Lifted Up

That is one way to avoid attacking someone, even if this is a sugar coated way of putting it to the choir. In my case, there is a very well known case of (anonymous) TWI testimony dealing primarily with something I did not experience or witness, and I have no basis to refute it based on that alone. However, the same item contains a testimony about another subject which contradicts directly something I did witness, plus having the first hand testimony of the person who did experience it to confirm that contradiction. Still, I haven't detailed that publically, even though the person I would be "calling a liar" is not around as far as I know. Of course, there would also be the option of keeping one's mouth shut instead of calling someone a fool or liar just because their experience is not the same as one's own, even though it has been hurtful.

Did you listen to a lot of rock music that night?

I suppose I could add myself to Oldies' contest if I hadnt revealed it in shout several days ago. If anyone who saw that would disqualify themselves, I might...though perhaps no one cares.

That's Littlehawk...hasnt shown up on this thread for over a year.

There isnt really one, of course. I dont think we have seen anyone describe an impersonal attack on themselves. An attack by its nature is going to be personal. I believe that dmiller and others of us use the redundant "personal" modifier to emphasize how much it hurts those we refer to. For example, openly denying someones testimony of a very personal hurt such as abuse is going to be very personal. Calling someone an *** or a fool or looney for what they believe is going to be very personal. And this applies in either case no matter how much we try to mask our words behnd the excuse of satire or parody or joking. What we are really talking about, I think, is the difference betwen attacking someone, which by its nature is personal, and disagreeing with what they say, perhaps very strongly, without calling them a liar or crazy or worse. And there is that intent factor again. If I openly deny someone's abuse story, for example, calling them a liar, and hurt them in that way, the hurt doesnt go away if I say, "Well, I didn't mean it that way, so if you feel hurt, it's your problem not mine". I would think that makes it even worse.

One of my points. Personal attacks have been made not only on those who support and/or value certain aspects of what they experienced or learned in TWI. They have been made on those who have described great hurts that were done to them. So if we work hard to justify attacking those we don't agree with... we give license to others to hurt further those who have already been hurt. If you don't accept some things as gospel...and there are things I dont...that's cool. In many cases...or most...but not all...our relationships are purely cyber. But that also is part of the reason not to attack... calling someone a liar, fool, crazy, having their head up their ***, Do you know someone well enough to know they are wheteve you call them? Oh, it's all in fun, satirical, a big joke, so its OK... Well, jokes can hurt. If that is the least of you're intent, does it hurt the other person less? I found that out a few nights ago. Wisdom, I guess. If we could never joke or satirize, where would we be? But why not back off, if someone says, in one way or another, they are hurting? It doesnt mean we are wrong...or right. We can be wrong and hurt. We can be right and still hurt

I hope it was wonderful, and no I'm not late. I revived the dormant 8th corps thread with my wishes yesterday.

It's Hawk's birthday...a good reason to bring this thread to the top after a long rest.

Bad Apology: Eight Ways to Screw up an Apology 1. Faux Apology “I’m sorry if you were offended” is not an apology. The phrase blames the victim. It redoubles the offense by accusing the victim of being over-sensitive. Formulations of the faux apology are common in politics: “The president regrets any hurt feelings his statements have caused.” I found this, apply it as you will here. A slight variation would be to tell a victim of abuse, "I'm sorry if you were hurt" by my (or others) actions.

There certainly have been accusations of personal attacks for various reasons, but one I think is most notable regards allegations of sexual abuse. The reason should be obvious; this is a very personal subject to those involved, and suggestions or implications that one did not do all one could to avoid a situation have been construed as personal attacks. Anyone have any comment on this?

It is very true that even first hand eyewitness accounts on an event can vary. I remember going through an experiment along tose lines in, I think it was junior high school. There is a difference, though, between first hand accounts of an event that several people are witnessing, and first hand accounts of something that happens or is done to one person. In that case, that is the one we rely on to know what was done. Anyone who has ever gone through "official" sexual harassment training, lectures, or seminars knows full weel that the standard is not what us intended by the harrasser... it is what is said or done to the one harrased. "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks, but that's your problem", implying the accused harrasser did nothing wrong, just won't cut it. When it comes to abuse, variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial IMO. The eyewitness account of anyone who sees the abuse is, of course, not going to be the same as the account of the abused. Even if there is someone besides the abuser and the abused...usually not the case...and even if that person is sympathetic to the "alleged" victim, that person cannot really testify to the hurt involved. That's why I am so big on getting first hand testimony...not hearsay, not other people talking about it. Anyway, the idea that variation in eyewitness testimony discredits the testimony of the abused is wrong IMO.

May you have a birthday and life filled with that peace of God which is beyond understanding.

I'm sure you dont. No, not strong enough or true enough. I know absolutely you don't. I just wish all the hurts that people do to other people could be confined to those that were intended to hurt. That would solve a lot of problems. Certainly a bunch of them that I have caused.

I think it is a matter of how we disagree. A few may have seen my favorite example related to baseball umpiring, as described by the late major league ump Ron Luciano. He would allow players and managers to state their disaproval in sometimes strong fashion, as long as they were disagreeing with his call; e.g. "that was a horse**** call". But if they implied that the ump himself was horse**** , they were outta there fast. Not too long ago, Rascal responded to my post on a thread with "I disagree with your disagreement", then stated her reasons , and of course I had no problem with that. But stating or implying that someone is looney, crazy, having their head up their ***, or in other was degrading the possibility that they could even have a legitimate (not just wrong) opinion is getting a mite (or much more) on the personal side. I've seen that more than once, okay, much more than once, on both sides of a squabble. And who fired the first shot does not matter in the least. Kind of like my view of accidents caused by drivers doing dumb things. IMO as many accidents are caused by drivers responding to drivers doing dumb things. They are first hand witnesses if they give their first hand testimony.

Somebody trying to tell me something? yesterday I was reminded of an important lift I got several years ago by a few little words in a message that couldnt have taken that much physical effort to send I was just talking about it, mnutes ago. I didnt mention there were two messages that came independently at about the same time. Only two. Now I am reminded of both. Thanks.

Are we supposed to send some?

Happy Birthday to one who knows the "little" things can lift.

I have no clue; no bell ringing, not even faintly, so it must not be an oldie.

Sounds a little like Bing but doesn't look like him! Sharks live in a racist world dont they? The Great White gets most of the publicity! I just hope I didnt offend some Great White by that remark. I'll stay out of the ocean for a while.

Yea, I agree. Long time no talk. happy Birthday!!!!!!!

Sudo, years ago I was Watching Johnny Carson do his Carnac routine. He made one joke about Billy Graham and was met with the deadest silence I ever heard on TV or radio, and there was no cutoff of sound. You dont feel you are getting the same response, do you?

Happy Birthday!!! I didnt make this up for this post, because it was a thought that had occured to me for a while...but for some reason, I have acquired a measure of respect from reading some of your posts. Not that I had disrespect before; it was just a "hadnt read enough information to make an opinion" thing. Of course, I am a very rare visitor to the political forum... Edited for typos.

But I'll keep praying.

That was made clear, but I was accepted before I completed several of them, including the A.C. Of course the understanding was that I would complete them, which I did.

A little. Besides those class instructors (a couple) bound for the 7th corps, there was a 6th corps lady from Indy I got to know pretty well even before my PFAL class when she was sent back on temporary LOA for sponsorship. Other factors were a visit to Emporia in February 1976 (PFAL was in January), a visit to HQ in March (while the big meetings were going on at Emporia, I ate lunch at a one table lunch at HQ with Uncle Harry at the head because there was hardly anyone left at HQ), ur interim 5th corps branch leader, being in a "Word hot spot"...Indy, with JAL and all the medwows added to the "regular' believers, etc etc etc. And of course I alread had a BS degree...now THAT should lend itself to a few smart remarks. Anyway, I had gotten a real earful about what the corps was about.