Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 11:46:22
In reply to Re: maybe... » Dinah, posted by wendy b. on April 8, 2003, at 10:38:02
> (your previous message)
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> Didn't want to reply on dreamer's refuge.
>
> >>> I love Dreamer as much as anyone, but 2001 was not designed as her refuge, as I understand it. I don't even think SHE would tell us that. If she posts a lot on it, she has every right to, and I like reading her stuff.
>
Didn't say she did. Said I treat it as such.>
> I can only answer for myself. I guess it's because I really never understood John Lennon's song. Nothing to live or die for sounds dreadful to me.
>
> >>> Sorry if you don't get the jist of his meaning. I think many did/do/will: "too bad the world has any hate, greed, or inequality. Then there would be nothing to kill or die for."
>
>
> So this person (me) takes things so much to heart because things mean a lot to me.
>
> >>> Things mean a lot to many of us here. And again, why personalize?
>
>
> Principles and ideals and people.
>
> >>> Good, or you wouldn't be alive. I feel strongly about beating dead horses...!
>
> And while I do distance myself from pain a lot, I'm not usually all that happy with myself when I do it because I'm distancing myself from other things too. Although I don't care to "groove" on pain.
>
> >>> Well, it seemed to me that letting this stuff get to you, or anyone else who was experiencing pain over the conversations, is bad FOR YOU. As in not healthy, as in: not worth the emotional stress. If this sounds like I'm telling you what to do/not do, I apologize. It was not meant in a bad way.
>
>
> And I suppose idiotic is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> >>> Yes, and perhaps the word was inappropriate. As I said, it's best if I don't comment much.
>
> ____________
>
> > Well, Wendy.
>
> Chastizing?
>
No, why would you think so. It was sort of taking a deep breath before addressing many points.
>
> >First of all, I was part of this discussion. Both discussions going on on this board right now, in fact. So there is no real way I could not be a part of whatever idiocy you were referring to.
>
> If that's what you want to think, even though I have explained in the last message that not one person was being singled out, I will not be able to sway you. Obviously. And too bad we can't see eye to eye.
>
I don't quite understand why you think I think you were singling me out??? What difference would that have made? I was answering on behalf of myself only, but that doesn't mean I thought you were accusing me *alone* of posting idiocy.>
> > Second, 2001 isn't a board where it's free to say anything that you wouldn't want to say elsewhere. It can be read by all. And responded to by all.
>
> Is that the way the Board was set up? I thought it was MAINLY so old-timers could have conversations amongst themselves. I'll share with you what I wrote to Dr Bob earlier today:
>
I suppose I should have said, that isn't a board to post things that you would be afraid would be taken badly elsewhere, since anyone can read and respond to it anyway. I think people sometimes forget that. So if I wanted to say that posts were idiotic, and didn't want to say it on admin, I wouldn't see much difference in saying it on 2001 either, since it can be read by the same people.
> *******
>
> 'I know Dinah is a special person to you and to many others. [...] and I didn't mean it the way she took it. And I called the conversations idiotic, not any one person at all. Which is an opinion that I can have, right, and express? If you think it warrants a PBC, please let me know, I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about it, if it's appropriate.
> I really object to the fact that Dinah moved it to Admin. I can and do perceive as uncivil, taking things out of a particular context... But alas, it may be that we will have to disagree. I'm sorry for any perveived wrongs I've done. And I do try to stay out of the fray, that's why I posted over on PB 2001. I know we're warned that text can be and often is moved to other boards, but in this case, if I had wanted others IN GENERAL to reply, I would have put it on Admin. I had hoped the 2001 people could have had a "private" discussion about it. Or what is the purpose of the board's existence? Not being "difficult," it's an honest question.'
>
> *****
>
I'd love to know what was in the (...). :)But as this was an admin topic, I didn't consider it inappropriate to post at admin. I didn't take it to social you know. If Dr. Bob says that 2001 posts must be answered in 2001, I will do so or not answer at all.
> > Third, as I stated, I didn't want to respond to it on 2001 because I consider it a safe board for Dreamer. I never post anything about admin matters there. Except maybe to sound the all clear. In fact I never post there at all except to have a quiet chat with Dreamer. I've never been a fan of exclusive boards.
>
> So, this means... what precisely? That your perception of the board's utility is the last word? What about what I perceive the Board to be about? Does my view 'count less'? If you could clarify...
>
I meant precisely what I said.>
> > Fourth, it was only pure chance that I was able to respond on 2001. If you had posted on 2000, my reply would have had to have gone elsewhere.
>
> What does this even mean?I don't suppose it matters, but I meant that if you posted this to Pax on 2000 and I wished to respond, I would have had to do it on admin since I can't post on 2000.
>
>
> > My answering here instead of there, wasn't a tactic, unkind or otherwise. And I'm sorry you think it was. I didn't assume that you posted on 2001 as a tactic. I assumed you posted it there because you happened to be chatting to Pax there.
>
> That's correct, and it should have remained where it was, not taken out of context.
>
Well, I was pretty careful not to take it out of context. There was nothing in the previous part of the thread about the topic, and I copied your post here verbatim. So in what way was it taken out of context?
>
> > No need to cry, Wendy.
>
> Bitter irony being what it is...
>
>
> >You remarked on why people did what they did. I answered, for myself only. I wasn't angry or accusatory.
>
> I did not accuse of you of that.
>
Ok. I was not upset or defensive (see below). Although I am now.
>
> >I did point out that while it may have been idiocy to you, it wasn't to those involved. Actually, my whole post to you wasn't angry at all, but philosophical. And I hope you take it that way.
>
> Philosophical? in what way? I saw it as defensive and upset.
>
> >My ponytail wasn't quivering at all.
>
> OK, pshew!
>
>
> > Best wishes,
>
> And to you,
>
> > Dinah
>
> Wendy
>And now I really do unplug my computer because I don't need this. If you don't want someone to explain why they don't consider a bunch of posts "idiocy", I suggest that you don't call a bunch of posts idiotic.
poster:Dinah
thread:217221
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217415.html