--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Clearly, Judy makes it clear that one person's clarity is clearly not > always a clarity about which others should clearly agree. > > Maybe the answer to most of Judy's "what ifs" is "yes those are flames!" > > It may be hard to put into "legal" words what actually a flame > is, but intuitively speaking, it sure seems to me that I seldom > misjudge a poster's energy -- their emotional intent -- and/or > whether or not they're handling an issue or trying to besmirch a > person instead.
Funny, I get bashed all the time for interpreting someone's comments as deliberately insulting. It seems intuitive to me as well--I wrote of it once here as the nature of a person's "music"; I can *hear* hostility and dishonesty and even fear in the way the words are chosen and put together, even if nothing is explicit--but it doesn't appear to be a matter of consensus at all. (And BTW, you *way* misjudged my "energy" when I responded to your question about who was the bigger fuckhead, you or John; you claimed I had been spoiling for a fight with you for a long time and had finally boiled over, which wasn't true at all.) > Am I kidding myself here? Don't we all know when a fist fight has > broken out? I think we can usually tell when one has broken out, but what we don't always see is how it has developed up to that point, the "Yo' mama" phase, which frequently is seen by the person being insulted much more clearly and accurately than by others. I know my narcissism puts a big chip on my shoulder, and > I am "looking for a reason to be offended," but gee I don't think > I am misreading the energy of a poster very often. When someone > tells me to get a checking and doesn't address the issue for which > I've taken a POV, then "it's a gratuitous ad hominem dart" is not > an unfounded conclusion. What if they thoroughly address and demolish your POV on the issue and *then* tell you to get a checking? If you react with outrage to the ad hominem without dealing with *their* points, aren't you doing exactly what you describe above? (BTW again, that's what you did to me in the above- mentioned incident. You flamed me for days without ever actually addressing anything I'd said, whereas I was pretty careful to explain exactly *why* I viewed you in a negative light.) > To me the question is "Why come here to get your nose rubbed > into the fact that you are vulnerable, that your ego can be > easily targeted and aggravated by the dumbest troll?" But *is* that a universal fact about all of us, or are some more vulnerable than others? Is there anything they can do to not allow themselves to be so vulnerable? Is it possible to develop a thick enough skin that one doesn't take nasty comments to heart? I mean, sticks and stones and all that... It is a personal failure to take > personally the failure of others to want harmony, but when that > weakness is a major part of every human personality extent, it > morally behooves us all not to sanction gratuitous abuse I'm all for not sanctioning gratuitous abuse, but I don't think it should be done via rules and banning. "Piling on" the offender is a lot more effective, it seems to me, but it should be done with regard to specific incidents, not generally and abstractly. > That's why I keep saying, "Let's trust someone to be a priest > here." We're all priests! Maybe. But would we all be able to agree on who to trust to do the honors in our priestly names? There's only one regular here I'd trust, and that's Alex, who isn't the least bit interested in being a priest. It may be that anyone who is willing to take the job isn't fit for it to start with. Well, that's what > we need here -- someone we designate as God. Isn't that eaxctly what you were bemoaning about your experience of Maharishi? <snip> > OATH: If I see any flaming from now on, I'm going to appoint myself > "Instant God" and mention that I'm seeing the same 900 pound gorilla > jumping on the couch that everyone else is seeing but about which no > one is doing anything. You should too. If you and I serve as the > omniscient eyes here, others will too, and those who would flame > will see that they cannot hope to hide who they really are being. I'm in favor of that. I'm not in favor of rules and banning.
