Author Topic: Are We Okay?  (Read 10779 times)

Hopalong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13619
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2006, 08:29:45 AM »
Hey (((Write))),
Wot's pinging? Is that like triggering, etc?
(Heck, if you were a pinger I think I still get to be responsible for deciding to be a pingee, whatever it is.)

 :)
Hops
"That'll do, pig, that'll do."

Hopalong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13619
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2006, 08:31:43 AM »
Thanks, Brigid!
I think I'll be just fine.
Been eating a lot of rabbity food for ages.

Hops
"That'll do, pig, that'll do."

solayads

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2006, 08:52:04 AM »
Hiya Hop  :D

I respect you for just sharing and showing your concern for how other people feel.  Something an N could care less about. 

Lots of  hugs for you!!!!   : :D


write

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2006, 10:05:46 AM »
Wot's pinging?

I guess when people have the same thoughts simultaneously sort-of thing.

In a group I will often be the one who says what everyone's thinking and no one wants to hear!

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2006, 10:15:17 AM »
Best wishes Hopalong. Shall I buy you a cushion? I'm going shopping so I just might.... hope it goes okay. See you later.

mudpuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2006, 12:02:18 PM »
Hi Hoppy,

I hope I'm not throwing a wet blanket on your thread with this suggestion but I do have one. And  hope I am making it in the spirit of that Peckism that bean posted earlier.
I don't believe it has anything to do with Nism and it really is directed to everyone here of any particular stripe, not you.

Could we all try to curtail the judgemental comments about politics and religion somewhat? There has been a lull lately, but frequently certain threads devolve into partisan posts about the evils of this or that organized religion or religious figure or this or that politician, political belief or society. I seldom respond because I fear the board will descend into a rancorous debate over issues that have little or nothing to do with the purpose of this board. I may think Bill and Hillary are two NPDs in a pod and others may think George Bush is a sociopath, but aren't there, at a conservative estimate, about two kajillion other websites to discuss those paticular issues, while there is about one decent one to discuss Ns and their effect on our lives?
I find that I censor myself to avoid tangential conflicts and I know a few other people who curtail their participation because they don't want to ignite a flamethrower war. The unfortunate fact is it is often very difficult to contain the passions involved in political and religious debates, even among friends.
I don't know if I'm alone in this view but I'm tossing it out there nonetheless.

As to you personally Hoppy, I don't see any N characteristics in you whatsoever.

mud

portia as guest

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2006, 12:17:06 PM »
Mud, okay, I hear you. I won't mention cartoons again. Not that I think you mean me, but I mean me, in that instance.

I did wrong. :(

Happy to say so, and thanks for the heads up. :D

How about no more quotes from religious texts either please? Would that be okay?.....or am I asking too much? Maybe? Or am I? Not sure. Tricky. Thoughts?

mudpuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2006, 01:35:00 PM »
Portia,

 In some type of reasonable context, I don't find occasional religious quotes from Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed incendiary. I wouldn't find atheistic texts by Bertrand Russell or Jean Paul Sartre offensive either. Nor do I find discussions of astrology or New Age concepts disturbing the peace. I don't see how any person of goodwill would.

What lowers the bar of discussion is demonizing particular people and viewpoints unrelated or only very tenuously related to Ns. If I and others were to routinely make the same kind of inflammatory comments regarding left wing politicians, atheists, and others that I see regarding their opposites the board would soon descend into a useless maelstrom of invective.

I'm not sure of your reference to cartoons as I don't recall you discussing any. If you are equating my call for avoiding perilous tangential subjects for the benfit of the continued usefulness of the board to the recent calls for violence against the Danish cartoonists then I guess that is precisely the kind of inflammatory post I'm talking about. If you are referring to something else then I am at a loss as to your reference.

I am simply asking that potentially incendiary comments or subjects be toned down or avoided to attempt to prevent this board from becoming like so many other cyber shouting matches. I am not asking that any comments that might possibly make someone slightly uncomfortable be stopped. I'm sure we all read comments all the time here that we disagree with. But surely reasonable people can agree that there is a difference between equating some living politician with the antichrist quoting the Buddha.
 If you can provide evidence that the infrequent invocation of some religious text has led to a shouting match (Cosmic Joe excepted) then I might consider your request.  If not then you just seem to be arguing for the sake of argument.

mud


portia as guest

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2006, 02:00:21 PM »
Hi Mud...another quickie

I'm not sure of your reference to cartoons as I don't recall you discussing any.

I did mention them (yes you're correct about which cartoons). I mentioned them in passing in a post. Easy to miss though as it was an aside. I shouldn't do it though as it's an invite to discuss it and this ain't the place. i agree with you there.

If not then you just seem to be arguing for the sake of argument.

I'm not arguing am I? Am I? ...... I didn't think I was. I was asking a question...?

Sorry but now I'm lost. i think maybe something in particular has affected you Mud. I'd rather know what that is (if there is something) than talk in generalities. I don't read all the threads so i could well be in the dark here.

Is there something? You can PM me if you wish. invite me to a thread I haven't read! No worries there. take care...Portia

mudpuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2006, 03:22:38 PM »
Portia,

I meant argument in the sense that a lawyer argues a case not in the sense of a heated discussion.

mud

Hopalong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13619
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2006, 05:18:01 PM »
Hey MudNo wet blanket at all. I respect your opinions, Mud. I think it's okay to reveal one's political or religious stripes in passing, as for so many people they're woven in to the rest of their thinking. Like your beautiful view of marriage is woven in to who you are. We don't always have those things in separate boxes.

I agree it would be a real shame for differences of opinion to devolve into demonizing anybody. My spirituality--faith and doubts too--and even political thoughts are part of me. Sometimes they're restrained and sometimes passionate, but I would never intend to harm others by speaking. I want us whole and inclusive too.

This is a wonderfully varied and inclusive community on this board, as I've experienced it. Respectful and generous too. I think we sometimes "act out" boundary issues a little, but that's part of the healing from N stuff, I figure...

(Imho, rather than "setting policy" for all that someone could trip up on or forget in the throes of a worked-up moment, imho it'd be better to voice it yourself when someone strays into sore turf, and say hey, just a reminder that there are other worldviews here, too, and thiis one's a sensitive area for me....sumpin like that.)

Hear, hear on this--
Quote
aren't there, at a conservative estimate, about two kajillion other websites to discuss those paticular issues, while there is about one decent one to discuss Ns and their effect on our lives?
. Dittoes.

Thanks for the reminder to be respectful and remember our diversity.
Hopalong
"That'll do, pig, that'll do."

mudpuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2006, 05:48:47 PM »
Hi Hoppy,

Quote
(Imho, rather than "setting policy" for all that someone could trip up on or forget in the throes of a worked-up moment, imho it'd be better to voice it yourself when someone strays into sore turf, and say hey, just a reminder that there are other worldviews here, too, and thiis one's a sensitive area for me....sumpin like that.)
That's a good suggestion. Its probably a more workable system than my suggestion of guessing about what offends others.
Next time I'll give it a try.
And if the #$%$#!#@$#&* doesn't shut up I'll *#%$^&%&**&$ them until they do. :P

mud

Marta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2006, 01:48:59 AM »
Quote
Mudpuppy:
frequently certain threads devolve into partisan posts about the evils of this or that


Mud, as someone who started one of those what is evil threads and used R as an example of vil incarnated that ignited you way back, I will say this:

(a) When I wrote that R*****d was probably evil, I had no idea that it could make someone so angry, upset, whatever was the emotion you felt. I mean, I would be able to handle it if my political icons were mocked at, hence I thought that so can others. 

(b) At the time, when you protested, I thought that it was just a political debate and you just wanted to gain an upper hand at politics, now that I know you better, I see that it is about your deeply seated beliefs and things that truly matter to you. So I will respect that, even if I don't agree with that.

(d) Mud, I promise not to demonize R or B or GWB or whoever, as I would not want to hurt feelings of my favorite Mud brother. I hope its OK with all if we demonize Saddam, we do need some symbols after all. :P This resolution of conflict we had way back would have NEVER happened if you and had tried to thrash out our conflicts back then, nor would I have developed a friendship with you if we had concentrated on what we didn't have in common, rather than what we do have in common. I think conflicts are resolved not by shouting from the rooftop that you are sob or #%&@$ or whatever, but by developing a relationship of genuine respect and trust for the other person and their positions. Not each and every member of the board have this type of relationship with each other, it is silly to imagine that. In such cases, rather than promoting acrimony in name of our holy cow, communication, I think it is best to disengage.

(e) I totally agree with Mud that there are a gazillion other places to discuss politics etc., so why bring it over to this board? Hurricane Caterina discussion was very traumatic for almost all of us. There was also a major fallout from that. One of my most favorite members, whose sole form of support is this board which she valued greatly, vanished because she felt attacked and was deeply hurt. It is a great loss to her, to me, and to the board. This is just one example. Do we really believe that we truly gained anything significant from that discussion that would counter such losses? Or if Caterina were to happen all over again, we would not have EXACTLY the same views?

(f) Having said that, I don't think that there is any way to ban what is discussed on this message board and what is not. The only way we can regulate the flow of what is discussed here is by making an active decision to not participate in any discussions that we don't find fruitful, refraining from responding to flames and bait, like a bus that passes through the board, but we, at least those of us who feel that these discussions are not fruitful, don't climb on it. The most powerful aspect of gaining a voice is to knowing when to remain silent.

(g) Every community has its buzz word which are used to bully its members into doing things they don't want to do. I was reading Ambivalent Zen by Shainberg in which he recalls how he was constantly badgered into lending his car, his possessions because the buzz word for Buddhism is selflessness. Similarly, the buzzword for our board is communication, so more or less any kind of abusive rant is tolerated here, even validated, as it is done in the name of a genuine desire to communicate. What does Dr. Grossman do when a thread gets too ugly? Does he say, hey guys, here, take more room and thrash it out?  No. He locks it. Similarly, just as he makes this decision for the entire board, we must make that decision for ourselves as individuals. Each of us must have our own self-censorship where we "lock" ourselves out of a discussion and say that I will not participate if discussion degenerates to this level.

Quote
I think we sometimes "act out" boundary issues a little, but that's part of the healing from N stuff, I figure...

Hop, sorry, I disagree with the second part of your statement. I see the very same dramas staged by some of the same members albeit with different partners from the board. It is more like some people being stuck in the same issues and the board enabling such behavior in name of our favorite buzz word, communication, which prevents true healing. Some problems ought to be worked on from within, not without.

Hoppy, keep posting those poems!  :lol:

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2006, 06:23:22 AM »
Hi Mud

If you are equating my call for avoiding perilous tangential subjects for the benfit of the continued usefulness of the board to the recent calls for violence against the Danish cartoonists then I guess that is precisely the kind of inflammatory post I'm talking about.

Just want to let you know this upset me. I don’t understand how you can think that I would do that in such a complex backhanded way. I think I am simply not that mean or covert and I think I try to be straight and honest. I feel misunderstood and a bit bashed by that.

I’m not a lawyer, I’m a philosopher, Liverpool University 1984. I don’t argue to win a case, I argue to reach some sort of understanding of different viewpoints. Maybe even facts or truth where facts are involved. If someone is plain wrong in their facts, I’ll say so if it’s appropriate (as I see it). Maybe if it’s clearly an intellectual point, I’ll sound points-scory? But it’s not to ‘win’, it’s to get to the truth, if the truth exists.

I wasn’t arguing anything about the religious text stuff. I was (badly) raising something that annoys me. It sometimes (not all times) plain annoys me. I feel excluded and I get an emotional reaction to some texts. It’s not for sport or fun, it’s because I don’t like it. My problem. But I do have genuine strong feelings and thoughts and I can be hurt.

Hope I’ve stated my stuff so that I can be understood Mud. I want to be understood.

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Are We Okay?
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2006, 06:29:28 AM »
Marta;

I hope its OK with all if we demonize Saddam, we do need some symbols after all. 

I disagree.

One of my most favorite members, whose sole form of support is this board which she valued greatly, vanished because she felt attacked and was deeply hurt. It is a great loss to her, to me, and to the board.

You know all this for a fact Marta? That this board was her sole form of support? That she’s vanished and not perhaps returned under a different name? Your words above make me angry Marta. I’m not ‘playing’ for ‘sport’ here. I’m not posting to ‘win’ or have a ‘discussion’. I’m telling you I’m angry. I read your words and I get angry. Want me to explain?

The most powerful aspect of gaining a voice is to knowing when to remain silent.

Yeah right. I’m crap at that.  :P Just look at me now. I totally disagree that this is the most powerful aspect of gaining a voice. That’s a fact is it? Or is that your opinion?

What does Dr. Grossman do when a thread gets too ugly? Does he say, hey guys, here, take more room and thrash it out?  No. He locks it.

I see Dr G doing that as my safety valve. Thanks goodness for Dr G.  8) I might need him soon.

Similarly, just as he makes this decision for the entire board, we must make that decision for ourselves as individuals. Each of us must have our own self-censorship where we "lock" ourselves out of a discussion and say that I will not participate if discussion degenerates to this level.

Marta I’m going to say what I think of your words above and it’s not very complimentary.

We don’t ‘lock’ ourselves out of a discussion because we “will not participate if discussion degenerates to this level.”

What exactly are you saying Marta? That if you don’t want to participate in a “discussion” it must have degenerated down to a crap level? Because you’re always ‘right’ and the others are ‘wrong’? Because you’re superior to others who say stuff you think is below you? Is that what you’re saying?

If not, what exactly are you saying?

Oh why not look at some more, while I’m here, heck I'm hooked in and I almost hate myself for it:

I see the very same dramas staged by some of the same members albeit with different partners from the board. It is more like some people being stuck in the same issues and the board enabling such behavior in name of our favorite buzz word, communication, which prevents true healing. Some problems ought to be worked on from within, not without.

Your opinion Marta. Not facts, not truth, just your opinion. And I totally disagree with you.


Sorry folks. :( I am so angry. :evil: But I’m fine of course.  :| I can handle my anger and stuff, no worries.

No doubt I’ve caused this discussion to degenerate.  :lol: