Thanks Mr. Pawtucket NOW I have clear insight on the heart of your forums and freedom of speech on these threads. Great audio I really enjoyed the explaination the 2 ladies shared, some great insight and keen and very tender hearts .
I think your threads can really help alot of people thanxs for allowing me to post here PEACE Pimpjuice lovin LOL
I think introducing this topic without being more specific is incindiary.
paw said "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!"
the direct quote from sog went beyond speaking of her affair and into claiming those that claim rape are jilted liars. I see no other way to read what sog said ... maybe it was explained away later ...
then paw said "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."
what the heck does that mean? I mentioned before I know sog, knowing her favorite band has nothing to do with her statement about the alleged rape victims just being scorned lovers.
I'm still left guessing the other person that "knew" lcm was freud. This is a whole nuther topic. I take it sog was referring to sex with vp and lcm. Freud is just a supposed acquaintance of lcm with not much to offer except he felt craig was now in a humble position. He never disclosed much more that I saw .. maybe he was on the level, maybe he was testing the waters here ...
Anyway, opening a topic like this without many more specifics is just thowing gas on a hot subject, and saying "now please don't let this blow up in my face". LOL I haven't heard the rational discussion yet with shell and abi and I look forward to it, but I forgot the speaker cable after my one computer modem got fried by lightening ...
and what is GSPC? there is a "politcal" correctness on GS? I'd like to see that defined in the guidelines, bylaws, somewhere Paw, you never answered about part of her story being the claim that those claiming rape were just upset ... so you are sticking with sog's story is right .. they are liars? You can't just duck out whenever you feel like it, and hope no one notices ... your name doesn't even show when you are in chat ... grrrrr This is a huge problem as I see it. You said her story (including alleged rape victims just being liars) was legit ... and you never corrected that, so it stands ... what am I missing here?
A final note, from my 8 years or so chatting in many forums on the net, you have to learn to ignore the rabble rousers. That is just background noise ... find the sensible folks and ignore the maniacs ... maybe interact with the lunatics at times for sport .. poke em with a stick ... or is that what this topic was, just poking us with a stick?
It is my understanding that Paw never really intended for this thread to be about what Sogwap said and/or meant, but that he was simply trying to use some examples to express what he saw as a couple of problems that have cropped up as late. Also, I think you are confusing some things. I suspect the "favorite song" remark with with respect to either Freud or Jung.
There is a problem with new posters getting jumped on and accused of being trolls or WayGB. That problem has existed for as far back as I can remember - I too went through that "initiation" when I came here almost 6 years ago.
The other problem has to do with how we converse or debate with each other and the "mud slinging" that goes on. I have a different take on that than Paw does, but that doesn't make his less valid.
And yes, there is some degree of GSPC, in that it is not uncommon for those who post about good memories of TWI, or something they felt was good about VPW or LCM to get jumped on. I understand the persective of those who do the "jumping", but again that does not make the perspective of those with good things to recall less valid.
ok abi, maybe ... my point is paw introduced a provocative topic and just walked away from it ... finding out someone's favorite song doesn't tell you if they are sincere ... freud didn't tell much ... maybe he didn't want to say more cuz of the working relationship .. fine ... but it still leaves everyone hanging ...
and since he directly mentioned sogwap, without saying her name ... the details of that became pertinent
but he just threw out that hot topic, and walked away ... at least from the thread .. i haven't heard the live radio chat
and the comment about GS PC ... well it is his site ... how does something become PC here?
Just some questions ... of course he can secretely monitor our chats I guess, even the private ones ?, so maybe he learned something tonight ...
edited part ... this partly came to my mind from a completely different site ... the subject of the need to answer on these public forums, because otherwise perhaps idle comments become like historical documents that can be referred to and linked to ... as comments within GS are linked to. I see now sogwap saying she never meant to offend anyone ... it was a different time frame. That sorta changes the tone. But it seems a stitch in time saves nine ... pages of hostility ... it's a jungle out there ...
[color=#000099]Thanks for saying something. I'm amazed that you must have to read everything posted in here and put up with the opinions of some of the most damaged people in our country.[/color]
[/size]
I've been asked in the thread and by personal message to explain what I meant by the passage above. I answered it in the personal message and now, I will attempt to 'splain myself'.
As I wrote it, in context, the emphasis I was endeavoring to communicate was my lack of envy for Paw. He has to read each and every post. And just like he said....some of them are pretty vicious. It seems some felt I was attacking their right to an opinion....
NO.
Others thought I was focused on insulting the regulars in here by calling them "damaged". That wasn't my intent. However, it appears some would love to be a part in the buldozing of TWI years after they are released from their prison. I'm not a psychologist, but that is simply bitterness. Though there might be a twinge of delight at the thought, I don't see how any of us could afford the time to daydream about such an adventure. IMHO that would be "unprofitable". (sorry, I meant 'unproductive')
As for "who" I was referring to with the word "damaged". It is not far from the same way a person becomes "damaged" after a nasty divorce. Sometimes reading the posts is like reading a letter from an ex-spouse.
So, if you will, please accept my appologies for any offense taken by my post. I'm still glad I don't have to monitor it like Paw does.[/font][/size][/i]
hiya Y. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your statement. As I have tried to make clear in another thread, that phrase just happens to be that generally does not trigger "happy feelings" for me.
In any case, I hope you'll stick around and get to know us better, and allow us to get to know you better too. Yeah- we can be a "tough crowd" at times, but I think you'll find we can also be pretty cool too.
I did not walk away. I opened a topic that needed to be discussed. And it has been discussed. There isn't anything that is being said that I could have said better. I have spent well over a dozen hours dealing with this topic
If you have a problem with chat or the management of it, then send me an email. I don't see what chat has to do with this thread. If I had a problem with your actions, I would email you and let you know.
ok paw ... I guess I was looking for more input from you as this thread progressed and came to different crossroads, so to speak. And you did email me and I emailed you back and I chatted with sogwap ... so we can carry on with expressing our opinions .. :)
now where is that freud guy?
oh, the chat thing only tied in cuz you appear and disappear there, but your name doesn't show up. So it was like this thread ... since you didn't reply more, I wondered if you were there or not. 12 hours ... wow, I guess you were talking to someone ... but all that private talking didn't appear here to everyone ... so I don't read minds either ... OK?
Rhino, I recommend the GSpot Radio Roundtable Discussion on this. It's awesome to hear these different and balanced views discussed in greater detail. :)
And, as an administrator on my own board, Paw most likely has neither access to nor the time to read folks private PMs and such. ;) His interview - Episode 3 goes into more detail on that. It's a fascinating interview of Paw done by Raf.
And, as an administrator on my own board, Paw most likely has neither access to nor the time to read folks private PMs and such. ;) His interview - Episode 3 goes into more detail on that. It's a fascinating interview of Paw done by Raf.
OK thx ... I thought I read something about emails and pm's through GS could be monitored ... anyway, if I really have something secret to say I'll say it via a different method. It is really another topic, but kinda blended with the whole point I was making that it seemed paw was maybe there for the thread ... but just listenening in.
If I felt like going through tens of thousands of lines of code that make up the threads and PM's, I could probably find PM's. But I assure you that I don't have the time for such stuff. Nor do I have the interest.
In an early version of the last forum we had. There was a glitch in the system that revealed PM's based on keywords. That was fixed in a later version at my and many others' requests.
This is how I feel, I think some people just love throwing stones. My age has gotten the most damage here didn't Jesus say "You without sin you cast the first stone". Since none of us are without sin no stones should be thrown. Now while a opinion is one thing it has the right of being talked about. The opinion has two sides and a regular debate is ok, but bashing people is wrong.
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
PimpjuiceClergy
no story just reading the posts here is that ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Here is episode 4-- a roundtable discussion of this thread.
Episode4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PimpjuiceClergy
Thanks Mr. Pawtucket NOW I have clear insight on the heart of your forums and freedom of speech on these threads. Great audio I really enjoyed the explaination the 2 ladies shared, some great insight and keen and very tender hearts .
I think your threads can really help alot of people thanxs for allowing me to post here PEACE Pimpjuice lovin LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think introducing this topic without being more specific is incindiary.
paw said "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!"
the direct quote from sog went beyond speaking of her affair and into claiming those that claim rape are jilted liars. I see no other way to read what sog said ... maybe it was explained away later ...
then paw said "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."
what the heck does that mean? I mentioned before I know sog, knowing her favorite band has nothing to do with her statement about the alleged rape victims just being scorned lovers.
I'm still left guessing the other person that "knew" lcm was freud. This is a whole nuther topic. I take it sog was referring to sex with vp and lcm. Freud is just a supposed acquaintance of lcm with not much to offer except he felt craig was now in a humble position. He never disclosed much more that I saw .. maybe he was on the level, maybe he was testing the waters here ...
Anyway, opening a topic like this without many more specifics is just thowing gas on a hot subject, and saying "now please don't let this blow up in my face". LOL I haven't heard the rational discussion yet with shell and abi and I look forward to it, but I forgot the speaker cable after my one computer modem got fried by lightening ...
and what is GSPC? there is a "politcal" correctness on GS? I'd like to see that defined in the guidelines, bylaws, somewhere Paw, you never answered about part of her story being the claim that those claiming rape were just upset ... so you are sticking with sog's story is right .. they are liars? You can't just duck out whenever you feel like it, and hope no one notices ... your name doesn't even show when you are in chat ... grrrrr This is a huge problem as I see it. You said her story (including alleged rape victims just being liars) was legit ... and you never corrected that, so it stands ... what am I missing here?
A final note, from my 8 years or so chatting in many forums on the net, you have to learn to ignore the rabble rousers. That is just background noise ... find the sensible folks and ignore the maniacs ... maybe interact with the lunatics at times for sport ..
poke em with a stick ... or is that what this topic was, just poking us with a stick?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Rhino,
It is my understanding that Paw never really intended for this thread to be about what Sogwap said and/or meant, but that he was simply trying to use some examples to express what he saw as a couple of problems that have cropped up as late. Also, I think you are confusing some things. I suspect the "favorite song" remark with with respect to either Freud or Jung.
There is a problem with new posters getting jumped on and accused of being trolls or WayGB. That problem has existed for as far back as I can remember - I too went through that "initiation" when I came here almost 6 years ago.
The other problem has to do with how we converse or debate with each other and the "mud slinging" that goes on. I have a different take on that than Paw does, but that doesn't make his less valid.
And yes, there is some degree of GSPC, in that it is not uncommon for those who post about good memories of TWI, or something they felt was good about VPW or LCM to get jumped on. I understand the persective of those who do the "jumping", but again that does not make the perspective of those with good things to recall less valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
ok abi, maybe ... my point is paw introduced a provocative topic and just walked away from it ... finding out someone's favorite song doesn't tell you if they are sincere ... freud didn't tell much ... maybe he didn't want to say more cuz of the working relationship .. fine ... but it still leaves everyone hanging ...
and since he directly mentioned sogwap, without saying her name ... the details of that became pertinent
but he just threw out that hot topic, and walked away ... at least from the thread .. i haven't heard the live radio chat
and the comment about GS PC ... well it is his site ... how does something become PC here?
Just some questions ... of course he can secretely monitor our chats I guess, even the private ones ?, so maybe he learned something tonight ...
edited part ... this partly came to my mind from a completely different site ... the subject of the need to answer on these public forums, because otherwise perhaps idle comments become like historical documents that can be referred to and linked to ... as comments within GS are linked to. I see now sogwap saying she never meant to offend anyone ... it was a different time frame. That sorta changes the tone. But it seems a stitch in time saves nine ... pages of hostility ... it's a jungle out there ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
YIdon'tgotochurch
Quoting My earlier Post
[color=#000099]Thanks for saying something. I'm amazed that you must have to read everything posted in here and put up with the opinions of some of the most damaged people in our country.[/color]
[/size]
I've been asked in the thread and by personal message to explain what I meant by the passage above. I answered it in the personal message and now, I will attempt to 'splain myself'.
As I wrote it, in context, the emphasis I was endeavoring to communicate was my lack of envy for Paw. He has to read each and every post. And just like he said....some of them are pretty vicious. It seems some felt I was attacking their right to an opinion....
NO.
Others thought I was focused on insulting the regulars in here by calling them "damaged". That wasn't my intent. However, it appears some would love to be a part in the buldozing of TWI years after they are released from their prison. I'm not a psychologist, but that is simply bitterness. Though there might be a twinge of delight at the thought, I don't see how any of us could afford the time to daydream about such an adventure. IMHO that would be "unprofitable". (sorry, I meant 'unproductive')
As for "who" I was referring to with the word "damaged". It is not far from the same way a person becomes "damaged" after a nasty divorce. Sometimes reading the posts is like reading a letter from an ex-spouse.
So, if you will, please accept my appologies for any offense taken by my post. I'm still glad I don't have to monitor it like Paw does.[/font][/size][/i]
Edited by YIdon'tgotochurchLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Thank you, Y. You are wonderful and please hug your family for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
hiya Y. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your statement. As I have tried to make clear in another thread, that phrase just happens to be that generally does not trigger "happy feelings" for me.
In any case, I hope you'll stick around and get to know us better, and allow us to get to know you better too. Yeah- we can be a "tough crowd" at times, but I think you'll find we can also be pretty cool too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thank you nonchurchgoer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Y! :) Much appreciated!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Rhino,
I did not walk away. I opened a topic that needed to be discussed. And it has been discussed. There isn't anything that is being said that I could have said better. I have spent well over a dozen hours dealing with this topic
If you have a problem with chat or the management of it, then send me an email. I don't see what chat has to do with this thread. If I had a problem with your actions, I would email you and let you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
ok paw ... I guess I was looking for more input from you as this thread progressed and came to different crossroads, so to speak. And you did email me and I emailed you back and I chatted with sogwap ... so we can carry on with expressing our opinions .. :)
now where is that freud guy?
oh, the chat thing only tied in cuz you appear and disappear there, but your name doesn't show up. So it was like this thread ... since you didn't reply more, I wondered if you were there or not. 12 hours ... wow, I guess you were talking to someone ... but all that private talking didn't appear here to everyone ... so I don't read minds either ... OK?
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Rhino, I recommend the GSpot Radio Roundtable Discussion on this. It's awesome to hear these different and balanced views discussed in greater detail. :)
GSpot Radio Episode 4
And, as an administrator on my own board, Paw most likely has neither access to nor the time to read folks private PMs and such. ;) His interview - Episode 3 goes into more detail on that. It's a fascinating interview of Paw done by Raf.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It's a great day out ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Private Messages are private.
If I felt like going through tens of thousands of lines of code that make up the threads and PM's, I could probably find PM's. But I assure you that I don't have the time for such stuff. Nor do I have the interest.
In an early version of the last forum we had. There was a glitch in the system that revealed PM's based on keywords. That was fixed in a later version at my and many others' requests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
This is how I feel, I think some people just love throwing stones. My age has gotten the most damage here didn't Jesus say "You without sin you cast the first stone". Since none of us are without sin no stones should be thrown. Now while a opinion is one thing it has the right of being talked about. The opinion has two sides and a regular debate is ok, but bashing people is wrong.
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Machines have no heart. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Is there a string attached to that ball dave? It looks like it keeps coming back!
...which may also be the point you were trying to make...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sorry -- I could only find a pic of a repentint catapult!!!
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.