April 2002 posts
Buffy either truly hates Spike, is
an idiot or a complete bitch, *spoilers* -- JMC, 12:41:07 04/24/02 Wed
I just have to say that Buffy must totally hate Spike, be a complete bitch, or be a total idiot to yell at
him and blame him for the high tech video surveillance equipment that is found at her house in
Entropy. She knows he is stuck pretty much in another century when it comes to technology. Sure he
has a black and white TV set and a radio but that’s about it. She also knows that Spike has no
reason to install cameras all over her house to see her naked. IMHO she is just being a complete
bitch.
[>
*crazy entropy spoilers here and above* -- aurelia, 13:00:21 04/24/02 Wed
Well it is completely irrational, though I get the impression it's a reaction to Xander's accusation not
something she came up with on her own. Also it's not fair to say that Spike has close to no technical
knowledge, he can at least operate a computer and can hotwire cars, so he isn't totally ignorant.
That being said I don't think that he's capable of the setup that the Troika has. I think the situation
can be boiled down finding/creating a reason to go after someone that she is already angry at. Same
goes for Xander.
[> [>
Re: *crazy entropy spoilers here and above* -- shadowkat, 13:14:18 04/24/02 Wed
Actually he has shown a proficiency for such things in the past - in Halloween Season 2, we see him
with tv sets and video cameras. He filmed her fighting and rewatched the tapes.
I think it's just easier for them to blame him than the
Trioka. It's the same ironic mistake they've been making all season. It will blow up on them soon and
B/X/W will have no one but themselves to blame for their own inability
to see that humans can be much worse than demons.
[> [> [>
No he didn't film her fighting he hired a vampire to film her fighting. -- JMC, 13:20:32
04/24/02 Wed
just as he never touched the remote, he had a vampire to rewind and fast forward things for
him.
[> [> [> [>
Hey! Keep Spoilers out of the subject lines, please! -- Rob, 13:27:56 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
I think that's a season 2 reference -- ponygirl, 13:54:36 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes, the episode was called School Hard. -- JMC, 13:58:44 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sorry, I made a mistake the episode was called Holloween. -- JMC, 13:59:50 04/24/02
Wed
[> [> [> [>
Some computer expertise shown in "The Initiative" -- Anne, 13:58:53
04/24/02 Wed
The main time I can remember that Spike was shown to have a personal ability with technology was
the Initiative, in which he broke into the college's computers, called up a listing of student
residential assignments, and found Buffy's name. This is a lot more complicated than just sitting
down at a PC and using a word processing program or clicking on a browser icon to get on the
internet, and I think does suggest at least a modest technological ability.
That having been said, I still think it would be crazy of Buffy to think of anybody but Warren and
the nerds as the prime suspects, especially since she is ordinarily extremely good at that type of
intuitive leap.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes, but Buffy doesn't know that and I don't think Spike has a computer in his crypt. --
JMC, 14:12:40 04/24/02 Wed
But thats not the point, even if Spike was big on modern technology like Willow, Buffy would still
have no reason in the world to think Spike would want to spy on her.
Especially, when super high tech nerds are out to kill her.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Once again...Stop the spoilers in the subject line! -- Rob, 14:41:24 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
HiTech Stalking? -- LeeAnn, 09:04:34 04/25/02 Thu
Those little cameras are pushed as spy devices. Buffy might think since she broke up with him that
he's gone back to stalking her, a kind of high tech stalking.
I'm sure computers aren't beyond Spike but they required more patience than he can normally
muster.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes, but didn't that strike anyone else as *really* out of character? -- leslie, 15:08:09 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Not at all... -- Rob, 16:12:30 04/24/02 Wed
Spike has always been a vamp up with the current times, constantly updating his image and even
his accent. From the moment he balked in the face of vamp convention and hierachy by offing the
Annoying One, it's been proven that Spike is no regular vampire. He's a very modern one, and it
doesn't surprise me at all that he'd know a thing or two about computers. Further, it adds an
interesting parallel to Willow's character.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Are you kidding?!! -- Marie, 07:58:51 04/25/02 Thu
Spike has always been a vamp up with the current times, constantly updating his image and
even his accent.
This is the same guy who still bleaches his hair and is wearing the same leather coat he took from a
dead Slayer in the '70s?
And as for his accent - he has been shown in backflashes as upper middle-class English, and puts on
the London (as opposed to Cockney, which is very different) accent when he wants to. When he talks
to Buffy in that seductive, wheedling tone he has, he actually sounds rather cultured again.
Marie
[> [> [> [> [>
Seems obvious to me -- Malandanza, 00:09:58 04/25/02 Thu
"That having been said, I still think it would be crazy of Buffy to think of anybody but Warren
and the nerds as the prime suspects, especially since she is ordinarily extremely good at that type of
intuitive leap."
Well, I accidentally spoiled myself -- but, having seen the previews, it's not much of a spoiler.
Anyway, is it logical for Buffy to suspect Spike? Of Course it is! He's her ex and suddenly she ends
up on a porn site? Do the math.
Plus, Spike will do anything for money -- selling a video of Buffy is small potatoes compared to
keeping demon eggs. And how hard can it be to set up a webcam?
Is it possible that the Troika are involved? Yes -- but...
We haven't seen any mention of it before now -- maybe Warren's box of stuff had the computer spy
equipment in it last episode but Buffy and Spike were over as a couple by then. Earlier, the
Jonathan and Andrew were uncertain who Spike was -- so he hadn't been under surveillance prior to
his and Buffy's "romance". This gives the Troika a rather narrow timeframe with which to work (in
Gone their big plan was to turn invisible and sneak in to see naked women -- if they had
Spike and Buffy on tape, why bother?). They don't know that Spike can't hurt them, so sneaking into
his crypt would have been dangerous (especially since Spike rarely leaves the place). They would
most likely have aimed the spy camera at the bed if they had intended to catch Buffy and Spike
having sex -- but Buffy and Spike never had sex in the bed -- Spike would have been able to control
(in theory) where they ended up and could have placed the camera accordingly. Finally, the logical
place for the Troika to place cameras would have been in Buffy's house (Buffy works, Willow and
Dawn go to school -- plus all have additional activities leaving the house frequently empty) -- not
Spike's crypt (do they even know where Spike lives?) because (and I don't want to sound like vhD
here :) there are three young women living there now -- there were four earlier in the season,
including Tara and Willow -- a well placed shower-cam would see much more action than a vampire's
crypt and the survellance equipment would also serve the purpose of allowing them to anticipate
Buffy's plans.
So I don't think it's Warren and the boys and, whether Spike did it or not, it's totally in character for
her to suspect him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
not wanting to spoil you more but feeling the need to say something *spoilers* -- aurelia,
07:28:49 04/25/02 Thu
That's not what's happening, they just find a camera in Buffy's house and Xander's like hey Spike
must be spying on you. Willow isn't looking at a porn site she's looking at live feed from one of the
survellience cameras. It is a baseless assumption on Xander's part and Buffy chooses to believe him
rather than think about it logically or listen to what Spike says.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: not wanting to spoil you more but feeling the need to say something *spoilers* --
Malandanza, 08:58:02 04/25/02 Thu
Aurelia: "That's not what's happening, they just find a camera in Buffy's house and Xander's like
hey Spike must be spying on you. Willow isn't looking at a porn site she's looking at live feed from
one of the surveillance cameras. It is a baseless assumption on Xander's part and Buffy chooses to
believe him rather than think about it logically or listen to what Spike says.
That does make a difference -- if it's true. A live feed of Buffy and Spike having sex (in the crypt?
How's she accessing a live feed from Buffy's house? She's never let him in her bedroom so far...)
means Buffy has relapsed, so the Troika would be able to catch them together with Warren's new box
of stuff. If Willow is watching the sex act in real time after having discovered secret cameras in
Buffy's house, the suspicion ought to be on someone else -- Spike doesn't have that much technical
expertise (he has, however, hired others for their expertise in the past -- like the child-killing
vampire to torture Angel). But for Buffy or Xander not to blame Spike first would be out of
character, whether the accusation is baseless or not.
shadowkat: "But as to the Trioka - uh yeah we did see mention of it.
Life serial they had cameras placed in the magic box. In
Dead Things they had a camera in the grave yard. In Life Serial they said they had the entire SG
covered. In Life Serial we see them watching porn channels and discussing posting porn. They
discuss it quite a bit."
We did see that they had surveillance cameras and we have seen them discussing porn -- it would be
in character for them to responsible. But if they had been taping the sex scenes all along, they would
have discussed it -- repeatedly. No word was ever mentioned by any of them -- never mentioned?
They'd have been yammering incessantly about it. My real concern isn't motive, but opportunity. In
Gone, I think it's clear that the surveillance had not yet begun. In the episodes immediately
following, they were more concerned about hiding from the slayer than in giving her new reasons to
hunt them. If they are responsible, it is a very recent thing, which I discounted because Buffy had
ended her relationship with Spike. If she has relapsed, I'd say Warren and the boys are the likely
culprits -- and they installed the cameras after Normal Again.
"It should be obvious to us the audience that the Troika are behind it not Spike, because Spike
isn't the sort to traffic in human commercial items - he does demon items, hence the eggs. "
Spike will do anything for money. Most people see the demon eggs incident as out-of-character with
his usual petty schemes for money.
"(Also ME has dropped so many clues that the Troika will do this, that I could see it coming a
mile away.)"
Sometimes ME drops "hints" to deliberately mislead us.
"Spike, on his part, is having major problems with Buffy and
the SG, he helps them, they diss him, he loves her, she knocks him silly, he's getting really close to
exploding and he is a demon. Actually I think he's shown amazing restraint."
I love this argument: you can defend so many indefensible actions by blaming someone else.
It's not Warren's fault that he attacked Katrina --he was trying to make amends, doing his best to
impress her and she "diss"ed him -- in public, no less. What choice did he have but to make her his
sex slave and share her with his friends?
Neither Anya nor Faith were accepted by the Scoobies. They were on the outside and remained so
while the Scoobies (Willow especially) mocked and excluded them. Faith summed it up best when
she says that she came to town, played the good slayer, did her job well -- and who did everyone
thank? Buffy. The Scoobies drove Faith into the arms of the Mayor and deserved everything they
got. Anya's case is more pathetic since she has struggled to be a part of the team and tried
desperately to come to terms with her new humanity since the start of Season Four. She hasn't done
anything evil in all that time yet continues to be given grief for her vengeance demon days (before
she became human again). Buffy and her friends are lucky that she didn't call up her old friends and
have them all eviscerated. She's shown remarkable restraint for an ex-demon used to having her
way (and being worshipped) for more than a millennium.
Willow's amnesia spell in Tabula Rasa is also totally excusable since Tara threatened to
leave her even after Willow promised to give up magic. Tara told Willow to give up magic for a week
and "then they'd see" -- if she had said "Give up magic for a week and I'll go make to being the
unselfish, doormat of a girlfriend just like old times", Willow would have had an incentive -- and,
after all, we can't expect the Scoobies to do good or reform without the prospect of a reward.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Seems obvious to me -- shadowkat, 07:41:27 04/25/02 Thu
Dang - I swore I wasn't goin to enter this debate again, because I know the spoilers for Entropy, but I
will try
without spoiling anyone.
I agree with Malandaza on the point that it makes sense for Buffy and the SG to think Spike is the
culprit. For all of the above reasons you suggest.
But as to the Trioka - uh yeah we did see mention of it.
Life serial they had cameras placed in the magic box. In
Dead Things they had a camera in the grave yard. In Life Serial they said they had the entire SG
covered. In Life Serial we see them watching porn channels and discussing posting porn. They
discuss it quite a bit.
When they moved everything in Gone - we know they took their camera equipment and video
equipment because they tell us in Dead Things.
It should be obvious to us the audience that the Troika are behind it not Spike, because Spike isn't
the sort to traffic in human commercial items - he does demon items, hence the eggs. (Also ME has
dropped so many clues that the Troika will do this, that I could see it coming a mile away.) However
it is not obvious to Buffy and the SG, b/c they don't take the Troika seriously and they don't know
that the Trioka have been spying on them and they have saved at least two of the Trioka on more
than one occassion
and finally Buffy can't concieve of them being that bad.
(Remember we the audience are privey to things that SG aren't.) Also Buffy is having major
problems with how she feels towards Spike right now and what to do with him.
Spike, on his part, is having major problems with Buffy and
the SG, he helps them, they diss him, he loves her, she knocks him silly, he's getting really close to
exploding and he is a demon. Actually I think he's shown amazing restraint. And my heart goes out
to poor Buffy as well.
Entering the character anti-defamation league with Rob now.
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Again with the "Are you kidding?!" -- Marie, 08:03:05 04/25/02 Thu
...they don't take the Troika seriously...
Huh?! They know Warren, for one, is a murderer! How could they not take him seriously, by
now?
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Gonna have to agree with Marie (possibly spoilers) -- Anne, 09:45:29 04/25/02 Thu
Buffy knows that Warren is a murderer, that he is capable of developing a freeze ray, an invisibility
ray, of summoning a demon whose poison practically caused her to murder her friends, and of
actually altering the fabric of time. I'd say she takes him pretty dern seriously, and knows that he is
highly technologically sophisticated to say the least.
Remember also, as I noted above, that this is the girl who is generally capable of making enormous
intuitive leaps -- Dawn has only to mention a guidance counselor, for instance, and Buffy's mind
jumps immediately to the concept of making a wish to a vengeance demon. Were she functioning on
all cylinders, she would suspect the nerds, not Spike.
But of course she's not functioning on all cylinders with regard to Spike. She has a vested interest
in thinking the worst of him, just as she has a vested interest in having the nastiest possible sex
with him, because it enables her to repudiate him and the darkness in herself she has projected onto
him. The more she can reject him as amoral, or dead, or unable to feel anything, yadda yadda
yadda along the lines of the speech she threw at him while she was beating his face in "Dead
Things", the more she can dissociate herself from him and therefore from everything in herself that
she hates and fears.
And I hope nobody takes that as bashing -- it's not meant to be. It's meant to be my best perception
of where this dark season has taken her. I just hope it takes her out again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That actuall makes sense to me) -- Spike Lover, 10:04:22 04/25/02 Thu
She is allowing Spike to be the "Amy". Amy really is bad because she tempts Willow to get back into
addiction. Willow is not to blame. Amy is.
Perhaps Buffy rationalizes that is she has hot dirty wonderful sex with Spike. It is not her fault or
even her doing- because 'the devil made her do it.'
We know that is not true. I am thinking - oh! Grow up already!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you - thanks! Good post -- shadowkat, 08:51:46 04/26/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Gonna have to agree with Marie (possibly spoilers) -- leslie, 19:41:21 04/26/02 Fri
"But of course she's not functioning on all cylinders with regard to Spike."
You know, can we just all agree to agree that NO-ONE is functioning on all cylinders with regard to
Spike--including Spike--and wait to see what happens?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Shadowkat...the anti-defamation league welcomes you. -- Rufus, 18:39:19 04/25/02
Thu
It should be obvious to us the audience that the Troika are behind it not Spike, because Spike
isn't the sort to traffic in human commercial items - he does demon items, hence the eggs. (Also ME
has dropped so many clues that the Troika will do this, that I could see it coming a mile away.)
However it is not obvious to Buffy and the SG, b/c they don't take the Troika seriously and they don't
know that the Trioka have been spying on them and they have saved at least two of the Trioka on
more than one occassion
and finally Buffy can't concieve of them being that bad.
(Remember we the audience are privey to things that SG aren't.) Also Buffy is having major
problems with how she feels towards Spike right now and what to do with him.
Spike, on his part, is having major problems with Buffy and
the SG, he helps them, they diss him, he loves her, she knocks him silly, he's getting really close to
exploding and he is a demon. Actually I think he's shown amazing restraint. And my heart goes out
to poor Buffy as well.
The big problem with Buffy and the SG is that they have underestimated the potential of evil
behavior in humans. They are used to fighting demons, and now both falling for current and ex-
demons threatening their world view. Growth as a person is achieved in the tension of oppositional
relationships. If people only see the black and white of the Buffy/Spike, and Xander/Anya
relationships and base their opinions upon the surface interactions then they fail to miss just how
much stuff is happening. Buffy isn't a bitch because she won't sleep with Spike, she is a young
woman who is trying to do the right thing, and in the process makes mistakes, as does Spike, the
same goes in the Anya/Xander situation. Everyone is so wrapped up in the immediate problems of
their life that they fail to notice just how much a problem the Troika will become. To distill
everything down to Buffy is a bitch proves to me some people only enjoy the show on a surface level.
I'm glad Shadowkat, that you have seen that Buffy is only part of a relationship not responsible for
all Spikes choices. In a year of growing up, Spike is also being forced to change in a way that may be
either posative or negative, the final choice will be his. Welcome to the anti-defamation league.
[>
Enter the Buffy Character Anti-Defamation League...Please stop bashing my Buffy! -- Rob,
13:20:20 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
I concur with Rob.... -- Sebastian, 13:39:47 04/24/02 Wed
....there is a reason it is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
She is the main character. Its highly unlikey she's going to be leaving anytime soon.
If you don't like her - well, that's cool and your choice. But bashing her is not constructive. :-)
And please people - let's keep speculations about the promos to the Spoiler Board. Many people don't ofen get to see
the promo (myself included) - so this ruins it for people.
Until the episode actually airs, it shouldn't be discussed here.
- Sebastian (feeling authoritarian today)
[> [>
I will sign up as a charter member. Count me in. -- Ian, 13:41:15 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
I'm in also. And I can't even read the post because it has spoilers. -- Sophist, 13:48:15
04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
I am now, and always have been, a member. -- OnM, 14:20:49 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
Sign me up! Do we get a membership card or anything? :-) -- Rattletrap, 14:33:36
04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
I'd like to join. Maybe we should have a slogan? -- Ixchel, 15:14:11 04/24/02 Wed
I love all the characters, past and present (of course, I may not always like what they do). With one
exception (to be honest), I dislike Riley (really only since AYW, though). I hope that isn't considered
bashing. If it is, please correct me, because I don't want to character bash. No sarcasm intended, I'd
really like to know. I perceive bashing as using rude and/or vulgar terms regarding a character, is
that correct?
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Yup, disliking a character is fine. But when you write obnoxious, mean comments, it's
bashing. -- Rob, 16:05:36 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Thanks, Rob. Great slogan! -- Ixchel, 16:14:07 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Proposed slogan: Bashing Bad, Buffy Pretty -- Rob, 16:07:27 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
Me too, sick of all the bashing ......:( -- Rufus, 15:42:39 04/24/02 Wed
In the rush to gush over a pretty face, it seems that some have forgotten that Buffy is the hero of the
story not Spike who may be forcibly abstaining from killing humans, but is still no hero. It's
something he will have to earn and he isn't anywhere near that yet. Add into that another hero,
Xander who has always been a good guy.
[> [>
Can I be a member too please? -- Miss Edith, 16:36:29 04/24/02 Wed
If anyones read my sarcastic post below (written by my evil alter ego Holtz)I think you get my
opinion about people who bash the characters I care about.
I love all the characters on the show and Buffy is my favourite (along with Spike) as she is the
heroine. No show without Buffy!
She is behaving badly in her relationship with Spike and undoubtly has issues. But part of the
appeal of the character is that she is flawed and still growing up/ learning about life. I don't want to
watch a show about superheros as it would be a nauseating version of "Riley and Sam how to be the
perfect person." Gag. (Ooops did I just bash a character my bad).
Buffy herself doesn't feel good about her behaviour and acknowledged that it was destroying her in
AYW. She has just come back from heaven and is adjusting to a hell dimension (in her mind
anyway). Let's cut her some slack people.
[> [>
Sign me up! -- Eric, 19:31:01 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
where do i sign up? oh, right--here, of course -- anom, 21:15:19 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
When things get rough, we /Don't pick on our Buffy! -- dream of the consortium,
12:15:56 04/25/02 Thu
[>
Cool, we might get a chance for Buffy to beat the hell out of Spike again. -- Fireflyone,
14:16:53 04/24/02 Wed
Just like in Dead Things. The fact is he is a sexual pervert and a devient that would likely try to do
something like this. Buffy knows he is probably beating off in his crypt to her image on the video.
But you are right Spike is pretty low tech.
[> [>
I could have just sworn I just heard something. Huh, must have just been the wind. -- Rob,
14:40:13 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [>
It might have been a tree falling. -- LittleBit, 20:44:55 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Or one hand clapping. -- Deeva, 22:09:09 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
My sarky spoiler free reply. -- Holtz:who likes vengence, 15:14:55 04/24/02 Wed
Yeah that sounds so cool. I hope all the scoobies get together in one big group and kick the crap out
of that dog Spike. I want blood torture, the whole lot. Let's make that animal suffer! Just like when
my wife gets a good kicking when I am feeling uppetiey and have emotional issues to deal with.
Nothing like beating up someone weaker than you/unable to defend yourselves to brighten up my
day.
Maybe the government could start putting prisoners in the stocks again in a 21st century way. E.g
all the murderer etc can be chained up and we'll beat the crap out of them because we are so much
better than them. Yeah I can't wait.
I've got a vicious dog at home that has bitten a lot of children and is unsafe. Would you recommend
me putting down the dog or just keeping it muzzled and handy so I can kick it around when I have
issues?
Nope no danger of characters like Xander turning out like their abusive parents father at all. It is
perfectly acceptable to do immoral things if they are aimed at immoral people. Doesn't touch me in
the slightest as I know I'm far better than a thing like Spike. Let's bring on the judgement.
[> [> [>
Sarcasm RULES!!! -- Apophis, 16:11:26 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Can't type...Too...busy...laughing...!!! -- Rob, 16:18:04 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
Hey, fireflyone doesn't count as a character right? Can we bash him? Not with words tho.
-- Forsaken, 21:04:19 04/26/02 Fri
[>
Take any future spoilers to the trollop board, please. -- Traveler, 18:11:01 04/24/02
Wed
O/T: Question about life after death. Please
help! -- Wynn, 14:13:16 04/24/02 Wed
For my Philosophy class, I have to answer two questions for my final paper. The first deals with
personal identity: Do you believe that you now and you five days ago, 1 year ago, 10 years ago, etc.
are the same person? What accounts for your belief? I have this question handled. It's part two that
troubles me.
The question is: Is it possible that you will survive your bodily death? If you happen to perish in a
car accident next week might you survive your bodily death? Explain your answer.
I can come up with fairly logical and valid arguments for both surviving and not surviving bodily
death. The question arises in which do I believe in. I don't know. I asked my roommate and
suitemates what they believe, hoping that it will help me find my own answer. Now I ask everyone
here. What do you all believe and why? Is survival after death possible? If it is, do we remain the
same people (retain the same personal identity) in life after death?
If I look to BtVS for an answer, it seems that people do survive life after death. (Buffy in Heaven
and Angel in Hell.) People have souls (which are lost when they become demons) and when the
person dies, he/she goes to Heaven, Hell, or the appropriate dimension. But what evidence is
available that supports the existence of souls, essences, spirits? Is it possible that we are only our
bodies, that our consciousness and conscience are just neurons firing in our brain?
As you can see, major dilemma. Any and all answers are appreciated.
[>
A quibble that won't help in the least and perhaps a couple of ideas that will -- Masq,
14:22:59 04/24/02 Wed
Angel didn't die and go to hell. He was his good old physical, alive undead self and was pushed on a
sword into another dimension.
One comment that's more useful: Kind of hard question to answer if the teacher didn't introduce you
to the alternative answers and the arguments for them. That's sort of his/her job to show the options
so you can decide for yourself.
But if you try your best to explain the alternatives and consider the each fairly and say which side
makes the most sense to you you'll accomplish the task.
Another point just because I think too much: Having our brains being physical doesn't prove that we
don't survive death, it just means our souls or whatever you call them require bodies to interact with
this reality.
And proving non-material souls is impossible on scientific grounds because science only studies the
material and can't provide evidence for OR disprove the existence of the non-material by
definition.
I know that's probably very un-useful.
[> [>
Re: A quibble with your quibble -- OnM, 15:32:35 04/24/02 Wed
*** And proving non-material souls is impossible on scientific grounds because science only
studies the material and can't provide evidence for OR disprove the existence of the non-material by
definition. ***
I must respectfully disagree with this statement.
If you are using the term 'material' to mean 'matter' as opposed to 'non-matter' (i.e., energy), then I
fail to understand the statement. Energy exists just as fully as does matter. We utilize many forms of
energy that are 'unseen' (electric and magnetic fields, gravitation, internuclear forces, etc.) and in
many cases poorly understood, but they are quite real and quantifiable if we have the correct means
of doing so.
If by 'non-material' you mean 'doesn't physically exist', which is the only other interpretation I could
see, then the statement is intrinsically meaningless, i.e. 'You can't study/quantify what doesn't exist'.
Well, of course.
So, if the first interpretation is the only one that makes logical sense, then I would like to state that
we can't analyze the nature of 'souls' simply because we don't currently have the proper tools to do
so. Newton knew gravity existed, he even made correct observations about how it interacts with us
as corporeal beings, but he wasn't even remotely close to 'understanding' it. Hundreds of
years later, we still aren't.
Being an atheist, I tend to believe that what we perceive as a 'soul' is just a byproduct of the complex
biological construct that makes us 'sentient'. When we die, and the brain ceases function, that's it,
consciousness and the 'soul' it constructed goes with it.
However, I am not very dogmatic on this, because there is no scientific reason that I know that
prevents 'intelligent energy' from existing-- that 'intelligent matter' exists is obvious (although
sometimes... but I won't go there...;-).
So, if intelligent energy exists, it may very well do so with or without a 'bond' of some kind with
matter. From this departure point, any number of possible 'life-after-death' scenarios could
follow.
Our understanding of the universe is still staggeringly primitive, despite the 'intelligence' we pride
ourselves on. A few hundred years from now-- or maybe next week-- someone somewhere will
discover a way to 'define' a 'soul', and prove conclusively that it exists.
Finally, what happens when we humans eventually create complex living things, and they appear to
'think', and have self-awareness?
And we will, I have not the slightest shadow of any doubt.
(Cage stops rattling).
;-)
[> [> [>
Re: A quibble with your quibble -- Masq, 15:43:14 04/24/02 Wed
I was including energy in what I meant by "material", sorry for that.
As an agnostic, I never try to say that there is "nothing" beyond matter and energy. To say that
something that is non-physical (i.e., not energy or matter) is by definition "nothing" which by
definition can't exist seems a little too strong a statement for me to agree to. Our imaginations to
wrap our mind around something that is neither matter nor energy and yet exists may simply be too
small and limited.
Some people try to argue that soul = energy, that is, a physical phenomena, but I have always had
difficulty with solution. Trying to figure out how matter gives rise to consciousness is a puzzle, and
trying to figure out how energy gives rise to consciousness is just as much a puzzle.
[> [> [> [>
Sorry for being grammar-challenged in that post -- Masq, 15:45:41 04/24/02 Wed
To read makes my writing English good.
[> [> [> [> [>
No problem, I was OK with the following of it ... ;-) -- OnM, 16:32:56 04/24/02 Wed
I use the terms matter and energy in what I believe to be the general scientific sense that they
encompass all forms of existence. It may be possible that some other 'form of existence' would not fit
into either of these categories, much like there are some living creatures that seem to be either both
plant and animal or neither, but even then there are still shared characteristics, and little question
as to whether they 'exist'. Something could be 'energy-like' or 'matter-like', and still be
observable/quantifiable.
It's a little like defining by exclusion-- for example, you can have 'all things in the known universe',
and 'all things not in the known universe. That about covers the meta-universe-- more than
two generally defining terms are unnecessary. I think that is the way science views matter and
energy-- that which is not matter is energy, and vise-versa.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: No problem, I was OK with the following of it ... ;-) -- Masq, 16:47:14 04/24/02
Wed
I think history may find, as it often does, that our scientific concepts become inadequate after a time.
I can't say I believe this will happen (being an agnostic and all) but I can image a day centuries in
the future when a blanket statement like "everything that exists must be either matter or energy"
will considered inadequate to cover the categories of everything there is.
Or maybe scientific concepts will always be limited in their categories to encapsulate everything
there is, because they are only interested in those things observable and measurable by the human
senses and its observational contraptions.
I am a science buff and a rationalist and an empiricist, but I never rule anything out that is
conceptually possible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeppir. -- OnM, 20:28:34 04/24/02 Wed
*** I think history may find, as it often does, that our scientific concepts become inadequate after
a time. ***
This, for me is one of the beauties of the scientific method, that if applied as it was meant to be,
accepts that change and revision are not only likely, but ultimately welcome.
Those with closed minds and rigid 'unshakable' theories have no business calling themselves
scientists.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Natural vs. Supernatural and Science -- matching mole, 13:10:29 04/26/02 Fri
I realize that this thread is two days old but I just stumbled across it and thought I'd add my 1/50 of
a dollar.
It seems to me that things (phenomena) could be beyond the subject of scientific investigation for two
reasons.
1) The phenomena may be natural in the sense that they are regulated by consistent principles but
there may be no way for us to detect them using the tools available to us at this time. Maybe a soul
is an unknown form of energy or a third state of existence beyond matter and energy. This doesn't
make it inherently unstudiable by science but if scientists can't detect or measure it then it is
unstudiable right now. Presumably DNA, electrons, mitochondria, black holes, and the mid-Atlantic
rift all existed in the time of ancient Greeks. Could Aristotle have studied any of these things?
2) The phenomena are genuinely supernatural - they are not bound by any natural laws. It is
difficult for me to imagine very many forms that this could take. Truly chaotic and random changes
in the nature of reality or the laws of nature changing according to the somebody's will spring to
mind.
Of course the difference between these options may not be apparent to the observer.
[> [> [> [>
Re: A quibble with your quibble -- yabyumpan, 17:50:16 04/26/02 Fri
Masq said
"Trying to figure out how matter gives rise to consciousness is a puzzle, and trying to figure out how
energy gives rise to consciousness is just as much a puzzle."
How about consciousness giving rise to energy and matter?
I've said a bit more about this in my post below but Peter Russell has written more about this in his
book "science and spirituality" Best to read his stuff or check out the website as I'm not very good at
explaining things.
http://www.peterussell.com/index2.html
[> [>
The Stoic/Platonic answer -- Cleanthes, 15:05:24 04/25/02 Thu
And proving non-material souls is impossible on scientific grounds because science only studies
the material and can't provide evidence for OR disprove the existence of the non-material by
definition.
I see you and OnM have discussed the definition of "non-material" below, but you left aside what the
Stoics thought the strongest argument for the make-up of the non-material soul, namely ideation.
This is completely different from the matter/energy difference which ousia Einstein showed were as
convertible as a bald guy's sports car.
Science believes in ideation by blind faith whenever Science feels free to use mensuration and
mathematics without explaining why these concepts work so well in explaining the universe. The
Stoics called the ability to understand things about the universe the apprehensive perception. This
perception is "god", and is the subject of the real Cleanthes's famous hymn. That things can be
discovered rationally about the universe is the bedrock of science.
The "soul" might be as eternal as the number 3 or the scientific method.
The mind only works in conjunction with the body, as far as we can possibly know, because we as
humans know using our consciousness as actuated via our material brains. There can't really
be LIFE after death using any normal meaning of the word life. Nevertheless, the mathematical
description of the outplaying of the mind through time is as eternal as the number 3. Neither really
exist inside time, so talk of "after" is meaningless, or rather, beside the point.
The Stoics held that one must live life on the assumption that there is no such thing as an eternal
soul, but also, on the assumption there might be such a thing as an eternal soul. In different
circumstances, one or the other assumption controls depending on which of the two assumptions
grants greater freedom to the will, such freedom depending on the individual power to choose the
sublime moral law from within. (which can be loosely summarized by the expression, "Quitcher
bitchin'") In no case must the thinking about souls allow for wishful thinking, nor must a finite
human think that human understanding can completely comprehend the infinite. It was on this
point that the Stoics parted with the Christians who held that revealed truth could give insight into
the infinite. Christian grace mediates humans with the divine. Stoic grace is much weaker - grace
might exist because it would be hybris to restrict the divine, but one must live without hope or
promises that cannot be apprehended.
Grace and life after death and the scientific proof of the worth of science are all necessarily
metaphysical. As Kant proved in his Prolegomena, that's all she wrote.
I leave aside the power of Irony, which, for me anyway, trumps even the Stoic apprehension. But
then, anyone who loves the best writing on Buffy will understand!
[>
Another quibble that might help -- Vickie, 14:25:44 04/24/02 Wed
The question you quote is "Is it possible that you will survive your bodily death?"
Since you state that you've come up with several plausible explanations of why it is possible, it
appears that your answer is yes, with your supporting evidence.
It doesn't ask what you personally believe WILL happen.
[> [>
Didn't realize that... -- Wynn, 14:43:49 04/24/02 Wed
I was too caught up in the "how the hell do I answer a question concerinig life after death in half of a
4-5 page, double spaced paper?" and didn't catch the "possible" portion.
Thanks so much for being observant!
I'm still curious to know what others believe about this topic. Every opinion and belief I come across
is useful for my own personal search for an answer I can live with.
[> [> [>
Be careful! -- Vickie, 14:49:14 04/24/02 Wed
My quibble is indeed just that. The appropriate response to the question depends on the kind of
philosoph class (and instructor) you have.
In a strict presentation of philosphies, the instructor might want you to respond as I suggested. It's a
precise response to the question asked. In philosophy, it's very important to use language precisely.
(Since we're dealing with such foggy and challenging topics.)
If, however, you instructor is trying to get you to apply what you've learned to your own life and
beliefs (a more "touchy-feely" philosophy course), then you might lose points for dodging the intent of
the question, however accurately you may be responding to it.
Only you know (maybe) what your instructor intended. Maybe you should ask?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Be careful! -- Wynn, 15:37:31 04/24/02 Wed
The class is "Experience and Reality." The two main topics we've studied this semester are the
"Mind-Body Problem" and "Personal Identity." I don't think it's under the touchy-feely type of
philosophy course; we did devote one recitation class to the complexties of language in philosophical
writings. I'll probably write that life after death is possible since science hasn't proven that it isn't
possible. Even if it's not what they had in mind, I can at least support the answer by pointing out
how the question is worded.
[>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- Apophis, 14:36:47 04/24/02
Wed
That's a rather big question to be answered in an internet message board, condsidering mankind has
been puzzling over it since we learned to stand upright.
As far as personal identity, I believe that I'm the same person now that I was at any point in my life.
I see things differently, but I'm still me at the core. I just altered my outlooks according to new data.
If I met my past self, we'd both agree.
Life after death; well, I'm Christian, so I believe in it. The nature of the soul is a mystery. I won't
pretend to know what it is or what it does or what, exactly, happens to it once the body dies, but I
know that it's there. It's what seperates Man from other animals; we're self-aware beings who can
choose to either listen to or ignore our instincts. As far as evidence, well, such rarely comes into play
in matters of faith, but I'll try. For me, it's always been that the odds against the universe even
coming into existence are staggering; too many things had to be just right at the right moment for
life to even come into being. One degree too hot or too cold and the universe wouldn't have lasted
this long. This tells me that things like life aren't simply accidents, that there is some power in
control of these things. Thus, it's not too great a logical leap to apply that information to a particular
belief system. I choose Christianity, but that's obviously not everyone's cup of transmuted wine. I
won't be so bold as to say that my faith is 100% right about everything, but I trust it. Firing neurons
don't explain miracles, psychic phemomina, or any of the other esoteric things humans are prone to
experiencing. Needless to say, the entirety of my thoughts on this matter are too complex to sum up
here, but that's the gist of it.
[>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- Deeva, 14:44:30 04/24/02
Wed
I don't know if my answer will be of much help to you but I'll throw it in there anyway! Pesonally I
believe that you will survive a bodily death but you will not be you. I know, cryptic, huh? It's not so
much as reincarnation than just living in another form or being, with not much, if any, memory of
that life. I don't think a personality carries over, more like an essence or an echo. I don't believe in
heaven and hell in the most conventional sense. My background is a blending of Eastern thought and
religion so I lean towards spiritualism as something that is all around us, a balance of sorts, and not
just one all powerful being.
As Masq points out, science exists to prove the material of things. It would be hard for science to
prove the existence of something that doesn't have a physical form. The question would then be what
is a soul? How would you even begin to prove that this exists? What wicked little web it is.
[>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- Etrangere, 14:55:46 04/24/02
Wed
I'm interresting by the way this question relates identity to life after death.
There's several interresting stuff there.
Obviously the first one is the idea of "soul". Just as the idea of "soul", used in a non metaphysical as
the ego, the core of someone explain why we think someone is the same person years from years,
though every little part of one's body has been changed over years, one could say after the death this
idea of "soul" cannot disapear because the body still transform... after all, everything changes, but
nothing is created and nothing disapeared.
Then the question wether, even if there is some kind of existence after death, that existence can be
considered to be of the same identity as before. I happen to think it is likely (i wouldn't say believe
'cause i'm an agnostic) that whatever exist after death is of the "unity with the universe/god" kind.
Which doesn't negate one's identity as much as emcompass it into something wider. (and anyway i
have a very hard time to explain it). But then again, if we can consider the different versions of
someone through one's life as the same person why can't we consider it as the same person even in a
very different state of being after death ?
There is a coherence to find between these two ideas, I think.
[> [>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- leslie, 15:05:55 04/24/02 Wed
The logical resolution of this whole paper, it seems to me, should now be, "If you *do* believe in life
after death, do you think you would recognize yourself when you get there?"
[>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- Phoenix, 17:20:51 04/24/02
Wed
LOL! Spooky synchronicity! How deliciously ironic that a topic related to what I wanted to start on,
is the one I finish on. Heh I think the Universe has a sense of humour. ;)
If you want to get a grip on "life after death", you really need to bone up on "out-of-body-experiences"
as they are an integral part of each other. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of books
worth reading:
Leaving The Body by D. Scott Rogo
gives various techniques for achieving such, the logic behind why they work and the philosophies
behind the whole subject.
Have An Out Of Body Experience: The Free Flight Program by Keith Harary PhD and Pamela
Weintraub
he`s the infamous `Blue` Harary who was involved in the Duke University experiments back in the
60`s. IIR there is no philosophy behind it, but just staightforward `how to` and a vague attempt to
explain how it could work.
Both books will have extensive bibliographies. You might also wanna check Celia Greens research at
the Institute of Psychophysical Research in Oxford. She was doing work on `near-death-experiences`
and `out-of-body experiences`. Came up with some good theories if I remember rightly. Though I
can`t remember offhand the names of any of her books apart from the Human Evasion, but that isn`t
about this subject - tho funnily enough I think it was about "mindsets" and how dumb humans are.
Basically the stuff I`ve just been ranting about. Haven`t thought of that book in years! Bugger me,
now I`m convinced the Universe is taking the piss. :p
Going off on a tangent there.....where was I? Oh yeah....
If you actually try any of the techniques, and enjoy success, you`ll get wildly excited and try to argue
on the basis of death just being a "permanent" OBE. But you`ll likely be dismissed as a ditz and get a
poor mark so.....
Your best bet is to use science and logic for the existence of life after death. Check out David Bohms
theory "Wholeness and The Implicate Order". He`s a physicist with a Nobel under his belt, so that
should make `em sit up.
You can make a very good argument that if Bohm is right - and the world - reality itself - is indeed
"holographic" in nature, then death is nothing but a shifting of perception from one level of the
hologram to another.
Another one to back up this argument is Karl Pribrams work: he`s a top neurophysiologist from
Stanford University (dunno if he`s still there now). He wrote the classic textbook "Languages of The
Brain"
If those are a bit heavy going, you might wanna check out a summary of them in a `popular` book.
Lemme see...."The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot should do the trick. Also check out Dr
Paul Pietch`s book "Shufflebrain". He`s an anatomist who set out to disprove the holographic theory,
and ended up proving it. The book is now copyright free so you can download it here.
You must remember tho that information like this often takes 60 years or so before it filters down to
universities. Longer for schools. Some of the research was done in the 60`s so hopefully your tutors
should be familiar with at least some of it. But it`s possible they won`t be.
So for your own personal understanding of it, go for the OBE study/practice, but concentrate on the
above scientists work to make a "scientific" case for it.
Good luck!
Phoenix
[>
Not sure when your paper is due... -- farefree, 18:04:06 04/24/02 Wed
...but if you have a chance you should pick up John Perry's "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and
Immortality" It's a really quick read (less than 50 pages) and presents several arguments for and
against one's personal identity (loosely 'soul') existing after bodily death. The dialogues actually take
place between a close nit group of intellectuals trying to convince their friend, on her deathbed, that
her identity will be preserved when she dies.
It's been a while since i read it, but the main arguments were:
1) Survival after death is possible if there is some being that houses all the memories of the mortal
person after bodily death. But then, if identity after death depends on memory, how can you
distinguish between ACTUALLY remembering and SEEMING to remember (it's only the common
link to the body right)? The example she uses is of two patients: One who has a conversation, one
who is hypnotized into thinking they had the same conversation. Both people have the same
memory of the conversation, but only one actually had it.
2) Then the argument is that it's okay to not have the bodily tie connecting you to being there when
the memory was made, but rather, that the memory was preserved in the correct way (you don't
remember spilling grape juice on the carpet when you were 3, but your parents told you about it and
you have no reason to doubt it). So the seemingly only correct way to have memories preserved after
death would involve dependence on a higher being operating in an extra-mortal plane - a god.
However, if god is preserving these memories, it's POSSIBLE, that he could recreate more than one
being having your memories - your identity would be lost (and no two 'souls'/identities can be the
same, or its not a personal identity).
Of course this all assumes that memory of the mortal person is the crux of personal identity after
death, but can it really be when the brain/memory tether is loosened? If some , even benevolent
higher being, is preserving those memories, doesn't the mere POSSIBILITY that more than one of
you could be recreated after death negate memory as the cornerstone of personal identity?
In Buffy and Angel though, there are several depictions of the soul. The soul doesn't at all contain
the personal identity of the person in the case of Angel. Angel is resouled, but he is neither Angelus,
or Liam. It keeps a check on him - functioning as a conscience. Then again, Buffy dies, exists in a
heavenly dimension, and then is returned to life the same ole buffy (retains the memories of
everything). Even someone else's soul serves a function (in the case of Darla, the baby's soul has
nothing to do with her own identity, but it keeps in check, much the way Angel's does).
Sorry this was soo long. It may even be outside the help you were looking for in working on your
paper. As it as exam time here as well, I give you my best wishes :)
[> [>
We read Perry for class... -- Wynn, 18:25:49 04/24/02 Wed
I enjoyed it very much. I found it more interesting than some of the other straight philosophy papers
I've had to read for the class; probably because it was in a dialogue form. Then again, I'm a relative
newbie to the field of philosophy. It is helping me for my paper, especially about the personal
identity question because I feel that personal identity is tied to memory, and a large chunk of the
dialogue concerning personal identity deals with memory.
Good lucks on your exams too!
[> [> [>
Re: We read Perry for class... -- farefree, 19:40:40 04/24/02 Wed
Oh, ok that works out well. Maybe that's why it popped into my mind from reading your post.
Thanks for the well wishes :)
[>
I'll take a shot...Heaven, Robin Williams, and--- -- Darby, 20:50:11 04/24/02 Wed
Much of what has been suggested here is scientifically feasible and explainable, if not likely. I'm of
two minds on this subject - my rational side sees no compelling reason to believe that any of what
makes me "me" will survive my death; my less rational side says, "So what's there to lose by
believing otherwise? It's not like you'd ever find out you were wrong." And from that, I'll weave a
web.
I've mentioned before that there is a theory (kinda fringey, science-wise, but not crazy-fringey, just
"out there" fringey) that our brains interact on a quantum level with other dimensions, constructing
memories (and therefore, one could say, personalities) on other, perhaps non-physical planes. In an
infinite number of potential universes, it's not a far stretch. I go farther and say that your belief
system can actually create a reality for your consciousness to inhabit after death (there's a similar
idea explored in the Richard Matheson novel that What Dreams May Come is based on,
which leads to the dreary but necessary result that all of the loved ones in your personal Heaven are
most likely just constructs), or allow it to get recycled back in this plane as kind of a consciousness
overlay (many of you are probably aware of anecdotal evidence to support reincarnation). It's Theo-
omnihilism: the premise that everyone's simultaneously right and wrong about what's before them.
I'd like to think that my belief system will allow me to access these other planes at will, to sample
others' afterlives (if their systems allow me access, which is a big "if"). It's funny, I've felt this way
since adolescence and only recently have seen these theories to support the actual possibility on
scientific principles (it's quantum mechanics, as close to magic as you can get without the wand and
the funky outfits). Hey, if you're gonna believe in something, why not really stretch?
Did that make any sense at all? I haven't really tried to explain this in a very long time to anybody
but my son, so I'm not sure if I can do it adequately, but at least you've got an anecdote to fill a
paragraph or two of your paper and it'll give your prof a weird story to tell. I live by weird stories to
illustrate points. And now you all know a bizarre little fact about bizarre little me.
[>
Does Photoshop keep running after I turn the computer off? (longish) -- Pete, 03:36:40
04/25/02 Thu
It's a very common misconception that science has nothing to say about the supposed supernatural,
mystical or paranormal and that at most it must be 'agnostic' about such matters. This is, of course,
total nonsense.
Suppose John Edward says he can channel the spirits of the dead. This is obviously a supernatural
claim. Yet everything Edward does can be accounted for by mixes of cold, warm, and hot reading and
other good old-fashioned human chicanery (My favorite are the celebrity readings he does, booked
months in advance. How much biographical information about any celebrity could you have your
interns find in libraries and on the net, given months to do it?)
Naturalistic explanations for a supernatural claim should be taken as positive evidence that the
supernatural does not exist. That John Edward is lying is evidence that he is not contacting the
dead. What is the alternative? That he is lying and somehow simultaneously contacting the dead.
That makes no sense. That he is lying part of the time and contacting the dead the rest of the time?
How do you tell the difference? If channeling is indistinguishable from lying, why not employ
Occam's Razor ([explanatory] entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity) and say that he is
lying all the time? Supposing the existence of supernatural spirits is completely unneccesary.
Another point is that a real explanation requires an understandable mechanism. The mechanisms of
cold reading and tv editing trickery are well-known and understandable and learnable by anyone.
Skilled magicians can watch John Edward or James Van Praagh and recognize exactly how they do
their tricks (http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/). Supernatural claims, in contrast, have no
mechanism, no internal structure, no rhyme or reason, don't work in any kind of logical, consistent,
predictable way.
"How does cold reading work?" A magician like Randi could go on for hours, explaining it in
detail.
"How does channeling work?" "It just does."
Now, this is not anything new or subtle or obscure. Everyone applies this same line of reasoning to
all supernatural claims (except their own pet ones). The only reason it's so obvious in the case of
channeling is that a relatively small percent of the population takes that seriously.
Another example is evolution.
"How does evolution work?" You could go on for years describing all the mountains of evidence from
fossils, geology, molecular and genetic evidence, etc.
"How did God create everything?" "He just did."
Evolution has a simple, understandable, logical *mechanism* (several, actually) that actually
*explains* things, not just shrugs them off with a "just because." For example, why do the other
great apes have 24 chromosomes and humans have 23? Evolution can give us an understandable
mechanism - a fusion mutation - that actually makes testable predictions - a telomere should be
found in humans' chromosome 2 where the two ape chromosomes fused, and lo and behold! that's
exactly what we find. Ain't science grand!
If God made humans, why would he make them to look as if they had evolved? "Eh, no particular
reason."
Nowadays, "sophisticated" people like to say things along the lines of "of course evolution is true, but
God guides evolution, or God set evolution in motion." This is totally idiotic. If every feature of living
organisms can be accounted for by naturalistic evolution, why bring God into it at all? (Don't
multiply explanatory entities beyond necessity) The God idea doesn't explain anything, doesn't make
any testable predictions, has no internal logic (If God is guiding evolution, why are 99.9 percent of
the species that ever existed extinct? Is God not sure what He's guiding evolution toward? "Duhhh, I
dunno." At what point in the evolutionary process does God intervene? Does he cause mutations
themselves, and if so, what is the difference between mutations caused by DNA copying errors or
stray gamma rays and those caused by God? "Dahhh, I dunno.") Occam's razor says the God idea
must be irrelevent to evolution.
God didn't make life; evolution did. God didn't make the earth; gravity makes planets and suns
condense out of dust clouds left over from supernovas. God didn't make the universe and everything
in it; the universe was caused by the big bang and everything inside it is a consequence of the laws of
physics. Now I don't think the big bang is the First Cause, so where did it and the laws of physics
come from. Physicists are still working on it! Horrors! Run away!
When there are phenomena that don't yet have natural explanations, the only thing to do is to keep
trying to figure them out. Saying anything we don't currently understand must come from God is the
famous God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Every time pre-scientific people said this must have a supernatural
explanation, science has come along and done the difficult work of figuring out the real explanation,
disproving the supernatural ideas in the process. There's no reason to think it won't continue to do
so.
Another way of saying this is that a phenomenon either has a natural or a supernatural cause -- it
can't have both. You think God guides evolution? Fine, I think Snuffleupagus guides the planets in
their orbits. I know, every observable fact about planets is accounted for by physics, and that adding
Snuffleupagus to the picture doesn't explain anything, doesn't add to our understanding, doesn't
predict anything, doesn't mean anything, and that there is plenty of historical evidence that
Snuffleupagus was just made up one day. It's a stupid, worthless idea. Occam's razor should chop it
to bits. But I find physics cold and impersonal. I think it would be neato for Snuffleupagus to guide
the planets in their orbits.
I think psychic gremlins run my car, flying unicorns carry my email messages across the internet,
and there's a little elf living in my tv set who paints pictures on the screen very, very quickly. You
say that cars run on internal combustion engines, and computers and tvs are built out of electronic
circuits? I know, but, bah, that's too boring. It would probably take years of difficult study to
understand electronics and programming. I prefer something more exciting and romantic. Maybe
elves "guide" the electric signals through the circuits. Maybe the internet is entirely physicalistic and
naturalistic. But surely unicorns could have set the whole computer industry up in advance, then sat
back and watched? I think the little elves "sustain in existence" my tv set. That's a good compromise,
yes?
If some phenomena have naturalistic explanations and that just suffices and some phenomena have
complete naturalistic explanations but they also need to simultaneously have supernatural
'explanations', how do we decide which are which? Solely on the basis of what's cutesy and
comforting? And as long as the supernatural 'explanations' don't mean anything at all in the real
world, why be content with just one? The naturalistic explanation of my peach tree (botany,
evolution, molecular biology, etc.) is complete and leaves nothing unaccounted for, so the
supernatural account of it is just worthless, unnecessary baggage, so surely a little more baggage
won't hurt. The appearance and behavior of my peach tree is controlled by God, psychic gremlins,
flying unicorns, the alignment of my spine, what star sign the tree was planted under, my healing
crystals, and I'm sure chi and lay lines fit in there somehow. Whee! None of means a damned thing,
but it sure is fun! Of course I'm not interested in reality - I'm just trying to make myself feel better.
You say things can have two simultaneous causes, I say why not two or three dozen? Go wild!
*****
Now, finally, after all that blabbering, I can make my real point, which is that, believe it or not, the
human mind has naturalistic explanations that disprove any supernatural ideas pre-scientific people
may have about the mind.
Take memory. It has nothing to do with the collective human unconscious, nonlocal morphogenetic
fields, the akashic records. All of these supernatural ideas have been obviated by modern
neuroscience. Science can tell us what neurotrasmitters are involved in memory, what specific brain
structures are involved in memory and how brain damage to those areas can cause memory
impairment, can develop drugs to treat alzheimers, can predict what parts of the brain should light
up when performing certain memory tasks under an MRI or other brain-scanning device, can tell us
how to build microchips to interface with living cells to cure disease (University of Southern
California bioengineer, Theodore Berger, is looking to implant specially designed
chips into the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.)
The superstitious ideas about memory being holistic ying-yang from the astral plane don't do
anything, don't mean anything, don't change anything, don't effect anything. They are so
pathetically worthless that they hardly deserve to be called ideas at all.
Anybody who says this account of the brain just isn't good enough is a hypocrite. If you want to tell
yourself comforting bedtime stories, you can make up ideas at random, but whenever you want real
tangible results, say when you're sick, you run right off to the same scary, linear, reductionistic,
patriarchal (I *swear* I'm not making this up! ;-)) scientists you just got done badmouthing. Because
whether they admit it or not, everyone knows that naturalistic, physicalistic science is what actually
gets results in the real world. That's because bad old science can model, predict, describe and
manipulate the objective world while superstition just kind of sits there, doing nothing.
Now, granted, most of us don't know anything about cognitive science, neuroanatomy, neuroimaging,
evolutionary psychology, etc. So the facile thing to do is just to say that whatever I don't know about
the brain and can't be bothered to learn must be the result of astral ying-yang sent on a flying carpet
from God Almighty. That way we won't have to do the difficult decades-long work it will take to pry
the brain open and figure out how the damn thing actually works.
No, we don't yet have a complete picture of how the brain works. Yes, it will be hard and it will take
years to accomplish. For those of us who aren't practicing researchers, all we can do is wait. Read
some popularizations of current science. Browse the occasional journal article at your library. Slowly
cleanse yourself of pointless, outdated supernatural superstitions. Check out a copy of MITECS and
keep it by your bed. You will be an outcast among philosophers and theologians and other enemies of
truth. Congratulations! Flip these morons the bird and get on with your life. Read William H. Calvin
and Tooby and Cosmides. Fuck Kant and Hegel and the rest of these pompous blowhards. Nobody
who's been dead for two hundred years has anything worthwhile to say about the brain and
mind.
Think language comes from the mystical Logos? Read Pinker's The Language Instinct.
Think love and emotions are ineffable mysteries that take place in your aura? Read Wright's The
Moral Animal. Evolutionary psychology provides actual experimentally testable hypotheses about
romantic love, parental love, political emotions, altruism, perception of beauty, music, etc.
Matthew Alper's The God Part of the Brain explains the brain mechanisms behind and evolutionary
reasons for belief in God (and its persistence in the face of all the evidence to the contrary).
In short, everything that makes us who we are -- memory, emotions, personality,
likes/dislikes/preferences, talents and passions, emotions, language, everything else you can think of,
has a physical explanation in terms of neurology and evolution. And in cases where the picture is
still incomplete, at the very least this gives us the right solution space to begin looking for the
answers.
So all the mountains of data about the brain tell us that the brain is who we are and that's all we
are. Memory is not contained in a non-physical soul, neither are your thoughts, feelings,
relationships, whatever. None of these things can take place without the brain. When you die, you're
gone for good. Even brain damage can result in extreme personality changes, weird delusions,
language and memory impairments, aphasia, amnesia. Do a Google for Capgras Syndrome. Read
Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain for more examples. (Damn! I really, really have to stop this
and go to bed!)
No brief internet post can do such a deep subject justice of course, but I must now go to bed. Go to
the library (How The Mind Works is a good intro), use your Google, tell philosophy to go fuck itself.
This will be your path to wisdom. Also try this primer
(http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html)
To my great dismay, I think more clearly than I write (or at least I'd like to think so! :-)), so if I
haven't explained myself clearly, please tell me and I can respond tomorrow night. (Not that anybody
has read this far anyway.)
Bye.
[> [>
A couple of quibbles... -- Darby, 06:25:00 04/25/02 Thu
Largely, I agree with what you're saying (it's not that evidence is totally lacking, but we science
types demand controllable testability, which just isn't there for most of the areas you take issue
with), but I've got a couple of basic issues to address -
First, Occam's Razor. Briefly stated, it's the assumption that with a multitude of possible
explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest / most likely / most obvious is more often the correct
one. Like many basic "common sense" logics (except, common-sensibly apply it to your own life
experiences and see what you get), accepted for centuries but only recently tested, and no more likely
to be a predictor for the "real" explanation than the sum total of the others - less than 50% (48%, on
average, if I remember the studies right). That still says that the odds favor it (ALL of the other
explanations are crammed into the remaining half), but to use it to refute claims is unreliable. I'd
also have to say that, applied in an unbiased manner, most religion-based explanations for how the
world works are WAY simpler than the scientific ones.
Secondly, knowing where memory gets processed in the brain (and that's nowhere near completely
known) and knowing HOW it gets processed, stored, and retrieved, are not even close to being the
same thing. To use your analogy, knowing where on my hard drive Photoshop's start-up is stored
tells me nothing about how it's been put there, what form the stored memory takes, or how the
computer accesses it. And neuroscientists (I'm not one, but I know a couple and try to keep up with
the major developments - but if I see serotonin implicated in one more function I'm gonna scream)
should be the first ones to tell you that they know a tiny fraction of what they'd like to know. Will it
all work out in the end, based on currently-accepted principles? Science is mostly reductionism and
a comfort zone (and scientists are first-and-foremost human beings), so the consensus would be that
that is how memory will work. But the same expectations were made for gravity (now with a
repulsive component!), and subatomic particles, the latter of which has hardly been plumbed and
almost never, to my knowledge, applied to cognitive theory in any organized way, not even in the
studies I refer to above.
[>
Poking my head in -- spotjon,
14:34:56 04/26/02 Fri
Hey guys,
I was just peeking in when I saw this subject header. It's hard to ignore something like this. :-)
"Is it possible that you will survive your bodily death?"
I believe that it is not only possible, it is quite probable that you will survive your bodily death. I
don't have time right now to go into all the details (I'm about to leave work), but here's something to
start with:
(1) Every human being desires something that this universe (or at least the earth, our natural
habitat) cannot provide. Even people who seem happy with earthly possessions and such eventually
grow tired of them and become unhappy again.
(2) Every natural desire can (though not necessarily will) be fulfilled. People desire sexual
gratification, and lo, sex exists. People get hungry, and there is food. People may not actually eat or
have sex, but it would be ridiculous to have these desires and to say that they could not be
fulfilled.
(3) Since every person desires something that this universe cannot give, this desire must be fulfilled
by something outside of this universe. This does not mean that all people will experience this
fulfillment (just as some people will never have sex), but such a fulfillment must exist.
This does not prove that this fulfillment will be found after death, only that it cannot be found in this
world itself. Perhaps it could be found before death, through religion, or after death, in
"heaven."
Gotta run,
Jonathan
[> [>
I want, therefore it is? -- Darby, 15:16:24 04/26/02 Fri
[> [>
Your suggestion seems similar -- Sophist, 17:49:32 04/26/02 Fri
Anselm's ontological argument. In shorthand, his argument is that if I can conceive of a perfect
being, that perfect being must exist because part of being perfect is to exist.
Several later philosophers have pointed out the flaw, most recently Kant. In Kantian terms,
existence is not a real predicate. That is, it adds nothing to a description of a mental construct, and
therefore is irrelevant to the issue of perfection. For example, we might imagine the most perfect
unicorn, but that wouldn't mean that such a unicorn exists.
Your syllogism contains an assumption in step 2 that is not shown to be true: "it would be ridiculous
to have desires and say they could not be fulfilled". You need to show why this is true; doesn't seem
ridiculous to me at all.
I also doubt your statement (step 1) that "every" person desires something that the universe cannot
give (universes aren't persons and don't "give" anyway). Again, why do you think this is true?
Your step 3 contains Anselm's flaw. It assumes that mental constructs must exist in reality, when it
just ain't so. Probably just as well.
[>
Re: O/T: Question about life after death. Please help! -- yabyumpan, 17:27:49 04/26/02
Fri
The way I see things at the momment is that there is only one lifeforce, call it "cosmic
concsiousness", everything,everyone is an expression of this. We are all this CC experiencing
life/being/existance in different ways. I.E. as a human, as a tree, as a rock etc. I don't see that the
soul/concsiousness of each individual carries on as a seperate entity after death. I think it rejoins the
CC just as a drop of water joins with the sea.
If we call the CC "god", I would say we are all god in the process of evolving.
That's just how I see it at the momment, it may change and probably will.
More on Double or Nothing --
yabumpan, 15:49:29 04/24/02 Wed
Went to post this on the DoN thread but by the time i'd finished typing it had disapeared??????So I'm
posting this as a new thread.
Ok, I've been thinking waaaay to much about this but the more I think about it,the less of a problem
I have with what Angel did.
Lets go back 7 years, here's a 17 year old street kid, spending most of his days fighting to stay alive.
He gets a chance to exchange his soul for...something. I don't think we know wether he was
aproached or sort out Jenoff but anyway, they meet. What does this kid who's living on the streets,
fighting for his life ask for.. a TRUCK. Not a home or security or even money but a truck. I think
that speaks volumes for how low his expectations were and how desperate he was. (I know he
wanted the truck to help fight vamps but wouldn't you expect he'd ask for more, wasn't everyone
surprised that all he sold his soul for was a truck?) So this demon sees that that he's desperate and
thinks he has no future and takes advantage of that by agreeing to the exchange.
Fast forward 7 years. The demon wants the street guys soul, in the intervening time, the demon has
probably made the same sort of deal with many other desperate people. This demon is scum, he feeds
off people's misery and desperation, may well wait untill they actually feel they have something to
loose before collecting.
The street guy now has friends, people who care about him and love him. While the guy may feel he
has to repay the debt, his friends can see the unfairness of the deal and the badness of the demon.
They decide to help him using trickery and deception. The other people there who have also been at
the mercy of the demon finish him off. The demon gets his comupance, the guy goes home with his
friends.
Where's the bad? Why the problem with the morality of what Angel and the gang did? Why should
Angel have to pay the price for this later? I find I have no problems at all with the way the gang and
Angel acted. Infact they probably saved many more desperate people from being trapped in the same
situation.
[>
Re: More on Double or Nothing -- Rufus, 16:05:01 04/24/02 Wed
The fact that the payment due appears to be your life, the deal is unfair to say the least. I had no
problem with what Angel or the gang did. My problem is using the desperation of people to steal
their lives.
[>
Re: More on Double or Nothing -- Apophis, 17:54:04 04/24/02 Wed
Personally, if a demon threatened the life of my friend (not to mention my own), I wouldn't spare a
thought for the rules of gambling. I don't think anyone else would enjoy the fact that, due to your
friends' integrety, your soul is going to be torn out of your eyes.
[>
Re: More on Double or Nothing -- Robert, 18:08:43 04/24/02 Wed
>> "Where's the bad? Why the problem with the morality of what Angel and the gang did?"
I am hereby engaging my rant mode. Please stand back.
I agree with you. If Angel had just walked into Jenoff's casino and destroyed him outright, then I
don't think we would be hearing as many complaints about the morality of the situation. Once Angel
discovers he's outnumbered, he must work a different plan.
I see Jenoff and his little racket as being a metaphor for loan sharks and payday/title loan
companies. They prey upon the most vulnerable people in our society. I find repulsive the idea that
Gunn should be held bound to this contract with Jenoff. To claim that Gunn made the contract of his
own free will shows a callus lack of compassion for the desparate situation Gunn was facing. What
would a man dying of thirst in the desert pay for a glass of water?
The fact that Gunn was willing to surrender his life and soul, to protect Fred and the rest of his
friends, shows the hero in Gunn. The fact the Gunn was willing to destroy Jenoff shows that Gunn
now understands what kind of parasite he truly was.
Friends, Britains, Phoenix, Rahael... Lend
me your Harlan Ellisonian diatribes ... ;-) -- OnM, 16:11:00 04/24/02 Wed
Ok, first off, I am sure that I might irritate some people with this post, but that happens, ya know? I
think that I've been around here long enough to have established that I'm a pretty reasonable
person, despite whatever the Evil Clone might think.
We do get overly quick to pass judgement sometimes. And yes, I do it too.
I have been (partially) following the discourse between Phoenix, Rah, Ian and several others in the
thread that is near the bottom of the page. I am posting this not only in the hopes of establishing a
peaceful resolution of sorts, but to remind one and all that this forum will become very boring if we
assume anyone who is occasionally abrasive or confrontatory is a troll. If that's the case, then I'm a
troll.
Those here who have been around a while know I am a fan of the SF writer Harlan Ellison. I suspect
many of you are fans of his work also. He is, IMO, eminently deserving of fandom, being one of the
most erudite and brilliant people I have ever had the privilege to read.
He is also one of the most confrontative and unruly individuals in the world of literature. He
is opininated in the extreme, and doesn't mind letting you know about it. He insults many people
and institutions with great regularity.
And how does he 'get away with' this? Because he has the smarts to back it up. His opinion isn't just
some shallow swipe at some easy, convenient target, this is a guy who, in Phoenix's words, has
had personal experience. He talks the talk, but he also has walked the walk.
He is a far more brilliant man than I, and so I don't generally try to 'get away with it', because when
someone challenges me on a statement, I often would have to go.. 'Uhh, well, that's just kinda been
my... experience... well, OK that's my opinion, ya see?'
There is also the simple fact that satire can become so subtle that it is mistaken for serious personal
accusations at someone instead of a type of behavior. Hell, some years ago Randy Newman was
excoriated publicly for his song 'Short People', which action, in my totally uncensored personal
opinion, was so stupid as to be beneath any dignity of a response.
Now, Phoenix may have come across as a little abrasive and confrontational, but so what?
Many of her points were extremely valid. I understand Rahael's reaction, I truly do, but Rah also let
loose with a little snipery in response. Again, I say, so what? It made for a lively discussion,
thought I, and in each case I saw no sign that the conversation was going to go off the deep end, as in
each case I could tell that both posters were reigning in their baser impulses and attempting to
remain reasonably civil. Both succeeded in doing so.
Therefore, I would like to suggest to Rah that no apologies are needed beyond what you have already
done. To Phoenix, I like what you have written, you have many interesting thoughts to convey, so
please stay and convey them. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Casteneda and the others you
mentioned. If you're feeling confrontational, just say so up front. That's often what I do. As we get to
know you better, rest assured we will cut you the necessary slack to be a provocateur-- we do so, and
have done, so for others who post here and are a regular part of our community.
I am here because most of the people on this board are far more gifted and intelligent than I, and I
learn a great deal from them. I hope I give them some stuff to ponder on in return, as I concentrate
on what I have to offer that might be interesting. If anything I have posted over the past year or two
has offended anyone, I apologize, but I also need to be free to risk doing so at times.
Because one for sure thing about Harlan-- he was never boring.
Comments, brickbats, all are welcome. I'll just get The Evil Clone to reply to the testier ones.
;-)
[>
Don't want to insult Ellison if you're such a huge fan of his... -- Rob, 16:16:29 04/24/02
Wed
But I will say that my problem with him was never the fact that he was opinionated, but that I found
his manner of stating his arguments very off-putting. I mean, sometimes I myself want to be able to
talk like he did, and just say things for what they are. But another part of me can't help but think he
sounded a bit whiny and babyish. For example, that Star Trek script he said Gene Roddenbury
ruined...After Roddenbury died, he released the script in a book, and wrote tons of nasty things
about him. They may have been true, but the guy's dead, for god's sake!
Sorry, OnM! I will say, though, that I do enjoy a lot of his fiction.
Rob
[> [>
Ah, Ellison... -- Humanitas, 16:52:17 04/24/02 Wed
I have to confess, I agree with both of you. I like a lot of Ellison's work, and I also love the fact that
he is an un-appologetic curmudgeon. His philosophy of history, "It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The
Time," has practically ecome my motto. But I do occasionally find that he goes off the deep end. I
guess that just reinforces OnM's point - that even the best minds go a little crazy sometimes.
;)
[> [>
No apologies needed-- many people found him abrasive and annoying. -- OnM, 16:56:14
04/24/02 Wed
And many times, he was.
But most of the time he was also right.
I liked Gene Roddenberry, but Harlan wasn't the only one to complain about him. Gene was a public
figure, and a tremedously influential one in the science-fiction community. One of the things I was
getting at is that Harlan dissed from a position of knowledge and experience. It was almost a
complement to be attacked by him, because it was always a well informed attack, not just hissy
fits.
If you think he went after GR unfairly, let me assure you Gene got off lightly compared to those
Ellison really had no respect for.
In movie terms, BTW, may folks feel the same way about the recently deceased Pauline Kael. I
always found her to be on the cruel side towards those films that she didn't favor, but many others in
the film community respected her, because she knew her stuff. Like Harlan, she was apparently just
volatile by nature, or at least in her film criticism. People admired her work anyway.
It's like supposed 'fans' who place stupid, childish posts saying 'Buffy is such a bitch!'
Yeah, why is that?
Uhh, because she just is, that's why!
Go away, little brain...
Kael (or Ellison) could/would have given a three page dissertation with patently relevant multiple
references why s/he feels Buffy is a bitch.
You can then disagree, but no longer on the level of just an emotional rant.
BTW, good on ya for getting TWIZ to repent their evil ways! Bet you were confrontational with
'em!
;-)
[> [> [>
Re: No apologies needed-- many people found him abrasive and annoying. -- Rob,
17:16:35 04/24/02 Wed
"BTW, good on ya for getting TWIZ to repent their evil ways! Bet you were confrontational with
'em!"
No, not at all. ;o)
I just maybe sort of threatened to have the entire AtPoBtVS site innudate his mailbox with angry
letters. Maybe. lol.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Addendum... -- Rob, 17:17:53 04/24/02 Wed
What I meant to say was "everybody from the ATPoBtVS forum" rather than "the entire ATPoBtVS
site," but you probably got my drift.
Rob
[> [> [>
"Go away, little brain..." Hah! I love you, OnM. -- Marie, 08:20:50 04/25/02
Thu
[>
Ellison lives -- maybe -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 16:19:01 04/24/02 Wed
Masq --
I too am a Harlan Ellison fan " . . . for I have no mouth and I must scream . . ." " . . . deathbird, do
not follow me . . . " "Repent, Harlequin! said the Tick-tock Man" etc.
According to the Dead Peoples' Server, updated yesterday, Ellison, born in 1934, is still alive and
complaining.
[>
One small point -- d'Herblay, 18:40:22 04/24/02 Wed
I have been (partially) following the discourse between Phoenix, Rah, Ian and
several others in the thread that is near the bottom of the page. I am posting this not only in the
hopes of establishing a peaceful resolution of sorts, but to remind one and all that this forum will
become very boring if we assume anyone who is occasionally abrasive or confrontatory is a troll. If
that's the case, then I'm a troll.
One small point I'd like to make is that no one
ever labelled Phoenix as a troll. Not Rah, not Ian, not Yaby or yuri or even me, who tends to be the
quickest to cry "troll." The first point in that discussion in which the word came up
was:Whatever. Rahael, apologies if you are having a hissy about my mean posts.
Ya can all dismiss me as a nasty racist troll and all will be right with the world
again.
Rah did label Scott a troll. (NWO was also labelled a troll.) She did so
because she remembers him from the thread on diversity in
Sunnydale from February. More to the point, Scott is the same troll we've had since November 2000.
This is "Scott" in the thread below:There are those out there who do believe that if
you disagre with them, you must be evil. If you don't share their point of view then you are a Nazi,
facist, skinhead, etc.
They are what they accuse others of being. They demand "tolerance" from others, but they are
anything but.
If you disagree with them, social, and sometimes legal wrath comes upon you. They demand "Free
Speech" whenever they feel like they are being prevented from saying whatever they want to say,
but again they support and enforce strong speak codes against their distractors.
They are hypocrites first and foremost.
It's not a funny situation. It has actually destroyed many lives in America.
This is
"Sue" from September 13, 2001:Our ends are just, but our means must be
ruthless.
War isn't pretty. It isn't noble in the sense we sometimes see in the movies. It is dirty. It is profane.
That is the way it is. Can't be refined.
But sometimes, like now it is the only option. We must do whatever it takes. Our nation has been
attacked. Our FAMILY has been attacked. Just like Buffy said to Glory, "You do not mess with me
and mine!" "You do not attack my family!"
We must understand that our survival is at stake. More importantly our children's survival is at
stake. And we must go to whatever lengths we have to. No Mercy until the war is over.
This is war. Total War! You do what it takes. Just like Giles did.
I don't have to
call Don Foster to
recognize the commonality of styles. Frankly, I've gone over the recurrence of this troll so many
times I'm surprised people still have to wait for the Bonhoffer quotes.
As to a larger point, I'd give threads more than a "partial" reading before assigning blame or
excusing the blameworthy ex cathedra. I'm sorry, but I'm really bothered by the note of
condescension in your post. I think your new editorial powers may have gone to your head. :P
(Speaking of which, do those work? In defense of statements like, "I`m damn sure you have me
pegged as a rightwing fascist. :p" -- an accusation never made by Rah -- Phoenix said, "obviously the
emoticons I used to indicate when I was joking ;) or being facetious :p made no difference." Does an
emoticon palliate all the hurtful intent of the sentence before it? Let's try: "OnM claims he is
sometimes abrasive or confrontory, though he's rarely interesting enough to be so. :P" Did it work?
Are we all still friends here? Well bully for emotica!)
By the way, I must admit that my copies of An Edge in My Voice and Watching are so
well-thumbed that the friction is starting to cause sublimation, but whenever you mention Ellison,
I'm reminded of Joe Queenan's line, "[Woody Allen's] passion for the highfalutin resembles the
healthy fascination with esoterica that many college students feel when they are first introduced to
the great books and can stop reading Harlan Ellison." :P (Is it still working?)
Bring the Evil Clone on! I don't need an alter ego to harp on my self-perceived faults and my nagging
doubts! That's what my ego does!
[> [>
Re: One small point, or two or three... -- OnM, 20:21:17 04/24/02 Wed
*** I think your new editorial powers may have gone to your head. ***
Probably, but they won't stay. Very little else seems to these days.
*** Let's try: OnM claims he is sometimes abrasive or confrontory, though he's rarely interesting
enough to be so. ***
Rarely interesting? Damn, I'm movin' up! Most of the real world I live in doesn't think I'm
interesting at all.
*** [Woody Allen's] passion for the highfalutin resembles the healthy fascination with esoterica
that many college students feel when they are first introduced to the great books and can stop
reading Harlan Ellison. :P (Is it still working?) ***
You might need to explain this a bit to me, d'Herb. I'm not sure whether this is a put down of Ellison
(though I strongly suspect it) or of Allen, or both. It's well within the realm of reason to accuse either
man of excessive self-involvement, but it'll have to be up to the passage of time to as to whose works
hold up better.
And as to my 'works' holding up, I expect that in 100 years no one will ever even know or care that I
existed, much less wrote or created anything. So keep that in mind when I act 'just a little
condescending' at times. As I stated near the end of my post, I am deeply envious of how clever and
insightful my fellow boarders are, you and Rah included, d'Herb.
(lastly):
*** Bring the Evil Clone on! I don't need an alter ego to harp on my self-perceived faults and my
nagging doubts! That's what my ego does! ***
He's asleep at the moment. Besides, I can't afford an ego, an alter ego will have to do.
He is a lot more fun than I am, though.
;-)
[> [> [>
Apologia pro tua vita -- d'Herblay, 08:03:17 04/25/02 Thu
Ahh, reading over my greatest hits reveals a lot of snark. Sometimes I type faster than I make
ethical decisions. I stand by the intent of the post, if not its tone. I'll expand on this in a minute, but
first let me get this Joe Queenan stuff out of the way. Queenan, as anyone who loves movies and
invective should know, is the fabulously vituperative author of If You're Talking to Me, Your
Career Must Be in Trouble, from which the quote is taken. Knowing Queenan's style, it is safe to
infer that in that one sentence he insulted:
- Woody Allen
- Harlan Ellison
- Pretentious high school kids who think
that Harlan Ellison has all of life's answers
- Pretentious college kids who think that Albert
Camus has all of life's answers.
The insult to you was just the sort of added value you can
expect here at ATPo!
One of the issues alluded to in your original post in this thread which most rankles me is summed up
by your statement, "There is also the simple fact that satire can become so subtle that it is mistaken
for serious personal accusations at someone instead of a type of behavior." I find it hard to accept
that ex post facto declarations of satirical intent can excuse confrontational behavior. It
seems to me that this tactic is a poor attempt to shift the blame from the insulter to the insultee, and
I resent the implication that those who did not see the intended satire are somehow dense.
(By the way, any inflammatory or insulting statements I may have made recently were intended as
satire. Anyone who took offense needs to get themselves a sense of humor! You hear that
TWIZ?)
Satire has been used very successfully on this board: most recently by Malandanza, and memorably
by Dedalus and mundus and, dare I say, by myself. Of course these satires were a little less subtle
than "Rahael, apologies if you are having a hissy about my mean posts," and needed no emotica to
excuse them. Reader response vs. authorial intent has been a contentious issue on this board in the
past; in this case, I think that reader response must be privileged, especially when the authorial
intent is back-dated.
I have privately expressed, and now publicly acknowledge, that I owe you an apology (though I'm
familiar enough with legal language to be able to make that acknowledgement without extending an
actual apology). I am too biased to suggest that you owe Rah an apology; however, I sincerely believe
that you owe Ian one. He did us all a mitzvah by trying to make the case for civility, only to
see himself assailed as pedantic and elitist. Now he'll see this thread and find the implication that he
is intolerant and tone-deaf to satire as well. An implication that strikes most heavily due to your
tenure and reputation on the board, to leave out the sanctimonious tone of your post. These gave the
impression that you were dictating policy; everyone knows I have this awful tendency to speak as if
ex cathedra myself, but while I may not always have my facts straight, I at least have a sense
of the larger picture.
I strongly suggest you reread the thread in question. I strongly suggest that you pay particular
attention Phoenix's post "Re: Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to." (The first post by
Phoenix with this title.) I strongly suggest you then dust off your copy of An Edge in My
Voice and read installments 30 and 31, should the word "paralogia" have not already jumped
into your mind. (Though I may just be saying this because once I realized that OBE stood not
for Order of the British Empire but Out-of-Body Experience, I had an Out-of-Mind Experience.)
By the way, statements like "I am deeply envious of how clever and insightful my fellow boarders
are, you and Rah included, d'Herb" are examples of the condescension I referred to earlier. I don't
appreciate being patronized.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Apologia pro tua vita -- OnM, 17:25:32 04/25/02 Thu
condescension: 1: a voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior,
2: a patronizing attitude
*** By the way, statements like "I am deeply envious of how clever and insightful my fellow
boarders are, you and Rah included, d'Herb" are examples of the condescension I referred to earlier. I
don't appreciate being patronized. ***
D'Herb--
I am concerned that you are still misinterpreting my intent, and as such I will take the time to
compose a detailed response and post it later on, time constraints prevent me from doing it at this
moment, but it will be done.
For the moment though, there is one point I simply cannot fail to comment on, which is the
statement regarding my 'patronizing' you or others.
You seem to have interpreted my praise of you (and the other ATPo posters) in such a way as to
presume that it was meant ironically or satirically.
You may choose to believe what you wish, but the statement was intended to convey exactly what it
said, which is the truth as I experience it. I am envious of those people who are clearly more
clever and/or intelligent than I am. When the hell did a sincere and heartfelt compliment turn into a
diss?
I will indeed re-read the entire thread, you may very well be correct in stating that I missed some
critical points. If so, I will accept responsibility for doing so.
The same is true if I have insulted Ian. Again, I will reserve further comment until I have reread the
entire thread.
I see no need to apologize to Rahael, since I am very, very certain that I did not insult her. If
you read my response to her completely unnecessary 'mea culpa' farther down this thread,
you should know that. She seemed to feel that she had done something wrong during her
conversation with Phoenix, and that is utter nonsense.
By the way, what exactly does the latin mean? Apologies for my life? Yours or mine? Or both? Please
clue me.
I will return.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Well, there goes my planned "On Trolls" thread -- mundusmundi,
14:25:24 04/26/02 Fri
Which is probably just as well for the rest of you, seeing as it ran to a third page on my Word
program. Perhaps we could have an AtPO Apocrypha section for abandoned posts?....
Anyway, undoubtedly like everyone else, I'm noticing more than the usual share of spleen-venting on
the board these days. (I've also observed that this has coincided with Wisewoman's sabbatical,
supporting my theory that she is the sensible Cordelia figure of our forum – hurry back, dubbub, and
restore civility!) I've got nothing to add to the vitriol, since it's screamingly obvious where it started
and where the bulk of it lies. (I must also confess I've only just gone back and perused said thread in
question – yes, I'm the stereotypical Apathetic American Voter.) But I will suggest that the point of
actual satire is to convey criticism in the guise of agreement or praise, not -- as mentioned a few
months ago in a different thread -- to blatantly insult another person and then hide behind a winky
emoticon like it's all in good fun. Real satire doesn't need emoticons, as I believe was
d'Herblay's point: it's emotive by nature.
I also won't comment on Ellison, as I've never read him, but I can second the plug for Queenan. One
of his more memorable observations was comparing the Ottoman sultans' penchant to lock away
their rival-successors until the particular sultan's death with the function of the American vice-
presidency. Gives whole new meaning to Cheney's "bunker mentality."
Lastly, let me temporarily break my stance as an Apathetic Poster and say, Rah, get back here now!
(Joshing in tone, yet serious in suggestion.)
-mm
[> [>
Re: One small point -- anom, 21:09:28 04/24/02 Wed
"Phoenix said, 'obviously the emoticons I used to indicate when I was joking ;) or being facetious :p
made no difference.'"
Since we're talking about emoticons ("emotica," d'Herb? hmmm...I did once hear Richard Lederer
refer to "oxymora"), I always saw ":p" or ":P" as a stuck-out tongue, meaning "bleah!"--i.e., disgust,
not facetiousness. Does anyone else understand it that way (the 2nd way, I mean)?
[> [> [>
I've heard as a stuck-out tongue, but more in a joking manner, than one of disgust. -- Rob,
21:11:29 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
That's how I've always read it, at least as the 'primary' meaning. -- OnM, 22:17:31
04/24/02 Wed
I thought the lower case 'p' was the 'joking' 'con, and the upper case 'P' was the 'bleah' usage.
Doubt anyone knows definitively. You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to, etc.
[> [> [>
And I think it`s often used as a tongue-in-cheek symbol as well. -- Loki, 21:23:00
04/24/02 Wed
[>
This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- Rahael, 02:12:02 04/25/02 Thu
“I am posting this not only in the hopes of establishing a peaceful resolution of sorts, but to remind
one and all that this forum will become very boring if we assume anyone who is occasionally abrasive
or confrontatory is a troll. If that's the case, then I'm a troll.”
I can only reiterate what dH has said that I never thought Phoenix was a troll. I knew from the
beginning that she was the board moderator of the Big Bad net. The only reason I actually answered
her was because she wasn’t a troll.
“There is also the simple fact that satire can become so subtle that it is mistaken for serious personal
accusations at someone instead of a type of behavior.”
I can only apologise again, if I missed the subtlety in Phoenix’s comments, and if I seemed to act as if
she was making personal accusations against me. All I wanted to point out was not the relative
merits or not of PC, which is a huge catch all term, but whether Britain was a PC country or not.
A new entrant to the debate about PC Britain brought up that point about Blackboards being called
Whiteboards now. Well, they are called Whiteboards because they are a totally different thing from
Blackboards. Some classrooms have both. Whiteboards cannot be used to write in on chalk, but since
you can use clear, colourful pens and get a degree of precision you can’t with Blackboards and chalk
(and moreover, they are transportable). But I digress.
“ Therefore, I would like to suggest to Rah that no apologies are needed beyond what you have
already done. To Phoenix, I like what you have written, you have many interesting thoughts to
convey, so please stay and convey them.”
I did feel that my apology was completely justified (but I would like to thank Celticross for her deeply
kind words. Also Arethusa, Ian and Ete). I will repeat it here, because it’s kind of lost down at the
bottom of the board. I fully intend to take those words to heart, and I know that OnM says he
welcomes confrontative and uncomfortable posts? In person, in real life I am not confrontative. And I
do not seek to make people uncomfortable. It’s the very opposite of who I am. So no more politics on
the board for me.
"My apologies to the board. I never thought this would ever get to this point...............I know that we
all feel that we must treat newbies well and listen with tolerance.
Perhaps I do take things personally. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm sorry.
Because thinking back about my record here, I've been involved in one too many emotional postings.
One or two may be accidental, but this time.....perhaps passionate politics and the anonymity of the
net doesn't mix. And I am confrontative in style. I think LeeAnn or Spikelover can attest to
that.
Obviously I must be going wrong somewhere if a board moderator like Phoenix can't handle the posts
I was making.
Anyway, just a few final words. The Sun thing: I said 'without prejudice'. I was far more impressed
with the Sun's editorial on racism than I was the Guardian. I wanted to show that I didn't
automatically rule out wisdom from an unexpected source.
And I did make a sincere effort to drag the debate about what was wrong about British society from
PCness to Poverty because that's what I honestly believe.
This debate wasn't about my 'philosophy'. It's about my life. The things I have to face, the things
people I know have to live through. It is about putting ethics into practice. It isn't about having rants
to let off steam.
This isn't me having a hissy fit. This is me reconsidering things.
One last word in my defence. I think, despite seeing some of the darkest, most evil things in the
whole world I still see it as a friendly, optimistic, place which can be changed by discussion, most
particularly by getting groups within communities to work together and not see each other as the
enemy; to get rid of prejudices and lazy thinking.
Not one of my friends, even those who think I'm a soppy liberal, or who argue with me about race
think I have a chip on my shoulder. Not even secretly. They tell me stuff they wouldn't express to
other people because they know I don't judge people by their words; I judge them by generosity of
heart and kindness.) I may have many faults, but I am a very proud person; the idea that society can
stop me from getting what I want is inconceivable to me.
Phoenix, I'll leave you with a quote from my mother's book
"Objectivity, the pursuit of truth and propagation of critical and honest positions, was not only
crucial for the community but was a view that could cost many of us our lives. It was only
undertaken as a survival task"
One day my mother never came home again because she wrote these words. Because she lived them.
I live every day of my life, sincerely, passionately, trying to be true to them.
Getting into slanging matches which leaves all sides depressed isn't a part of this."
And can I make it clear that I am fully aware that I am arguing against the current of the board re
PC? that it is the same in Britain? I know this and I still did this, and I don't mind being in the
minority. I still feel compelled to make this case, but I'll make it elsewhere. Very few people defend
political correctness anymore. I feel grateful enough for some of the changes in society it has
accomplished to put the case for it.
But I have one last word to say to Phoenix. Don't assume that I am just talking and talking and not
doing. How do you know? I feel as if I've had experience enough for several lifetimes and I'm only 23.
I've had so much doing and not enough peace, quiet and time for contemplation that my soul feels
tired. Feeling pretty tired now. And slightly ashamed.
[> [>
Actually, rereading OnM's post, make that very ashamed.... -- Rahael, 02:27:09
04/25/02 Thu
[> [>
Humbleness has it's limitations, believe me. -- OnM, 06:40:55 04/25/02 Thu
*** In person, in real life I am not confrontative. And I do not seek to make people uncomfortable.
It’s the very opposite of who I am. ***
Yup, me too. As a result, people treat me like a doormat. It's been one of the greatest mistakes in
judgement in my entire life, i.e., trying to make everybody happy at my own expense. Don't wait,
after a while you can't change, people won't allow you to. Stand up for what you think is right,
especially if you think you are.
*** This debate wasn't about my 'philosophy'. It's about my life. The things I have to face, the
things people I know have to live through. It is about putting ethics into practice. It isn't about
having rants to let off steam.
Why not? They're very intelligent, well thought out rants. Go buy yourself a copy of any of Michael
Moore's books, or rent one of his films (Roger & Me, The Big One) then reconsider. He's a
'soppy liberal', too-- and we need more people like him in the world.
*** And can I make it clear that I am fully aware that I am arguing against the current of the
board re PC? that it is the same in Britain? I know this and I still did this, and I don't mind being in
the minority. I still feel compelled to make this case, but I'll make it elsewhere. Very few people
defend political correctness anymore. I feel grateful enough for some of the changes in society it has
accomplished to put the case for it. ***
The problem with political correctness is that society at large has changed what the term means, just
like the word 'liberal' has been made into an active slur by Conservatives in the US. When I was a
kid, it was just a political faction, neutral in meaning. Now it's an insult. This is ridiculous, but there
is nothing to be done about it except find a new term and abandon the old one. (Same way the
anti/pro abortion camps morphed from linguistic neutrality into the more polarizing 'pro-choice / pro-
life' monikers. It didn't improve things, it made them worse. Choose your words very carefully, sez
me.)
So we need a new word or phrase for what used to be a term that simply meant showing respect for
people's differing beliefs, and that now seems to mean turning a blind eye to horrendous behaviour
for the sake of 'respect' (which is the interpretation I got of what Phoenix was getting at in her 'rant'.
And yes, it was a rant.)
I say once more, with feeling, so what? I am all for civility, in fact I get pissy about it
sometimes and try to enforce it myself. But on the other hand, these are things which seriously affect
our lives, it makes no sense to exclude them from the board. If someone goes over the line, we'll reign
them in, in gentle soppy liberal fashion, no doubt.
I will, anyway. It's my doormat nature.
We love ya Rah, so quitcher apologies, and kindly bitch some more.
Peace is probably unattainable in my lifetime, so I'll settle for a good night's sleep. Tomorrow's
yet another day.
See ya, have to log off and go serve the needs of the military/industrial complex and it's mindless
lackeys again today,
;-)
OnM
[> [>
No apologies needed and some comments on certainty -- matching mole, 06:57:31
04/25/02 Thu
I didn't really follow the debate very closely (or much else on the board recently) because of being
busy. Given that, Rah I would have to agree with Ian in the original thread and with Shari above. I
thought you conducted yourself well. You might have been understandably emotional at times but
you never struck me as being derogatory. Given that I basically agree with your position I am
somewhat biased.
I think that 'Political Correctness' suffers from its rather unfortunate name and, like any other
system of thought, from the behavior of some of its practitioners. To me the basic idea of being PC is
having a respect and interest for other cultures (which certainly does not mean not having a respect
and interest for your own culture) and I think that phrasing this in terms of rigidity (correct vs.
incorrect speech) rather than encouragement and expansiveness is unfortunate. In my experience
the problems and travails caused by the non-PC nature of the world far outweigh the rather minor
difficulties caused by mandated PCness.
For some reason I have not read very much Harlan Ellison but I did hear him speak a couple of years
ago. He reminded me of a number of very successful and creative and opinionated people that I
have encountered over the years. As OnM says he has probably thought quite a bit about his
opinions but the manner in which he expresses them indicates to me that his opinion is not likely to
take in the complexities of the issue. Once he reaches a decision he is absolutely certain that it is the
right one. Whereas I live in a constant state of uncertainty about everything. I think I have an
answer but there could always be more evidence that might change my mind.
It's like the Spike debate. Is Spike evil or is Spike good? It seems obvious to me that he is neither
wholly evil nor wholly good which just means that he is fairly well rounded character. He sits
somewhere on the good-scale say at 5.7. Something might happen next week that would cause me to
move him to 6.1. Some poster might make an argument that would move him to 4.8. But I would
imagine that Mr. Ellison, if he decided he was interested in the debate at all, would eventually weigh
in with a very strong pro or anti Spike opinion. He would back it up well but phrase it in a manner
that would tend to alienate the opposing side. And it would tend to alienate people like myself who
might be more interested in developing a thorough understanding of Spike.
Even with issues that I think are of tremendous importance (the Spike debate does not fall in that
category for me I must confess) or perhaps particularly with those issues I value the statements of
those who look at the issue from all sides rather than promoting their particular agenda, even if
their agenda agrees with my own. For example I am fairly convinced that global climate change is a
much more likely threat to western civilization than terrorism. I think that pretty drastic action is
required on the part of the developed nations of the world. But I realize that these actions would
have fairly drastic effects on the livelihoods of vast numbers of people and on the economies of
nations. Therefore, I would want to pay attention to everyone's viewpoints, particularly those I
might not agree with before making up my mind about specific actions to take. And making up my
mind is a tentative thing always subject to change.
Now I realize that what I am talking about is partly a matter of style, as OnM says. Harlan Ellison
may be more open to changing his mind than he sounds like he is. But my gut reaction when I hear
someone talk the way he does is to not place much worth in their statements simply because they
sound too certain of what they say.
Rahael you always sound thoughtful and you back up your arguments well. And you strike me as
being willing to listen to other points of view besides your own. I would never accuse you of the sin of
certainty.
[> [>
Response to the evil Rah -- Darby, 08:47:27 04/25/02 Thu
Rahael, I've been here long enough to see this happen a couple of times: there's a discussion,
passionate and varied, that you participate in (always eloquently) and I almost always learn
something from the exchange. It's only later that I find out from your subsequent posts that a) you
were quite incensed about what you were debating and b) you think that that passion rendered your
responses inappropriately hostile. And I always go, "Huh?" because the responses that have
bothered you have never seemed uncivil to me (and I usually can't say that for all of the
participants). The only overreaction I see from you is to your own posts.
I enjoy your posts. If I've missed a couple of days and need to pick-and-choose threads to read, I
often seek out your posts to decide what's worthwhile. You are an excellent writer (except for that
pesky not being able to fully express your outrage in a nasty way thing) and I'm sure I'm not the only
one who finds you (and several of the other regulars in this particular thread, among others) one of
the "draws" for this posting board.
[> [> [>
I loudly second that "Huh?" -- yuri, 21:45:07 04/25/02 Thu
I have also noticed this pattern, and been completely confused by it. You value passion and honesty,
no? You are one of the most passionately honest posters here, and yet at the peak of your display of
these wonderful traits, you retreat and apologize for them. I have to read those posts twice and see if
you're not being sarcastic... you're not, are you?
"Refreshing" is too light a word, but your posts are that, since many other of the most prolific writers
here, all of whom I deeply respect, still lack your ability to release emotion into text with such
agility. And you do not, even in your most intense moments, resort to the sort of base insults and
useless bickering that some do on their second post. You are also a draw for me. I hope you realize
how your "rants" are loved.
[> [>
Re: This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- dream of the consortium, 09:37:06
04/25/02 Thu
A few barely connected thoughts, starting with two stories, the first about Harlan Ellison, the other
about William Faulkner:
The first I know to be true, because my ex-husband was there at the time. The second I have heard
word-of-mouth, and it may be false.
A staff member at Little, Brown, which published some of Ellison’s books, faxed Ellison a document
at 9:00 am one morning. Ellison lives in California and apparently keeps his fax machine in his
bedroom. So he was awoken at 6 am by a fax. Furious, he calls the office and screams at the
woman who sent the fax, swearing, ranting, raving, hurling insults. Then he hung up. Ten minutes
later he called back and asked, “Where are you people located?” The woman answered that the
offices were in Waltham, Massachusetts. His voice changed tone entirely, and he said, “Oh, God. I
am so sorry; I thought you were in New York. You have to talk to those people that way.”
That story is merely for its entertainment value.
The story about Faulkner is more relevant. Faulkner was, as we know, a raving drunk. Apparently,
it was his habit for some period to drink himself into a stupor on the weekend, and he claimed that
his writing required this. His daughter was having a birthday party, and asked her father not to
drink that day so that he would be sober for the festivities. He said no. When she pushed, he
responded, “No. Whoever heard of Shakespeare’s daughter.”
I think we tend to assume that the gifted, the great can “get away with” behavior the rest of us can
not. But what do we mean? People still pay attention to them in their field of study – yes, that’s
true. But I don’t think being brilliant give you any sort of dispensation for being a jerk. You still
pay the consequences. Maybe not professionally, but personally. People will dislike you, avoid you,
distance themselves from you. They will be afraid to talk to you, and you will lose out on the chance
to hear someone’s point of view. And if you are anything short of brilliant, people tend to ignore you.
Why bother listening to someone who doesn’t listen in return, why deal with someone who is
aggressive, unpleasant, nasty? Many great talents ended up very unhappy people as a result of this
illusion that intelligence trumps kindness (see: Truman Capote, for one).
And if great talents and brilliant minds are not given free social license to be as cruel and rude and
unpleasant as they wish, how much less allowance will the rest of us find.
I have also noticed that a lot of people who are extremely aggressive in their posts tend to use this
aggression to provoke a particular type of reaction from people, and to complain when they get the
very reaction that anyone reasonable would expect. If I were to post that I thought, say,
conservatives were ruining the country with their idiocy and greed, and that they were all
superstitious nitwits who believed in screwing the poor and ruining the environment to line their
already full pockets with yet-more gold, I should expect some conservative posters to take personal
offense. I don’t get off the hook for saying, “Well, I didn’t mean you, I can see you actually care about
toxic emissions and poor children, it’s the ones that don’t that I was talking about.” (And I certainly
don’t get off the hook for adding a little, ambiguous symbol after my comments, like the five-year-
old’s trick of saying “Just kidding” after tossing off an insult.) And I don’t then get to say that 1)
people are attacking me for free speech 2) people are going to ignore me because “they don’t listen to
other points of view”, when they are ignoring me for being a jerk, see above, or 3) that the people who
took my comments personally set the personal tone of the argument. Well of course, I CAN say those
things if I wish, but I shouldn't be surprised when no one comes leaping out of the woodwork to
defend me.
Reading this sort of stuff is very frustrating. I am not very interested in listening to people who
want to win an argument – I want to read people who converse to learn – to change their own minds.
Of course, as always, the people who are first to yell “close-mindedness” are usually the ones who
would never consider changing their minds on a topic, and the people who are first to apologize for
their behavior are the ones with the least to apologize for.
I always wondered (maybe someone on the board can enlighten me) how William Faulkner’s
daughter felt about her father, and what Faulkner lost out on with his daughter.
As for Harlan Ellison – well, I am fond of him as well, in spite of his churlishness. I wonder, though,
about his own personal relations. Is he happy and loved, respected by those close to him, not just for
his abilities, but for who he is? Maybe – I get the impression some of his character is just that – a
public character. But I own a used copy of an album he recorded of a couple of his short stories. It is
signed “To Craig Nickerson, With Disinterest, Harlan.” I found it in a used record store, and it
looked to have been there a long time. Presumably, Craig shared Harlan’s sentiments.
[> [> [>
Well said. -- Sophist, 10:23:00 04/25/02 Thu
[> [> [>
just another little Ellison story... -- redcat, 12:20:46 04/25/02 Thu
to add to the ones already here. It was told to me by someone who was there at the time, a friend
who has since passed on. This event occured in the mid-70s.
Harlan Ellison was in hospital (a VA hospital in California, as I recall), in a small ward with other
patients. He was bitching and moaning and generally making life miserable for his fellow patients
and the nurses. One of those nurses, who had himself been wounded in VietNam, turned to Ellison
and asked him why he was so harsh all the time. Ellison replied that he was in pain, and the patient
in the next bed immediately said, "We're all in pain here, buddy, even him" (pointing to the nurse).
Ellison apparently sneered and made a sarcastic response, but was somewhat less confrontational
after that. Although his normal response mechanism still tended to be sarcasm, he began to have
real conversations with the other men in the ward. My friend found him to be a brilliant and
interesting man during those talks and walked away with an enormous amount of respect for the
guy, but it was the story above that captured, for him, the essence of spending time with Harlan
Ellison.
Perhaps we, too, should remember that everyone who posts to or reads this board is probably in pain
in some way (psychic, emotional, spiritual, corporeal, intellectual, social, political...). From such an
acknowledgement can come the kind of rich, deep conversations many of us, I suspect, come here for.
Thanks.
[> [> [>
Re: This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- parakeet, 04:32:24 04/28/02 Sun
I must say that I haven't really followed this debate well enough to comment (mea culpa: I haven't
even yet read all the posts in this thread), but I'm feeling opinionated (and lazy) and so I will say
this: free speech doesn't mean getting along. People will (and should) express strong opinions, and
others will (and should) disagree with them. This is a good thing. Censorship is when you attempt
to stop someone from publicly disagreeing with you; it is not disagreeing with that person publicly.
Civility is also a good thing, and we all personally prefer someone who is tolerant and respectful
(especially if we disagree with them) over an overbearing jackass. Sometimes, however, the
overbearing jackass is preferable to the obsequious "let's all get along" guy. After all, conflict is a
cornerstone of discourse, and mediocrity can be just as overbearing as hubris. Passion is necessary;
arrogance is bad, but sometimes arrogance is a necessary antidote to apathy. Genius is a
complicated subject, but I believe that it is important to humor talented people who are not perfect.
Seriously, would you rather read something by Faulkner or Oprah Winfrey? This isn't to say that
feel-good people don't have an important part to play, but art must rule over entertainment (art
being the feel of something that stirs strong emotion and/or thought, and entertainment being
something that makes you feel good about being yourself or, perhaps, despite being yourself).
I love the work of Harlan Ellison and William Faulkner. Hemingway was, by all accounts, an
incredibly difficult person to get along with, but The Sun Also Rises is one of the best books I've ever
read, for all its faults.
Emotions run high when we try to describe things that are important to us, and sometimes we lose
our sense of humor. Sometimes we justifiably refuse to let a claim to humor excuse poor
taste/judgement/whatever, and sometimes we lambast those who are too obsessed with
righteousness.
This is why boards like this one are so interesting to read. I've enjoyed almost everything I've read
here, and you're all worth a zillion times more than the "Kid Rock Rulz" guy (or his many aliases)
that I encounter on other boards.
[> [> [> [>
Re: This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- dream of the consortium, 06:41:35
04/29/02 Mon
Sure, I like reading Faulkner. Heck, I like Pound. And a whole bunch of other jerks. My point is
that they aren't any less jerks for being brilliant. I don't like the assumption that brilliance is linked
to nastiness or unkindness or selfishness. Were Whitman, Shaw, Van Gogh, Dorothy Parker, Emily
Dickinson, Rilke less talented because they were, by all accounts, compassionate people? Sure, they
were opinionated, and probably a pain in the neck at some times, but they were people of
compassion. I could list a lot more - it bothers me to group all people who empathize with others as
being Oprah Winfrey types. I don't argue that disagreement should be avoided, or even that
emotions must be controlled. I am saying there is no excuse for ignoring the feelings of others.
Civilty is not optional among civilized people, and if people dislike or ignore you for being uncivil,
you have no right to complain, no matter how brilliant you may be. Kindness is a primary virtue,
and I believe that those who lack it will suffer consequences from that lack, however much they may
be rewarded for intelligence or talent.
Free speech is a political concept. Free speech means that there are no legal limits on what people
say. It has nothing to do with discussions of civilty. Everyone has the right to say whatever they
like - I believe that that is a given on this board. I find it frustrating to hear free speech brought up
so frequently in discussions about manner and tone, about respect for others. People also have the
right to not bathe for months at a time, but that right would not be invoked in discussions of what
constitutes cleanliness.
[> [>
Re: This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- Caroline, 13:11:43 04/25/02 Thu
Rah,
I have been away from the computer and missed out on everything. I must say I'm a bit taken aback
at everything that has happened and want to express to you my sadness at the harsh experiences
you have undergone personally in your life. I thought that you handled the whole exchange with
Phoenix very well, I also give props to Ian, Sophist, Leslie and others who tried to bring the
temperature down. I don't think that Phoenix was ill-intentioned in any way, I just think that it's so
hard to really gain a good idea of a writer's intent on a discussion board. I could hear in my head
what Phoenix was saying and understand that she meant no harm but tone, etc are so hard to read
in the written word, which is why civility is so important in this context.
One thing that was brought home to me (and made me laugh out loud in joy) in the exchange about
being a reader of the Guardian is that I am so relieved that I no longer live in London or Sydney
anymore - I don't have to worry about my 'street cred' - reading the 'right' newspapers and books,
watching the right tv shows (or not having a tv at all!), living the right area, etc and then being
judged by someone based on those habits. That type of exchange was so typical of any you'd hear in
the UK or Australia and I'm so glad to live in the States, where I'm free of all of that. So, Rah, come
over to the States - you'll have a great time here.
[> [>
Rah, sweetie............. -- Rufus, 03:19:25 04/26/02 Fri
"I feel as if I've had experience enough for several lifetimes and I'm only 23. I've had so much
doing and not enough peace, quiet and time for contemplation that my soul feels tired. Feeling pretty
tired now. And slightly ashamed.
It figures that I'd stroll in at this late date to put my 2 Canadian cents in. Rah, you have nothing to
feel ashamed about, nothing. I finally took a look at the combined posts and came away non too
impressed with Phoenix. You said what you felt in a honest way and were replied to in a way that
was troll in nature. When someone drifts off the original point to flame you a few times they are
being a troll. I'm sure Phoenix may have some interesting things to say, but I'm not interested until
she learns a few manners. Trolls come in many forms and this one was a bit less easy to spot, but the
lack of respect and the tendancy to make absurd value judgements makes some of the posts Phoenix
made troll in nature. I think the next time she wants to speak to someone she would do well to
attempt to find some common ground with them instead of trying to win an imaginary war.
Now, to your life experience....your posts are the only ones that bring tears to my eyes because I can
feel the loss of your childhood and love of your mother in every one. You may be 23 years old, but you
have seen evil that many will never experience in a whole lifetime. My only request is that you
consider writing some of this down for publishing....I don't think cause I'm a few decades older than
you that there is nothing I can't learn from your experiences. Write....lots, and never forget who you
are or change because you fear rejection, I like you fine the way you are. Don't let the past few days
get you down, and I hope everyone learns something from what a lack of manners can do. It can
make us fight among ourselves, wasting all our valuble time. If I could give you a big hug and make
it all better I would, so I'm writing this instead.:)
[> [> [>
Re: Rah, sweetie............. -- Cactus Watcher, 06:01:52 04/26/02 Fri
Yes, Rahael, please do write it all down in your own words. I once had a girl friend whose family
suffered, a couple generations back, as horribly as yours has. She was an extremely intellegent
woman, but that family's experience left her bigotted against a particular nationality. You've
suffered a lot, but you seem to be able to keep an open mind. It may well be important for future
generations of other families as well as your own for you to tell your story.
[> [>
My Unapologetic, and very last post here -- Rahael, 10:54:59 04/26/02 Fri
You are right, OnM. Humbleness has its limitations.
I was going to slip away quietly, and I had stopped reading the board, but I was prompted to return
and simply say something by Rufus' post. By hers and other's, such as Caroline, Yuri, Darby,
Mole.
OnM - you said you realised that this might irritate me. It didn't. I was crushed. Then an hour ago, I
got my backbone back. I got back to the bitchery, as you invited me to.
You said that I managed to reign in my baser impulses, that I don't need to make any further
apology, that well thought out rants are welcome here.
I always thought that while I was here I attempted to have dialogue, not ranting. I thought that I
had the ability to conduct an actual conversation. The poster that actually drew me out my shell was
Age. He drew me out because he praised my ideas, made me feel valued, encouraged me to share
more. The idea that I have now started acting as a kind of thought police on this board horrifies me.
The idea that a distinguished and long standing board member could see me as having such an
aggressive and unpleasant style dismays me. For that's how I see it, however you view the merits or
demerits of such an approach.
Yes, confrontative ideas provoke and engage. But on the net, one never knows how certain words
might affect other people. How it might make them feel. And I have truly been taught a lesson this
last day about how wounding someone elses words can be. And I owe an apology to anyone whom I
might have hurt in pursuit of a snappy phrase or a glib rhetorical line.
For me, Kindness is the paramount virtue. I choose it before ambition; intellectual or material.
I'm sorry that I'm doing something as melodramatic as announcing my departure. I'm trying to curb
my tendency in that area. But if I didn't, I would always be tempted to slip back. I would always be
tempted to respond hotly to posts I have knee jerk reactions to. I want to preserve my self respect;
and my emotional equilibrium. My job has also gotten more responsible, and I have much less time
to read and post. I will still post Joss' commentary on Restless here on 11 May. I realise that many of
you will think that I'm having a massive sense of humour failure. I'm finding myself able to live with
that.
I leave you all with Phoenix's response to Ian's first intervention in that thread.
I leave you to judge where I missed the satire. I have now realised that my understanding and grasp
of the English language is not high enough for this board.
By the way, please let this thread die. It's embarrassing enough for me as it is. If you have anything
to say, just email me.
"Well now, I haven't heard the phrase "lack of effort" in many a year. Wouldn`t be a schoolteacher
would you? I do apologise if my writing style does not match the sparkling verbosity of your own. As
there is obviously some hidden test one must pass before a post becomes acceptable to your dazzling
intellects - and I have obviously received a D minus from y`all - maybe you`d care to check how you
did from my humble perspective, hmmm? Put aside your prejudices for a moment and actually pay
attention. I know I`m but a poor oik not sophisticated enough for you learned people, but I still might
get my point across in my own clumsy way. Wanna play?
I actually came out of lurkdom for an entirely different purpose, a request OnM made a short while
ago......
You see, I've lurked here for quite a while. My main pleasure is shadowkat`s essays, but there is a lot
of other good stuff here as well sometimes. I pay particular attention to the conversations regarding
Joseph Campbell and metaphysics. Some of it is insightful, but I confess I get a bit exasperated at
times. You people talk and talk and talk. Don't you ever DO? I sometimes have to bite my tongue to
refrain from asking you this, or jumping in and saying "look instead of just discussing Campbell's (or
whomever) opinions try this technique - and then you can discuss Campbell's opinions and theories
from the novel perspective of first hand direct experience. But I never do.
And then OnM asked about Castenada, and I got excited. Maybe I should stop lurking after all, and
share what I know - not merely from book learning, but first hand experience. Ooh I`m getting
carried away now imagining people discussing and comparing the philosophy of Castenada and his
Greek counterpart, Daskalos, the various techniques, and how they mesh with the quantum
perspective. Oh I was fairly bouncing around with anticipation, but......
Even tho I was convinced that I could safely share certain info, long experience has taught me to be
wary. You cannot push info where it isn't wanted, or more importantly where it could do harm. And
if the mindset can't accept it, it is intensely frustrating. I learnt that when I had my first OBE many
moons ago. Naturally I was blown away and wanted to share. I was faced with ridicule and "don't
believe it". I very earnestly tried to explain that the technique itself adhered to the scientific method
and if one did A,B,C, then D would follow logically. One would be in a much better position to judge
after personally experiencing it. But no....the mindset was very much "I don't believe it, therefore it
doesn't exist, therefore there is no point in me doing it". Kinda reminds me a little of "trance logic".
This is a trite example but I have come to see that this mindset is part of the human condition, and
it's endemic in science and medicine. It's also pertinent to the points I`d been trying to make in my
posts. But I`m getting ahead of myself now........
After OnMs request, I decided to step out of lurkdom. I post a few website links, one of which
contained the Paul Pietch book "Shufflebrain". This will actually prove helpful in understanding
Castenada`s - or rather Don Juans - philosophy. Ditto the Aboriginal concept from the "Dreamtime",
or the Sufi "imaginal" world etc. Then I get distracted by a thread mentioning "slavery" and decide to
weigh in. For a few posts everything was civil until Rahael stepped up to bat. Definitely
confrontational, and taking a general rant against the PC "mindset" as a personal affront. No biggie
at this point. Until Yuri made his invite to chat and Rahael responded to that. The general gist was
that Scott was a troll from previously (and therefore anything he said now was perceived on that
basis).
I noted nothing of the troll in Scott's posts on the thread. He expressed his opinion, and if anyone
had bothered to read the link he gave showing a comparison of the methods of Nazism and
Communism (from someone who lived under both) he actually made valid points. Certainly not a
troll post. But obviously if she finds it disagreeable it is. She finishes with a comment about my post.
"I don't know why I dignified that `PM halfwit` post with a reply". So now I know. My post isn't
worthy of a response because it doesn't agree with hers. I too am a troll. Implicit in the tone, is that
others will not find her opinion harsh. This is the point that I start to get alarmed. For Rahael has
already made her mind up about me and her responses will be from that perspective only. As it
proved. In spite of the fact that I plainly stated that my brother was a teacher, and I was attacking
the mindset of the policy makers and not the teachers themselves, this made no difference. Ditto for
the "wimmin". As a woman I`m hardly going to attack the whole gender, again it was made clear
that it was a an attack on the "mindset" of a certain group of "PC halfwits" who label themselves
"wimmin".
I do tell Rahael that the world may seem a little friendlier if she takes the chip off her shoulder.
Hardly a grave insult. For again, I give examples of why I deem the PC brigade to be halfwitted. I
give her instances she can relate to from England. Instances that would push the buttons of most
people - a racist killing, cliterectomy, child abuse, but still to no avail.
I specifically mentioned that I was not concerned with politics or anything, and that I didn't really
care about any of it, and that it was the hypocrisy, the wilful blindness and a particular "mindset"
that was angering me. I even left clues "BTW are you familiar with Castenadas concept of the Petty
Tyrant?" I mentioned Koestlers statement that we were all "Sleepwalkers". I was desperate to move
on to comparing this mindset which is rampant within the PC paradigm with humanity in general.
And the various ways it expresses itself in reality. I`m used to this mindset from the way
"paranormal" research gets treated. And much of Biochemistry. Bit like Herman Hesse`s "Glass
Bead Game". What are we doing with the "beads" that don't fit? I am in a sense acting as a "Petty
Tyrant". But nothing of value is coming out. Anyhooo....
I was still enjoying Rahaels posts until her final one showed me I was completely wasting my time.
She is responding to what she "thinks" I`m saying based on my first post and her defensive reaction
to it - and her preconceptions. And manages to get some sly insults in - but I`ll address those when I
get to Ian in a minute.
Yabyumpan decides to take a pop. I wish I could say I used the term "native Britons" instead of
"indigenous", to push predictable buttons, but it's not so. I was typing fast and them`s the words I
used. However, it was patently obvious what I was talking about and shouldn`t have caused a
problem unless one was interpreting in a specific way. Now comes the patronising tone, and the
implication that I am ignorant. Pound to a penny, I`m also a suspect racist in her mind too.
Sophist mentions she read a book which pertained to some data I gave and judged it racist. I`m not
assuming that she is suspecting me of racism and judging accordingly, but she suspects the author
(journalist) of being so. She may very well be right. The point I was making there, was that because
of the PC mindset this info could not be published in a scientific journal where it could be validated
or ditched by his peers. Instead it appears in newspaper articles, tv documentaries and popular
books. Anyone could use the info to push their own agendas and theories, and any merit the data
may have had now becomes worthless. Science does not - and should not - work like that.
Anyway....
Ian now decided to chastise me. Concedes I've made a few valid points, but takes me to task for being
snide (obviously the emoticons I used to indicate when I was joking ;) or being facetious :p made no
difference). Believes I was demeaning and belittling Rahael by accusing her of whining (not true, I
accused those who used their gender/colour/sexual orientation etc as an excuse for failure as
whining). I did say she should remove the chip off her shoulder when she persisted in accusing me of
dissing teachers after I`d told her it was policy makers not teachers themselves, and told her my
brother was one. However, Ian had no problem with Rahael telling me my points were argued in
"tabloideze" and my posts were less sophisticated than The Sun newspaper. As any Brit knows, that
is a major insult. :p
But Ian is also taking me to task for my writing style, which doesn't come up to the high standards
expected here. *sigh* Surprised you didn't tell me to sit up straight and check my grammar. And
yeah, I know my grammar sucks, but I am not concerned with trivia. You obviously are tho.
So now I know. I've been bagged and tagged as ignorant, probably racist, intolerant (LOL) and with
a writing style too unsophisticated and blunt to meet the high standards here. Oh dear.
Intellectual snobbery is a little distasteful.As is elitism. A good long look in the mirror and some of
you may find you are not the shining lights of tolerance you so fondly believe.
I`m the one suffering the crushing disappointment here. You already judged me and naturally I lived
down to your expectations. I on the other hand, was expecting so much more......
Castenadas "Journey To Ixtlan" is a metaphor - and how you people love those - and it is a lonely
journey. It would have been nice to share some of the stuff I've learned, but now I can't. Not merely
because some of you have been showing the same "mindset" I've been ranting against, but because
my style is obviously too abrasive and unsophisticated to be understood clearly. Not much good
giving you a technique to further your understanding of a concept, if instead of a life changing
experience you misunderstand and do yourself a mischief.
Ah well, my own fault for having such foolish expectations. No biggie. Ill probably lurk from time to
time to catch any Buffy essays, but I`ll not post again.
Those of you still gagging for Castenada, well you could do worse than get hold of Professor Michael
Harman`s book "The Way of the Shaman". He uses the `Healer` archetype and not the `Warrior` one
like Don Juan/Castenada. Plenty of methodology for you to sink your teeth into. No point in just
talking about the philosophy tho, ya gotta experience it to really grasp it.
Enjoy the journey, it`s a truly wild ride! :)
Peace and Goodwill.
Phoenix
[> [> [>
No need to be apologetic -- Arethusa, 12:16:24 04/26/02 Fri
I don't get involved much in debates here because too many posters can think (and quote) rings
around me. But I do know childishness when I see it, having taught 13-year olds for some years.
Phoenix's post is childish in its facile sarcasm, sullen resentment and closed mind. It doesn't matter
how brilliant you are or how many deep books you've read if your style is confrontational and snide. I
don't want to read posts written to air grudges.
I'll say it again: Rahael's intelligent, honest and thoughtful posts inspired me to linger and post
here. If someone like Phoenix can make someone like Rahael stop posting here, then something is
very wrong.
[> [> [>
Re: My Unapologetic, and very last post here -- Masquerade, 17:00:26 04/26/02 Fri
I know I will be personally saddened to see you go. I have enjoyed your posts and contributions very
much. Please come back and join us again when you have the mind to!
Masq
[> [> [>
Re: My Unapologetic, and very last post here -- dysnomia, 17:03:03 04/26/02 Fri
I'm confused. The long post named above initially SEEMS to be from Rahael, but is signed at the
bottom by Phoenix. So who has left the board and who is being invited to come back?
[> [> [> [>
An explanation -- Sophist, 17:33:47 04/26/02 Fri
Rahael's post above was explaining her (we hope temporary) departure. In order to show the nature
of the comments directed at her, she quoted in full one of Phoenix's posts. I believe Rahael thought
that some may not have seen the original thread in question and wanted to provide an
example.
[> [> [>
Re: My Unapologetic, and very last post here -- shadowkat, 19:20:36 04/26/02 Fri
Rahael - I didn't read the thread you spoke of, ...but
I will be sorry to see you go. I have quoted you a few
times in my essays. And the information you provided me
for my Willow essay was greatly appreciated.
I have provided my email address. My website is on the
links page here. If you want it, please email me. I've enjoyed your posts on myth.
I'd hate to see you go...or Phoenix.
luv shadowkat
[> [> [>
Rah, it's either you or me who leaves here, and it damn well isn't going to be you. -- OnM,
21:32:35 04/26/02 Fri
This is excerpted from Rahael’s post:
*******
I always thought that while I was here I attempted to have dialogue, not ranting. I thought that I
had
the ability to conduct an actual conversation. The poster that actually drew me out my shell was
Age. He
drew me out because he praised my ideas, made me feel valued, encouraged me to share more. The
idea
that I have now started acting as a kind of thought police on this board horrifies me. The idea
that a
distinguished and long standing board member could see me as having such an aggressive and
unpleasant
style dismays me. For that's how I see it, however you view the merits or demerits of such an
approach.
Yes, confrontative ideas provoke and engage. But on the net, one never knows how certain words
might
affect other people. How it might make them feel. And I have truly been taught a lesson this last day
about
how wounding someone elses words can be. And I owe an apology to anyone whom I might have hurt
in
pursuit of a snappy phrase or a glib rhetorical line.
For me, Kindness is the paramount virtue. I choose it before ambition; intellectual or
material.
*******
Dear Rahael,
If I have managed to hurt your feelings to this degree, then I am no longer either ‘distinguished’ or
worthy
of being ‘a long standing board member’. You owe no apologies to anyone, and if nothing
else
good ever comes out of this unfortunate incident, please understand that in your mind, and know it
in your
heart.
While I genuinely do not comprehend how what I thought of as a compliment to your willingness to
stand
up for yourself in your discussion with Phoenix, my lack of understanding is completely unimportant
at this
point. What has been done by me cannot be undone and the words not taken back.
It is simply unacceptable to me that someone of your grace and intelligence should feel the obligation
to
leave our community because of something that I said that hurt you this badly. Therefore, I
will leave,
effective immediately. No one poster, no matter how long he or she has visited here, is so important
that
they can afford to cause such harm to another member of the group through careless action,
intentional or
no. When given a choice between 'principle' and 'people', I say always choose 'people'.
This community has been a wonderful place for me to inhabit over the last two years, and it has
grown
immensely in that time, which is equally wonderful. Reading your posts has been a part of that
pleasure. I
wish you well, as I do for all at ATPo.
Take care, and thank you one and all for being who you are.
Peace,
OnM
[> [> [> [>
Will the last one out turn off the lights? -- d'Herblay, 05:27:14 04/27/02 Sat
This is generally the space where we beg people to stay, and I fully expect it to be used as such. (In
fact, I'm sort of wondering why it hasn't yet. Should I ever become of a mind to walk out of this
board, would someone please remind me to do it at noon on a weekday, when people are paying
attention, rather than past midnight Saturday morning?) It should not be seen as condoning of your
choice that I am not going to supplicate myself suchly. It took 24 hours for Rah to convince me that
her departure was final; I am sure that the outpouring of support will have more effect on you. (Plus,
there's always polynymity -- just ask FanMan.) I do think that you are owed a clearer understanding
of why you find yourself making this choice. I will try to invoke this understanding with as little
spleen or character assassination as possible. I don't know how successful I will be; vhD comes into
it.
(All links will fail in about two days. Click quickly.)
First, we need a little context. In the interminable thread on Willow's putative bisexuality, vhD
responded to Ruth's suggestion that she was not convincing others that Willow was really bi because
of a lack of facility of expression. His response was: "Slain is just a total idiot who is
either too stupid to understand you or is trying to start trouble." No one spoke up to contradict
vhD, and Slain has not been heard from since. Because of the silence of you and I, this board has
lost a poster whose essays on his own site have been much-acclaimed here.
The thread on Willow's sexuality had some trollish behavior in it (though not by Slain), but our
familiar troll (under the names "Scott" and "NWO" and possibly "Steveosaurus") was plying his trade
in a thread below it, converting a discussion of James Marsters's latest interview into a forum for
bashing the "Politically Correct." Most of the distinguished, long-standing board members (including
you, me, and Rah) were staying the hell away from it, or politely discussing revisionist
histories of the Civil War, until such time as Phoenix delurked to voice her agreement with our
known troll "Scott." One can agree with a troll without being a troll oneself, of course (I can recall
anom seconding Scott's taste in Malvina Reynolds), but Phoenix started talking about "sour-faced 'wimmin'" and the PC halfwits who
run Education and Social Work in Britain. As some of you know, Rah works for the largest teachers'
union in the U.K., so she feels qualified to discuss these matters. However, she chose to do so only
because she knew Phoenix wasn't a troll. Posters who have been to the Big Bad Board
vouched for her. Rah assumed that she was dealing with a reasonable person open to discourse. Rah
did respond passionately, because she felt passionate on the subject. Phoenix launched a screed on
Guardian readers, Rahael responded that The Guardian was the biggest Buffybuff
newspaper in England, Phoenix laughed . . .
. . . and things would have ended there had not 28% of French voters decided to abstain in that day's
election. The next morning, the world was shocked at the news that a neo-fascist had made the
Presidential run-off there. Rah took the idea
that the greatest threat to European civilization was political correctness a lot more seriously that
morning.
So what does Phoenix do? She declares that Political Correctness is a threat to English
identity (Rah may have been born in Sri Lanka, but no one on this board has steeped
him- or herself in English history and literature more) and goes on to declare that Rah must take
"that chip off your shoulder [so that] you might find the world a friendlier place." Rah has heard
those words before -- generally when she mentions the random attack she suffered from two "English
Nationalists." When she mentioned this in the "Sunnydale and
ethnicity" thread in February, she was told by Scott, "Perhaps sometimes people really don't
like You. Perhaps it is You they don't like."
Phoenix's posts at this point started taking on a paralogical edge. She started defending herself with
statements like "I`m damn sure you have me
pegged as a rightwing fascist. :p I know because I know how the PC mindset thinks. Well actually
most of them don`t think, but that`s another matter. :p" And then there is her "apology": "Whatever. Rahael, apologies if you are having a
hissy about my mean posts." By now the discourse has been joined by Ian and yabyumpan.
yabyumpan has pointed out some facts
about English history; Ian makes a general plea
for civility. And another, more specific
plea. At which point, Phoenix has what I would call an OME. She ignores Ian's criticism of her
manners to answer some never-made criticisms of her writing style. She accuses yabyumpan of
trying to prove her a racist. She accuses the entire board of being elitist and prejudiced. Plus,
there's all this cranky proselytizing about Castenada and Out-of Body Experiences.
To use another acronym of Phoenix's, the board has a WTF moment. Rahael starts to reconsider whether she does the board any
favors by being dragged into passionate debates. Etrangere points out Phoenix's paranoia. Sophist does the lawyerly. Ian reiterates. A sincere apology is claimed in
retrospect but not offered.
(We're well past the TWIZ-line now, so I can't imagine that anyone is reading this, especially as
everyone it concerns has now left the board; but, Phoenix, should you be out there lurking, I have not
accused you of being a "nasty racist troll." I have accused you of being paralogical, a crank, and
conducting yourself in an uncivil manner. Just so we're straight.)
The thread dies. Abrasive and "confrontatory" words were said, and many people were left with a
sour taste in their mouths. I went outside for a cigarette. I return to find this. Well, I look at it and say, "It's by OnM,
the active poster with the highest Evil Rating, now that Sol is getting schooled and Masq doesn't
read her own board. The contributor of half the FAQ. Our designated episode-reviewer and Classic
Movie editor. Drizzt's favorite philosopher. Well, he'll speak with gravitas." Then I read that "We
do get overly quick to pass judgement sometimes"; this despite the fact that no one "passed
judgment" on Phoenix until the thread was off the right side of my screen. I read, "this forum will
become very boring if we assume anyone who is occasionally abrasive or confrontatory is a troll";
despite the fact that no one ever labelled Phoenix a troll, even though she invited us to. I
read "the simple fact that satire can become so subtle that it is mistaken for serious personal
accusations at someone instead of a type of behavior"; despite the fact that I think I know satire
when I see it, having written it for years, and there was no satire in Phoenix's posts. (The
satire defense was offered up by Claire, not
by Phoenix.) I read the criticism that Rah, Ian, yabyumpan, Arethusa, Etrangere, Sophist and
celticross -- and anyone else who may have been offended by Phoenix's tone -- were judgmental,
stifling an open debate, and too dense to recognize satire. Criticized as such by the person who has
been continually active on this board longer than anyone save Masq and our troll. I got a little
pissed.
(I also saw the passionate defense by my girlfriend of her very way of life described as "snipery" and,
later, "bitching." I find quoting dictionaries at
people obviously adept with the language almost as condescending as I find facile protestations of
others' cleverness, but do you really doubt "kindly bitch some more" carried only palliative
connotations?)
Now, I am sorry that I said some of the things that I said, but you did ask for brickbats. And I am
sorry not because I may have hurt your feelings, but because I retrospectively feel that had I been
more dispassionate, more even-keeled, I might have quietly prevailed upon you to have Masq delete
your post. Given you a chance to reconsider your words and realize how insulting you had been.
Instead, by throwing brickbats, I made our discussion about my words instead of yours, when my
intent was not to hurt you but to convey to you how hurt Rah would be.
I don't think anyone has properly addressed the main point of your post, though, which seems to me
to be that we should welcome abrasive and confrontational posts. I am reminded of the last thread relating to trolls
started by someone of such magnitude. As I recall, it was a criticism of this board's lack of civility.
(And it included the threat "I'll just take myself to a different board." Ultimata never go out of style.)
We tried civility for a while, but recently, I think, we've been given over more to the abrasive and
confrontational. I know I have, and I know I don't like it.
I'm not going to threaten to leave the board if we do become more confrontational; I don't think too
many would notice were I gone! But should we not consider our words more carefully, I am afraid
that others will. I'd like to leave you with my nomination for Quote of the Decade, by Ian, from the thread
that began this:Without a certain low standard of common decency and respect,
reasonable discourse becomes impossible. One of the great qualities this board is able to maintain--
for the most part--is one of mutual respect even in the face of fevered
disagreement.
I can only hope that this time I have been able to show that
respect.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Will the last one out turn off the lights? -- matching mole, 07:55:54 04/27/02 Sat
I had avoided posting further on this thread as per Rahael's wishes but given dH's continued
participation I feel justified in creeping back in. I feel badly that I more or less deliberately ignored
the Willow sexuality and PC threads for most of their existences. Not that I imagine that I have the
necessary skills to leap in and defuse the situations but as I get quite a lot of enjoyment out of this
board I feel some responsibility not to ignore unpleasant situations which is what I basically did.
The summaries of the discourse that dH and others have posted here have revealed these threads to
be more uncivil that I had thought.
I'm not going to beg anyone to stay because I feel that the decision to participate on the board is a
personal one and that each person should do what they think is best for themselves. I would urge
OnM, in particular, to consider whether his absenting himself from the board is going to benefit
anyone, especially himself. From his comments it sounds like his withdrawal was in hopes of luring
Rahael back which based on her and d'Herblay's comments seems unlikely, at least in the immediate
future.
I'm very sorry this came about, especially as this group's civility is one of the things that I prize most
about it. Along with many others I encourage everyone to read Ian's post referenced by d'Herblay
and take his words to heart.
And d'H - if you left the board I would definitely miss you. Your wit always brightens my day. You
and Rah are lucky to have each other. Hopefully the board will continue to be lucky to have you and
that someday it will be lucky enough to have Rahael again.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Rah, it's either you or me who leaves here, and it damn well isn't going to be you. --
Ishkabibble, 11:33:34 04/27/02 Sat
Wow. I've been sitting back for a little while nursing my bruised feelings because of responses I've
received from a couple of posters. (These responses had nothing to do with this thread, by the way.)
Someone stated earlier that he (or she) had failed to speak up when one poster had been intolerant of
another’s views (paraphrased). Silence on the part of others implies agreement.
In the absence of having already proven ourselves to the board, sometimes we newer posters (and I
might put Phoenix in this category) feel a little threatened. I envy Rahael for the defense which
others have expressed on her behalf. Many of us newer posters would love to receive such
affirmation. I imagine Rahael feels fortunate to have it. I imagine Phoenix feels equally
disappointed to not.
OnM…I truly enjoy your posts and believe that I would like you if we should ever meet. I especially
appreciated these statements made by you:
"I think that I've been around here long enough to have established that I'm a pretty reasonable
person, despite whatever the Evil Clone might think."
"Those here who have been around a while know I am..."
While OnM is not guilty of this, he (she?) illuminates a dilemma faced by newer posters (1) they
haven’t yet had the opportunity to establish that they are reasonable and (2) they are not always
afforded the same slack that might be accorded to one of the regulars and (3) their concepts are
sometimes attacked as being invalid based upon their lack of proper grammar, syntax, spelling, or
some other required form. I personally believe that great thinking can emanate from illiterate
sources...as my family tree so aptly illustrates:)
I hope those of you who have chosen to leave the board will reconsider. I listened more to what you
had to say (the concept), than to the manner with which you tried to say it (the form). I have
absolutely no authority to say this, but “I’ve heard of your intentions to leave, and I won’t hold you to
it.” If you are not here to offer your view points, whether in Oxford English or Pig Latin, who
will?
[> [> [>
Rahael, I tried to respect your wishes and not respond... -- Ixchel, 14:02:33 04/27/02
Sat
To this thread. But I feel I should say something and I don't feel I can presume to e-mail you (being
so new to the board and all).
I do hope you reconsider (pure selfishness on my part, I enjoy your posts very much), but, even if you
don't return, I do hope you see this.
I remember the wonderful discussion you, Sophist and I (well, I contributed very little) had
regarding capricious gods and/or an indifferent Buffyverse, and I realize how much I will miss your
unique, thoughtful insights into BtVS.
I admit I ignored the JM interview thread (I am uninterested in interviews for the most part) and so
I didn't understand what was going on. I regret now (I agree with matching mole's excellent post)
that I didn't get involved. I'm sure my opinion wouldn't have carried much weight (being so new),
but it seems to me I should have done something. I'm a firm believer in the idea that when some
people feel a need to be uncivil it (in the majority of cases) has everything to do with their own
personalities and little or nothing to do with the person they're being uncivil toward.
I'm more than positive you will be greatly missed.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
just a humble request that no one leaves! -- ponygirl, 22:38:09 04/27/02 Sat
What a shock to come home to slightly drunk on a Saturday night! I know that my first posts were
in praise of things that Rahael had written. And I have always enjoyed OnM's posts. Real life,
burnout, frustration, just plain boredom, there are many reasons to not post or read, but the world
spins, and the reasons that drew us here in the first place still remain. Symbolism! Metaphors!
Obscure references! And (please) new episodes! Come back soon, we'll need your help sorting
through it all.
[> [>
Re: This is a week of humble pie for me.............. -- vandalia, 08:08:34 04/29/02 Mon
I know you probably won't be reading this, but I felt I had to weigh in. I think you're making a
mistake in leaving the boards. I and countless others both voiced and voiceless have long appreciated
your thoughtful contributions to discussion here, and we all will be less for the lack of it. I would
respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision to leave, if not for yourself then for the rest of us who
value your input. At the very least your decision to stop posting here should be determined by work
and other 'real life' concerns and not by the reaction of one poster to your views. Please?
[> [> [>
Re: Entropy -- Brian, 12:15:22 04/29/02 Mon
And so it's finally come to this;
Farewell harmony; goodbye bliss.
Current board
| More April 2002