Virgil - exactly;
and my thinking as well.
From: Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] non-mainstream
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Tom C.
I generally don't disagree with you concerning human relations. However, I
don't want *all* of my human interactions to be as emotionally connected as
you seem to imply.
I have my family and close intimate friends, with whom I communicate
directly, and rarely through e-communication.
I then I have my church family, with whom I am open emotionally, but not as
much as with my genetic family.
Then there are e-mail lists of a more personal subject matter on which I
will share more openly.
But, this is a techno-geek lists. It exists *primarily* to help users learn
how to get the most out of LO. While I appreciate the interaction on this
list, I won't deceive myself into thinking that this is an emotionally
intimate support system. By it's nature, it can't be, nor do I think it is
intended to be.
Virgil
On 5/21/2014 5:49 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
Anne, Virgil, Tom,
>
> I only just saw this thread, thanks to Anne's restarting it. I wish I
> could follow this list more closely, but I just can't. This thread matters
> to me, however, so I feel compelled to jump in.
>
> Tom, and all - Your initial post is probably the most courageous, human,
> and gripping thing I've ever read on this list. I've always had a strong
> sense that you are much in touch with your valuing other people, and your
> awareness of them, and of yourseflf. In these things, you are in my
> estimation exceptional. Does this confer a kind of vulnerability? Surely.
> But the show is worth the cost of the ticket. You lead by example, without
> question, and I love that example!
>
> It is an undeniable fact that we are social animals. Remove that from us
> and we become mute, because we no longer have a common language. We also
> likely become naked (ready for that?) and tool-less (ouch - no
> computers!!!). Going the other direction, a society of robots sounds
> unrewarding in the very areas that typically end up mattering most to most
> of us, especially at critical times - like the death of a child, or when
> confronting an apparently unsolvable problem, or when encountering our own
> finiteness.
>
> I don't want impersonal relations. I want people in my life. I can easily
> predict that virtually everyone else does too. People are more than data
> and intelligence and decisions. We have bodies and feelings, smiles and
> laughter and tears. I want all of that. Don't you? I'll bet you do.
>
> Being "different" is an interesting fate, and also as much illusion as
> fact. Two issues arise rather quickly, and they aren't often enough
> distinguished: self-acceptance and acceptance by others. I can (for those
> who are interested) give some exceptionally persuasive references in
> support of the proposition that these two issues are VERY intimately
> related - most particularly in our early years.
>
> When adult, it may be hoped (but hardly always achieved) that we are
> self-supporting enough to be only modestly reliant on acceptance from
> others. But must of us still need at least SOME of this, and fairly
> routinely. I know I do. However, there is this qualification: my computer
> accepts me all the time (well, most of the time). But I never get a hug. My
> friends, acquaintances, and clients accept me most of the time, too, but
> offer so much more, including hugs. I may spend more hours with my
> computer, but I prefer my friends, acquaintances, and clients.
>
> ...and now to Virgil - I think there is some truth to what you say, and it
> has to do with this: When dealing with problems, which is what we do most
> of the time here, keeping the level of affect (feelings) produced in our
> brain moderated allows our perceptions and cerebral cortex to function
> unimpaired by the disruptions that are caused by affective excess. But who
> wants primarily to dialog with a computer? Or a robot? And who wants to be
> up in their cerebral cortex all the time? Is that what your wife wants from
> you? Your kids? Your dog? You? You know the answer.
>
> Well, I'm like your dog. I want more. I think that if the truth be known
> we all do.
>
> Yeah, I suspect that more than a few here are exceptionally developed
> relative to problem solving skills, and possibly less developed in
> supportive, rewarding social relations skills. So...with that awareness in
> mind, let's just work a bit at keep all of ourselves involved here. Tom D.
> did, when he told his story. Practice make better.
>
> Anne - yeah, you're right. That's one reason why I have never ever used an
> avatar on the Internet, unless I was doing an investigation of some
> ill-behaved person and needed to move unseen. You can go to my professional
> website and get my phone number (or nabble, and look at my signature
> block). This is who I am, and it's never been a problem. I strongly dislike
> avatars. If you cannot stand out where I can see you, you'd better have a
> darned good reason.
>
> If it were me, no one on this list would be here without an email address
> to which a name and phone number was attached. Just grow up, people!
>
> One off-topic final note: I'm not finished with the bullying issue. It
> relates in several ways to much of what I've already said. I'm working on a
> blog post that will make this clear. I'll bring the link to the list, when
> it's ready. I've been slow getting to it, as there are many alligators in
> my swamp just now.
>
> t.
>
> On 05/21/2014 01:41 PM, anne-ology wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, this anonymity is the reason these criminal
>> types
>> (hackers, spammers/scammers, ...)
>> are able to roam 'round - with no fears of being caught ;-(
>>
>> For that reason, many of us are wary - maybe even overly cautious
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] non-mainstream
>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>>
>>
>> On 05/19/2014 07:42 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>
>> Hi :)
>>
>>> Last week we had an interesting thread, at least i thought so, about how
>>> most of us are probably on the aspergers/autism spectrum. About how that
>>> might actually be a benefit despite being possibly mislabelled as a
>>> 'dis'ability. Sure, for some people it is too extreme and may be
>>> crippling
>>> or maybe it's still a benefit for a lucky few who maybe worked hard to
>>> "make the most of it". Many of us have tiny amounts of it and even that
>>> is
>>> sometimes just enough to set us outside of mainstream society.
>>>
>>>
>>> At the end of the week i unwisely went to a pub with a friend who started
>>> pointing out some of my "eccentricities" and physically held onto me to
>>> prevent me from leaving. Errr she's quite a hot chick so it wasn't all
>>> bad
>>> and when we go out i try to realise that almost all the glances and
>>> stares
>>> we get are because of her. Just before disappearing inside myself i
>>> looked
>>> around to reassure myself that everyone around me was different in their
>>> ways but found just a sea of white faces and all dressed in a very
>>> similar
>>> way to each other = nothing like me nor like almost any friend.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing there are a lot of people here who feel 'outside' of
>>> mainstream society for at least 1 reason or other. Here on the list i
>>> feel
>>> safe because no-one can judge any one else on such randomness as skin
>>> colour.
>>>
>>> Do other people here feel like they are outside of a mainstream society
>>> in
>>> a way that might show up in a photo or face-to-face? I think in a photo
>>> i
>>> might look too mainstream. A static 2 dimensional image often misses a
>>> lot
>>> of the character of a person. Would it be good to collect a bunch of
>>> photos that show us using LibreOffice? Maybe focussing mostly on the
>>> screen but enough of a hint of you or a friend that the photo gives an
>>> impression of someone interesting. On the other hand maybe it is best
>>> that
>>> we stick with the images we have of each other in our minds-eye?
>>>
>>> I like the idea of a montage of different users so that almost anyone
>>> looking at the montage might recognise something of themselves in one or
>>> more of the people in the montage. If you email photos to me privately i
>>> might be able to get a local artist to put it together. I would avoid
>>> naming names unless you specifically tell me to include it.
>>>
>>> The term 'mainstream' is quite flexible and might be very different in
>>> some
>>> countries or amongst some cultures. If we look at the photos used in our
>>> marketing then simply wearing a suit would make you stand out and it
>>> might
>>> be good to see that sort of thing mixed in too.
>>>
>>> Regards from
>>> Tom :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> I think there is a faceless anonymity that makes e-communication work. One
>> reason we are free to share is the safety that comes from being able to
>> close the lid with nobody knowing who we really are.
>>
>> Virgil
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
