Turq, You defended yourself well below, but.....still, I sincerely believe that you had an emotional reaction to Bronte that seems to have been just as strong a dynamic in your responses to her as your conceptual reactions to her thoughts were. The emotional dynamics of your responses color your conceptual responses in a way that diverts the reader's attention from Bronte's concepts to Bronte's personality.
If a reader didn't know Bronte, your response to her would be their first impression of her, and, to some small degree, I stand by my contention that you were casting her, indeed, as a "yokel lacking insight and unconcerned about it." That was my poem about how you seemed to be coming off -- it was merely my take and I admit it may not be a "taking" of any sort but could be instead a projection on your words that comes from my own inner fear of being a yokel. Sigh..... I know you are committed to being a wild and free rascal that calls it like you see it, and "go Turq" sez moi, but I think part of trying to improve things here is to be extra sensitive to what "damage" might occur due to insinuations, subtle labeling and innuendos. Bronte could be what True Believers speak in a hushed tone about -- an old soul, ya know? She might be a butterfly that's about to land on the flowers that bloom in our minds -- a butterfly that will flit off at the first hint of untowardness. If so, our loss. Not that she deserves special privileges but that all of us deserve special privileges -- we's all gots da tender feelings. I certainly see your tender feelings on your sleeves almost all the time. For some reason, I like you, and I cut you a break for being irascible, but as much as I love being a curmudgeon myself, my new anti-bad-feelings persona forbids me from putting on this particular mask if I am to wean myself off of my own ad hominem tendencies. And, to be a sexist about it, there's not enough women posting here, and, yes, I do want more of their influence here. I do think women are quite different from men and see things in ways men know not of, and I am instructed by them far more often than I would want to admit. OTOH, men have a lot to teach too. Balancing FairfieldLife with more femmy stuff could be just the ticket. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: ..... Bronte, It might help you to put it in > > > perspective that what I was replying TO when I made that crack was > > > some newbie getting all pompous and trying (in her first post to > > > the forum, no less) to lecture everyone here on how they should > > > conduct themselves, on a forum she had obviously not spent very > > > much time reading." > > > > Edg: Turq, this word "obviously" is not so easily validated. It > > smacks of an ad hominem attack in that it SEEMS to imply that > > Bronte has a personality that is "not up to Turq's standards of > > message board scholarship and thus deficient to some degree and > > in need of fixing." > > Not necessarily. I think she's acting a little like > a car salesman who doesn't recognize that the sale > is a done deal, still pitching the sale when she > would be better served by keeping quiet and letting > the buyers sign on the dotted line. :-) > > She *made* her point. The vast majority of people here > *agreed* with it. But she keeps harping on it. Now is > the time (in my *opinion*) to kick back a little and > see what happens, not to try to keep preaching. > > > I don't think that the cogency she's shown us thus far deserves > > this kind of treatment. > > What kind of treatment? I "told it as I see it," and > with more than a little restraint. For me. :-) > > > In fact, she told us all that she'd been lurking, so if that's > > true, her "lack" of seeing the "whole picture" that you seem to > > "have" comes down to her having a POV different from yours. > > That is clearly true. Bronte seems to believe that there > IS a "proper way" for people to act on a spiritual forum, > and that she should continue lobbying for that "proper > way." I'm just trying to remind her that the TM movement > felt exactly the same way when it imposed all of *its* > rules of behavior on her and everyone else here. And that > she now feels, in her words, like a "victim" of that. > > It's a slippery slope when one starts to mandate behavior. > > In my opinion the best way to influence behavior is to > act oneself the way one is suggesting to others (not > *demanding* of others) that they act. Thus my little > snippet to MDixon today. I *understand* that he finds > curse words distasteful and would like to see fewer of > them here. Since I am one of the prime offenders of this > particular "sin," I just couldn't help pointing out that > he has used such words himself in the past, and thus > has no real basis on which to criticize others until > he lives up to his own suggested "rules" himself. > > > There's tons of wiggle room in which I can have the thought that > > Bronte is not a "yokel lacking insight and unconcerned about it." > > To pull a Judy here, you're putting something in quotes > that I don't think anyone said, or implied. I know that > I certainly didn't say it. > > I referred to her as a newbie. She is. So, compared to > many here, am I. After two years *I* am still learning > about this place. People I thought might offer little of > value after a year of reading their posts have recently > surprised me by posting some intelligent and measured > and remarkably well-thought-out stuff. > > But it really *is* a kind of accepted standard on Net > forums that you don't roll into town with guns blazing > and expect everyone to pin a Sheriff's badge on you. > You kick back for a while, offer up an *example* of > what you think "proper posting" is all about, and *then* > you offer a few suggestions. You don't start out with a > 90-line post berating an entire forum for not being what > you expected it to be. > > > However "lite" you've been in your "labeling," I do feel that, > > indeed, labeling has occurred. > > And? > > Are you going to suggest that labeling is now "against > the rules," too? Bronte *is* a newbie on this forum, no > matter how many others she might have been on. > > > If a ten year old child somehow started posting here, we'd all > > handle the child with, ahem, kid gloves, ya? > > Depends on the child. > > > Bronte may indeed need to do more reading to get a feel for > > "this place," but it she were a ten year old who had not read > > widely enough, the group would throw a cream pie in YOUR face > > for "chiding the child" and "expecting too much too soon from > > a "starter nervous system." > > I kinda like cream pies, so no problemo. :-) > > Bronte is *not* a ten-year-old child. She's an adult who > says that she's been around the spiritual block a few times. > > > I think we need to treat each other with this kind of delicacy > > if we're to turn around the flaming here. > > And you and I have a different point of view on this subject. > > That does *not* mean that I consider yours "wrong," or > mine "right," only that I've spent a lot of time pondering > this subject. > > The TM movement -- and many other spiritual traditions -- > feel strongly that it should treat the seekers within > their organizations as if they are children who need to > be protected. The guru or head teacher is kind of a Big > Daddy Figure. *He* makes the decisions for the benefit > of the children who need to be protected. > > Sorry, I don't buy it. I consider this a Class A, surefire > way of *keeping people children* and preventing them from > ever growing into adults who can make their own spiritual > decisions. > > I've been exposed to a few spiritual traditions in which > the teachers speak to and treat the students not only as > adults, but as if they have hundreds or thousands or tens > of thousands of lifetimes under their belts, and thus are > more than capable of making their *own* decisions about > things. In my experience, this approach works out much > better for both teacher and student in the long run. > > So I am *not* a fan of treating seekers like children who > need to be protected. I think it's a disservice to them. > > You may disagree, and that's fine. > > > Now, to add to your understanding, let me testify that I too > > lurked for years here, and when I started posting, I thought > > I knew the score, but I was quite off about most folks here, > > and I found out in short order that the reactions of others > > to my thoughts are quite different than I would have predicted. > > As, I would expect, did everyone else here who has been > around for a while. > > > Suddenly, the "trolls popped" and I could see them as I had > > never seen them before -- but only after they'd reacted to me. > > In short, it may be very hard to "get a feel for a place" by > > merely lurking. > > Depends on how long you lurk. :-) > > I'm *not* saying that one should lurk for years before > posting. I'm merely suggesting that one should lay low > in terms of lecturing the entire group and telling them > that they're doing everything wrong until you've had > time to figure out what they're doing right. > > > It's one thing to read the words of a troll, it's another thing > > to read the words of a troll about "me." Then it becomes personal, > > In a Buddhist context, the troll has then done you a > favor, by pointing out where your attachments lie. :-) > > Some trolls here may actually have that in mind. Or, > they could be as crazy as they seem. Me, I don't know. >
