Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/10/02 05:55 PM
Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/12/02 04:05 AM
Re: Set it all aside - 04/12/02 10:05 AM
Alright MG!
Think we've had one of these threads before - can't remember what came of it in the end. Jackie?
Maybe I'm a bit slow out of the box, but at first I thought when you referred to 'modelling' you meant jumping around clothed in front of a camera. A friend of mine (in fact the girl I am pictured with on Max's site) also offered her services as an 'Aktmodell' - a sitter (as oppose to 'ein Model' ' a 'normal' model- the English word) for a short while. As you say it really is quite a challenge according to her. She said it was quite an okay set up, but she got too little ('bout $15-20US an hour I think), and she also knew one of the artists personally.
She now lives in London now, but she's here in Euroland for a visit at the moment. Praps you to have a fair bit in common with her, because she's been having quite a difficult time trying to find a job there ... at least three firms told her she is 'hopelessly over-qualified' for a position. Problem is she doesn't know what exactly she IS qualified for. You'd think being bilingual from birth and completely fluent in five languages (big green monster appears) she would be able to write her own checks - but apparently not. Clearly when interviewers are confronted with someone more intelligent (or simply more knowledgeable) than themselves they shuffle and swivel in their comfy leather chairs, feel threatened, and simply say 'No'. Anyone else have this experience?
Anyway - you asked what any of us are up to - so I'll offer that I'm not working (for money) today - tonight I'm going to this d'n'b (drum and bass) party where one of my old friends, I've known him since he was 14 and I was 15, is 'mcing'. I really hope it goes alright for him, as he is unemployed now after a long stint at Siemens bored out of his brains and has invested a lot of money into getting some brand-name jungle djs to come out from the U.K. (Usual Suspects). I meet him and a group of hip-hoppers out the back of this club 'Flokati' last week for the first time in 'bout six months and they offered up plenty of freestyle beats (i.e. beat-boxing) and lyrics. It's really quite impressive. That's all from me. Keep your head up.
Think we've had one of these threads before - can't remember what came of it in the end. Jackie?
Maybe I'm a bit slow out of the box, but at first I thought when you referred to 'modelling' you meant jumping around clothed in front of a camera. A friend of mine (in fact the girl I am pictured with on Max's site) also offered her services as an 'Aktmodell' - a sitter (as oppose to 'ein Model' ' a 'normal' model- the English word) for a short while. As you say it really is quite a challenge according to her. She said it was quite an okay set up, but she got too little ('bout $15-20US an hour I think), and she also knew one of the artists personally.
She now lives in London now, but she's here in Euroland for a visit at the moment. Praps you to have a fair bit in common with her, because she's been having quite a difficult time trying to find a job there ... at least three firms told her she is 'hopelessly over-qualified' for a position. Problem is she doesn't know what exactly she IS qualified for. You'd think being bilingual from birth and completely fluent in five languages (big green monster appears) she would be able to write her own checks - but apparently not. Clearly when interviewers are confronted with someone more intelligent (or simply more knowledgeable) than themselves they shuffle and swivel in their comfy leather chairs, feel threatened, and simply say 'No'. Anyone else have this experience?
Anyway - you asked what any of us are up to - so I'll offer that I'm not working (for money) today - tonight I'm going to this d'n'b (drum and bass) party where one of my old friends, I've known him since he was 14 and I was 15, is 'mcing'. I really hope it goes alright for him, as he is unemployed now after a long stint at Siemens bored out of his brains and has invested a lot of money into getting some brand-name jungle djs to come out from the U.K. (Usual Suspects). I meet him and a group of hip-hoppers out the back of this club 'Flokati' last week for the first time in 'bout six months and they offered up plenty of freestyle beats (i.e. beat-boxing) and lyrics. It's really quite impressive. That's all from me. Keep your head up.
Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/13/02 03:16 AM
Post deleted by ewein - 04/15/02 11:31 PM
Re: Set it all aside - 04/16/02 02:15 AM
Hi Everyone,
Great idea, MG. I'm back from Topeka, Kansas, have most of my school-work(?) done and will post all about myself here soon. . .y'all waiting on the edge of your chairs?
Can you imagine I missed everyone during the last few days I've spent in exile? MLC
Great idea, MG. I'm back from Topeka, Kansas, have most of my school-work(?) done and will post all about myself here soon. . .y'all waiting on the edge of your chairs?
Can you imagine I missed everyone during the last few days I've spent in exile? MLC
Re: Who are "they" - 04/16/02 02:52 AM
I don't post often here, preferring to read and learn. Your post, however, was great entertainment. All those references to a mysterious "they" had me wondering if you were Oliver Stone.
As to the "victim/aggressor" ramble, 'debunker' posted publicly available information. I am an old friend of the person calling himself Max, and he tells me that 'debunker' is a great person, kind, intelligent, generous and reasonable. Perhaps 'debunker' made an error in judgement with the post that started this thread, but everybody does so from time to time. Your ignorance of the dynamics of this board was graphically demonstrated by your saying "I will be shy and maybe a bit belligerent--like belligerentyouth!" Belligerentyouth is anything but in his posts. Worse still was your implicit criticism of Jackie, the new admimistrator. She has proven herself to be a very gentle and kind soul, if a little too keen to see only good in others. To whine about her appointment reveals your true pettiness. Upset that your idol didn't get the job?
No one is forcing you to stay here, why not take your pathetic petulance and go somewhere where "they" won't find you?
As to the "victim/aggressor" ramble, 'debunker' posted publicly available information. I am an old friend of the person calling himself Max, and he tells me that 'debunker' is a great person, kind, intelligent, generous and reasonable. Perhaps 'debunker' made an error in judgement with the post that started this thread, but everybody does so from time to time. Your ignorance of the dynamics of this board was graphically demonstrated by your saying "I will be shy and maybe a bit belligerent--like belligerentyouth!" Belligerentyouth is anything but in his posts. Worse still was your implicit criticism of Jackie, the new admimistrator. She has proven herself to be a very gentle and kind soul, if a little too keen to see only good in others. To whine about her appointment reveals your true pettiness. Upset that your idol didn't get the job?
No one is forcing you to stay here, why not take your pathetic petulance and go somewhere where "they" won't find you?
Distorted - 04/16/02 12:17 PM
As to the "victim/aggressor" ramble, 'debunker' posted publicly available information. I am an old friend of the person calling himself Max, and he tells me that 'debunker' is a great person, kind, intelligent, generous and reasonable. Perhaps 'debunker' made an error in judgement with the post that started this thread, but everybody does so from time to time
If you have read all the posts in the thread that debunker has started, there is just no way you can defend this guy.
If you have read all the posts in the thread that debunker has started, there is just no way you can defend this guy.
Re: Distorted - 04/16/02 12:47 PM
>If you have read all the posts in the thread that debunker has started, there is just no way you can defend this guy.
or perhaps you are starting from a false set of assumptions.
()
or perhaps you are starting from a false set of assumptions.
()
Re: Distorted - 04/16/02 12:56 PM
starting from a false set of assumptions
I've always had trouble with the term "begging the question." Is the above phrase what it means?
I've always had trouble with the term "begging the question." Is the above phrase what it means?
Re: Distorted - 04/16/02 01:02 PM
not exactly; begging the question is more like circular reasoning - assuming the truth
of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises employed in an effort to
demonstrate its truth.
()
of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises employed in an effort to
demonstrate its truth.
()
Re: Distorted - 04/16/02 01:39 PM
I have a vague memory (as most of them are. these days!)
that this was discussed about a year ago, and that it was established that "begging", in this context, was an archaic word for "avoiding."
So, in begging the question, you *avoid asking a question which ought to be addressed and then take your answer to it as given, when constructing an argument for or against something or other, trying to leave others with no choice but to accept your premisses.
(a device beloved of politicians!)
that this was discussed about a year ago, and that it was established that "begging", in this context, was an archaic word for "avoiding." So, in begging the question, you *avoid asking a question which ought to be addressed and then take your answer to it as given, when constructing an argument for or against something or other, trying to leave others with no choice but to accept your premisses.
(a device beloved of politicians!)
Post deleted by ewein - 04/16/02 03:34 PM
Re: Who are "they" - 04/16/02 04:18 PM
Belligerentyouth is anything but in his posts
Come now, Vernon. I don't see any need to get into a discussion of b-youth's posts, but surely ewein's description -- albeit one with which you are free to disagree -- is not an unreasonable assessment.
And I do not see that ewein whine[d] about her [Jackie's] appointment; she just stated politely but clearly her disagreement with a particular post. Surely you are not so sensitive as to think that merely disagreeing with you constitutes pathetic petulance?
Come now, Vernon. I don't see any need to get into a discussion of b-youth's posts, but surely ewein's description -- albeit one with which you are free to disagree -- is not an unreasonable assessment.
And I do not see that ewein whine[d] about her [Jackie's] appointment; she just stated politely but clearly her disagreement with a particular post. Surely you are not so sensitive as to think that merely disagreeing with you constitutes pathetic petulance?
Re: Who are "they" - 04/16/02 05:30 PM
People may or may not have noticed that I've been staying out of this up until now. I'm posting at this juncture simply to clear up a few misconceptions - or at least what appear to be misconceptions from my perspective - and to make a plea.
First, the implication that the old-timers, and I guess that has to include me, wish to keep the Board to ourselves and to not "admit" any new members to the "club" is just plain wrong. wwh will be the first to agree, I'm sure, that there aren't enough people posting here about words. We welcome new blood and despite statements to the contrary, we always have.
But, as has been noted above, it is above all a forum about words. Yes, it wanders off the point from time to time, but until recently it has always found its way back to language readily enough. Anything else generally gets taken off the Board and into emails and PMs. Quite a number of irregular posters here are in constant contact with various members via email. The number of regular posters is probably about a third of those who, directly or indirectly, are in touch with it. And others come and go, popping in and posting a few messages before moving on to other things.
Although I don't want to state it as strongly as Of Troy has done, I agree with her that there are online fora for chatting and for virtually any other topic you could think of. Like most of us "old-timers", I'm a member of several of them. Most of those of us who have been around for some time come here for words and wordplay - and some friendship. Without wanting to be at all critical, if you don't want that then as Helen has said look around at other fora. There's probably one tailored to just what you need.
Finally - and this is the plea - doesn't everybody think that it's time this stupid flame war stopped? No one wins but everyone loses. No matter how clever or direct your insult or well-argued your point, you won't convince anyone that you're right and they're wrong, so apart from having vented a little personal spleen and spread some venom around, what's the point?
I've just about got to the point where I can't be bothered with it, and I'm spending more and more of my online time elsewhere. And that's a shame, because this place was fun. If it doesn't stop then I predict that there will be one of two outcomes. Either Anu will pull the plug - I probably would have by now if I were him - or the Board will become moderated.
I don't see either outcome as desirable, do you?
First, the implication that the old-timers, and I guess that has to include me, wish to keep the Board to ourselves and to not "admit" any new members to the "club" is just plain wrong. wwh will be the first to agree, I'm sure, that there aren't enough people posting here about words. We welcome new blood and despite statements to the contrary, we always have.
But, as has been noted above, it is above all a forum about words. Yes, it wanders off the point from time to time, but until recently it has always found its way back to language readily enough. Anything else generally gets taken off the Board and into emails and PMs. Quite a number of irregular posters here are in constant contact with various members via email. The number of regular posters is probably about a third of those who, directly or indirectly, are in touch with it. And others come and go, popping in and posting a few messages before moving on to other things.
Although I don't want to state it as strongly as Of Troy has done, I agree with her that there are online fora for chatting and for virtually any other topic you could think of. Like most of us "old-timers", I'm a member of several of them. Most of those of us who have been around for some time come here for words and wordplay - and some friendship. Without wanting to be at all critical, if you don't want that then as Helen has said look around at other fora. There's probably one tailored to just what you need.
Finally - and this is the plea - doesn't everybody think that it's time this stupid flame war stopped? No one wins but everyone loses. No matter how clever or direct your insult or well-argued your point, you won't convince anyone that you're right and they're wrong, so apart from having vented a little personal spleen and spread some venom around, what's the point?
I've just about got to the point where I can't be bothered with it, and I'm spending more and more of my online time elsewhere. And that's a shame, because this place was fun. If it doesn't stop then I predict that there will be one of two outcomes. Either Anu will pull the plug - I probably would have by now if I were him - or the Board will become moderated.
I don't see either outcome as desirable, do you?
Who are "we" - 04/16/02 05:36 PM
We need the likes of you on this board.
...and the real person he is, from the board.
What is really *needed is less people defining who "we are", tellin us what *we need, and a lot less people making inexperienced assumptions.
Those b'youthiful posts were as appropriate as all the others *there. A little long perhaps, but no less ridiculous.
IMHO, of course.
That doesn't *mean I don't enjoy the likes of ModGod's words on the board, does it?
ewein states:
I hesitate to offer anything about myself after the debunker post.
Yet you go right ahead and do so. I have a question for you:
Why do you feel propelled to post about "it" and "we" anyway, and why would you do so here, in a post titled "set it all aside"?
VernonCompton - Good to see you're still wandering in this abyss.
ModGod - I may live in shytown, but I'm most things but shy.
Edit - Thanks, CapK.
...and the real person he is, from the board.
What is really *needed is less people defining who "we are", tellin us what *we need, and a lot less people making inexperienced assumptions.
Those b'youthiful posts were as appropriate as all the others *there. A little long perhaps, but no less ridiculous.
IMHO, of course.
That doesn't *mean I don't enjoy the likes of ModGod's words on the board, does it?
ewein states:
I hesitate to offer anything about myself after the debunker post.
Yet you go right ahead and do so. I have a question for you:
Why do you feel propelled to post about "it" and "we" anyway, and why would you do so here, in a post titled "set it all aside"?
VernonCompton - Good to see you're still wandering in this abyss.
ModGod - I may live in shytown, but I'm most things but shy.
Edit - Thanks, CapK.
Post deleted by ewein - 04/16/02 07:15 PM
Re: Who are "we" - 04/16/02 08:00 PM
Lizzy-- getting personal now here-- don't!
Unless you are not interested in words! and then do!
Stay here for words, and check with some of the gals... those food post.. they have gone 1) underground, 2) to food sites!
and if you don't care about food.. well -- i bet someone here knows i site about something you are interested in..
and i bet, what ever your interest, there is jargon, or what ever you want to call it.. about your interests.. and maybe even some of those words are interesting-- to all of us!-- so bring them here!
Unless you are not interested in words! and then do!
Stay here for words, and check with some of the gals... those food post.. they have gone 1) underground, 2) to food sites!
and if you don't care about food.. well -- i bet someone here knows i site about something you are interested in..
and i bet, what ever your interest, there is jargon, or what ever you want to call it.. about your interests.. and maybe even some of those words are interesting-- to all of us!-- so bring them here!
Re: Who are "you people" - 04/16/02 08:08 PM
?
(for me, "you people" is a seriously polarizing term.... but forgive me, I digress into words and connotations
)
(for me, "you people" is a seriously polarizing term.... but forgive me, I digress into words and connotations
)
Re: Who are "you people" - 04/16/02 09:00 PM
Dear AnnaStrophe, your last was hilarious! 
[Hey, you and I can disagree on a lot, but lady, when you are right, you're right.] Well said.
Edit: May I challenge you to a competition (which I'm sure I'll lose) to see who can start the most word-threads this week?
[Hey, you and I can disagree on a lot, but lady, when you are right, you're right.] Well said.
Edit: May I challenge you to a competition (which I'm sure I'll lose) to see who can start the most word-threads this week?
Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/17/02 01:45 AM
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 02:46 AM
Only one person has posted here about himself. thanks belligerentyouth! I was hoping to learn NICE things about y'all
ModGod, I have to confess that the type of openness you displayed in your initial post in this thread is a kind of vulnerability which I'm not really keen to participate in on this type of open forum. It's nothing personal against anyone here that I know, I guess it's more about who I don't know. I have boundaries. There are people who I will allow to get to know me better, and it's generally when I trust them and know something about them. Call it a foible, or a paranoia or whatever, but I'm just not prepared to "put it all out there".
I appreciate your attempts to distract from the nastiness of recent times, and I admire your openness. I wish the world was a more trustworthy place.
ModGod, I have to confess that the type of openness you displayed in your initial post in this thread is a kind of vulnerability which I'm not really keen to participate in on this type of open forum. It's nothing personal against anyone here that I know, I guess it's more about who I don't know. I have boundaries. There are people who I will allow to get to know me better, and it's generally when I trust them and know something about them. Call it a foible, or a paranoia or whatever, but I'm just not prepared to "put it all out there".
I appreciate your attempts to distract from the nastiness of recent times, and I admire your openness.
I wish the world was a more trustworthy place.
Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/17/02 03:04 AM
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 03:32 AM
Tom's of Maine toothpaste - my fave flavour is fennel
Fennel toothpaste? Er yucky! (No offence intended, I feel like I have to say.) I use whichever brand of toothpaste is cheapest, but it's almost always mint flavoured.
Fennel toothpaste? Er yucky! (No offence intended, I feel like I have to say.) I use whichever brand of toothpaste is cheapest, but it's almost always mint flavoured.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 03:33 AM
MG, maybe there are good reasons no one is posting their personal histories in response to your invitation. You have already had one person give you hers.
My reason is that I disapprove strongly of this effort on your part. I come to this site because I'm interested in words and language. If I had any interest in hearing other people's personal data and histories, I would go to some other site, and there are plenty. You are only cluttering up the board and wasting our time with this. Several people, including CapK , have tried, very gently and politely, to point this out to you, but you keep insisting on your right to post whatever you please anywhere you please on the board. And you get more and more shrill and hysterical and abusive all the time.
May I suggest that you take the time to review your own posts and look at them dispassionately and in an amicable frame of mind? Maybe you may learn what you sound like. Contrast your recent postings against those of our (yes, long-time) experienced members like Max, Jackie, ofTroy, and other more recent members who are not interested in carrying on personal vendettas, but of going about what AWAD is really about in a friendly and collegial spirit. You might also ask yourself why you bother with AWAD. Do you want to be part of a friendly and collegial group who are interested in words and language, or do you have another agenda?
I post this publicly, rather than sending it in a PM, because you have already informed us that you don't regard PMs as private and are quite ready to post them, so I save you the trouble.
My reason is that I disapprove strongly of this effort on your part. I come to this site because I'm interested in words and language. If I had any interest in hearing other people's personal data and histories, I would go to some other site, and there are plenty. You are only cluttering up the board and wasting our time with this. Several people, including CapK , have tried, very gently and politely, to point this out to you, but you keep insisting on your right to post whatever you please anywhere you please on the board. And you get more and more shrill and hysterical and abusive all the time.
May I suggest that you take the time to review your own posts and look at them dispassionately and in an amicable frame of mind? Maybe you may learn what you sound like. Contrast your recent postings against those of our (yes, long-time) experienced members like Max, Jackie, ofTroy, and other more recent members who are not interested in carrying on personal vendettas, but of going about what AWAD is really about in a friendly and collegial spirit. You might also ask yourself why you bother with AWAD. Do you want to be part of a friendly and collegial group who are interested in words and language, or do you have another agenda?
I post this publicly, rather than sending it in a PM, because you have already informed us that you don't regard PMs as private and are quite ready to post them, so I save you the trouble.
Post deleted by modestgoddess - 04/17/02 03:44 AM
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 03:57 AM
I can't believe this place.
Then leave this place. I'm sorry, someone had to say it.
Then leave this place. I'm sorry, someone had to say it.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:02 AM
I also think you should EFF OFF OUT OF THIS THREAD if you think it's such a waste of time. Just because you're not interested, doesn't mean other people aren't. (edits mine - on purpose - with intent etc.)
I'm not interested in this kind of dialogue/diatribe (hmmm ... must figure out which is more appropriate word usage). ModGod, I see (some of) your points, but please... can we stop this? Scream in a pillow, hit a punching bag or whatever, but please don't inflict this on those of us you do *like who may not appreciate this language.
I'm not interested in this kind of dialogue/diatribe (hmmm ... must figure out which is more appropriate word usage). ModGod, I see (some of) your points, but please... can we stop this? Scream in a pillow, hit a punching bag or whatever, but please don't inflict this on those of us you do *like who may not appreciate this language.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:04 AM
In reply to:... you stupid fuck. ... I am TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE EACH OTHER HERE.
You go about it in a strange fashion. I guess I have to echo Angel's question. Take Keiva with you. You and he could start your own site and cuss and conspire and get your paranoid rants off to your hearts' content.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:11 AM
Now wait a minute boby....Keiva never used this kind of language on the board. It was, however, used against him.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:12 AM
Nobody objected when Rubrick swore at me. Not one damn soul.
You cannot use gutter language yourself, and countenance it from those you like, and then get all prim and prissy when others use it.
Edit: Whit, having followed your advice of "YCLIU", I do not believe my first parargraph above was mistaken. Perhaps YCLIU -- or perhaps we can leave this as a matter on which you and I can disagree.
You cannot use gutter language yourself, and countenance it from those you like, and then get all prim and prissy when others use it.
Edit: Whit, having followed your advice of "YCLIU", I do not believe my first parargraph above was mistaken. Perhaps YCLIU -- or perhaps we can leave this as a matter on which you and I can disagree.
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:18 AM
Keiva said: Nobody objected when Rubrick swore at me. Not one damn soul.
You cannot use gutter language yourself, and countenance it from those you like, and then get all prim and prissy when others use it.
If you remember, Bobyoungbalt publicly reprimanded Rubrick for his use of that language on the Spammer thread itself, YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. Boby has never used or condoned the use of such language on this forum. Bob didn't deserve this.
Your Happy Epeolatrist!
You cannot use gutter language yourself, and countenance it from those you like, and then get all prim and prissy when others use it.
If you remember, Bobyoungbalt publicly reprimanded Rubrick for his use of that language on the Spammer thread itself, YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. Boby has never used or condoned the use of such language on this forum. Bob didn't deserve this.
Your Happy Epeolatrist!
Re: Who are "they" - 04/17/02 04:32 AM
And John also recanted, apologized, and edited his language...so holding this up as a candle to the board to hypocritically allow mg to assault folks with profanity like this doesn't cut the mustard...because I honestly know of no other instances when anyone, even at the most heated moments, resorted to profanity to antagonize or berate someone here....even though we are surely all capable of it. We ain't saints...but we do take pains to use discretion here at AWAD because we care about the quality of the site (or former quality of it).
And, no, Keiva I don't want a compendium of all the instances when profane words were used in humor or indirectly... because aside from that one moment on the Spammer thread, and now mg, they haven't been used in this malicious manner.
And, BTW, musick also reprimanded Rubrick on the Spammer thread, YCLIU.
Your Happy Epeolatrist!
And, no, Keiva I don't want a compendium of all the instances when profane words were used in humor or indirectly... because aside from that one moment on the Spammer thread, and now mg, they haven't been used in this malicious manner.
And, BTW, musick also reprimanded Rubrick on the Spammer thread, YCLIU.
Your Happy Epeolatrist!
Post deleted by ewein - 04/17/02 02:53 PM
Re: Who are "we" - 04/17/02 03:03 PM
Thank goodness though, we are not unidimensional. We have personalities and feelings and the human need to reach out to others and share.
I was thinking about the milk of human kindness. . .did I mix a metaphor? I was thinking about lovingkindness. I was thinking about overlooking an error or a foible. I was thinking about the ability to let another shine.
I was thinking about the milk of human kindness. . .did I mix a metaphor? I was thinking about lovingkindness. I was thinking about overlooking an error or a foible. I was thinking about the ability to let another shine.
Re: Who are "we" - 04/17/02 03:37 PM
Sorry-- what i meant was, i was getting personal, and calling you Lizzy!
my bad!--somewhere you did have your name Elizabeth, and you sign Ewein, so Lizzy was my attempted at light heartedness..
(not a food thread-- but please, excuse me, as i scrape the egg off my face.. Anyone got a trowel?)
my bad!--somewhere you did have your name Elizabeth, and you sign Ewein, so Lizzy was my attempted at light heartedness..
(not a food thread-- but please, excuse me, as i scrape the egg off my face.. Anyone got a trowel?)
Post deleted by ewein - 04/17/02 03:47 PM
Re: Who are "we" - 04/17/02 03:54 PM
have you read all the tips? do you know how to read white text? did you see it? of course i don't have any hard feelings.. everybody is a bit sensitve, i acted like a bull in backyard.. not quite as bad as a bull in a china shop... but still, it was my bad!
Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 03:59 PM
You are spot on with that remark Lizzy [if I may, Ms? =)]
The personal context of these posts is so *very easy to misinterpret, leading to undue harshness or offence in the giving and the taking. Well done both for your response.
Let's all take note, take a cool breath and for god's sake draw a line under *ALL* the recriminations. If there is anyone here you simply *can't get along with, ignore them - anything else is just scratching the sore.
The personal context of these posts is so *very easy to misinterpret, leading to undue harshness or offence in the giving and the taking. Well done both for your response.
Let's all take note, take a cool breath and for god's sake draw a line under *ALL* the recriminations. If there is anyone here you simply *can't get along with, ignore them - anything else is just scratching the sore.
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 04:38 PM
But mav, if we refuse to discuss our behavior and learn from it, we can expect the same behavior to occur again -- and again -- and again. Were we to cut off discussion only after modest goddess has left, all we accomplish is to let those who might have erred off the hook for their misbehavior. Edit: and by doing so -- by tacitly winking at it -- we encourage it.
I appreciate that any discussion may engender heat. But to cut of discussion for that reason is to say that for fear of screaming, we will allow the screamers free reign. [pun intended]
I appreciate that any discussion may engender heat. But to cut of discussion for that reason is to say that for fear of screaming, we will allow the screamers free reign. [pun intended]
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 05:16 PM
i think what worked too, mav, was a bit of luck..
i happened to catch Lizzy--(you haven't objected, so i am thinking i am ok!) very soon after she posted, and i had the time to rephrase my comments.. and she had time to responde.. with out any one jumping in, and "defending" her, (because the read the post just as she did) or me, (because they read the post as i intended )
i was kind of startled by her sarcasm.. but when i reread my post in through her eyes... egg, egg all over! and no ones fault by mine!
i try not to take sides.. but to just put in my two cents. Sometimes, someone send me a big KISS for posting about being an elitist, (by PM)-- and sometimes, someone,( CK, but not really mentioning names!) put in their two cents, that they agreed, but in much quieter voice than mine..
so some times i get it right (for some of the folk) and sometimes i get it wrong.. CK is forgiven.. remember last year i was talking about marrying him for his money.. he is just a little afraid of me!
CK and i are fine... we sometimes tease each other, but rarely have serious disagreements..
i happened to catch Lizzy--(you haven't objected, so i am thinking i am ok!) very soon after she posted, and i had the time to rephrase my comments.. and she had time to responde.. with out any one jumping in, and "defending" her, (because the read the post just as she did) or me, (because they read the post as i intended )
i was kind of startled by her sarcasm.. but when i reread my post in through her eyes... egg, egg all over! and no ones fault by mine!
i try not to take sides.. but to just put in my two cents. Sometimes, someone send me a big KISS for posting about being an elitist, (by PM)-- and sometimes, someone,( CK, but not really mentioning names!) put in their two cents, that they agreed, but in much quieter voice than mine..
so some times i get it right (for some of the folk) and sometimes i get it wrong.. CK is forgiven.. remember last year i was talking about marrying him for his money.. he is just a little afraid of me!
CK and i are fine... we sometimes tease each other, but rarely have serious disagreements..
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 05:23 PM
>with out any one jumping in, and "defending"...
bingo, ot! it is my considered opinion that this sort of posting has caused more hurt feelings and ill-considered responses than any other bunch of actions combined.
()
bingo, ot! it is my considered opinion that this sort of posting has caused more hurt feelings and ill-considered responses than any other bunch of actions combined.
()
Post deleted by ewein - 04/17/02 07:32 PM
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 09:22 PM
I'm glad that you were left in peace, Ewein, to sort out what Helen was saying.
I just hope the board becomes a happier place one day. It is such a shame that we don't seem to be allowed to disagree any more - we were once quite good at it.
Once, in the mists of time, when I was cross with tsuwm for some reason or another, we had a great "on board slanging match". Mind you, to make it more interesting I'd decided to send him a private mail to ask him to provide me with a few choice words to use from his collection (he knows so many more than me) - he made me feel quite eloquent!
Helen and I get on fine - I don;t pint out her typos and she doesn't point out mine - I can't stand Aenigma our trusty spell chacker, so all sorts of drivel makes it way into my posts.
I just hope the board becomes a happier place one day. It is such a shame that we don't seem to be allowed to disagree any more - we were once quite good at it.
Once, in the mists of time, when I was cross with tsuwm for some reason or another, we had a great "on board slanging match". Mind you, to make it more interesting I'd decided to send him a private mail to ask him to provide me with a few choice words to use from his collection (he knows so many more than me) - he made me feel quite eloquent!
Helen and I get on fine - I don;t pint out her typos and she doesn't point out mine - I can't stand Aenigma our trusty spell chacker, so all sorts of drivel makes it way into my posts.
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 09:27 PM
In reply to:Mind you, to make it more interesting I'd decided to send him a private mail to ask him to provide me with a few choice words to use from his collection (he knows so many more than me) - he made me feel quite eloquent!
ROFL!
*this* is the humor for which i return again and again. a perfect example of yesteryear!!
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 09:54 PM
(Plaintive emotican) Where have all the word posts gone?
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/17/02 09:59 PM
sorry, bill. I guess I've been a mite distracted.
-ron (speaking for myself now) obvious
-ron (speaking for myself now) obvious
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/18/02 01:18 AM
Where have all the word posts gone?
Long time pa-assing... [music notes icon]
Long time pa-assing... [music notes icon]
Re: Who are "we"? We are peacemakers =) - 04/18/02 01:30 AM
I would like to say a word of thanks. I have been home for all of 30 minutes out of the last twelve hours. I am not as recovered from my surgery as I would like to be, and I have done too much. I hurt. And I am SO relieved to have read all the way through this category (which I've only made it out of one time since Sunday morning!), and found that my request this morning has been complied with. Thank you, everyone!!
I am assigned hospital duty tomorrow; sitting is about the only thing I can do well, these days. So I will be away again. Thought about taking my laptop, but decided my mo.-in-law would want her phone line open! She's fine, by the way--the operation was quite successful.
I am assigned hospital duty tomorrow; sitting is about the only thing I can do well, these days. So I will be away again. Thought about taking my laptop, but decided my mo.-in-law would want her phone line open! She's fine, by the way--the operation was quite successful.
Re: Who - 04/24/02 01:16 AM
Edit performed above, as noted there.
Edit: tsuwm, regarding your penultimate post in this thread, I feel rather like Sir Roderic in Gilbert & Sullivan's Ruddigore: Humph! These arguments sound very well, but I can't help thinking that, if they were reduced to syllogistic form, they wouldn't hold water.
Edit: tsuwm, regarding your penultimate post in this thread, I feel rather like Sir Roderic in Gilbert & Sullivan's Ruddigore: Humph! These arguments sound very well, but I can't help thinking that, if they were reduced to syllogistic form, they wouldn't hold water.