laleo

Hope you enjoyed your day, Plot. Happy Birthday. P.S. Ryebred sends her greetings, too. She says, "May you plot your course in life for many more years to come." [My editor made me fix the quote.] [This message was edited by laleo on October 09, 2002 at 19:47.]

Fair enough, Oakspear. I see how it is. I do have a vague memory of another Nebraska conversation with MCDS4. Were you involved in that? If not, she's someone you may want to contact again. Other than her (and you) I haven't had contact with anyone from Nebraska since . . . way back when. Hope things are going well for you.

I'm not late for the party, am I? Still celebrating, I hope. Happy Birthday, dear socks.

Happy Birthday, Krysilis.

Somehow I missed this thread. Happy Belated Birthday, Rafael. Hope you enjoyed the game.

Well, fasteel, here's my take. I'm no Bible scholar, but off the top of my head, I think Paul did say something to Timothy about using wine as a remedy for his "infirmities." I'm sure others will come along and show us references to other pharmaceuticals, such as they were in Biblical times. Mostly herbs, I would think. Considering the Bible was written a couple of thousand years before the advent of Prozac, I think it's unrealistic to think that the Bible would have anything authoritative to say about it. You went to four professional counselors. All four diagnosed you with depression. All four recommended an anti-depressant. If I understand your objections, they are: 1. Drugs, even pot, were condemned by Dr. Wierwille. 2. Revenue from tobacco and alcohol sales may be financing witchcraft operations. 3. Taking an antidepressant is somehow analogous to being stoned in church. 4. Taking an antidepressant means you're not in control of your moods. Okay, let's look more closely at your objections, keeping in mind that your goal, as stated in your post, is to find a resolution to your "relationship problems." 1. I'm skipping this one, except to mention that "Dr." Wierwille did seek medical care when he was ill. 2. If you really believe this, and object to witchcraft, then don't drink or smoke. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in your current situation. 3. Antidepressants are not addictive, nor are they "mind-altering" drugs. Unless you have an allergic reaction, you won't hallucinate, have delusions, or feel euphoric. If the drug is working in your body, what you'll feel is normal. 4. If you're severely depressed, then your moods are in control of you right now. From what you've indicated, your dark moods are negatively affecting your relationships. The professionals you consulted recommend medication. The purpose for the medication is to get you back in control. If you had diabetes or high blood pressure, would you object as strongly to the idea of taking medication to correct your body's deficiency? I don't think God objects to you finding healing in whatever form it takes. If your counselors are correct in their diagnosis, then you have a treatable illness, for which the right medications can be found. Whether you take the medication or not is up to you, but if you decide not to I hope you find another way to aggressively treat your depression.

Excathedra plugged yet another quarter into the Nostalgia Juke Box at the newly refurbished GreaseSpot Cafe, certain that Sudo had included her favorite seventies pop rock hits that she never seemed to tire of. Soon Frank Sinatra's melancholic baritone thundered out of the speakers. Isn't it rich? Are we a pair - Me here at last on the ground, you in midair? Send in the clowns. Isn't it bliss? Don't you approve - One who keeps tearing around, one who can't move? Where are the clowns? Send in the clowns. To me, he'll always be a star, excathedra thought, swooning as she listened dreamily to the first verse then returned to her empty booth to finish decorating. She caressed the candy flower before delicately placing it next to the candles on the daintily designed Corbis cake. She gazed forlornly at her creation -- her balloons artfully positioned, the party hats for two, the carefully selected gift she chose especially for him, tastefully gift wrapped by a WalMart employee that very afternoon. Just when I'd stopped opening doors Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours. Making my entrance again with my usual flair. Sure of my lines. No one is there. Maybe he hasn't found us yet in our new digs, excathedra mused. Surely he hasn't forgotten us, she thought as she sighed deeply, fixing her eyes on the front entrance, willing that familiar shape to come bounding into the diner, knowing she had little time left to devise a plan that would assure his return. He must come today, she thought, folding her fingers together in prayer. Don't you love farce? My fault, I fear. I thought that you'd want what I want. Sorry, my dear. But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here. Excathedra turned her gaze to the other familiar diners. Shazdancer and Plotinus leaned cozily in the corner booth, their whispers broken up by occasional laughter as Plotinus demonstrated the finer points of exposition. My3cents and Ryebred soon ambled over to join them, careful not to interrupt Tom Heller's worshipful monologue. Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer - Losing my timing this late in my career? Where are the clowns? There ought to be clowns. Well, maybe next year. No, excathedra thought. Next year will be too late. Almost a year had already passed since she watched his sad, crinkled form retreating in defeat after receiving yet another scathing review of his underappreciated (though stylish) prose. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, an idea began to form and take root in her heart. She knew (was it revelation?) what she must do to win him back. Yes, she thought. That's it. I'll write him a story. About us. And where we came from. And how we got here. With the lyrics from the juke box fading in the background, excathedra pulled a notebook from her purse, and began penning their mutual biography. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . . " she began. [This message was edited by laleo on July 12, 2002 at 15:12.] [This message was edited by laleo on July 12, 2002 at 16:06.]

For me, arguing and debating help to clarify what I believe about life. Sometimes when I've been challenged on posts I realize that what I wrote wasn't what I really believe, just what I thought I believed, although I might still defend the position for no better reason than that the person who challenged it got on my nerves. Some people enjoy the process, and learn something from it. Some don't. Sure, there are other ways to grow and learn. You said: "I am here mostly for entertainment value and talking to some people I happen to enjoy talking to." I think that's what most of us are doing here, so you're in good company.

Thanks for the reminder, excathedra. Has a year really passed since that whole troll thread fiasco? If you care to elaborate, I'd love to hear about the "impact" those words had on you and the connection you've made between those posts and this current topic. sirguessalot, I think you should stick around. Forget about politics. The literary types hang out in the Reading Room, or at least we used to, before we got chased off the board. Now Nostalgia has taken over. Maybe we can clear out some room by sending them down to Music where they belong. If you pester Linda Z long enough, she might even get us started on a gothic romance or something. Those efforts are usually good for a few laughs, plus you get to poke fun at some of the more conservative types. That's where we all get a chance to display our skills (or, rather, lack of them). Pawtucket will publish just about anything. Better yet, maybe Hope will take a hard swallow and start us off on some new literary adventure. How 'bout it, Hope?

I'm disappointed that the poetry forum didn't work out for you. I hope you've found another avenue (in "real" life, maybe?) to pursue your poetry. I just finished editing a book of poems written by a friend of mine -- a parish nurse who self-published as a fund-raiser. I really hesitated to take on the project because, first of all, the poems were truly awful -- those sing-songy trite rhyming verse thingies that I have no patience to read, much less think about long enough to critique. But she's a friend who was very helpful to me this fall when I needed a shoulder to cry on, so I took on the project. I read them through, wrote her a note telling her what I thought was working in her "poetry," then warned her that that was the last compliment she would get from me. I have to hand it to her. She stuck with the process through many, many revisions and rewritings and got her feelings hurt on many occasions. Anyway, the book has been sent off to the publisher, much improved (if I say so myself). Plus I got fifty dollars for my hours and days and weeks and months of effort, so this stuff is really paying off for me. I think you've got some great poems, too. I hope you start sending them out to publishers soon. Regarding brawls, I'm still not convinced that the email/private forum route is the way to go. That almost suggests that reconciliation among the fighting parties is the only "right" outcome. Sometimes the insults and name-calling (as unpleasant as it may be to read) might be necessary to make a point. Or at least justified, considering how manipulative people can be. At what point do you think a moderator should intervene? When someone first strikes a match? When people begin to get their feelings hurt? When the thread topic has been burned in the blaze?

satori, Yours is one of those posts I wish I could agree with wholeheartedly. In a way I do. I especially like your "audience participation rules." Nothing irks me more on those types of threads than the haughty "I'm above all this" posters, because simply by virtue of the fact that they are posting, they are clearly not above it. They've launched themselves into the middle of it, but made themselves untouchable by their (perceived) elevated status. I've also been irked by pleas to Pawtucket. But beyond the email campaigns, I also don't like it when people use Pawtucket's rules (or lack of them) as a defense. For instance (speaking hypothetically), let's say one poster is driven mad by spelling errors. Because Pawtucket has no rules for suitable syntax and grammar, that's often used as an excuse for not making changes that might help the flow of dialogue. (Note: I couldn't care less how people spell their words, as long as I get the gist of what's being communicated.) So if the perfect speller tells the lousy speller to get a dictionary, the lousy speller hides behind Pawtucket's generosity, instead of facing the challenge. I think Pawtucket should be taken out of the equation entirely, unless he chooses to insert himself into the debate. I agree that the less containment for these arguments the better. Too much containment only makes matters worse. Much worse. My only hesitation in the "let the fire burn" approach is some people really are very intimidated by these heated exchanges. Posters who you like, I like, we all like, no longer come here because they got tired of defending positions, rather than exploring issues. Where do they fit into the “let it burn” approach? Sirguessalot: Do you have any suggestions to offer as a solution?

Thanks for your contributions. I'm not sure I completely understand the distinction you're making between "fights" and "heated disagreements." When emotional intensity is present, I think there's an issue involved that's bigger than the person making the point. In the "he said/she said" scenario you mention, even a bid for attention makes a larger point ("I deserve more than what you're offering me"). I don't know that I would give more merit (or leeway) to an argument about global warming, than an argument about whose character flaws are the more striking. During a time of high emotionality, the topic itself is often irrelevant. Or at least it seems that way to me.

At GreaseSpot, we know each other through our words. Words can stir emotions more powerfully than a look, or a gesture, or even a touch. It sometimes affords an uncomfortable level of intimacy between people who are otherwise strangers to each other. But that friendship or intimacy is also illusory. It's similar to feeling a kinship with someone after reading her autobiography, or watching a made-for-tv movie. It's the reflection of ourselves we see in each other's stories that alternately evokes our resentment, or sympathy, depending on the skill of the storyteller coupled with our own life experience. So those "deep resentments" you mention come from within the person who feels the resentment. Same with the "sympathy." During those times that I feel sucked into someone else's battle, I try to stay very clear on what is my own stake in the conflict. Otherwise, like you, I end up feeling used for someone else's purposes. There. That's my feeble attempt to live up to my reputation for being "smart and insightful." How am I doing? I'm curious whether you think there should be policies in place to determine which topics are up for debate and which aren't.

Good to see that you are the same feisty self I remember. Thank you. I'll be ready for that first swing . . .

I think that would work well if the combatants are friends, or have at least a little respect for each other. That would be similar to what others have recommended -- settling disputes via email (which I forgot to mention). Sometimes these arguments are nothing more than a personality clash. In which case, a mediator would probably be helpful, like you said. But often the issue isn't the other person. It's the idea the person represents. So talking it out privately misses the point. There is no relationship to build or repair. It's a clash of ideas or opinions, in the form of two people. If we get rid of the people, the idea lingers, and (depending on the merits of the idea) can further damage those who cling to it. Am I making sense? I've seen writers' groups where the participants have become so intimate with one another that they no longer criticize each other's work. No one grows, or improves, or (most importantly) gets published. It's a friendly facade that's actually more harmful than helpful. In more rigorous groups, I've seen more than a few people crumble into tears after a poem or story has been harshly critiqued. But, more often than not, after the writer gets past the initial hurt, more growth takes place than in an atmosphere of warm fuzzies. I'm not saying that GreaseSpot shouldn't be warm. But I would hope that it is authentic warmth that arises from genuine empathy.

Since things are relatively quiet here at the moment, maybe this would be a good time to toss around some ideas on how skirmishes can be settled on this new forum. Unlike other discussion boards which center on a specific topic -- whether music or ballet or poetry or politics -- GreaseSpot is about experience. And experience is inherently emotional. Consequently fights break out with surprising frequency because people feel misunderstood, or criticized, or minimized. When these arguments are prolonged, hostilities build, the viciousness of the exchanges escalate, and people become polarized. One solution that's been offered is to quickly delete any "personal attacks," but in the context of GreaseSpot I'm not sure I know what is a personal attack. Since many of the posts are deeply personal, any response will also be personal. In this context, even a challenge or a request for clarification is interpreted as an attack. If the first person becomes defensive, and the second person takes offense, more insults start flying. Where should it go from there? We could let whoever wants to duke it out continue the fight on the thread where it originated, and to hell with the thread topic. Or, delete the worst of the "attacks," and continue on with the fight in the original thread. Or, set up something similar to the "Soap Opera" forum and place the entire thread there. Or, send only the offensive posts to the "Soap Opera" (along with any responses to them) so if the participants want to work it out (or fight it out) they have a place to do so. This would preserve the subject of the original thread in the original forum, but still give opportunity to those who have a complaint to voice it. (This was the idea behind the “Sub-Thread,” though it got a strongly negative response from some posters.) Or, delete anything and everything that could be construed as a "personal attack" to encourage only "civil" dialogue and ban anyone who won't conform to standards of polite discourse. Pawtucket has all these new gadgets -- like being able to "approve" posts before they're posted, or putting an automatic freeze on "hot" threads so they can be more closely monitored -- but he'd rather hear from all of us before he begins to use any of them. So what do you have to say?

Maybe it's all that gothic architecture. I honestly don't know how Baltimore got pegged as being more devilish than any other place. Our WOW branch leader told us that on commissioning night when we all gathered into our branches. I don't remember ever hearing it again from any other source. chinson, do you still keep in touch with anyone from that year? I knew well the leaders you mentioned, though we've lost contact. Every now and then when I'm heading in that direction, I think I should look someone up, but I don't plan ahead far enough to actually make arrangements.

Kevlar, I seem to remember a group of guys who stayed in touch for years after their WOW year. A few still hung out together, even by the time I got there. Of course, with all those WOWs being pumped into the city, it may not have been your group. I was there a few years after you. And I sure remember that park. Not that I ever walked there at night. There were a few harrowing moments when I was temporarily car-less, and I would walk across the 28th Street overpass sharing space with some creepy looking dudes. But I spoke in tongues so nothing ever happened to me. My WOW brother was mugged more than once. My WOW sister complained constantly about being harassed while walking to the grocery store, laundromat, etc. I guess they hadn't perfected perfect prayer like I had. More likely it was my overdeveloped flight or fight response (mostly flight) that kept me out of harm's way. One day when I came home from work a group of kids were throwing rocks at the mailman who ducked under a car for cover. I haven't been to the zoo in probably five years. I'll have to scoot down there one of these days. I love that huge field of coneflowers, when they're in bloom. And that winding path through (I think) the children's area. Speaking of moving the Word Over the World, I remember when we were commissioned we were told that Baltimore was the witchcraft capital of the world. More devil spirits there than any other city in the US of A. Where did they come up with that? Was it Poe's legacy? chinson, Where'd you go? Where did you live? I didn't get to know many of the WOWs that outreach year. There were so, so many. I knew the WOWs in Towson, and a few from Cockeysville (I think). But I've gotten to the age that names all start to blend together. Any muggings, robberies, attempted homicides to spice up your Baltimore experience?

Believe me, I know how hard it is to overlook the (humorous?) digs and insults, especially when I'm trying to make a few concessions for other people's benefit. I know you're trying, too. Kinda makes me wonder why I involve myself in this stuff. I think you've stated your case well in support of time-limits, and made some good practical suggestions to help with some of these hostile interactions. Thank you.

Kevlar, What year were you a WOW there? I like Baltimore. I still go there on occasion to shop, go to the Inner Harbor, or whatever. It's one of the few cities I know my way around. Plus I grew up there. Not that I'm from there. But from the time I was "sent" there by The Way to the time I left, I actually learned a little about life. My first year there we literally lived in the ghetto. Someone had circled areas on a map so each WOW family had a designated area of the city to set up shop. Our area was near the zoo (spent plenty of time "witnessing" there; I still love that zoo). I didn't do anything in our neighborhood except sprint from the front door of my apartment to my car, making sure I was parked as closely to the front door as possible. That was about the time the city was beginning to transform, I guess because of all the money they were pumping into the harbor, and housing programs, etc. It's still dirty and gritty, but charming, too. Ya know?

It's not so much a truce I'm looking for, especially if it's a hostile one. I'm just wondering if this new forum doesn't provide enough features so that we can bypass the problem with just a little extra consideration on both sides. I haven't noticed too many deletions lately. Have you? It seems to me that some people are making an extra effort to accommodate others, like apologizing for their insulting comments rather than erasing them after the damage has already been done. We aren't really poles apart, I don't think. We've come to different conclusions about the solution, but just about everyone agrees that they prefer an uninterrupted dialogue. And accountability. Let's see if we can accomplish that yet still provide a safety net for those who post with more comfort knowing they have control over their edit features. You're right. Slightly more people have voted for time limits of some sort. So you're in the majority. I'm fine with time limits too -- generous ones. The reason I'm proposing no time limits (for now) is in hopes that the reasons people gave for wanting time limits can be satisfied without resorting to "rules." If you're angry, please don't agree to a truce for my benefit, although I appreciate that you're willing to consider it. I'd really like to see a solution that everyone can live with.

Okay. Here's what I think. (Pawtucket, are you taking notes?) Maybe we can resolve this thing without Pawtucket having to take sides. Let's forget the time limits. At least for now. Everybody who has a point has made it. Unless something more needs to be said, in which case, speak up. Let's see what happens. If people keep deleting/editing their posts to the point of distraction, maybe revisit the issue in a month. But for now, everyone knows everybody else's preferences when it comes to editing/deleting so with all this new information about what drives each of us crazy, maybe posters will be more likely to restrain themselves. Plus with all these other gizmos, like private forums, people can better choose who to share personal information with. So maybe we don't need time limits to preserve anyone's sanity. Can we get by without them? Or am I in a dream? Hope, Grizzy, Rocky, Goey, Wacky, Ginger, excathedra, satori, what do you think? At the moment, I couldn't care less about edits. It's the font in my reply window that's driving me nuts. How do I change it?

satori, Thanks for you response. 1. Yes, there are plenty of irritations. This thing about edits/deletes seems to be a recurring theme lately. I'm not saying it is more or less irritating than any number of other things. Just that it's being discussed right now. And remedies are being offered. That doesn't mean every little annoyance can be fixed. But maybe this one can. 2. That does seem to be the basic explanation, if I'm understanding what I read. What did I skip? 3&4. I don't know if I'm exaggerating or not. That's what I understand the complaint to be. That too many posts are being edited/deleted. Do you have a different understanding of what is being said? 5. I know that to you it hasn't been disruptive. But to others it has, judging from the many, many posts on this topic over the course of three or four threads. I think I was specific on other threads about the times that it was disruptive to me. That's not to say heaven and earth need to move to accommodate me. But since the subject came up, I added my two cents. As far as your last paragraph, I don't disagree with you. I'm in complete agreement as far as people doing what they need to do in order to protect themselves. But I also think that if people used more discretion about when to edit/delete, this wouldn't even be an issue. Unless I'm missing something. Am I? [This message was edited by laleo on June 17, 2002 at 19:01.]

The arguments I'm hearing from the very vocal "no limit" side aren't making sense to me. Deleting posts is annoying. Just about everyone agrees to that. The people who find it annoying are being asked to show tolerance, generosity, and whatever other virtues they bring to the board toward those who irritate them. Fine. However, if I understand the argument, those who delete their posts offer no better explanation for it than, Hey I can do what I want and you can't stop me. So buzz off. And these are the same people who keep telling me that GreaseSpot is a community. I used to edit my posts until they neared perfection, until someone once complained on a thread that I was pulling the topic to the top of the forum without really adding anything to it. So I learned to live with the fact that even if my post wasn't perfectly communicated, it was better to leave it than be a pain in the neck. As far as releasing too much personal information, I try to be as careful as possible to only communicate what I want the universe to know. So while I understand "poster's regret" (I've had plenty of that), I don't understand why the entire board should accommodate a couple of posters who seem to regret most of what they write. We're not talking about a stray post being occasionally deleted. Some posters are in the habit of heavily deleting their posts so as to disrupt the dialogue on a regular basis. Self-sacrifice has never come naturally to me, so if someone is asking me to sublimate my preferences (which in this case is to keep posts relatively intact) for their benefit (because it's somehow cathartic to erase what they've written), I need a better reason for it than that they don't owe me anything. The only reason why this is an issue is because of how disruptive this whole post deletion thing has been.

You said "After reading a previous post . . . " Would that be my post? Since you haven't addressed any points that Wacky or Mark brought up in their posts, I guess you're responding to me. "No one is told anything other than what people want them to know!" No argument from me here. "What may look 'wierd', may in itself, be that one person honored another's wishes, as in 'please edit', while the other didn't admit to others, an edit was done on their behalf, or at their request!" We used to have a poster here who was still "in." Not only were some of his comments supportive of TWI, but he also occasionally deleted his posts during a time that he was working out his own comfort level in what he wished to reveal or not. He was swimming in an ocean of hostility every time he posted. I deleted a few of my posts at his request, as well as speaking up on his behalf so he could have a place to work out his TWI involvement without the distraction of constant criticism. So you're not telling me anything I don't know. "TWI messed up alot of people * who feel they must look 'right' (which is not right in the big world) and therefore, one is probably needing recovery in that area and the room made here for that is tremendous, even IF they don't know it, others do..." I've made room for plenty for people by not jumping on their backs every time they post something I disagree with. Have you? "Who should judge a poster ~ when we all live in glass houses!!!" We all make judgments. We decide who we like and who we don't. We decide whose causes we're willing to fight and whose we aren't. We get judged in return. If we choose to, we can use those judgments as mirrors to see how our words are reflected onto others. "Some people don't choose to make an issue out of anothers' lack of honesty, because they hope they are finding it ~ without making a spectacle of them, unless it's a joke...It's called tolerance Respect Compassion" Please don't demand that I accept your version of tolerance, respect, and compassion. If something is important to me, then it is important to me. I don't see how recommending a generous time limit on posts makes me intolerant, disrespectful, or uncompassionate. I think it makes me willing to compromise. Speaking of making an issue out of things, maybe you haven't counted, but you've posted many, many times on this thread. I think you've made your point, many times over. Whether I have your approval or not, I will make my point, too. "Maybe someone found it in their heart to leave it alone...in hopes of the unsure and insecure to get stronger, even if it was AT anothers expense... Generosity... Definately!" I strongly disagree with you that anyone should experience growth at another's expense. It is not generosity, unless the person has willingly sacrificed himself for the other. It is for each person to decide how much he will or will not give. Gingertea, I have composed this response to you without insulting your values, intelligence, or character. Try to show me the same courtesy. Unless you're picking a fight, and want to exchange insults with me. If that’s the case, I will accommodate you, if that's what you want.