Lifted Up

Got it.

Position on issues is one thing, hurting someone more who is already hurting is another. I think that is why some things are not allowed. Someone asking a question may not even be trying to hurt. In many cases we are handles to each other. It is hard to imagine a handle hurting. Until we do our best to realize there are real people behind these handles. I am in a critical process now in which i am trying to understand the reality of some hurts. But even if i am not convinced...i.e. I don't know either way...I must support the efforts of Paw or any other moderators to avoid people getting deeply hurt. And if I were a moderator and not convinced, I would have to take any action needed. Unless I have proof that someone is not giving a true account, I don't want to do or allow something that MAY not cause pain.

RAF....I think George is itching to get going!

I have no argument with that line. And it is why I can come to understand, with discouragement instead of anger, if someone can't take my words at face value.

Let's face it, Abi, it is generally pretty hard for us males to get the woman's perspective, and all we can do is try our best. That doesn't mean we are always on the wrong side on these issues, but it deos mean we may not know how much we can hurt someone with words, even if we are not trying to hurt.

I don't think there is something wrong with defending a dead man, but i dont think Rocky is saying that this by itself is wrong. I must also agree with his following point. I think the reason I have never mad much squabble with Rocky is that I generally have stayed away from the political forum!

Pretty moderate statement to have in there about not having first hand knowledge. This male has heard the same. Anyway, I see the dilemma, but don't have the answer, for the courtroom at least. I'll explain. Being falsely accused or convicted of rape or any other sexual abuse is hurtful and carries a great stigma. It hasnt happened to me, but I know that it has happened. Therefore, we stick to our principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Via this process, using my Spock logic, someone falsely accused of rape is rightfully set free, while for that one, several others who are guilty also are set free. This ratio is because if you are only FAIRLY sure he did it (OJ trial, anyone?), it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. So in this process several victims get hurt more in the process of lawyers trying to show reasonable doubt, and others cant bear to go through more of that hurt. IN GS forums I can have my skepticism...and I do, as I just explained to someone in a PM...but assuming my skepticism means I dont know one way or the other...there is no need to risk hurting someone. Besides, if i ever get some of the answers I seek, they can't come in a battle of accusations; they have to be voluntarily given. And if I have my skepticism in believing someone else's account, I can't help but accept someone else's hesitancy as well in believing someone they know only as a cyber handle. So I can well accept restrictions on publically and repeatedly pointing out how someone's account is unproven. I will reject ideas...and I think it has been carried to this extreme a couple times...that even the THOUGHT that someone's account may not be true is wrong. But unless you know and can offer proof that it's untrue, why risk hurting someone? edited for silly minor typos, of which I probably didnt get all.

A local B & N guy I spoke with today said they could get it but that they didn't have it in. Since his records showed it was published in June, he wasn't sure if they had gotten it in and sold all the copies, or just hadn't gotten it in. I can probably check further when I have time. Just having some thoughts that will depend a lot on what I see when I read the book in a few days and some other important thngs.

I just meant that besides getting it myself, it will be interesting to see it on the shelves, meaning there is some confidence people other than ex-way will buy it.

I'll have to check that out, even after that pm. I really don't know what I'm going to think of it, but would be interesting to see if it gets there (God's town here has a nice big B & N.).

Okay, dumb question of the day...will the book be on anyone's shelves at all, or is it one (like Karl's I think, unless it was well hidden) you can only get by ordering?

I would give Abi a big hug, though I dont want to offend anyone who thinks the world of my great city, such as might be offended by too big a hug. :) Abi seems to have a wonderful record both of not wanting anyone to be hurt, and, as far as I know, not belittling those who she thinks might be doing something hurtful...but keeping the lines of communication open. Anyone remember how years ago, two of the greatest enemies on the politcal (and a few other) scenes, Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, got together a number of times to talk about things one on one? Or even earlier, how two other political opposites found common ground to get together and co-sponser the original bill to end the draft? (Barry Goldwater and George McGovern). IMHO a lot of people who go at each other at GS have a whole lot more in common than they realize...or perhaps they know it but keep it in the background. sigh...but communicating meaningfully with each other can be a real bear. And, for some perhaps understandable reasons. We are generally doing it in cyber land where when it comes to deep hurts, it is hard to trust each other if we don't know them personally. Too much risk involved I guess. I don't believe not automatically accepting someone's story is belittling him/her or calling him/her a liar. I do see how repeatedly stating publically that someone's account is unproven can be doing this, however. My reasoning is really some simple logic on dealing with peoples' feelings, if logic can be brought into this. If i am not convinced that someone's story is true, and I am not convinced it it NOT true, why risk hurting the person? Therefore I try to keep most of my questions in the private conversation realm. I may be of great confidence that I don't mean to hurt someone, but that doesn't do much good if I hurt them anyway. Likewise, I may know someone well enough to be sure they weren't thinking of me when they say something all inclusive (such as Groucho did on, I rthink, the Bumpy thread when he used the jagoff term among others), but it doesn't ease the hurt, though maybe I should just "get over it". Now, speaking of testimonies, I will admit to a problem I have when someone refers to "all the first hand testimonies" that abound, when I cant find any of them after someone says repeatedly "There is something called the search feature, go find them yourself". But I dont go on and say they don't exist. I would really like to see them...but that gets back to the trust thing, people don't believe me, and given some of the things that have been said by others, I can't necessarily blame them. If the hurts are real, I can picture the risk involved. But I am just sick and tired of losing...and/or not finding...friends and meaningful conversation because some people think I wouldn't accept that VPW or someone else hurt people, and because others learn that I might be willing to accept the same thing. In an ironic twist, I have a sneaking suspicion ( but in all honesty don't know for sure) that one each on these two opposite sides could be a couple of former corps roomies I was with at the same time. I didnt so much as log in for 3 months from Feb to May, only checking in once in a while. I will explain to anyone in PM or e-mail (which is on my profile) what got me to come back in for a little while, though I doubt if anyone cares about my reasons that much. There is one avenue recently I was hoping to learn more from, but that seems to be coming to nothing. Many would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything here, and I would have to strongly agree, so it was only a hope. That trust thing again. And very understandable. No, wasnt thinking of Abi here, though I know that she ( as well as a few others) , are available for gripes and rants I gotta get to someone else soon, to give rest to the poor guy who's taken my last 2 or 3 diatribes on PMs.

I have seen it mentioned here that we should be considerate of what other people perceive, that it may not be enough to be convinced even in your own heart that you meant no harm or that you didn't mean to call this or that person specifically "waybrained cultheads", "jagoffs", or other such flattering terms. Especially after you have been informed that such terms are offensive to others, whether or not you intended them to be. Anyone who has undergone instruction on sexual harassment should know generally what I am speaking of.

I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.

Upon more reflection I must admit that, in practice, Groucho's description seems to be accurate. Linda, thanks for at least acknowledging my points, and Simon's. More than from anyone else. getting answers is something else, though some, as noted above, seem to be obvious. With that.......

One thing I know, before I go into hiding again, (I might know a few others), is that if I used that "jagoff" term to describe someone who is telling only about his/her bad experience, I'd be outta here faster than "a cow whizzin' on a flatrock". Now I would bet my cyber boots that Groucho didn't have me in mind when he made this statement, but does it matter? It seems to get to where anyone who mentions something good that they got from TWI, is uner a barbeque warning, and suddenly turns into someone who wants to do nothing but "romanticize about how 'great' it was". Someone who is not convinced of something but is willing to learn is suddenly denying it flat out. It gets to where even by mentioning something good I got out of TWI, I am denying someone else's hurt. When I question something, it is just that, a question. A couple or so years ago, I questioned Groucho's documentation on a statement that VPW was fired from his denomination for sexual "indecretions". Groucho, despite his many strong statements about what he sees as the evils of TWI, had the integrity and honesty to admit he didn't know exactly where it came from, even though he remembered that there was something. For my part, I have never denied that it may have happened, neither here nor in my own mind. I feel I got quite a few good things from TWI. yes, it is certainly possible to go on about the good so much that it seems nothing bad ever happened. Would I be doing this simply by mentioning, say, the benefits I feel I still get from corps fitness? Or a lamp purchase I made on the WOW field that turned out to be the perfect gift? It seems that way sometimes. But I have mostly stayed away from mentioning anything too much, especially lately, whether it is about the good or the bad. Like how mad I get at a couple people who seem to accept that someone's sexual abuse storys is true but then, having presumably accepted it, go on to belittle the person's experience. As I said, I feel prettty sure that Groucho didn't have me in mind when he used that term, but I wonder with those all inclusive statements whether he might just as well have.

There is no place where I've always lived, but for the last 28 years (not quite half of my life) I have been a stones throw from your state...well. if I could throw a stone about 12 miles. Thought I'd better stay hi before I went into hiding again. I will spare you my wealth of opinions for now, except for one I dont think will get much argument. You don't have to be involved in a group to be a Christian. And, while this is not a Christian forum, I can at least speak for myself and pray that all goes well for you.

Haven't seen it. Would like to.

I remember during our first res year at Emporia...we were laboring away on the famous Gypsy Rose Lee memorial stripping crew, and I happened to be spouting off about how, while I hadnt been everywhere, I had lived long stretches at widely seperated places. How before Indy and PFAL, I was born in CA, grew up at two places in OH, and had spent my high school years in northern VA. Whereupon Steve asks me, where in northern VA...I say just south of Alexandria...what h.s. did you go to...I say Groveton...whereupon he has to find Cindy and tell her he found someone who went to their high school.

Good, I'll keep you in mind if I ever need a pest. :) Seriously, I have some differences with some of your statements on some things that haven't disappeared. But anyone who even hints that you don't accept responsibilty for your actions would run into me, except for two things. 1) You're pretty good at speaking for yourself. 2) If you weren't, I'm sure there is someone close to you who could do a better job of it than I could.

(sigh) ..... time for a semi annual probe I guess.

agree.

Yes it does, and thank you. My main question is whether you meant waiting until you felt strongly enough a person was suicidal, or acting if you have only a hint that a person is...as you say, struggling. In the first case, I guess the one thing we would all have to do is be sure the person gets to professional help...or get that help to the person. I suppose this may be the eventual answer in the latter case as well...but i was curious if there was anything involved in your being a "pest" besides that, before the person got to that point. Evidently from your example, there is. I'm sure you had to have the wisdom in this later case to know if you had to take a further step`, but obviously things have turned out well, and just as obviously you have made a difference for her.

Simon, if you want to answer that question I asked at the end of my PM to you, you may answer it here; I'll be watching! You may be as sarcastic as you wish.

The testimonies I have seen are not all that many, but enough to convince me it happens oftem enough..."Absolutely no outward signs of depression" or suicidal thoughts, even to those close....so that there is no blame or fault in your sister or you or anyone else in not noticing signs because there were no signs to notice. However, there may have been some kind of great pain Michael was experiencing...again, pain that he hid well even from those close...that went well beyond one incident of a girlfriend ending that relationship. Why didn't he tell someone about the pain? I don't have the answer. However, if he was in great pain, I can picture him thinking how death could be the end of that pain. And by the way, you say you were never were suicidal because you always thought about how badly it would hurt those close to you. Is it possible that his pain became so great, it became unbearable to him? It doesn't mean he had no thought of the pain his suicide might cause others. Perhaps this pain, if he had it, was much greater than anything you or I have seen. So great that he couldn't function until he got rid of it. Just some ideas. I still dont have the answer as to why this pain didn't show, or why he didn't tell anyone. I guess i am trying to say that his suicide doesnt mean he did not think of the pain those close to him might se saddled with. Or, maybe better put, it doesnt mean that he did not love, for I suppose it is possible that he would not want to hurt anyone but just did not have an idea of the pain his act would result in. Just some thoughts, for I don't think I could qualify as "someone who has been there".