, " The GreaseSpot Cafe: Where we know who you are and love you anyway." A little too sappy, but, hey, it's Christmas. Merry Christmas everyone.