With Laleo I said "perhaps" and "maybe" hopefully to encourage her to explain her own motives...With you, I guess I jumped to a conclusion as to how you could post so callously regarding a real-life death experience...
Simon: What's the Internet for, if not for facilitating conclusion-jumping? ;)-->
Of course you can't compare the two in degree. The point is that just because I have had something bad happen to me, it does not give me a blank check to commit antisocial behavior, regardless of the degree. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
This is where I think our major differences lay...This site is over-run with anti-social behaviour...That's one of the cool quirks about the internet,I guess...I don't believe anti-social behaviour here carries the same consequences as the same behaviour in a bar or an actual cafe....In that respect,I guess I'm a little more tolerant..
When somebody posted that Chuck had lost his brother, I said I would stop sparring with him. Rather than moving on, he continued to use me to vent his anger. The way he went about it was an obvious provocation. Why would he rather fight with me than continue his tirade against the bible? Hell if I know, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Anger needs a target. For Chuck I personify his frustration. He continues to think (as others there do) that I went to JWO to defend Greasespot's honor, Pawtucket, Zixar, the bible, and you can probably throw in the Holy Roman Empire while you're at it. None of that is true, and none of that matters.
So if Chuck needs a foil, I'm his man. If he needs to beat a post with a stick, I'm that post. But as long as I have his attention, I'm going to try to give him a few things to think about. Hey, call me "Mr. Sensitive."
If you are consumed with grief, what do you do? Log on to the internet? No. That comes later. If you are bitter about life, angry at God, processing through a catalog of conflicted thoughts, that's when you log on and hash things out if you're web-inclined. And you know when you arrive "attack mode" is going to engender "defense mode" out there, and that is the IDEA.
***
Chuck is venting his hostility publically because that is his chosen process. He's a grown man, he knows people have their limits, and he is vigorously pushing those limits. He wants a fight. Isn't that obvious? He wants to kick somebody's foot. He wants a scapegoat, a whipping boy, a sacrifice to offer up in payment for his own (natural, normal, to-be-expected) sense of guilt about his brother's death. Well that never works, but human beings will never stop trying.
Giving in to the anger and grief eventually opens the door to (other) destructive emotions, and eventually the grieving process can be co-opted by more ego-centered urges. Such as? We may begin to enjoy the sympathy, and the attention, and the credibility it gives us. Loss can be a social badge of honor. Crosses-to-bear become virtue surrogates, like scars from a painful operation or a battlefield wound. It is a seductive temptation which can redirect our most creative energies to its exclusive care and feeding. That's bad.
I hadn't known about Chuck's brother's death, and would have avoided him if I had. Probably. But I found him at JWO, not only lashing out, but holding court, and being encouraged, cheered on, to blaspheme to his heart's content, to be their pastime. Chuck is not their "buddy," but they are making him feel welcome as if he were. JWO (a significant few there, at least) is using him, and other GSC exports, expatriots, and ex-communicateds, as a diversion from the bloodless monotony of their own closed society. So I questioned one of his statements, and we were off and running. (His statement was something like: offensive tactics help you tell the idolatars from the true worshippers. My question was something like: Can you explain how?)
JWO says it is "open," but life as a Jehovah's Witness has made the ex-DUBS the creatures of another God. There is something fundamentally different about the JWO community. They are far more cynical, for one thing. Breaking all rules is more important to them than discerning the good ones from bad ones. They seem to have run out of things to complain about, and even reasons (beyond their own convenience) to care, so they seek and welcome malcontent outsiders, from which they "feed," almost like vampires. "Bleed, cry, scream, anything, just entertain us."
So my prime offense was to point out that Chuck's "grieving process" was becoming more about giving others grief than resolving his own (phrased more politely here than at JWO). I don't think that was heartless, but I can accept that others may.
I went and read a little of this thread at the other site...
It reminded me of a thread I started not to long ago concerning Anger Management.
IMO, someone who is having a hard time with grief and/or anger issues may need more help than what could be provided at some internet site (designed for something other than dealing with mental health issues).
JWO says it is "open," but life as a Jehovah's Witness has made the ex-DUBS the creatures of another God. There is something fundamentally different about the JWO community. They are far more cynical, for one thing. Breaking all rules is more important to them than discerning the good ones from bad ones. They seem to have run out of things to complain about, and even reasons (beyond their own convenience) to care, so they seek and welcome malcontent outsiders, from which they "feed," almost like vampires. "Bleed, cry, scream, anything, just entertain us."
This is certainly way over the top - I had a relatively few individuals in mind. It would be impossible to assess the community so quickly.
Then again, the majority prefers to lurk (or "ignore") rather than intervene to correct the impression.
But as I remember it, six months ago you were following him around, undermining him on practically every post he had written. It doesn't seem like much has changed. I agree that all you are doing is "posting your thoughts." That's fine with me. But your "thoughts" seem to include a strong suggestion to end this thread. That isn't fine with me. So I posted MY thoughts. Okay?
You post your thoughs. I post mine. Fine with me (although I think I already said that).
I don't know if by "six months ago" you mean the Zixar/Rocky battle. I was hardly following "him" around. Their thing had spilled over into many forums and I was on both of them, not just Zixar as you intimate.
In the "normal course of business" Zixar and I post all over this place. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. When we don't agree, we sometimes (not always) skirmish. When we skirmish, we post back and forth (both in the forums and sometimes via PT or email). Why we've even posted "disagreeingly" on one thread while posting "agreeingly" on others AT THE SAME TIME.
I'm pretty sure that sometimes Zixar thinks I'm a pain in the butt. Sometimes I think he is as well. I don't think either of us is terribly "torn up" about that. And I'd be surprised if Zixar thought I was stalking him as you insinuate.
Simon, sorry to confuse...........but Zix got it right.
As far as Chuck is concerned I liked the guy from time chatting with him. I sorta feel he has fallen into the wrong crowd. A group that is known for causing trouble and then running and whining and demanding the moderators apply the rules their way and when they don’t its favoritism. But Chuck does have a history of going *beyond* and when called on it he has played the victim card, different reasons for different times.
quote:I sorta feel he has fallen into the wrong crowd. A group that is known for causing trouble and then running and whining and demanding the moderators apply the rules their way and when they don’t its favoritism.
Satori, I am glad you found at outlet for your creative writing skills which are considerable. Go in peace my one time rival and may the force be with you.
I've read and re-read your post to me, and, honestly, I don't know how to answer. You seem to have a lot of confidence in me, which I appreciate, and I thank you for that. I agree with you that beyond my monitor, at another keyboard, are real fingers attached to real hands, into which blood flows, pumped by a human heart. However, I don’t really know what my obligation is to those others who are typing into the night, or what my role would be in defusing the current situation.
I saw this thread as a light poke at the JWO site in general, and a place to indulge in a little arm-chair analysis of the flame war(s) in particular. Also, the fight began here, not there, so if we're going to keep it anywhere, I'd think this is the place for it. As I understood it (and maybe I'm wrong) certain posters felt constrained by the rules here, and deliberately went to an unmoderated board to hash it all out. Has anyone (besides Rocky) been banned from GreaseSpot? Maybe I'm making a false assumption, but I didn't think so. I thought the objection was to the (arbitrary and capricious) enforcement of rules governing fights, and people went there in search of a free-for-all. Because of that, it seems irrelevant to me, given the circumstances, if satori is being an "insensitive prick," and, besides, I wouldn't describe him that way, anyway. Now, having said that, satori has long argued for an unmoderated forum at GreaseSpot. For me, watching the arguments develop at JWO is enough for me to support moderation (in moderation). If "uncensored" means what it means over there, I'm not interested.
Now, as far as anger and tantrums go, even in "real" life I would strongly object to anyone using me as a target for his wrath, deserved or not. Even if he just lost a spouse, a parent, a sibling. Depending on how much I cared for the person, I would communicate it differently, but I doubt I would absorb his rage for his sake at my own expense.
I don't mind if you question my motives, and I don't mind explaining them. I don't think you have anything other than the best of intentions for the posters here. I hope I haven't disappointed you too much.
Steve!: QQ wasn't that happy with Paw in particular back when R*cky threatened to reveal his identity, but generally, he was not hostile to the moderators.
laleo: I don't exactly consider this thread to be therapeutic. It's not that I felt I needed to answer any of the childish taunts leveled at me--if I had, I would have certainly gone over there and given it to them. I didn't even bring up my involvement in it until someone else did, if you'll notice.
Zixar, If I said that this thread might be therapeutic, I only meant it in the sense that watching back-to-back reruns of Seinfeld might be therapeutic. Except I prefer Fawlty Towers.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
14
40
16
Popular Days
Jul 20
58
Jul 21
39
Jul 19
30
Jul 26
20
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 13 posts
laleo 14 posts
Zixar 40 posts
Tom Strange 16 posts
Popular Days
Jul 20 2004
58 posts
Jul 21 2004
39 posts
Jul 19 2004
30 posts
Jul 26 2004
20 posts
simonzelotes
Forgive me,Zixar...
With Laleo I said "perhaps" and "maybe" hopefully to encourage her to explain her own motives...With you, I guess I jumped to a conclusion as to how you could post so callously regarding a real-life death experience...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
As much as I am tempted,I will not anal-yse an anal-ogy of a death to stubbing a big toe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Simon: What's the Internet for, if not for facilitating conclusion-jumping?
;)-->
Of course you can't compare the two in degree. The point is that just because I have had something bad happen to me, it does not give me a blank check to commit antisocial behavior, regardless of the degree. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Edited by ZixarLink to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Good point,Zixar..
This is where I think our major differences lay...This site is over-run with anti-social behaviour...That's one of the cool quirks about the internet,I guess...I don't believe anti-social behaviour here carries the same consequences as the same behaviour in a bar or an actual cafe....In that respect,I guess I'm a little more tolerant..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
When somebody posted that Chuck had lost his brother, I said I would stop sparring with him. Rather than moving on, he continued to use me to vent his anger. The way he went about it was an obvious provocation. Why would he rather fight with me than continue his tirade against the bible? Hell if I know, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Anger needs a target. For Chuck I personify his frustration. He continues to think (as others there do) that I went to JWO to defend Greasespot's honor, Pawtucket, Zixar, the bible, and you can probably throw in the Holy Roman Empire while you're at it. None of that is true, and none of that matters.
So if Chuck needs a foil, I'm his man. If he needs to beat a post with a stick, I'm that post. But as long as I have his attention, I'm going to try to give him a few things to think about. Hey, call me "Mr. Sensitive."
If you are consumed with grief, what do you do? Log on to the internet? No. That comes later. If you are bitter about life, angry at God, processing through a catalog of conflicted thoughts, that's when you log on and hash things out if you're web-inclined. And you know when you arrive "attack mode" is going to engender "defense mode" out there, and that is the IDEA.
***
Chuck is venting his hostility publically because that is his chosen process. He's a grown man, he knows people have their limits, and he is vigorously pushing those limits. He wants a fight. Isn't that obvious? He wants to kick somebody's foot. He wants a scapegoat, a whipping boy, a sacrifice to offer up in payment for his own (natural, normal, to-be-expected) sense of guilt about his brother's death. Well that never works, but human beings will never stop trying.
Giving in to the anger and grief eventually opens the door to (other) destructive emotions, and eventually the grieving process can be co-opted by more ego-centered urges. Such as? We may begin to enjoy the sympathy, and the attention, and the credibility it gives us. Loss can be a social badge of honor. Crosses-to-bear become virtue surrogates, like scars from a painful operation or a battlefield wound. It is a seductive temptation which can redirect our most creative energies to its exclusive care and feeding. That's bad.
I hadn't known about Chuck's brother's death, and would have avoided him if I had. Probably. But I found him at JWO, not only lashing out, but holding court, and being encouraged, cheered on, to blaspheme to his heart's content, to be their pastime. Chuck is not their "buddy," but they are making him feel welcome as if he were. JWO (a significant few there, at least) is using him, and other GSC exports, expatriots, and ex-communicateds, as a diversion from the bloodless monotony of their own closed society. So I questioned one of his statements, and we were off and running. (His statement was something like: offensive tactics help you tell the idolatars from the true worshippers. My question was something like: Can you explain how?)
JWO says it is "open," but life as a Jehovah's Witness has made the ex-DUBS the creatures of another God. There is something fundamentally different about the JWO community. They are far more cynical, for one thing. Breaking all rules is more important to them than discerning the good ones from bad ones. They seem to have run out of things to complain about, and even reasons (beyond their own convenience) to care, so they seek and welcome malcontent outsiders, from which they "feed," almost like vampires. "Bleed, cry, scream, anything, just entertain us."
So my prime offense was to point out that Chuck's "grieving process" was becoming more about giving others grief than resolving his own (phrased more politely here than at JWO). I don't think that was heartless, but I can accept that others may.
-edited for clarification, and spelling-
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
I went and read a little of this thread at the other site...
It reminded me of a thread I started not to long ago concerning Anger Management.
IMO, someone who is having a hard time with grief and/or anger issues may need more help than what could be provided at some internet site (designed for something other than dealing with mental health issues).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Then again, the majority prefers to lurk (or "ignore") rather than intervene to correct the impression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Oh well...
You post your thoughs. I post mine. Fine with me (although I think I already said that).I don't know if by "six months ago" you mean the Zixar/Rocky battle. I was hardly following "him" around. Their thing had spilled over into many forums and I was on both of them, not just Zixar as you intimate.
In the "normal course of business" Zixar and I post all over this place. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. When we don't agree, we sometimes (not always) skirmish. When we skirmish, we post back and forth (both in the forums and sometimes via PT or email). Why we've even posted "disagreeingly" on one thread while posting "agreeingly" on others AT THE SAME TIME.
I'm pretty sure that sometimes Zixar thinks I'm a pain in the butt. Sometimes I think he is as well. I don't think either of us is terribly "torn up" about that. And I'd be surprised if Zixar thought I was stalking him as you insinuate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: Well, there was that one time I caught you rummaging through my garbage cans...
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Yeah... I know... but I asked you not to mention that...
Do you agree with the way I've characterized our inter-actions? I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was stalking you...
...or that you were stalking me simply because you replied to me right after I posted!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
It's a fair assessment...until, of course, some folks start to speculate that you and I are the same person just talking to himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
We are???? ...DOH!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
What was (and where is) the GS thread that sparked the subject JWO thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Cynic, there's a link in the fourth post from the top on the first page...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Tom,
Thanks, but I'm looking for the thread at GSC that preceded it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There was a single post that was eventually edited by staff, in the
middle of some other thread. It was deemed inflammatory, apparently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Simon, sorry to confuse...........but Zix got it right.
As far as Chuck is concerned I liked the guy from time chatting with him. I sorta feel he has fallen into the wrong crowd. A group that is known for causing trouble and then running and whining and demanding the moderators apply the rules their way and when they don’t its favoritism. But Chuck does have a history of going *beyond* and when called on it he has played the victim card, different reasons for different times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it was toward the end in the thread about "why i reject belief in the bible" which used to be "why i reject christ" started by refiner
here's a quote from zixar to chuck
and then a little later zixar thanked the moderator who removed the post
zixar probably remembers exactly what it said
let me press the notify button to the moderators and see if they can remember
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Satori, I am glad you found at outlet for your creative writing skills which are considerable. Go in peace my one time rival and may the force be with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Simon,
I've read and re-read your post to me, and, honestly, I don't know how to answer. You seem to have a lot of confidence in me, which I appreciate, and I thank you for that. I agree with you that beyond my monitor, at another keyboard, are real fingers attached to real hands, into which blood flows, pumped by a human heart. However, I don’t really know what my obligation is to those others who are typing into the night, or what my role would be in defusing the current situation.
I saw this thread as a light poke at the JWO site in general, and a place to indulge in a little arm-chair analysis of the flame war(s) in particular. Also, the fight began here, not there, so if we're going to keep it anywhere, I'd think this is the place for it. As I understood it (and maybe I'm wrong) certain posters felt constrained by the rules here, and deliberately went to an unmoderated board to hash it all out. Has anyone (besides Rocky) been banned from GreaseSpot? Maybe I'm making a false assumption, but I didn't think so. I thought the objection was to the (arbitrary and capricious) enforcement of rules governing fights, and people went there in search of a free-for-all. Because of that, it seems irrelevant to me, given the circumstances, if satori is being an "insensitive prick," and, besides, I wouldn't describe him that way, anyway. Now, having said that, satori has long argued for an unmoderated forum at GreaseSpot. For me, watching the arguments develop at JWO is enough for me to support moderation (in moderation). If "uncensored" means what it means over there, I'm not interested.
Now, as far as anger and tantrums go, even in "real" life I would strongly object to anyone using me as a target for his wrath, deserved or not. Even if he just lost a spouse, a parent, a sibling. Depending on how much I cared for the person, I would communicate it differently, but I doubt I would absorb his rage for his sake at my own expense.
I don't mind if you question my motives, and I don't mind explaining them. I don't think you have anything other than the best of intentions for the posters here. I hope I haven't disappointed you too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
IIRC, Qamiqazi/Satori usually speaks somewhat in support of moderators/moderation of this board.
Of course, I *could* be mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Steve!: QQ wasn't that happy with Paw in particular back when R*cky threatened to reveal his identity, but generally, he was not hostile to the moderators.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Zixar, If I said that this thread might be therapeutic, I only meant it in the sense that watching back-to-back reruns of Seinfeld might be therapeutic. Except I prefer Fawlty Towers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.