posted June 08, 2007 09:16 AM         

She did say some rude things. Who hasn't.
You've said so many judgmental and negative things (and so have I).
Does that represent the essence of who you are?
Should people say to you,
after seeing a manifestation of your shadow,
"You dont fool me for a second, Lotus,"
and dismiss as subterfuge every attempt you make to be loving?

What if you gave as much weight to the nice things people say?
What if you saw something nice someone said,
and, then, when they said something mean,
you said to them,
"You don't fool me, I know you are really a nice person,"?
Then you could bump the threads in which they said nice things.

It's not black and white.
We are all many things.
Most of all, we are dynamic; we change.
Will you give light and attention and reality
only to people's darkest impulses,
or try to focus on and encourage the good in them?

Readers should not predict deaths? I never heard this. It's interesting. Does that mean readers should never tell of any events that may be seen as negative, or just deaths?

posted June 08, 2007 11:05 AM           

here are the links
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003407-8.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003407-9.html

I had forgotten about that incident and that it was Daisy Chain who said those things until you reminded me, Lotus. They occured only last month on May 15.

At the time she did that, not being familiar with the screen name, I just took her to be another troll attempting to start trouble on a thread where there was none and dimissed it with a joke.

It seemed that Daisy Chain's remarks always came after my posts which I thought to be weird because I didn't know her name and had never had any type of encounter with her at all at LL before that. So I just assumed she a familiar name at LL now under the guise of someone else.

In those threads you can easily see those personal attacks were not at all prevoked just as the attack on Fayte was not prevoked on the Hell Hound thread. All Fayte did on that thread was give her thoughts and opinions.

So, for this reason, I tend to think that your assessment is accurate, Lotus.

The only reason that I am saying anything at all and posting these links is because Fayte has been unjustly accused on this thread.

HSC, My question to myself is, why would HSC go this far to defend Daisy Chain and make Fayte out to be the meany and bad guy here when he was not even involved in the discussions on either thread and as far as I have seen has had no contact with Daisy Chain period on the boards? Could it be that HSC knows who Daisy Chain is by a previous user name?

You can answer that if you wish. However this is twice that you have done this to Fayte, HSC. You did the same thing to Fayte at Yellow Wax regarding DFD/Lake Dance without knowing all the facts and now you are doing it again here. Why? It is as Fayte stated, none of your business. Unless of course you know who Daisy Chain is and then I have to say that for a person who claims he does not take sides against one person in favor of another you sure seem to go out of your way to do precisely that.

edited to add:

I do agree with you HSC that we all say rude things now and then and that does not represent the essence of who we are. Same thing applies to Fayte, though , does it not?

However, Daisy Chain went the extra mile in this case. She went from one thread, Hell Hound, to come to this thread of hers and tell everyone that she was not going to do anymore readings and that Fayte was the reason why. We can blame it on Fayte. To me that is an attempt at character assassination, not just saying something rude now and then.

posted June 08, 2007 12:35 PM         

They call themselves non judgemental people. Fools. They are the one who is the most judgemental. Compassionate people are ones who gather facts first and then make a judgement.

I too believe DC cud be someone we knew in the past but under a new name.

Looks like she ran out of fuel for more readings hehehe....

posted June 08, 2007 01:30 PM         

Heart-Shaped Cross, I have nothing to say to you, your actions have spoken loud and clear for you!. ...

posted June 08, 2007 02:37 PM         

Please listen to your words.
You are calling people "trolls".
Do you stand by this language,
do you think it is right?

quote:

---

HSC, My question to myself is, why would HSC go this far to defend Daisy Chain and make Fayte out to be the meany and bad guy here when he was not even involved in the discussions on either thread and as far as I have seen has had no contact with Daisy Chain period on the boards? Could it be that HSC knows who Daisy Chain is by a previous user name?

---

Instead of thinking along these lines, Mirandee, please, try to imagine that my motives are not personal. I know it is the truth, because I know what I am feeling right now. I understand, you cannot feel what I am feeling, so, I can only ask you to suspend your judgment, and have faith in the possibility that my motives here are impersonal. I have always felt moved to defend whomever I see as being on the recieving end of an injustice. It makes no difference who it is. This is who I am, Mirandee. This is Scorpio and Aquarius. Please, see me.

I do not see things as black and white. I am not making fayte out to be a meany. It was never my intention to single her out. (My post was actually intended to be more critical, or questioning, of other people's responses to DC, which I did have personal experience with.) Please, try to understand. Just because I am pointing out a mistake, a weakness, or a blindspot, does not mean that I am making someone out to be a meany or judging them once and for all. That is what you and lotus appear to me to be doing to DC. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am defending DC from what I see as cruel and unusual punishment. It does not mean that I think her actions were right. I even said her comments were "rude". I dont believe I said anything harder on the ears to fayte or lotus. The most "offensive" thing I did was voice the fact that fayte and lotus (and myself) are not innocent of the crimes DC is being judged for. I have made us all equal. I don't see sides, and I don't take them.

Believe it or not, Mirandee, if you are ever being tied to the stake as a "troll", I will come to your defense as well. And, though you may not appreciate my point of view right now, I have faith that you will appreciate it someday when you are on the receiving end of one of these tired witchhunts we see too frequently at LL.

Please do not feel judged by me.
Please believe my sincerity when I tell you
that I genuinely feel compassion for all of us.
I am really trying not to use words that will rile anybody.
I could be witty, ironic, and sarcastic,
but I am trying to get beyond that part of my nature.
I just want to speak to you and voice my point of view.
I strongly believe I am seeing this relatively clearly right now.

I have no doubt that I will fall many times in the future,
and some will pounce on the opportunity to use my good words against me,
and will say that I was a hypocrite and a fake,
but others will pick me up and dust me off,
and hold a hand up before anyone who would cast a stone.
This is how they will teach me to love.

I've done my best to speak my peace on this matter.
If I am not understood by now, I can only give it time.

My sincere love to you, Mirandee.

I swear on my life,
I want all of us to be happy.

posted June 08, 2007 02:54 PM         

Scorpio and Aquarius makes a really nice mix

------------------
"I eat success for breakfast-- with skim milk!"

posted June 08, 2007 03:13 PM         

quote:

---

I kind of like you HSC.

---

Of course you do. What's not to like?

(THANK YOU)

quote:

---

Scorpio and Aquarius makes a really nice mix

---

You're f*ckin "A" right they do.

posted June 09, 2007 11:24 AM           

There was a lot to reply to in your post and last night I tried to address it all but had problems posting. Wasted my time because it did not post so will do it in two parts this time.

I think that you tend to "think out loud" many times, HSC I am coming to understand that.

DC's actions at GU is what I was judging. Not her essence. She acted like a "troll" in that case. Actually if you read my post I didn't say she was a troll, I stated that is the impression I got of her at the time. What is called a "troll" on the internet is a person who goes around the net attacking others and attempting to start trouble. I think the term comes from the story of Billy Goat Gruff.

I don't know how many times I have said this at LL, but it is becoming redundant to me at least, "Do not judge, least you be judged," does not mean that we cannot make judgments of people's character based on their actions. When Jesus said that he was speaking of condemning. There is a vast difference between the two.

Definition of judge in the verb form is: to form an opinion, to form an estimate or evaluation about something: Think. syn is deduce, conclude, gather, infer.

Condemn means to declare once and for all guilty, to declare as unfit, denounce and pass sentence.

I made a judgment call about DC. I did not condemn her. I do realize and understand that words do change meaning through time and new words come into the vocabulary all the time as well. At the time that Scripture was translated into English ( and other common languages ) condemn was either not yet part of the language or people are just getting hung up on how biblical scholars translated Jesus words. Many times meaning gets lost in the translation.

Had Jesus meant we could not make judgment calls he would not have later said, " You can judge a tree by it's fruit. A good tree does not bear bad fruit." To me that is only reasonable and logical. I take Scripture based on it's entirity. I don't take one passage and jump to conclusions. I look at what came before the statements attributed to Jesus and what he said after that or did after that. I look at the whole picture. I am also aware that those eye witnesses or apostles of Jesus who wrote things down much later after his death, did not carry around tape recorders or pens and pencils to take notes. They went from memory. How much do we remember from every conversation?

We have to make judgment calls. If we didn't make judgment calls about people we would just be gullible and probably end up hanging out with the likes of Charles Manson. We all do it. We could not survive in the world without doing it. In that sense of forming assessments and opinions we judge everything including what the weather is going to be today. So there is no one on the planet who does not make judgments.

posted June 09, 2007 12:22 PM           

[quote] I am defending DC from what I see as cruel and unusual punishment. It does not mean that I think her actions were right. I even said her comments were "rude". I dont believe I said anything harder on the ears to fayte or lotus. The most "offensive" thing I did was voice the fact that fayte and lotus (and myself) are not innocent of the crimes DC is being judged for. I have made us all equal. I don't see sides, and I don't take them. [quote]

HSC, you forget that both Fayte and myself ( along with my daughter ) WERE victims of one of those LL witchhunts you spoke about. Both of those incidents would be categorized by many, myself included, as "cruel and unusual punishment." In fact I think the character smear campaign on every board at LL was a personal first at LL, never happened before that. Fayte was attacked viciously on a thread designed for no other purpose than to attack her viciously. And her only "crime" was in trying to help both the attackers. They attacked her so cruelly and viciously just because they did not like the way she tried to help them. I think that also goes into the category of "cruel and unusal punishment." Yet you did not come to defense of myself and my daughter nor Fayte. Trust me. The three of us could have used a little help from you at the time.

In fact after the across the board character smear and lies being spread you came on a thread and stated that you didn't get involved because to speak out at all would have meant that you were taking sides for one person against another.

What has changed since Dec. and last fall when Fayte was being attacked on a daily basis as well?

Being a thinker maybe you have come to the conclusion that I have always held, that when you address an issue, an injustice that you see taking place, unfairness, it is not the same as taking sides with the individuals involved. It is following your principals and values of what you feel to be right or wrong or unjust. In that sense we are not addressing the persons so much as the principal involved. The injustice is what we are addressing. We can do that without taking sides for against the people involved.

I hope that is the conclusion that you have come to and the way that you now feel as opposed to what you stated in the past about taking sides. Knowing that you are a thinker it is conceivable to me that you may have had a change of heart as I am also a thinker and for that reason what I may think or hold to be true at this point in time I may change my mind about and have a whole different viewpoint in the future. Life is a constant learning and growth process.

Fayte was also treated with unjust behavior by DC who employed cruel and unusual punishment. So if what you are stating on this thread is that you feel that both Fayte and DC were wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, then I have to say that I may have missed that. It seemed to me that your words regarding harshness were being directed mostly at Fayte. As they also were on the thread at Yellow Wax.

For that reason I have to ask you, why is it that you tend to place the burden of unjust behavior consistently onto Fayte while giving the other party the benefit of the doubt? Why is it always Fayte who is responsible for making things come out right and more responsible for her actions than the other party is? For that reason it does appear that you take sides between the individuals instead of addressing the issue of injustice. It just always seems to me that while you may feel both parties are being unjust, Fayte always comes off as having been more unjust and more harsh than the other party who started the whole thing in the first place.

Is it because you think of Fayte as being more intelligent, more spiritually aware and therefore expect more of her in every incident? Because Fayte is human. She has feelings as well the other party and she reacts to any injustice being done to her in the normal human way. She defends herself.

Would be nice to see once in awhile around LL people directing their comments to the offender, the one on the offense instead of directing it all at the person on defense. Now that would be true justice.

In spite of the fact that you sometimes give me narcus ( a word I invented ), I do like you, Steve and feel that you do have a good heart that you are operating out of. In short, I think you mean well but I also think that you often over analyze things and instead of reacting from your heart you react from the mind. This is something coming from a person like me who also analyzes everything. But there has to be a balance. For that reason, though I think it is true what you say, you do have compassion for all, sometimes your compassion is misguided.

posted June 09, 2007 02:57 PM         

I was very gratified to read your response. Your tone with me here is very mature and your logic is surprisingly sound. I don't think I am flattering myself when I say that I believe the quality of your response is largely due to the maturity with which I responded to you yesterday. I'm glad that you could see my good intent, and that you chose to respond in kind. I'll try to clear up what I see as a few remaining misunderstandings.

I do not think it is advisable to refer to people as trolls, unless it is in jest, and with no ill feeling behind it. Regardless of what materials the internet lexicon provides you with, you have the choice not to make use of degrading terms like that. And, I did not say you referred to her as a troll, but to "people" as trolls. You said that, at first, you thought she was just another troll. I was moved to stop reading at that point, but it looked to me like you were going on to say that she was something even more despicable than these "trolls". Whether you really despise her, or, whether the angry and harsh tone and form of your words merely suggests that you do, makes no difference to me. And I really don't care what benign fairy-tale the term comes from. A "troll" is an ugly and inhuman thing. When we assign dehumanizing labels to people, we give power to the self-same forces which a man like Adolf Hitler harnessed to bring about the most massive genocide our world has ever seen. Mind you, I am not comparing you to Hitler, Mirandee. Not at all. I am just pointing out the end result to which dehumanizing language inevitably tends, and hoping that you will come to see it as I do, and cease to refer to human beings as animals and monsters. What made it possible for the Nazis to do what they did is precisely the delusion they had that certain people were less than human.

You spent a long time explaining the different connotations of judgement. Its a little ironic, and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, almost fishy, that you would do this for my sake, as I have been posting similar explainations for the past 4 years here at LL, many of them directed to you. You must be aware of my views on this matter. You are attempting to explain to me a point which has always been absolutley central to my thinking, and present in almost every post I make. The difference between the conclusion I draw, and the conclusion you appear to have drawn, is that you seem to think it is okay to rail at people and insult them when you see something negative in them. Even if you do not truly condemn them in your own mind, your harsh words strongly indicate that you have shut them out of your heart.

In the instance in which you are referring to about when you and Lia and fayte were attacked, you are convinced that I did not defend you, but, I believe I did. By stating that I would have no further part in the conflict, I did in fact take an active part, and it was clear to me, if not to others, that my intention was to discourage negativity, regardless of whose posts it issued from. So, in that sense, I most certainly did make an attempt to defend you, all of you, from each other. And I did it without getting personal. It's true, I did not enter into the specifics of the case, and I could not say that you, Lia, and fayte were entirely without blemish in how you dealt with the attack. Of course, I do not blame you. You are human, and you are progressing at your own level and speed. I probably would have reacted in the same way as you did.

posted June 09, 2007 02:58 PM         

It is my intention to speak objectively whenever I am capable of objectivity. Clearly, there are instances in which I am right in the middle of something, being attacked, and, for whatever reason, I lose objectivity. As you can see from my responses to you and lotus above, I do manage to maintain my cool under pressure at least some of the time. When I do falter, I hope you will call me on it, as I have tried to do for you and for others, and that my personal outrage will not blind me to your good intention. I do believe that I have expressed my sympathy, empathy, and compassion for fayte, on this thread, several times, although it appears to have been overlooked by you, fayte, and lotus.

quote:

---

Being a thinker maybe you have come to the conclusion that I have always held, that when you address an issue, an injustice that you see taking place, unfairness, it is not the same as taking sides with the individuals involved. It is following your principals and values of what you feel to be right or wrong or unjust. In that sense we are not addressing the persons so much as the principal involved. The injustice is what we are addressing. We can do that without taking sides for against the people involved.

---

Yes, this is precisely what I have told you about myself, and tried to explain to you, a number of times. You paraphrase well. Just teasing.

quote:

---

I hope that is the conclusion that you have come to and the way that you now feel as opposed to what you stated in the past about taking sides.

---

I do not see a discrepancy. I stated in the instance you refer to that I woudl not take sides, and that is still my position. I knew very little about the case, and I chose not to enter into the details for several reasons. For one thing, it appeared to me that every attempt made by other knowflakes to make peace was being met with fury, and that anything I said about an individual would only exacerbate matters. As you can see, that is exactly what happens most of the time in these cases, even when the conflicts have not escalated nearly as far. I try to speak about principles, and I make use of the particulars of the case, and all people can see are the names I am mentioning. For this reason, I may yet choose to abandon the practice of mentioning specifics altogether. So far, I am still trying to ground my abstract principles in the particulars of the case, so that people will know what I am talking about. When I am too abstract, people accuse me of being passive aggressive, and when I "name names", people accuse me of having a personal grudge. So, I still don't know how best to get through to people.

posted June 09, 2007 02:59 PM         

In my first post, I sympathized with DC, mainly, because fayte was not on the thread expressing her own pain. If she had been, I would have directed my post to her. What I saw was a bunch of people ganging up on DC. My comments were more critical of them, than of fayte, who was only vaguely implicated in the ordeal at that point, and I even took pains to express my understanding of fayte, and defend her somewhat to DC. Evidently, nobody noticed that either, and, instead, fayte got angry with me for defending her because she felt she required no defense and had done nothing that needed to be excused. I agreed that I had made assumptions about her part in the conflict, and apologized for that. In any case, if she had done anything wrong, it would have been beside the point, as my intention was not to say she had done wrong, but to say that she is human and, whether she had done wrong or not, she deserved understanding and compassion. Again, this was overlooked.

Often, I make the choice to respond to the person who is the last to post negative comments. If I had shown up in Yellow Wax when DfD/LD was posting negatively to fayte or anyone else, I would have directed a nearly identical post to her. As it turned out, I arrived on the scene when LD was not there, and fayte had just posted. You may see a great difference between how I chose to respond to DC here and how I chose to respond to fayte in Yellow Wax, but I do not. I think, there is really little difference. The difference that exists is that fayte's post to LD was long and included a lot of unbridled negativity. The post i saw here by DC was very short, it made only one nasty remark (she said fayte was the most condescending or self-righteous person), which was tempered by her talk of forgiveness, and, if you will read my post objectively, you will see that I did tell her this nasty comment was not a good thing. I also repeated this elsewhere when I said it was "rude". If you will read my response to fayte in Yellow Wax, objectively, you will see that it is not significantly different. I sympathized with fayte there, same as here, and I made assumptions about DfD's part in provoking her. To be fair, it is worth mentioning that fayte did not object to those assumptions, although she objected very adamantly when she herself was the object of assumption.

Another thing that determines who I direct my post to is whether or not the things I have to say have already been said. For instance, if three or four people are criticizing one person, I do not see the point in adding my voice to that, even if I may agree with them. And I especially will not add my voice to that if they are criticizing in a way that is much harsher than I would choose to do. I dont know why this is apparently so difficult for some people to understand. What I speak out against is the cruelty I see, regardless of who commits it. I am more likely to comment on the most recent instance of cruelty. The point is, most people seem to want to argue about who started it, and what the other person said to provoke their reaction. I dont care much for that way of thinking. All I want to know is, who is making an effort to forgive or understand the other person, and who is being harsh; who is trying to justify their harshness by thinking and speaking only of the injustices they themselves have suffered, and not the ones they have inflicted? I don't care who provoked what. I have enough insight into human nature to know that, when a person is being harsh, that person believes they have been provoked. Whether they have "good" or "bad" reasons to believe this is not the point. Reasons are just reasons. The point is, they believe it. Now, we can be harsh with that person, because we believe they have no good reason for being harsh themselves, and because we believe that we have a really good one, but that position lacks awareness of a lot of important things, in my opinion. Everyone wants to focus on the reasons for being harsh - "who was provoked", "who had good reason", etc. Naturally, they cannot make sense of what I am saying and what I am trying to do. The point is, if you want to know what justifies harshness, it is this: Everything and Nothing.

posted June 09, 2007 03:00 PM         

So, when I speak to people, I am trying to convey something that is, in my eyes, both infinitely simple, and extremely subtle. Everything happens for a reason, everything is the necessary and natural effect of a cause that has its origin beyond the present instance, and, so, everything is justified, in that sense. Everyone speaks from their present level of development, and we cannot blame them for that. At the same time, we need to bring light in, and help each other to expand our awareness. The way to do this is not to take a tone that is explicitly harsh and meanspirited. If we take such a tone, all we show is our own level of development. But, if we respond maturely, with kindness, making an effort to understand one another, the result is that the Holy Spirit enters into the space between us. Just as it has now, with you and me, Mirandee, because we are both making and effort to be civil and to understand each other. It definitely says something encouraging about our own levels of development.

I do not hold fayte to a higher standard, or anyone to a higher standard, for that matter. When you grasp where I am really coming from, you will see that I hold everyone to the highest standard, but that I do not blame anyone for falling short of it in any way. To my way of thinking, we all fall short, in every way imaginable, while, at the same time, we are all precisely where we are meant to be, doing exactly what we are meant to be doing. I hope you understand.

quote:

---

Would be nice to see once in awhile around LL people directing their comments to the offender, the one on the offense instead of directing it all at the person on defense. Now that would be true justice.

---

Where you see a distinction between offender and defender, I do not. The person you see as a defender is seen as an offender in the eyes of the other person, and the person you see as an offender is seen as a defender in their own eyes. What I would like people to understand is that perception is just as important, and often far more relevant, than reality. In fact, we cannot separate perception from reality, no matter how much we would like to, or how much it would suit our personal agendas. In order to get at the reality, we must go beneath the surface of things, and take into account the various perceptions of the people involved. We cannot just dismiss someone's perspective, and say, "Well, you are wrong, and your reason for feeling provoked is not objective, therefore, I am justified in heaping all manner of verbal abuse against you." This simply will not do. As you can see for youself, it has not worked, and never will work, here at LL, or anywhere else.

I appreciate your advice about balancing my heart and mind and practicing empathy. I believe I have been practicing empathy to an exceptional degree. I have empathy for everyone, not just the people I am told I ought to empathize with (i.e. the "victims"). That is, in fact, one of the virtues I believe I have in spades, and what many of the people who try to teach me about could take a lesson in themselves, if you catch my drift. All it takes to see things from a higher perspective, Mirandee, is to recognize the profound truth that even the people you see as victimizers see themselves as victims, and are in a great deal of pain. I doubt there is anyone on this site who suffers more than DfD. That is just the feeling I get. Does that mean I condone her actions? Heck no. But I have enough empathy and insight to step out of my own shoes for a moment, and into hers. I have tried to extend this courtesy to everyone, not just the people you see as abusers, but it is not often acknowledged, especially if I am attempting to temper it with a little objectivity, and/or empathy for anyone other than themselves.

posted June 09, 2007 03:00 PM           

That DC, out of all the other people on the thread, directed her words at Lotus and myself withtout provocation is suspicious and that is why I think she is someone who has a known screen name at LL.

In case you folks didn't read the links provided or in case you can't understand what she said because it was written backwards, this is what she said:

Lotus wants to have sex with Mirandee

and

Suck my d--k. ( odd remark for a woman to make lol )

That sounds to me like DC is one of two people that I know has a grudge against both Lotus and myself. In fact, I would reduce that to one person mainly because the other really has no grudge against Lotus.

The only grudge that these two people have against me is that they know that I can see right through their act. That is the same grudge these people have against Fayte.

If people were more observant as to what is going on around them they would notice how very many times a newbie has come on the threads and gone straight for Fayte and her friends.

HSC, that is what Fayte meant at Yellow Wax when she told you that you do not have all the facts because you don't know all the behind the scenes things that are taking place in emails, private messages, etc. and all the plotting and scheming taking place by some individuals.

That was less than a month ago that DC said that. I personally do not believe that human beings change that fast. It takes time to change. A day to day thing. I also do not think that, barring a miracle or some extraordinary event in their lives, people do not "get religion" that fast either.

I am willing to cut DC some slack and not hold her to past words or actions. Letting it go. Forgiving and moving on allows others the room they need to grow and change and learn from past mistakes. I don't like others holding me to the past and not allowing me room to grow and change by bringing up everything I have ever said or did so I won't do that to others.

That includes you, HSC and everyone else. In your case, HSC, I do feel that you may have had a change of heart and opinion since last Dec. and last fall since those events happened to me, my daughter and Fayte. So I don't hold you that and it is not something that I think of all the time or hold against you. You simply made your choice back then as you are doing now and that is okay by me.

posted June 09, 2007 03:00 PM         

To the things you added when you edited your last post,
which I only saw just now:

quote:

---

I do agree with you HSC that we all say rude things now and then and that does not represent the essence of who we are. Same thing applies to Fayte, though , does it not?

---

Absolutely.
And I said so myself, numerous times.
Please reread my posts.

quote:

---

However, Daisy Chain went the extra mile in this case.

---

That's not the point, as I see it. To err is to err. One error is not more deserving of harsh treatment than another. No errors are deserving of harsh treatment. All errors may only be corrected with love and knowledge. The greater the error, the greater the need for love and knowledge.

quote:

---

I wonder why your bias always seems to be in favor of the abusers at LL against those they victimize, HSC instead of supporting the people that are being abused. It seems to me the compassion and sympathy on your part would be for those who are being attacked but instead it always seems to be in favor of those doing the attacking. Curious thing.

---

It is not a bias, Mirandee. Far from it. For an answer to this question, please see the last sentence I wrote to your last question. After that, you might want to consult your New Testament, as this is the stance taken by Jesus of Nazareth. He was judged for preaching to the sinners, rather than the righteous. His response was, "The well need not a physician". Try to understand.

posted June 09, 2007 03:03 PM           

I'm not getting on your case here, HSC. Just giving my thoughts on it. Not even saying those thoughts are right about you or anyone else.

posted June 09, 2007 04:40 PM         

If you want to be sure it will be seen,
particularly by the person the post is directed to,
you could post and say,
"I added a whole two or three paragraphs to my above post."

It's not an issue, if you don't do this,
but it might be a good idea anyway.

hsc

posted June 10, 2007 02:48 AM           

I said this regarding DC and I meant it so it doesn't appear from my words here that I am demonizing or condemning anyone.

quote:

---

I am willing to cut DC some slack and not hold her to past words or actions. Letting it go. Forgiving and moving on allows others the room they need to grow and change and learn from past mistakes. I don't like others holding me to the past and not allowing me room to grow and change by bringing up everything I have ever said or did so I won't do that to others.

That includes you, HSC and everyone else. In your case, HSC, I do feel that you may have had a change of heart and opinion since last Dec. and last fall since those events happened to me, my daughter and Fayte. So I don't hold you that and it is not something that I think of all the time or hold against you. You simply made your choice back then as you are doing now and that is okay by me.

---

I will add to this that your choice and your perceptions and thoughts regarding reality and anything else are yours. My choices, Fayte's choices and the choices of others, and how we perceive things and think does not have to be the same as you.

If there is no offender and no defender in any circumstance in life then there is no wrong or right either.

posted June 10, 2007 09:26 AM         

I did see those thoughts. I only spoke about the incident in December because you had mentioned it there. It's good you are willing to give people some slack. I would recommend cutting the line entirely, and never jerking the hook.

quote:

---

I will add to this that your choice and your perceptions and thoughts regarding reality and anything else are yours. My choices, Fayte's choices and the choices of others, and how we perceive things and think does not have to be the same as you.

---

I've said it countless times before, and I'll say it again and again, - as long as this ridiculous hydra of assumption keeps presenting its heads, I will keep lopping them off (and, no doubt, they will keep growing back until I find a way to carterize the wound): I know that how you perceive things and think does not have to be the same as mine. ((Yup, I definitely said it. Please copy that and post it on your refrigerator, so you won't forget.)) I could say the same to you, but I just figure that kind of stuff goes without saying. All I'm ever doing is speaking from my perspective. You are free to imagine that I am merely demanding that you relinquish your own and see things my way, but that is your assumption. I am only trying to make my perspective visible and comprehensible to you. Please, reread this paragraph one thousand times, if that's what it takes, and try to remember not to infer this baseless accusation again.

quote:

---

If there is no offender and no defender in any circumstance in life then there is no wrong or right either.

---

You are mistaken. There is right and wrong, but what is right is precisely that which transcends the division between offender and defender, and what is wrong is precisely that which is mired in this division.

quote:

---

In order to comply with the law of the universe in any given disagreement or argument someone has to start it.

---

Which universe are you looking at?
You think there is always someone who starts it,
but, in this universe, there is no beginning and no end.

quote:

---

If there is no offender and no defender it defies all the laws of the universe in that everything has it's opposite... Otherwise cause and effect does not exist either. There is no action and reaction and Einstein was all wrong about that. Catch my drift?

---

"Everything has its opposite" is misleading if you do not reflect on the deeper meaning, which is that everything contains its opposite. There are two sides (at least!!) to every story. Every cause is also an effect. Opposites are relative to one another. That is precisely what Einstein was right about. Catch my drift?

posted June 10, 2007 11:31 AM         

"The spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak."

- Matthew 26:41