From: U56503@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.suicide.holiday
Subject: Re: KHARE
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:12:16 GMT
 <92308.150547U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <ogorman.720998794@unix1.tcd.ie>
 <92311.223338U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <ogorman.721323887@unix1.tcd.ie>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <ogorman.721323887@unix1.tcd.ie>, ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
says:

>>Do you think some people's opinions are so fragile that they simply
>>cannot tolerate an opposing view.  Do some people feel they must
>>flame every person who does not feel as they do?  Do some people feel
>>they *own* a.s.h?  Do they feel their ideas are more equal than others?

>Sigh. Ok...I don't have any objection to any opinion. I have no
>objection to people posting that suicide is wrong/a bad choice/a lot of
>fun. What I have an objection to is way some people feel these opinions
>have to be put. This seems to be what you can't understand Brady...I

I understand it perfectly.  I just do not feel I have to change what
I believe in nor my style of saying it because you object.  You want to
control my expression on this group.  I see a lot of controllers
cruising around these groups trying to force their ideas/attitud/styles
on others.  I'm not buying.  What do you think this need to control is
all about Ollie?

>have no problem with your opinions. I have a problem with the way you
>choose to express those opinions.

That's your problem.  You own it.  It's not my issue.
You're not going to make it my issue either.

>Now you'll note that (excepting a minor indulgence wrt to Freud) this
>has been couched in a reasonable tone. We had a similar argument ~1

Yes, I noticed.  Good idea.
Freud will forgive you; he forgives everyone but Charcot!  ;))
(And perhaps his *father.*  ;))    )

>month ago (i.e. a shouting match) I told you then I wasn't interested
>and that we could take it to email if you *really* wanted to discuss the
>issue. You didn't take me up. I drew my conclusions. I extend the same

Here's the conclusion to draw:  I have no interest in communicating via
e-mail with people who need to control others.  It is a waste of
time.  It is pointless in fact.  It just results in mindless flaming
and a nasty headache.  We don't agree.  That's fine.  You have your
view and I have mine.  I think there is room for both without flaming.
But, if you choose to flame me again on the nets, you will get back
what you give out.  I'd prefer another option when possible, but I am
not afraid of anger if I have to defend my rights.

Your choice Ollie:  control vs. live and let live.

Hate my posts all you want.  That does not give you the right to
censor me though.  I actually like most of your posts when you are
addressing an issue and not flaming someone.  I think you have a lot
of good views to offer the group.  I hope to see more of them.
When I don't agree with them, I will just say so and not flame you
for posting them.

And, next time you see a flame, ask what the *control* issue is
behind it.  That's what flames are all about IMHO:  Control. . . .

Often it seems to me ASHers feel they have little control as it is, so
some of us may feel like flaming when something threatens us.  We want to
control the thing/person that feels threatening.  Usually doesn't work.
Better to try and get less threatened ourselves I guess, and work on
getting more *control* of our own feelings and ideas and self-knowledge.
That's my opinion.  You can disagree with it all you want.

But I have a right to express it without being attacked for it I feel.
But, too, when attacked, I will defend myself.  I'd rather get along
though. . . .

>Your choice.
>Ollie/Luicfuge...

Brady

=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~Brady Woodward PhD=~=~U56503@UICVM=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
  SATAN to NEW-COMER: The trouble with you Chicago people is that you
  think that you are the best people down here, whereas you are merely
  the most mumerous. --Mark Twain  (All other thoughts are mine alone.)
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=