That is dangerously close to what might possibly be perceived as "throwing stones".
Let's be very careful not to say anything that might give the slightest the impression that we are "throwing stones" at this new poster. I am sure he will come back and clarify that for us. Probably just a misunderstanding on my part ...
Just to remind myself what was said in the beginning~
GreaseSpot has always made an effort to "protect" victims. I have met with great resistance defending my stance. I am wondering, now, if that decision was erroneous.
In a thread recently, a woman spoke openly about an affair with LCM. She made some observations that, I felt, were honest, not GSPC but honest.
What followed was a vile bashing of her and her opinions. Was she not entitled to her opinion? Or have we gotten to the point that we throw stones and ask questions later or never? Now I know that GS is a tough crowd, but My God. And to add to the disgust of the whole thing, people that I have protected in the past were in the front row throwing stones!
And I don't know what to do about it. I really don't. We bite the heads off of regulars and DON'T get me started about new people. I have had numerous emails telling me to be careful of two posters that "know" LCM. They will most likely NEVER post here again. I certainly wouldn't with the kind of treatment they were given. I checked both of them out and there were NO signs that they weren't who they said they were. Heck I even found out the favorite band of one of them.
I am not going to threaten any censorship. I am not going to threaten to close forums down. I AM going to ask that you NOT become the people from whence we came.
Well Paw, it seems the internet leaves much to be desired in the way of 'understanding' other posters real message.
Maybe, we should all take more time in reading, thinking and asking questions before flying into a reply?
Like..."did you mean..... when you said...?"
I still remember the face to face issue being a good self monitor... would I say this to their face?... although some things discussed here would only be done incognito :unsure:
Actually for me the verdict is still out on that one. Which is why I answered Goey as I had (about it being outlandish). And my next response to Goey was playful I realize but it does remain a question...what did they mean, and one I've not asked them directly even though I scoffed of it (which perhaps wasn't best looking back now).
I would point out that most of the time (though certainly not always) if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . . .
IN addition - there is a HUGE difference between attacking a person's character, and taking issue with a particular statement or point of view.
While personal attacks are against forum rules, debating issues is not. Nor is debating issues the same as "throwing stones". I don't think anyone was throwing stones at the person who made the "damaged people" remark, but simply took issue with the statement itself.
Many of you who post here may know this, but I know there's some new posters here so I'll tell the story again - My husband and I met via Waydale in 2000. He was posting under the handle of Mathman. There was a thread that came up about Momentus, which you may know, is a hot topic around here about every six months. He had a decent expereince - it changed his life for the better in some ways. He made the mistake of posting about it and promptly got fried by several posters who ganged up on him, basically. He received some very threatening and vicious emails from posters, etc. It certainly didn't scare him, but he basically said, "Why bother?! They have their minds made up and I can't even share my opinion - if I wanted close-mindedness, I'd have stayed in TWI!" He wasn't selling Momentus or telling anyone they should take it - only what his personal experience was. He has only posted a couple of times since then. Can you blame him? Heck no, I can't. NO ONE deserves to be treated in that manner. But he still needs to talk about his TWI experience and he was robbed of that - it was spoiled for him.
I've often said this on other threads where there were disagreements and misunderstandings but due to the nature of THIS medium, which is processed by reading only, that there is often things such as; one's tone of voice, gestures, facial expressions, etc., that we're used to seeing/feeling/hearing in a regular casual conversation missing. I think that some posters forget how their written words only may come across - perhaps they fail to proof read their posts. Perhaps they need to "cool off" before posting so their point isn't lost by their complex emotions.
While personal attacks are against forum rules, debating issues is not. Nor is debating issues the same as "throwing stones". I don't think anyone was throwing stones at the person who made the "damaged people" remark, but simply took issue with the statement itself.
True, and I don't think that anyone has said someone was throwing stones on here. BUT a phrase was used that is a "trigger" for some and it does come across offensively to some, BUT before getting upset about it, wouldn't it be fair to allow the person to explain what they meant?
What happens if something they posted gets ripped to pieces (without jumping on them personally, just their words) and they come back to see all that and decide it's just not worth trying to explain what they meant?
What if, when they come back to clarify what they meant, they say, "OMG, y'all I am sooo sorry!!! I didn't mean it like that at all! It's a phrase I grew up with and I just meant that we're all dealing with some messed up stuff in our lives because of TWI and I know that's a handfull for Paw to have to deal with, especially since we're all so passionate and emotional at times. I'll never use that phrase again. I'm really sorry for saying something that hurt someone on here." ?
My pastor said a phrase during his sermon yesterday that I absolutely hate and cringe every time I hear it. He didn't know - had no idea. No sense in getting upset over it. He didn't mean to hurt me - doesn't even know that it's a painful phrase for me to hear. Things like that happen pretty regularly for me, especially with co-workers, but I realize they have no idea and so it's my problem, not theirs. I'm hoping and expecting that as time goes on there'll be less "triggers" for me and that I'll get more adept at not associating them with anything TWIt related. In the meantime, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and I just think this is one of those situations.
I could be wrong, and I'll gladly apologize if I am. I realize that you and others feel differently and that's okay, too. :)
My local City Council was confronted by several citizens in their bi-monthly meeting last week. The mayor (actually a fairly decent guy) is facing a recall election because his vice major ran against him and lost, and decided to take it personally. Their issues have split the council into camps, and the infighting has been rather vicious and unfortunately, public.
During the last meeting, the concerned citizens, including two former mayors, confronted the council on their public airings of their problems. The comments were made calmly but pointly. No one wants to see a recall, because it would take the city too long to recover, and during that time the issues facing the city would fall by the wayside.
One of the former mayors summed up how he felt the council should act. He said, very simply, "You can disagree, without being disagreeable."
Somehow this thread came to mind. For what it's worth.
"BUT a phrase was used that is a "trigger" for some and it does come across offensively to some, BUT before getting upset about it, wouldn't it be fair to allow the person to explain what they meant? "
AH, but that is the thing about triggers - the upset part is usually fairly immediate, no? So, you can "pretend to not be upset" and ask questions, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Or, you can express how you are feeling and wait to see how the other person responds. I think there is validity to both methods. Method 1 - asking questions first, may reduce the number of arguments, not a bad thing. Method 2 - shoot first and ask questions later (which is often my method) allows me to practice expressing my thoughts and emotions in a thought out and tactful matter. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I do not. BUT - after years of being unable to speak my mind, express my emotions, and in general call a spade a spade, I am not yet ready to give that up.
IN addition, while I think the ask questions first method is very effective in face to face conversations - there is an aspect to doing that here in the forums that becomes problematic. Time.
Say I see something that upsets me in a post and I ask about it. Well what happens if it is two weeks before the person comes back? What if they never come back? My question remains unanswered. Is that the end of the world? No, not necessarily, but it can become quite frustrating at times. On the other hand, it does give one time to cool off too.
So, I guess what I am saying is there are pros and cons to both sides. And I think both methods are valid and necessary. Again, it goes back to that one size will NOT fit all thing.
I guess, my pov at this time is that I am a "shoot first and ask questions later kinda person". I do my best to shoot at the specific phrase or point of view that is bothering me and not the person, therefore I am not personally attacking anyone. It is who I am, I like who I am, and I am not feeling particularly inspired to try and change that aspect of my personality.
AND in the real world - we all have to deal with people who are like me (even I have to learn this). So, again, I see the forums as a great place to practice that skill.
LOL - Hey Belle, maybe to some degree it's a regional thing. You wonderful Southern Bells are very creative with words and the manner in which you tell someone to go to hell. Us northerners lack your artistic linguistic skills and are simply blunt and to the point. When we want to tell them to go to hell, we do just that.
It is not as creative, but it does communicate quite well.
When will GS Radio air? I am afraid I have been remiss in getting up to speed on this. I didn't really think it was a "real" thing. How would one tune into GSRadio?
It is who I am, I like who I am, and I am not feeling particularly inspired to try and change that aspect of my personality.
I concur! I like who you are, too, Abigail, and wouldn't want you to change one bit.
LOL! I thought about the regional differences regarding communication styles also. I think you may have something there, too. I suppose, when I think someone is full of sh1t, I tend to ask them more questions but not let on what I'm thinking. Then, through asking more questions, I can be sure that I'm correct in my assessment, but they are none the wiser, which can come in handy if I have to deal with them again later on. OR, I can "bless your heart" them and be on my way without them immediately knowing that I think they're out of line. If I'm wrong, then I've saved face. It's just a natural response for me; like yours is for you.
It is more difficult online and, especially when time could be a factor. But, what if instead of assuming that we know what someone means we said something like, "Y, that's a trigger phrase for me and it infuriates me when people use that because...... When I read that, I think you mean ...... Is that what you mean? Because if it is, then....."
That gives the person an out and still lets me vent, share, scream, yell, whatever and no one's hurt or feels bad because of a simple mis-understanding.
Not that I always do that , but it just seems like there must be some common ground we can all come to so that new folks and new angles on recurring topics don't cause so much strife and hurt.
Us northerners lack your artistic linguistic skills and are simply blunt and to the point. When we want to tell them to go to hell, we do just that.
It is not as creative, but it does communicate quite well.
LOL ;)
And oh my goodness the time it saves. The recipient doesn't walk away wondering if they were just told to go to hell and the one making the suggestion doesn't walk away wishing s/he'd said go to hell.
Personally I recommend it, if for the time savings alone.
HA! So, it's a regional/cultural thing eh? I thought I was just rude.
"I concur! I like who you are, too, Abigail, and wouldn't want you to change one bit. "
Aw shucks, Belle, I knew that. Its okay for us to disagree about some things, doesn't change anything at all.
" OR, I can "bless your heart" them and be on my way without them immediately knowing that I think they're out of line. If I'm wrong, then I've saved face. It's just a natural response for me; like yours is for you. "
Ah, but from my POV - if I didn't want someone to know what I think, I'd simply not say anything at all. And I don't worry about saving face. I figure if it is a misunderstanding it will work itself out. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize - no bit deal to me. That's another beauty about being out of TWI - it's okay to make mistakes and be wrong.
He has only posted a couple of times since then. Can you blame him? Heck no, I can't. NO ONE deserves to be treated in that manner. But he still needs to talk about his TWI experience and he was robbed of that - it was spoiled for him.
I hadn't heard that story Chas. But it's too bad that things like that happen. On the one hand, No- I don't blame him for not posting much here. On the other hand, hasn't he seen the experiences you've had here? Certainly not all peaches and cream but also not constant flame wars. If he needs to talk about his TWI experience I would encourage him to do so... and I'd even encourage it here... knowing in advance that not everyone is going to agree with him but that he could possibly work through some stuff...
Sure, people are opinionated here, some more than others... but very few of them are 'closed off'... I'd like to think I've learned a little bit from everyone here, whether or not I've agreed with them. If he wanted to I'd tell him to give it another shot... if he didn't want to... more power to him.
It may not seem like it, but I've seen some pretty heated topics here that I just don't get involved in because of the 'nature' of the discussion... but I don't feel any loss about it... I just find a different way to express myself. I've also stayed out of some discussions (after initially posting) because IMO there are some sh1t stirrers around that take what folks post and try to turn it completely into something they didn't say or mean... which by the way, is a lot of what I think happened on one of the threads in question.
True, and I don't think that anyone has said someone was throwing stones on here. BUT a phrase was used that is a "trigger" for some and it does come across offensively to some, BUT before getting upset about it, wouldn't it be fair to allow the person to explain what they meant?
What happens if something they posted gets ripped to pieces (without jumping on them personally, just their words) and they come back to see all that and decide it's just not worth trying to explain what they meant?
I'm sure that happens some... but (as Abigail pointed out) this is somewhat of an 'immediate medium' and if you post something that could be considered incindiary in nature, you should expect a fire. If it's all done in innocence then they should come back and say so (I know, easy for me to say), but I also have faith that the majority of the posters here would give the benefit of the doubt and not flame back, at least not as aggressively (I know, my spelling sucks)...
What if, when they come back to clarify what they meant, they say, "OMG, y'all I am sooo sorry!!! I didn't mean it like that at all! It's a phrase I grew up with and I just meant that we're all dealing with some messed up stuff in our lives because of TWI and I know that's a handfull for Paw to have to deal with, especially since we're all so passionate and emotional at times. I'll never use that phrase again. I'm really sorry for saying something that hurt someone on here." ?
Then I'd hope that those who flamed would apologize and try to explain what it was that set them off.
I know it's not a good excuse, but the internet is not a "kinder, gentler" place... regardless of the site. The immediacy and intimacy involved with (mostly) faceless people lends itself to unregulated passion.
But we can always try harder to do better... even if it's only personal motivation that drives it...
Oh... and Belle... I grew up in the "south" (well... Texas) so I'm onto your 'hidden meanings'!!!
What thread was Paw referring to? Apparently, I missed it. I have not had time to read GSC as much as in the past. I am taking two 3 unit each real estate classes and also have a full time business. However, in the past I have sometimes defended posters here. So what thread is being referred to here and did anyone defend the poster's right to express their views during this thread?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
16
9
8
Popular Days
Apr 29
56
May 1
26
Apr 30
17
May 2
11
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 11 posts
Abigail 16 posts
Belle 9 posts
rhino 8 posts
Popular Days
Apr 29 2006
56 posts
May 1 2006
26 posts
Apr 30 2006
17 posts
May 2 2006
11 posts
ChattyKathy
Goey,
I'd agree except it's just so outlandish it begs to be asked wtf were you saying there man?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Now Now Kathy,
That is dangerously close to what might possibly be perceived as "throwing stones".
Let's be very careful not to say anything that might give the slightest the impression that we are "throwing stones" at this new poster. I am sure he will come back and clarify that for us. Probably just a misunderstanding on my part ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SafariVista
Just to remind myself what was said in the beginning~
Well Paw, it seems the internet leaves much to be desired in the way of 'understanding' other posters real message.
Maybe, we should all take more time in reading, thinking and asking questions before flying into a reply?
Like..."did you mean..... when you said...?"
I still remember the face to face issue being a good self monitor... would I say this to their face?... although some things discussed here would only be done incognito :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, when I read it, I read it as Y including him/herself in that group....kind of "tongue in cheek" and not as an insult. :unsure:
That's why I asked.
Y'all may be correct, but doesn't Y deserve the right to clarify before everyone gets all up in arms?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Actually for me the verdict is still out on that one. Which is why I answered Goey as I had (about it being outlandish). And my next response to Goey was playful I realize but it does remain a question...what did they mean, and one I've not asked them directly even though I scoffed of it (which perhaps wasn't best looking back now).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I would point out that most of the time (though certainly not always) if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . . .
IN addition - there is a HUGE difference between attacking a person's character, and taking issue with a particular statement or point of view.
While personal attacks are against forum rules, debating issues is not. Nor is debating issues the same as "throwing stones". I don't think anyone was throwing stones at the person who made the "damaged people" remark, but simply took issue with the statement itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
bravo, paw!
and thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Thank you, Paw.
Many of you who post here may know this, but I know there's some new posters here so I'll tell the story again - My husband and I met via Waydale in 2000. He was posting under the handle of Mathman. There was a thread that came up about Momentus, which you may know, is a hot topic around here about every six months. He had a decent expereince - it changed his life for the better in some ways. He made the mistake of posting about it and promptly got fried by several posters who ganged up on him, basically. He received some very threatening and vicious emails from posters, etc. It certainly didn't scare him, but he basically said, "Why bother?! They have their minds made up and I can't even share my opinion - if I wanted close-mindedness, I'd have stayed in TWI!" He wasn't selling Momentus or telling anyone they should take it - only what his personal experience was. He has only posted a couple of times since then. Can you blame him? Heck no, I can't. NO ONE deserves to be treated in that manner. But he still needs to talk about his TWI experience and he was robbed of that - it was spoiled for him.
I've often said this on other threads where there were disagreements and misunderstandings but due to the nature of THIS medium, which is processed by reading only, that there is often things such as; one's tone of voice, gestures, facial expressions, etc., that we're used to seeing/feeling/hearing in a regular casual conversation missing. I think that some posters forget how their written words only may come across - perhaps they fail to proof read their posts. Perhaps they need to "cool off" before posting so their point isn't lost by their complex emotions.
Thanks again, Paw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
True, and I don't think that anyone has said someone was throwing stones on here. BUT a phrase was used that is a "trigger" for some and it does come across offensively to some, BUT before getting upset about it, wouldn't it be fair to allow the person to explain what they meant?
What happens if something they posted gets ripped to pieces (without jumping on them personally, just their words) and they come back to see all that and decide it's just not worth trying to explain what they meant?
What if, when they come back to clarify what they meant, they say, "OMG, y'all I am sooo sorry!!! I didn't mean it like that at all! It's a phrase I grew up with and I just meant that we're all dealing with some messed up stuff in our lives because of TWI and I know that's a handfull for Paw to have to deal with, especially since we're all so passionate and emotional at times. I'll never use that phrase again. I'm really sorry for saying something that hurt someone on here." ?
My pastor said a phrase during his sermon yesterday that I absolutely hate and cringe every time I hear it. He didn't know - had no idea. No sense in getting upset over it. He didn't mean to hurt me - doesn't even know that it's a painful phrase for me to hear. Things like that happen pretty regularly for me, especially with co-workers, but I realize they have no idea and so it's my problem, not theirs. I'm hoping and expecting that as time goes on there'll be less "triggers" for me and that I'll get more adept at not associating them with anything TWIt related. In the meantime, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and I just think this is one of those situations.
I could be wrong, and I'll gladly apologize if I am. I realize that you and others feel differently and that's okay, too. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Yesterday I tried an experiment. I invited 3 posters in a conference call and we discussed this very thread. This will be Episode 4 of GSRadio.
I prepared it last night. I just want to add some music at the beginning and the end. Then I will post it this evening.
Hearing a post adds much to the meaning.
If this goes well, we will do it regularly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
My local City Council was confronted by several citizens in their bi-monthly meeting last week. The mayor (actually a fairly decent guy) is facing a recall election because his vice major ran against him and lost, and decided to take it personally. Their issues have split the council into camps, and the infighting has been rather vicious and unfortunately, public.
During the last meeting, the concerned citizens, including two former mayors, confronted the council on their public airings of their problems. The comments were made calmly but pointly. No one wants to see a recall, because it would take the city too long to recover, and during that time the issues facing the city would fall by the wayside.
One of the former mayors summed up how he felt the council should act. He said, very simply, "You can disagree, without being disagreeable."
Somehow this thread came to mind. For what it's worth.
Edited by topoftheworldLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"BUT a phrase was used that is a "trigger" for some and it does come across offensively to some, BUT before getting upset about it, wouldn't it be fair to allow the person to explain what they meant? "
AH, but that is the thing about triggers - the upset part is usually fairly immediate, no? So, you can "pretend to not be upset" and ask questions, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Or, you can express how you are feeling and wait to see how the other person responds. I think there is validity to both methods. Method 1 - asking questions first, may reduce the number of arguments, not a bad thing. Method 2 - shoot first and ask questions later (which is often my method) allows me to practice expressing my thoughts and emotions in a thought out and tactful matter. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I do not. BUT - after years of being unable to speak my mind, express my emotions, and in general call a spade a spade, I am not yet ready to give that up.
IN addition, while I think the ask questions first method is very effective in face to face conversations - there is an aspect to doing that here in the forums that becomes problematic. Time.
Say I see something that upsets me in a post and I ask about it. Well what happens if it is two weeks before the person comes back? What if they never come back? My question remains unanswered. Is that the end of the world? No, not necessarily, but it can become quite frustrating at times. On the other hand, it does give one time to cool off too.
So, I guess what I am saying is there are pros and cons to both sides. And I think both methods are valid and necessary. Again, it goes back to that one size will NOT fit all thing.
I guess, my pov at this time is that I am a "shoot first and ask questions later kinda person". I do my best to shoot at the specific phrase or point of view that is bothering me and not the person, therefore I am not personally attacking anyone. It is who I am, I like who I am, and I am not feeling particularly inspired to try and change that aspect of my personality.
AND in the real world - we all have to deal with people who are like me (even I have to learn this). So, again, I see the forums as a great place to practice that skill.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
LOL - Hey Belle, maybe to some degree it's a regional thing. You wonderful Southern Bells are very creative with words and the manner in which you tell someone to go to hell. Us northerners lack your artistic linguistic skills and are simply blunt and to the point. When we want to tell them to go to hell, we do just that.
It is not as creative, but it does communicate quite well.
LOL ;)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
When will GS Radio air? I am afraid I have been remiss in getting up to speed on this. I didn't really think it was a "real" thing. How would one tune into GSRadio?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
GSRadio is the name of our "podcasts". Go to the GS radio section in the General area, below Open forum and all of them are there to review.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showforum=62
Edited by pawtucketLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I concur!
I like who you are, too, Abigail, and wouldn't want you to change one bit.
LOL! I thought about the regional differences regarding communication styles also. I think you may have something there, too. I suppose, when I think someone is full of sh1t, I tend to ask them more questions but not let on what I'm thinking. Then, through asking more questions, I can be sure that I'm correct in my assessment, but they are none the wiser, which can come in handy if I have to deal with them again later on. OR, I can "bless your heart" them and be on my way without them immediately knowing that I think they're out of line. If I'm wrong, then I've saved face. It's just a natural response for me; like yours is for you.
It is more difficult online and, especially when time could be a factor. But, what if instead of assuming that we know what someone means we said something like, "Y, that's a trigger phrase for me and it infuriates me when people use that because...... When I read that, I think you mean ...... Is that what you mean? Because if it is, then....."
That gives the person an out and still lets me vent, share, scream, yell, whatever and no one's hurt or feels bad because of a simple mis-understanding.
Not that I always do that
, but it just seems like there must be some common ground we can all come to so that new folks and new angles on recurring topics don't cause so much strife and hurt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
And oh my goodness the time it saves. The recipient doesn't walk away wondering if they were just told to go to hell and the one making the suggestion doesn't walk away wishing s/he'd said go to hell.
Personally I recommend it, if for the time savings alone.
HA! So, it's a regional/cultural thing eh? I thought I was just rude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I concur! I like who you are, too, Abigail, and wouldn't want you to change one bit. "
" OR, I can "bless your heart" them and be on my way without them immediately knowing that I think they're out of line. If I'm wrong, then I've saved face. It's just a natural response for me; like yours is for you. "
Ah, but from my POV - if I didn't want someone to know what I think, I'd simply not say anything at all. And I don't worry about saving face. I figure if it is a misunderstanding it will work itself out. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize - no bit deal to me. That's another beauty about being out of TWI - it's okay to make mistakes and be wrong.
And Shell,
lol!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I hadn't heard that story Chas. But it's too bad that things like that happen. On the one hand, No- I don't blame him for not posting much here. On the other hand, hasn't he seen the experiences you've had here? Certainly not all peaches and cream but also not constant flame wars. If he needs to talk about his TWI experience I would encourage him to do so... and I'd even encourage it here... knowing in advance that not everyone is going to agree with him but that he could possibly work through some stuff...
Sure, people are opinionated here, some more than others... but very few of them are 'closed off'... I'd like to think I've learned a little bit from everyone here, whether or not I've agreed with them. If he wanted to I'd tell him to give it another shot... if he didn't want to... more power to him.
It may not seem like it, but I've seen some pretty heated topics here that I just don't get involved in because of the 'nature' of the discussion... but I don't feel any loss about it... I just find a different way to express myself. I've also stayed out of some discussions (after initially posting) because IMO there are some sh1t stirrers around that take what folks post and try to turn it completely into something they didn't say or mean... which by the way, is a lot of what I think happened on one of the threads in question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Me in Bold:
I know it's not a good excuse, but the internet is not a "kinder, gentler" place... regardless of the site. The immediacy and intimacy involved with (mostly) faceless people lends itself to unregulated passion.
But we can always try harder to do better... even if it's only personal motivation that drives it...
Oh... and Belle... I grew up in the "south" (well... Texas) so I'm onto your 'hidden meanings'!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
What thread was Paw referring to? Apparently, I missed it. I have not had time to read GSC as much as in the past. I am taking two 3 unit each real estate classes and also have a full time business. However, in the past I have sometimes defended posters here. So what thread is being referred to here and did anyone defend the poster's right to express their views during this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
The two threads are "Conversations with Craig" (two threads) and the "Sidebar" thread... all of them in "About the Way" forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PimpjuiceClergy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.