posted November 03, 2009 03:38 AM         

I can appreciate that her monologue was an attempt to compare "offensive" posting styles. My point is that her words, which were not the least bit objective, were loaded with a slew of personal insults. Moreover, they were primarily directed, not at my approach (or even her highly subjective view of my approach), but at the assumed motives which she has imagined and ascribed to me. Let's see: "self-serving", "in order to create controversy.. for its own sake", "self-prophesising", "insensitive", "funny in their irony of arrogance", "obnoxious", "drop[ping] bombs for the purpose of watching other people fight", and "malicious".

And calling me insensitive to "people who have lost children, are unable to conceive and are desperate to, and/or are unable to afford adoption or proceed with it because of other rules and regulations", as if its my fault that the present conditions don't make it easy to do the right thing, and I ought to just silence the truth because society is so far on the wrong side of right that the truth would only upset these people. Bullocks! The real irony is that I could just as easily say congratulating someone on having a baby is being insensitive to the same people PA noted, since it could just as easily upset them. Or, that having a child is insensitive to the 44 million orphans in the world, and that creating a child of your own when there are so many children in the world in need of homes is pure egotism. I could say that. And I could point out that something is wrong with society, if it costs $10,000 dollars and pristine credit to adopt a child who would otherwise starve to death. Again, this isnt my fault, but, if it is ever going to change, people need to start promoting these ideals.

I'll go first.

Then:

quote:

---

I would tell Valus to stick that up his peace pipe, but chances are he's already smoked it.

---

A highly aggressive comment, no? And that's just the "stick it up" part. The rest of it is a personal dig at me for smoking pot. Is this part of her fair and balanced comparison of posting styles, AG?

Then congratulating herself:

quote:

---

That was pretty funny, actually.

---

An instance of playful self-approval which I'd have no problem with at all, if it weren't the very thing that she delights in harping on me for doing, lol.

AG, you write:

quote:

---

This venue is a free-for-all. A person can post whatever they want within reason. There is no heirarchy of how threads should be valued.

---

Emphasis on the words "within reason". Who decides what is within reason? I'll tell you. We all do. Randall's view takes presidence at the end of the day, and he decides for LL, but we are all deciding for ourselves, as well. And what is that decision based on? Value judgements. Subjective value judgements. And values are, by nature, hierarchical. But hierarchy doesnt even necessarily have to enter into our discussion here, since the real point I think T and others (including myself) were making is not that PA's values are low-brow, but, that they are unrelated to the stated intentions and themes of this site, and that threads which reflect unrelated values ought not to overwhelm the boards. Everything about this site promotes philosophical, ethical, psychological, sociological, and spiritual concerns. What does Clive Owen's jock have to do with it? Seriously? And what does a clique of sexually-frustrated, middle-aged women have to do with the values we reflect on when we think of Lindaland?

quote:

---

Sure you're welcome to oppose censure of your topics, but so is she, and you both command enough respect to pull off your positions.

---

I fail to see why this point needs to be endlessly reiterated, AG. I agree with it. And I'm continuing to make my case. She has every right to think and say whatever she wants about my threads, -- as you said, "within reason". But flat insults, excessive for their harsh wording, their lack of any foundation in reality, and their frequent use, are out of line. As is her constant ascribing to me of false and unflattering motives. It needs to stop.

quote:

---

But YOU define YOU. How many times have I been bashed, and my motives questioned around here? Not everyone gets me either. In fact, I would theorize that most people are fairly misunderstood on this planet. It's like there's this imaginary group called Humanity, and we're all outside of it trying to get in, trying to connect, but even though we do connect, we ARE actually part of Humanity from the start. All of humanity is on the outside trying to get in.

---

I hear you, brother, and I agree with you, for the most part. I do think it's a matter of degree, though. We've all felt like outsiders, sure. Most feelings that a human being can have are common to all human beings. But they are different according to the degree; to the frequency and intensity with which they are felt. Astrology makes a point of singling out Scorpios and Aquarians as being the signs most intimately familiar with such feelings. I simply agree with astrology.

I also disagree with your "YOU define YOU" philosophy, which strikes me as idealistic, but only natural to someone who hasn't struggled all his life with being an empath. If you find it so easy to rise above other's poor opinions of you, might I suggest that it's because you don't experience boundary dissolution as acutely as some? It's unfortunate that, so often, we ascribe to others the ability to do something for no other reason than that we ourselves can do it. We generalize. And then we criticize others for not doing it, because we've already assumed that it must be as easy for them as it is for ourselves. I'd argue that the truth is, we are born for different things, and, so, we have different gifts, and different curses corresponding to those gifts; for every gift has its price.

quote:

---

It wasn't really about you. You just took it that way.

---

What was I thinking, right? I dunno, AG. I guess I just tend to see it as personal when somebody implies that I'm a pothead and describes me and my work as: "self-serving", "in order to create controversy.. for its own sake", "self-prophesising", "funny in their irony of arrogance", "obnoxious", "drop[ping] bombs for the purpose of watching other people fight", and "malicious". Oh, well. Call me sensitive. I do.

posted November 03, 2009 05:54 AM         

quote:

---

And what does a clique of sexually-frustrated, middle-aged women have to do with the values we reflect on when we think of Lindaland?

---

Totally out of order.

posted November 03, 2009 05:55 AM         

Or was it the one thing worth overlooking?

posted November 03, 2009 06:09 AM         

And even if it was excessive,
I said a lot of good things, too,
and my treasure shouldn't be estimated
according to the one piece of lead,
that fell among the gold.

I dont include you in that, btw,
but the general tone of the threads
routinely screams sexual frustration.

Maybe I'm wrong,
but, I'm just saying,
that's how it looks.

posted November 03, 2009 06:13 AM         

quote:

---

I dont include you in that, btw

---

Oh, I'm honoured. So what makes me different from "them"?

Well here's news for you.

I include me in that group.

posted November 03, 2009 06:27 AM         

I can't help my opinion.

There is something sad there.

I'm not saying its a big deal,
but its definitely a factor.

It's not worth focussing on,
and I haven't focussed on it.
But I haven't ignored it either.

Anyway. I'm moving on.
You can make a big deal of it.
We've all got stuff.

posted November 03, 2009 10:01 AM         

First of all, I have respect for you. You know that. Often we butt heads about things, mostly because my Aquarian need for peace and equality in all things gets flustered and offended by your Scopionic need to dig deeper than others are comfortable with. I think we have learned things from each other, wheter or not we intended to be taught at the time. Hell, I'm sure both of our egos have been irritated by the other but I do still manage to see the thoughfullness you put into your posts and appreciate your conviction in the less than popular opinions you sometimes share.

HOWEVER, I have to express confusion in the fact that you could be offended by being accused of being controversial for controversy's sake.

quote:

---

For those who were offended:
Haven't you learned
not to take me literally
YET?

---

This certainly implies that what you say is more inflammatory than your actual message. Hence, controversial beyond necessity.

quote:

---

This is the realization
I wanted to provoke.

---

Another implication that being provocative was the purpose of the thread.

I'm just saying.

Often times on these boards people go too far in defense of their own character, which I think is what PA has done here. I personally do not read the Godzala threads so I cannot comment on their content or what has happened in the aftermath of T's post, which has apparently trickled onto you. I cannot comment on her character because I have never "spoken" with her here on the boards but I can see where the comments she made were a bit out of order considering the "argument" had nothing to do with you.

But, isn't her reaction to you what you're aiming at? To be remembered? To leave a mark on one's brain about the topics you have brought up and the emotions you stir up in people about said topics? Aren't your words trying to make noise and bring attention to your causes?

Call me naive, but I find it hard to believe that her comments could be offensive to you when they seem to just add weight to your intention to "provoke realizations".

Again, I mean no offense, more of a curious observation.

Your skin is thicker than that, as you've proved time and again, otherwise I'm sure you would drop the idea of posting controversial topics that leave you having to deal with the s-storm that always comes your way. Isn't that the point?

posted November 03, 2009 10:17 AM         

Ghani,
I think you are missing a very important piece of the puzzle here.

Valus wrestles with himself, his own motives and convictions, his ego... constantly. I am surprised you don't see that.

AND

posted November 03, 2009 10:55 AM         

I know him better than you think.

He will know where I'm coming from with this post but how nice of you to stick up for him. And if he doesn't, he can address that with me.

posted November 03, 2009 02:35 PM         

Right back atcha. You assume that I don't understand him or his motives, which is not so. I am not having a "fight" either. There are always forces those on the periphery do not understand and this is one of those cases. You assume I am "missing a piece" and don't think that I see his struggles. I do. He knows that. I addressed him in my post, not anyone else. I don't know why you felt it was your place to step in when it was unnessecary. Now there is tension where there should not be.

But alas, what can I do to stop your passions from responding when you feel I am attacking someone. That is your right in the grand scheme.

But I don't think you get what I'm getting at so I'll just let Stephen respond to me if he so chooses.

Peace to you, I see your heart is in it.

posted November 04, 2009 01:24 AM         

quote:

---

Stephen,

First of all, I have respect for you. You know that.

---

I appreciate that. But, please, call me Valus. I almost feel disrespected when you use my real name, particularly as it infers a level of intimacy between us that does not exist. It's been a while since I called you Jaymee. Anyway, my friends call me Steve. Anybody who knows me knows at least that much. There's really only one person who calls me Stephen, and that's my girlfriend. Although I'm not strict about it, it is, to some extent, a priviledge reserved for her. I don't know if you know her name, but you definitely know her as "Yin". And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't speak down to her, as you seem to be doing. She's a really gentle person. And she probably knows me better than anybody, accept maybe my best friend, Dan. Certainly, she knows me much, much better than you do.

You and I have met on one occassion, Ghani. If we had any real understanding between us, we'd have spent more than those few hours together, don't you think? I remember very little about the meeting, but one thing I remember is that I was such a ball of nervous energy. I remember how eccentric I was behaving, and how full of social anxiety. You were cool as a cucumber. I'm not sure you remember, because here you are accussing me of having a thick skin, and I can't imagine how anybody can remember that meeting and still think I have a thick skin. On the contrary, I have a very thin skin. Where it has grown thick is only where the scars have gathered thickest. You don't know me at all. And I can only marvel at your presumption in claiming it.

But, then, many people think they know me here, and that's not too difficult to explain. People don't know what to make of a person like me, who has almost no filters, and who, in addition to having almost no filters, is concerned with very controversial ideas; which, on account of his lack of filters, he voices with a rare and alarming honesty. They don't know what to make of it, so, they make assumptions instead. They project onto me the things they already know. That's only natural. Just as the natives could not see the ships on the horizon, because they had never seen ships before, most people cannot see me.

More peculiar still, and another reason I tend to be misunderstood, is that I have a puckish, mercurial side to my character, so I often say things which are not intended to be taken literally, or, at least, as my literal position, but, which are intended to offer an extreme perspective for consideration -- as I believe that this extremity can provide perspective. When we are shown an extreme view, the discrepency between that view and the common view is so great that the mind is almost forced to consider a view which moderates the two. Also, taking an extreme position is, as you can see, and as many of you have pointed out to me, a great way to bait the line (or the thread), and get people talking and thinking. Once I get them in the seats, I can explain my true intentions, and just hope they aren't too indignant or confused with me to listen. The ones who are tend to be those who won't understand my true position anyway.

quote:

---

This certainly implies that what you say is more inflammatory than your actual message. Hence, controversial beyond necessity.

---

We can debate what is necessary. And we can also debate whether or not controversy, in order to be permissible, must be necessary. Personally, I like controversy. It's interesting. And whether people admit it or not, I think many of them like it, too. I would even go so far as to say that controversy for its own sake may be healthy in a world where people are so afraid to be contraversial. The problem isn't how to be less contraversial, but, how to get rid of this injunction to be less contraversial. In any case, the contraversy that interests me is not for its own sake. What interest me is the content, and there needs to be weighty content. Believe me, if I just wanted to make waves and get attention I could be ten times as provocative as I am now. But I'm not as desperate for attention as you think. In fact, I've got more attention than I have time and energy and will to entertain. What I truly desire is the right attention.

As I wrote, and you quoted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the realization
I wanted to provoke.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The implication is not, as you interpret it, "that being provocative was the purpose of the thread", but, as the words plainly say, my intention was to provoke that realization; and not to provoke PA or anybody else's knee-jerk assumptions.

quote:

---

I can see where the comments she made were a bit out of order considering the "argument" had nothing to do with you.

---

Thank you for that.

quote:

---

But, isn't her reaction to you what you're aiming at? To be remembered? To leave a mark on one's brain about the topics you have brought up and the emotions you stir up in people about said topics? Aren't your words trying to make noise and bring attention to your causes?

Call me naive, but I find it hard to believe that her comments could be offensive to you when they seem to just add weight to your intention to "provoke realizations".

---

Yes, I'm aiming at making an impression, but I'm not satisfied with making a superficial impression which only leads to misunderstandings and bitter assumptions about my character. To some extent, it comes with the territory, and it goes with the job, but that doesnt mean I have to like it. Not to compare myself to Christ, but, Jesus knew that if he spoke the truth he would be crucified... Are you suggesting that he had no right to lament over his fate, and the actions of wicked men, since his destiny was self-chosen? I find that idealistic, or, if you prefer, naive. Just because we chose to do a job -- or to obey a calling -- doesnt mean we have to like all the bullsh-t that goes with it. And it doesnt mean we can't go on strike, or push for better treatment and conditions. See what I'm saying?

I have to be myself. It's as simple as that. In an ideal world, everyone, upon reading my words, would be provoked into some brilliant realization, and they'd welcome me as a breath of fresh air. That's what I want. But that's not reality. And I'm not going to stop being myself, or playing with fire, or suggesting stark perspectives for consideration, just so I can get people to like me and think well of me. If I must be misunderstood, so be it. But I don't have to like it, and I don't have to stop fighting it.

quote:

---

Your skin is thicker than that, as you've proved time and again, otherwise I'm sure you would drop the idea of posting controversial topics that leave you having to deal with the s-storm that always comes your way. Isn't that the point?

---

There's another possibility you're overlooking. Might it not be that what I've proven is, in fact, that I am willing to be torn to pieces time and again for my right to speak up, stand out, and stand up? I put my whole self into many of these threads, believe it or not. And some protests go on for a week or longer. You have no idea what a struggle that is for me, or what an assault on my nerves. Then, when the smoke clears, I take time to heal. And that's basically what I do, ghani. I fight until the battle is won or until I can't fight any more (whichever comes first), and then I convalesce. I'd give anything, ghani, to live in a world where my words did not invoke storms. But that's not the world we live in. Not yet, at least. But I think that, if I keep talking, maybe someday people will stop being shocked. I'm really not that shocking. Not to me, anyway. People need to lighten up.

quote:

---

There are always forces those on the periphery do not understand and this is one of those cases.

---

Are you saying here that Yin is on the periphery? Ghani, if anyone is on the periphery here, it is you. I appreciate that you were not intending to be rude, and I see a lot of good in the tone of your posts, but I also feel that you are overstepping your bounds and making assumptions left anf right about me, and about what you think you know. So, while I wish to show you respect, I can't conceal the fact that your position here is rubbing me the wrong way. I dont think you meant to be rude, but you are.

quote:

---

You assume I am "missing a piece" and don't think that I see his struggles. I do. He knows that.

---

But, Ghani, nobody who knows that
could possibly think I have a thick skin.

quote:

---

I addressed him in my post, not anyone else. I don't know why you felt it was your place to step in when it was unnessecary. Now there is tension where there should not be.

---

There was already tension, when you claimed a position which is not rightfully yours. You use my private name, and then you make claims of priviledged knowledge and insight into my character; claims founded on nothing but suspicion, assumption, and shortsighted thinking; most of which do not reflect positively on me. Yin, as the person who knows me better than anyone on these boards, has every right to speak. Its really quite silly to suggest otherwise. One of the most common occurrences on these boards is when people speak up for other people and respond to comments not addressed to themselves. You will have to rebuke everybody on the boards, including yourself, if you really intend to take a stance on that one. These are public boards. I wonder if you see the ridiculousness of saying that it wasnt her place to step in. It's not your place, ghani, to tell my girlfriend that you know her man better than she does. And its not your place to address me as "Stephen", and then to tell me what you think you know about me that neither myself nor my girlfriend know. Pretty much everything you said was wrong. And its nothing I havent heard either. Its wrong in the same way that most people are wrong about me. Its a total inability to perceive me as I am. A total failure to understand me as a deeply sensitive, but, nevertheless, compulsively honest, passionately principled, progressive and independent thinker, with almost no filters, and certainly no respect for empty social conventions and constraints. That's who I am. And if you don't know that, you don't know me. Period.

posted November 04, 2009 07:15 AM         

quote:

---

I therefore conclude (for myself) that to be accepted by other people is more important than to be understood by them. Working with this and the premise that people will never feel the same way and see things from the same angle, I believe it makes sense that we should "accept" others even if we don't completely understand them or agree with them all the time.

---

posted November 04, 2009 01:07 PM         

Most of your response was defensive rebuttal for a non-existant issue based on a miscommunication that wasn't really necessary. I didn't bring up anything personal, Valus. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way and felt the need to bring things onto the boards that have nothing to do with anything. I'm also unsure if your "cool as a cucumber" comment was a dig about me being cold? Maybe I'm reading too much into that? Hard to tell. I was not trying to start a fight with you, or Yin, or anyone. Also, I have called you Stephen on the boards for a long time and was not told by you not to until now so I'm sorry if you felt I was being disrespectful, that was not my intention. It was not an implication of intimacy, and honestly, I started calling you that long long ago once I knew what your name was. I think AG might have dropped it in a post (and I'm talking 5 or more years ago) and I picked up on it, something like that. I wish you had told me it bothered you before now if it bothered you that much.

Again, you are free to have taken what I said how you wanted to, but your over expression of how much I don't understand you is a bit much. I'm hoping that a lot of what you said will be cleared up with the realization that I was not trying to over step boundries. OF COURSE your own girlfriend knows you better than I, or anyone else on LL does.

I also did not imply that you should have thick skin for personal, character attacks. I'm quite sure that I said PA was out of line. I will always defend somebody who is being PERSONALLY insulted. It's sometimes like you want to have things both ways. You want people to take what you feed them in your controversial postings, but heaven forbid they should disagree or tear into you back because you are sensitive. If you want it both ways, you have to be prepared to deal with it. The PERSONAL attacks don't need to be tolerated and if someone digs at you because you smoke pot, or blah blah, unless it is pertinent to the argument, should be left out of it. The great leaders always have to deal with slander. They stand up for their causes and are met by some with strong resistance and dispairaging remarks and comments on their character, morals, ideas, what have you. Since it's current, let's say you were a gay man speaking up at a "Vote Yes on 1" rally. You would really have to expect that what you had to say would be heard by some, balked at by others, and yet others would run a smear campaign against you. Would you be broken down by those that balked? Or would you believe enough in what you were standing for to take it in stride and say "eff it"?

We have had so many instances of me trying to drag these things out of you that I'm starting to think it's for a greater purpose. I guess you could say I'm challenging you and your willingess to go to the limit for your convictions. Maybe you do hear it all the time. Maybe you don't give a rats a$$, whatever. But with each new posting I read by you, I have to wonder if you could go all the way. You claim:

quote:

---

that I am willing to be torn to pieces time and again for my right to speak up, stand out, and stand up? I put my whole self into many of these threads, believe it or not. And some protests go on for a week or longer. You have no idea what a struggle that is for me, or what an assault on my nerves.

---

Then why bother? Unless you are going to follow through with what your convictions are, fight to the bloody end over it and come out of it grey and smiling, it seems rather defeatist.

There is greatness in you Valus. We all see it. ***** all you want and lament when somebody plays dirty or throws mud your way, but come on, on this one issue, I don't honestly see how that comment can offend you.

posted November 04, 2009 02:29 PM         

No, I wasnt suggesting you were cold, but that you were not the nervous, thin-skinned wreck that I was. Try to understand why I would be sick to death of every knowflake who reads my posts coming out of the woodwork to tell me how well they know me and how they are here to challenge me to go the distance, etc., or however they articulate it. I have nothing to prove to you or anybody. You've admitted that personal attacks are out of line. Try to understand that what I'm objecting to is not disagreement, directed at the subject of my posts, but, personal character assaults and assumptions about my character. I'm well aware that people who stand up have to deal with this stuff, and I'm also well aware that we don't have to take it sitting down. I am human, and I'm going to get upset. Just because I live in such a way as to "invite" attacks, doesnt mean I have to be thick-skinned and super detached about it. In other words: It's my party and I'll cry if I want to. You expect too much if you expect me to take every attack in stride, and if you think that's a qualification for my work. I do what I do because its who I am. I dont know how to do anything else and I dont want to do anything else. I feel like myself when I express myself here in the ways that I do. I don't have a choice. Try to understand that, since the majority of your argument is directed at things that don't exist -- i.e. my choice not to speak up, and my choice not to be hurt by personal attacks. This is how it is. And the great men and women of history were not, to a man, capable of letting this stuff role off their backs. "Literature is strewn with the wreckage of men who have minded beyond reason the opinions of others." (~ Virginia Woolf) The story about the death of Keats, which may or may not be true, is that he was killed by a critic -- a certain critic gave him a very unfavorable review, and they say he never recovered. Artists are sensitive people, ghani, and that sensitivity is rarely found alongside the ability to say "f-ck all". Should Keats never have written, because he was not prepared for the criticism? Many lovers of literature would disagree with that.

quote:

---

There is greatness in you Valus. We all see it.

---

Thanks.

Do you know what would happen if I said that?

quote:

---

I don't honestly see how that comment can offend you.

---

That's okay. You dont have to.

posted November 04, 2009 03:40 PM         

quote:

---

I have nothing to prove to you or anybody.

---

That's a good stance to claim to take, but realize how judgmental your posts can be to others, especially those who are also "thin skinned" and take it personally when told that eating meat, having children, reading romance novels, having a lot of money etc. is wrong.

Forgive me for being exhaustingly Aquarian, but that's just not fair and time and again people who point this out to you are told we are being mean to your sensitive self.

I try to be as objective as possible. I do not bring up things from off the boards. I do not insult you or talk down to you. I forgive you your sharp tongue and diversionary responses.

quote:

---

Try to understand that what I'm objecting to is not disagreement, directed at the subject of my posts, but, personal character assaults and assumptions about my character.

---

I knew that from moment one, my question had nothing to do with that. I repeatedly agreed that you were entitled to be off put by personal and character assaults or assumptions .

I would have hoped you had the same respect for me.

posted November 04, 2009 04:01 PM         

When did I say anything about romance novels? ... People who eat meat are inflicting unimaginable suffering. If the truth upsets them, its not my fault, and I'm not sorry. ... People who have tons of money are indulging the very extremities of their greed, while other people are starving to death. Its exploitation of the system. Just because the system supports it doesnt make it right. Again, I feel no remorse for telling these people what they are doing and what I think of it. ... I'm nowhere near as militant when it comes to people having children, although I think there's an imbalance that needs correcting there. Anyway, I don't think I said anything too critical of these people.

You imagine there's a double standard here, but there's not. Attacking somebody's character because they think highly of themselves or praise themselves, or because they post what may or may not be offensive opinions, is a far cry from attacking the injustices of murderers and of those who would rather trick-out their Hummers than see that people dying of thirst have clean water to drink. There is a huge difference, whether or not you see it.

That's all I have to say to you.

I appreciate your attempts at objectivity.