Howard, thanks for your comments:

quote:

**As is usually the case with me, as I was reading your perceptions/interpretations above I was looking to see what my own perspective is regarding the points you are making. One of the main perspectives/understandings that seems to repeatedly affect my own responses to such possible behaviors as trolling, rumor mongering, pejorative terms (whiny), heavily-biased subjective opinions, potentially dogmatic statements, etc., is that I don't see how any person could possibly be behaving differently than they actually are (as best a human can ascertain). What seems to be of most interest to me personally, regarding having a conversation with someone, is whether the person shows any degree of interest in listening or considering other possibilities? I pretty much figure it's a 'given' that humans are going to often engage in what I understand to be dysfunctional behaviors. So my approach is usually something like this: Okay, the situation looks dysfunctional to some degree, what's the best way to respond to the current situation as it actually seems to be?

As a general sort of statement, I don't see our "human problem" as one of ignorance or "bad behavior". I see our "problem" as essentially "rigidity of thought" (undue value given to incoherent ideas) in conjunction with an attention deficit. I consider varying degrees of ignorance to be another human species 'given'. What I see as our problem is that when life presents new information to us we often either resist it or aren't paying attention to it, largely - it seems - because we think 'we already know', or we think it's not important. And as usual, I think this giving 'undue value' to our beliefs & opinions is usually a matter of confusing the Map for the Territory. Humans 'seem' to be the only species that resists new information due to opinions. And that seems directly due to the value that's given to these abstract mental beliefs and opinions that we generally think of as determining 'who we are'. Thus, to question these beliefs is commonly perceived as a "personal attack", or something to be resisted or avoided.

Naturally I have been in agreement with the limitations to individual awareness and perception you brought up. One of the "awarenesses" I've been trying to share in our extended discussions is about the nature of what we have to deal with here, in this writing environment. I see that it has unique advantages and disadvantages.

My guess is that most people participating in these message board discussion environments have not been professional writers, and have had only minimal experience with having their words edited, maybe only in a high school english class or in some college classes.

A lot of the features you discuss about awareness are also part of editing. I've written professionally so I know what it's like to get some carefully crafted piece of writing back all ripped to shreds with red scribble by a hasty editor who never had much in the way of good penmanship. If you want to keep at it you have to learn to step back from your personal feelings about your baby that's just been flayed and look deeper at the nature of what's being looked at by both you and the editor. A really good editor can be an amazing person to discover, and offers a tremendous learning experience if one can open up to it. I was very fortunate to run into a couple of those. I also learned there are bad editors who could not see what I was trying to say and distorted it to say something else. That's also an important learning experience because it also involves going past one's own ego involvement with the work and looking at the nature of what one is trying to say. It offers an opportunity to transcend the editing with something even clearer and better than the first or second effort, and often the editor too is transformed. But what I found was fascinating was that in the process, with a good editor or bad, a dialogue emerged.

I have recognized from my first forays onto these different boards that we have a huge and wonderful environment here for each of us to improve our communication skills through writing. Writing, however is only the interface, and yet at the same time its the wall, because, as you have acknowledged, we cannot go beyond the words to know what the individual who produces them is actually perceiving, feeling and thinking, maybe in that order, maybe all at once. None of us can know if anyone is actually giving "undue value" to their beliefs. We just can't, we can only guess by looking at patterns called language. We can't know if someone is trying on a belief like a new shirt, just to see how it fits, or if it's an expression of, as you put it, "who we are." That's inaccessible information in the black box that produces the words.

But we can each be editors of the words, ours and the others.

In this case I have no idea if Loganthor intended emotion baiting or if he is not cognizant of the implications of his own words. I merely see how the words have implications and how the word thoughts tie together in possible ways. Plenty of people I know would make conclusions, especially based on a history of behavior patterns, involving the old flawed creation we call memory. Personally, I make hypothesis. I don't make conclusions. Hypothesis are open to change, given new information. That's an important attitude to be aware of for me in entering the writing/editing environment. It helps to set me back a bit into an "observing what is" frame of mind. It's an ongoing cultivation process for me, and one from which learning as yet never seems to end. Interfacing that with what others write is a never ending fascination.

By each being editors of the words we see, ours and others, we build a community of editors, each getting better at the process as our interest and skills allow, or not. It depends on an individual's interest and motivation.

If your were to actually ask me, which I know you wont, It was more physical Baiting then emotional baiting. One that had no place on Eley poem thread. It was an attempt to drag out a discussion on the interaction here. I grew very tired of all the bullshit everyone has done over the last six month, I done what I can to heal the bridge, I recently I come to terms, With LisaP’s help, that some relationship are simply un-repairable. No amount of Time, No amount of Change will ever repair the bridge. So be it. I’m better because of it, some aren’t as lucky as me. So as far as any deal or understanding we may have had, consider null and void, It was a deal based solely on guilt. I am no longer feeling guilty. So if by chance in the future you are saying something interesting, insightful or completely wrong. I will be making my opinion known. You can ignore it, respond to it or just tell me to **** off. It will be water of a ducks back.

A good thing born from this thread is that I have had a fascinating discussion with Howard, not something I would have done without this thread. So good for Me.

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:

quote:

... they must be considered "complaining."

Well, only if it's some progressives; because they are progressives of course, because cons don't do that, because conservatives "vent" instead of "whine", because Libs are full of rhetoric but Cons are just practical. Now do you get it Ren?

Lisa, I understand you were creating a parody, but I'd also like to point out that pulling out that one line and making the parody from it, without the actual analysis that line represented changes dramatically what I was trying to do. What I was looking at was the nature of thought that the words and sentences are related to. I was not trying to dichotomize the argument into an analysis of the nature of progressives and conservative thinking. I think that's really important. I'm actually trying to get away from that. I'm trying to find ways to move away from binary oppositional thinking and look at how this interface of language can work for us as a way to understand what we are about in these conversations.

Doing parodies of each other by trying on some conceptualized and often clichéd version of a "lib" or a "con" way of expressing ideas may only serve to avoid looking directly at the authenticity of our own intentions. It creates a kind of cartoonish atmosphere for me. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just commenting on how I see it for what it is. If cartoons are what is desired, that's perfectly fine. I see no rules necessary about that one way or another. I had a writing teacher once who pointed out how clichés are like caricatures of authentic thought, and he did a lot to help all of us become conscious of how that worked in our thinking and our expressions. After that it's a matter of personal preferences. Some folks seem to enjoy an abundance of clichés.

What I was trying to show through an editor's technique is how the words themselves convey possible meanings. I avoided using Loganthor's name as a technique for making it more objectified and clinical in order to move away from the sense of a direct attack on the person. I am also aware that seeing oneself objectified in that way can also be seen as demeaning. That's also something that can be worked with.

I don't know how much actual direct editing you've encountered. It can be a powerful learning experience about oneself as I attempted to imply in my above post to Howard.

I think there can be no elimination of binary opposition thoughts. Just mentioning BO means that we assume there is something that is not BO. For any text we can easily see the opposite of it as in:
authenticity
clichéd
objectified
authentic
...
Avoidance only shows elitist attitudes to others.
Calling other board members as "it" is along those same lines.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Ren unlike you, You can use my name, people here are not morons. "the poster" is Loganthor. I promise not to fly into a complete tizzy fit by the mere metion of my name.

As I already tried to explain to Lisa and Howard, I was not avoiding using your name for reasons of disguise, but as a technique to attempt to focus on the words and not the person, with the hope of avoiding the misdirection of looking at implications of character using the person's name in a familiar way could involve.

Perhaps I should note that I realize using "poster" in a clinical, objective way like that can be disconcerting and could be read as demeaning. That was not the intention. It's also a technique I've encountered in writing classes to help writers look objectively at the work, from an editing point of view, without connecting words to a classmate. I found it to be a very powerful learning exercise. Especially in upper division and post graduate classes where the classmates are often well known to one another.

There are other issues here. In the past, traditions of formality were ascribed to in cultural circumstanes that were considered to be realms where politeness and "civility" were paramount, and calling each other Miss, or Mrs., or Mr., and so forth, had a socially obligatory requirement for ongoing participation in a given public situation, even when the participants knew each other informally. These were formal signs of respect and useful in maintaining at least a veneer of mutual respectfulness and dignity in a public space. It can also be seen as a useful agreed upon way to maintain a sense of orderliness while ideas are shared, and in which differences can be aired without the environment wilting into a debasing chaos of character assassination, which in some instances went outside and we lost such remarkable minds as Alexander Hamilton, who may or may not have had more to add to his contributions to the Constitution.

Formality and informality become problematic in this environment as posters get familiar with one another's words and begin to impute personal characteristics about each other in the process, which often leads to opinions about each other. Opinions often become "truths" and "truths" become boxes to entrap one another. In my case I have discovered that informality and first name basis relationships can have very negative consequences. As the natural walls of formality and politeness break down, other behavioral assumptions come out that can violate my own sense of order and respect. These are personal characteristics and not something I wish to impose on others.

In terms of personal respect, if I don't like someone or they don't like me, the most basic pattern of mutual respect from that for me is a course of non interaction, because I don't enjoy combat. Generally, but not always, dislike leads to character assassination and a combative atmosphere. I wish to be neither a giver or taker in that. But what I see as combat, others may see as "fun." At that point it would seem to me that basic mutual respect is set at the level of whomever can tolerate the least "fun." And if that person who can tolerate the least "fun" does not want to be involved in it, then that is a personal desire I would honor with respect, whether I personally like the person or not. I would either adjust my behavior, or if that was too accomodating for my taste, I would avoid the person so as not to violate the personal desire expressed. I would let the other person indicate the boundaries and attempt to stay outside them. I can generally be a good neighbor on the other side of a fence. As long as that person does not use that reaction on my part as a way to move the fence into my space, it seems to work for me.

Pedro???

No conclusions there?
Hypotheticals only work when humans do not react to preconceived conclusions and act on them accordingly.

quote:

But no matter how many people say they are not going to "talk" to me they all seem to come back and talk to me again.

No conclusions were drawn from that also.

And no, putting a question mark behind every sentence does not make it a question and thus a hypothesis.

Ren - Thanks. Everything you said seems to make perfect sense to me. I liked your distinction here:

quote:

Personally, I make hypothesis. I don't make conclusions. Hypothesis are open to change, given new information. That's an important attitude to be aware of for me in entering the writing/editing environment.

Regards - Howard

Ren, I get what you are saying. I was being flippant earlier, and it didn't come off too well. I'm sorry. I sometimes will avoid certain words like "you", "him/her", "he/she" etc... and substitute with the word "one" or "poster" in order to keep it objective. I agree, simple things like choices in wording influences the delivery, reception and direction that communication takes. A "sender" may not even realize that certain words cause a reaction in a "receiver" or cause the receiver to not clearly hear the message; I think that's called noise?

And Loganthor, I apologize to you too for my last post. It was in poor taste. I don't know anything about the binary opposite stuff, but I doubt most anyone here is only one thing or another. There's some kind of continuum and we fall somewhere on it, but probably not at either end. Also, as Ren was trying to communicate, he wasn't speaking to that either/or issue. As far as my help in getting you to come to terms with relationships that are unrepairable, if it was truly helpful to you then I'm glad, but your own gut instincts on when to give up may be a better indicator.

Now, I don't think we're quite ready for a group hug but I'm feeling more hopeful about humanity right now.
Yeah, I'm a sap.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Oh young Jedi Knight, you will have to do better than that.

I approached the tree and saw the squirrel round the tree. And the whole time I heard that little F- laugh at me. But I was smarter than him and I enCIRCLED him. That will teach him a lesson or two about fooling with me.

Shoot the squirrel.

Next.

Lisa, I understood it just find and it came off ok to me. I just felt I didn't want what I said to get directed by misinterpretation in a way I didn't intend it to. It's so easy for a line of thought to get derailed. Also it gave me an opportunity to embellish what I meant with hopes of expanding the possibilities for a more positive interpretation, in case the first effort got caught in a misinterpretation by what is often a result of one's dedication to keep something contained in a solid, rigidly defined conception.

Categorization and pigeonholing makes the flexibility and movement of ideas constrict through those narrow points in the flow of dialogue, and if employed as part of a hypothetical process, can order the incoming information in such a way that it "fits" the preconception. I don't know how to actually tinker with that for someone else. It's very complicated to keep a discussion open yet make hypothetical assertions about what one sees when people have a tendency to lock those down as fixed concepts and beliefs. And it's not always easy to determine if someone is doing that. The conversation comes back to individual perceptions and a certain willingness of participants to remain open to possibilities. I don't see how those things can be "ruled" into existence. It seems they must be self actuated, even when imitation is employed.

quote:

I apologize to you too for my last post. It was in poor taste.

Accepted although not need. I sensed no malice in it and took it like the joke it was.

quote:

if it was truly helpful to you then I'm glad

Your a beacon of light.

Someone just pointed out to me that in this thread I am being a hypocrit. For I too was accuse of whining by the the very person I am accusing. I had completely forgot about it.

quote:

Loganthor is basically a troll that got banned a few weeks back along with the ringleader of his troll cell that's insidiously taken root on this board. Loganthor whined his way back in even though his banning was quite legitimate since he used one of his small bag of tricks to attempt to derail a thread on Hate and Harrassing Messages thread that was subsequently "vanished" for unexplained reasons, and I doubt the management of this board even now realizes how responsible this troll and his his cell commandant -- who is apparently now permanently banned -- were in creating that situation.

here

So yes I did Whine to get back on the board. I still to this day think I was improperly banned and the “poster” was completely wrong on his perception on the situation that unfolded on the Harassment thread. My Whining merely consisted of a step by step walk through of the exchange from my perspective. I thought it was one of my most compelling arguments I’ve ever made. I reread it every so often to remind myself.

So am I a hypocrite? I guess I not quite that wise yet.

Lisa,

I might as well tell you how I see it, and perhaps you can help me figure out what you believe is true. It appears to me that one of your roles on this board is to rehabilitate Logan.../...ford's on-line reputation. The group hug thing just about did me in, ... as I have observed for months the persistent and pernicious sniping these boys do, most days, most working hours of most days. Their profile is peppered occasionally by your misguided mediation, during which, and after which, their cheery fresh-scrubbed on-line personas ... play soft and nice whichya.

Just doesn't seem authentic to me.

Kate

quote:

that some relationship are simply un-repairable. No amount of Time, No amount of Change will ever repair the bridge. So be it.

Well then I guess I owe you an apology too Kate, for the confusion. I don't have "a" "role" on this board.

I want to come here and participate in discussions, not debates, not sniping, not choosing up sides or any of the bullshit that seems to be the norm these days. I don't care about "rehabilitating" anyone's reputation. I doubt that what I understand about "these boys" precisely aligns with what you understand about them. Yes, they play nice with me. Good, I don't like the other kind of play. Is that troublesome for you?

You don't like group hugs; that's good because I specifically said we're not ready for one (should have been good for at least one chuckle, no?). Is it OK with you if my hope for humanity remains in place? Or do I need to be cynical to be authentic?

I wonder how others will feel to be called children? Or racially derogatory terms?

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:
Well then I guess I owe you an apology too Kate, for the confusion. I don't have "a" "role" on this board.

I want to come here and participate in discussions, not debates, not sniping, not choosing up sides or any of the bullshit that seems to be the norm these days. I don't care about "rehabilitating" anyone's reputation. I doubt that what I understand about "these boys" precisely aligns with what you understand about them. Yes, they play nice with me. Good, I don't like the other kind of play. Is that troublesome for you?

You don't like group hugs; that's good because I specifically said we're not ready for one (should have been good for at least one chuckle, no?). Is it OK with you if my hope for humanity remains in place? Or do I need to be cynical to be authentic?

Lisa, I don't believe it was a cynical observation I made, but one I put together after much time reading, and interacting on these boards. As far as the development of a thorough analysis of the purpose and intent of this thread, as Ren's post would have allowed for, it was sideswiped by the touchy feely stuff. Simple enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Someone just pointed out to me that in this thread I am being a hypocrit. For I too was accuse of whining by the the very person I am accusing. I had completely forgot about it.

It's not my business what grudges you hold, what you feel about yourself, I'm just informing. This is not about a specific incident. It's not about crap like hypocrisy.

It's about boundaries.

I don't care about whining.

To me it's all about the "inherent" right of someone to set their own boundaries and have those respected. All flows from there. The fountain of respect.

Boundaries and respect. Very simple, really.

Respect is earned, no one gets it for free.

When using pigeon holes (conservatives, authoritarians, neocons, neoliberals, etc) it creates boundaries and constricts the thought process.

A person can not reasonably expect others to ignore whole issues because that is another persons boundary.