Much appreciated Susan. Lemme know if you have a good source for that oxytocin. Sounds like something fun to heat up on a piece of tinfoil and inhale through a straw!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Curtis you wrote: > > > "When I was actually under a cyber > > > attack here by a member some people supported me and I appreciated that. > > > But I > > > would never expect it, even from my online "friends". I can handle my > > > business > > > here and everyone can handle theirs. So I don't have the kind of > > > expectation > > > here I would in my personal life offline." > > > > > > You also state: > > > "We don't owe each other support or approval or any of the things we > > > might value offline." > > > > > > Well, that is interesting for me to hear this viewpoint from you. I have > > > considered it and I find that I live in a very different way. My rules > > > for engagement, my definition of friends, my values of civility and > > > interaction are not determined by the medium I am using , the location or > > > the geographical situation I am in. I could be on Mars or in my kitchen, > > > the way I conduct my life and how I view the world is not determined by > > > the circumstances in which I find myself - i.e. whether I am typing to > > > you online or speaking to you face to face I will treat you the same and > > > expect you to do the same with me. I don't mean that you would treat me > > > with respect if I treat you with respect I mean that you do not morph > > > into someone other than who you are when you are not face to face with > > > me. > > > > I don't think we really are in as much disagreement in this as that quote > > seems to be saying. If I re-wrote that I would drop the ominous sounding > > "or any other things we might value offline". That does make me sound > > kinda psycho! Continuing in psycho mode for a moment: There is no form of > > human decency that I recognize online and no matter how vile or how > > disgusting or what an affront it is to decency. I support all evil here as > > a avatar would in the darkest regions of Second City slums, where human > > depravity can know no bounds! > > > > Ok, got that out of my system, I'm back now... > > > > I treat people pretty much the same in my correspondence here as I do in > > person. I do post as myself here, everyone knows where to find me if they > > want to. I guess I mean only in the area of scolding people who are being > > unfriendly to each other. In person I would have a lower threshold, online > > it is higher. I figure people here speak up for themselves as do I. I > > should probably keep the discussion about Robin who I judged didn't need my > > help rather than make pronouncements that make me sound like an idiot. I > > guess I am assuming that you have read enough posts of mine to know I don't > > act that way or maybe you have read enough to decide that I do! Scary > > thought. > > > > > > > > I know the internet is a great hiding place for some people and that they > > > can change their persona in a multitude of ways.> > > > > I don't behave that way here. But I still pick my battles. I felt Robin > > was handling himself just fine without me jumping it to "help" him. > > > > < But I don't think it is an excuse to abandon the ethics, the standards > > that they hold highly when they are not on the internet.> > > > > Sure. No argument there. > > > > > > < Why is FFL or any other online forum a place where we no longer "...owe > > each other support and approval." ?? This double standard is just not me > > and I don't understand that kind of reasoning. This seems to me that FFL > > is/could be a forum for one to act really badly if one wanted to because, > > after all, one is not really like that in "real life" (offline).> > > > > Practically speaking you can't chase after everyone who expresses > > themselves in a different way than you would choose here. You just can't, > > there is too much interaction. Right now most posters are being really > > civil so all this is easy. When we had a poster who flung obscenities at > > people in most posts it was harder. > > > > As an example, I like how you post here, and enjoy your contributions. But > > if you got into a pissing match with someone I would figure you can give as > > good as you get. So I am not laying down a rule for myself. But Robin's > > expectation that I be concerned with people here who expressed that they > > didn't like him wasn't gunna fly for me. He didn't have to interact with > > Barry at all, it was his choice. Once he made it, against my advice, he > > was on his own. So you are right in challenging my words as some kind of > > rule. But it doesn't come out that way in practice. And if you stick > > around you will see people using the term ethics in a contrived way to put > > people down. I mean no one jumps into everyone else's fights here, so you > > can always challenge someone's choices based on the sin of omission. What > > you think they SHOULD have done. > > > > > > > > You indicate that the newbies don't quite "get it", that the laws of good > > > behavior and ethics and just plain life all of a sudden become obsolete > > > when you hit the world of the internet.> > > > > That is not what I said or meant. It is just that lots of people blow > > through here and few stay. One of my observations is that some people have > > trouble adjusting to the odd combination of intimate conversation and this > > disembodied context. When I first started posting I was much more reactive > > emotionally. Now I am better able to let things go. I'm glad I was able > > to let some of Robin's challenges go. I consider it a sign of me making > > better choices here. > > > > < That there are rules and laws and, gee you greenhorns, get with the > > program here because you'll go out like a comet or get eaten alive if you > > don't. > > > > > That isn't what I said or what I meant. > > > > > > > > You asked me if I enjoy posting at FFL. Yes I do, very much, but not > > > because I see it as a chance to indulge myself in behavior that is not > > > true to who I am, or who I am working hard to be in every other moment of > > > my life. > > > > I can't think of any behavior I have indulged in that is not true to who I > > am so I don't know how it relates. I understand that what I said can be > > interpreted to mean these things, but it was not my intention and I take > > responsibility for being clear. Lets say you really ran with this ball and > > used it as a way to castigate me for promoting a phoney persona so I could > > abuse people here. Lets say you really got worked up about this POV and > > called me all sorts of names and told me you hate people who try to pull > > that shit online and really invested yourself in this view of me. > > > > Inside I would feel wronged because I don't act in an unethical way here. > > That isn't what I meant at all. But I wouldn't expect a bunch of people to > > jump in to address it. They might, both pro and con. But I don't believe > > that anyone is obligated to correct what would be a misconception about me. > > And lets take it one step farther. Let's say I answered you to the best of > > my ability as I have here and you responded that it was all bullshit and > > that you knew that I was really just a bad guy using the cover of the > > internet to do bad things to people here. I might try again to be > > understood, but if you came back and doubled down on your unflattering > > opinion of me I would let it drop. I might not respond to the next post > > directed at me. I might say, that is her opinion and I obviously am not > > going to change it. Other people piling on would probably not change it > > for you either if I can't myself. > > > > So that is the context I mean about our personal responsibility here. We > > all have to choose for ourselves who we are going to interact with here. > > And we all decide what discussions we want to jump in on. But personally,I > > don't expect people to. And if you do, that is perfectly fine too. You'll > > find people who agree with you here. > > > > > > > > I am not judging you Curtis, I am giving you my viewpoint. > > > > > > I appreciate an opportunity to clarify what I meant. And I still may not > > have succeeded. But you are welcome to judge me here by the words I write. > > It is really all you have to judge me by isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Curtis does not need defending, but I am going to add just a few > words here, just to put in my 2 cents of this particular issue. First, I > think Curtis has very clear "boundaries" that he lives by. By this I mean he > has a healthy awareness of what is other people's stuff and what is his, and > he won't interfere or trespass on the stuff that other people can and should > deal with on their own. His posts reflect this. It is not a matter of not > standing up for a friend - in the classic sense of that expectation I bet he > would help a friend who needs defending. But he is allowing others to take > care of themselves and assumes that they can. > > Second, there was a series of posts here by a person who is now longer > allowed to post. This person threatened Curtis multiple times, and still > Curtis asked that others not intervene or defend him. Partly I think this was > to protect others from possibly getting themselves on the bad side of this > poster. Partly he knew could handle it himself. > > Third, I think men are different than women in these areas. Women very > easily and effortlessly support and empathize and help and connect. All that > oxytocin in the hormone mix makes it automatic. I know there are many times > that I have to step back and consciously not give advice and just listen and > let people handle things themselves. It is a fine line.......... >
