From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Subject: Re: Loving the disobedient was (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:42:04 GMT


Angus H. Rodgers takes exception to a post I made about forgiving parents.  I
debated about responding via the newsgroup or e-mail and have opted for the
former because I think it is relevant to the net.etiquette questions that
have been floating at the end of several threads lately.

>I've flamed you once already for preaching, so I won't do it again.
>(BTW, it's been interesting to learn, as a newcomer to the group,
>that I'm apparently not the first to have done so.)
>

Hmmm, in all the flames I recall, "preaching" has never been the problem.  In
general people feel that my opinions exclude the experiences of others and
are "hard hearted".  You seem to be in-line with this view, but it is not one
I agree with.

>But I have to say, simply, that I REALLY resent this.
>
>Have you any comprehension of why someone might feel that way? Apparently
>you don't. I don't expect you believe that parents are *always* right; so,
>if you give that impression, the reason is probably that there are *some*
>ways in which parents can damage children, whose existence you choose to
>deny.
>
>It is *not* merely a matter of parents "not being perfect".

It is very easy to respond to a post before reading it in its entirety.  I
believe that this is what you did since I later exclude "child abuse" and
"neglect" as areas which parents deserve forgiveness.  I confess to not being
able to see how, with these exceptions, there is much parental behavior that
is so heinous it can never be forgiven.  

If there is such a behavior that does not fall into these catagories that you
believe still does not deserve forgiveness, please let me know.  The only ones
I can think of are "they didn't love me" but wouldn't that fall under
neglect?

>
>>Have those of you who still carry a grudge against your parents for things
>>other than abuse or neglect tried to put yourself in their shoes at your
>>age?  What was their life like when you were your children's ages?   What
>>fears motivated them?  What anger did they feel toward their parents?  What
>>did the world FEEL like then.  I highly recommend it as an excersise in
>>perspective.
>
>Since I come under the description at the beginning of this paragraph,
>this sermon is aimed at me, among others. And I have to tell you (as
>I told you so angrily on the other occasion) that it is condescending
>and unnecessary advice.
>

Here I would like to address the second complaint first.  You complain that
I have posted "unecessary advice" to the net.  Does this mean that I am to
assume that everyone reading the net already knows everything and therefore
no advice is necessary?  Or am I to try and read the minds of all net.readers
to find what advice is unnecessary?  

Unnecessary advice abounds on the network.  I generally take advice I don't
want with a grain of salt.

The second complaint is more valid.  You feel that I am being condescending.
This is a matter of tone.  I am willing to concede that the phrase "Those
of you who fit category X, have you tried Y?" might be condescending IFF
there was history which indicated that, indeed, this had been tried.  Given
that I was not addressing this post to anyone in particular, and if it were
anyone in particular it would have been the person whose post I was responding
to (which was not you) I fail to see how I have met the criteria of knowing
your history.

In point of fact, there are many people who do not try and imagine what their
parent's lives were like.  I was one such person until I hit my early 30s.  I
have conversed with another such person who is in her 40s.  

I am willing to accept that I might have been better recieved had I used a 
more personal form of expression along the lines, "I found that putting myself
in my parent's shoes when they were the same age I am did wonders for me 
understanding what their life was like and forgiving them their mistakes in
how they raised me."  I will work on more "I" statements in my discourse and
less "you" statements.  

>Please make VERY sure in future that you fully understand the situation
>of people at whom you feel inclined to preach.
>
This I will not do, at least not on the net.  The primary reason being that
I cannot possibly understand the situations of the 1200 people who particiapte
in this newsgroup (I believe that was the estimated number, Jonathan?).  Nor
can you, nor can anyone.  Suffice it to say that there is enough diversity on
the net that almost anyone can get insulted by almost anything I say.  Of
course, almost anything I say will also be treated with lots of "Thanks for
saying that" messages as well.  Such is the nature of diversity.

There is a secondary reason, as well, however.  And that is that there are some
things which I feel very strongly about and feel that I have the right to voice
that opinion on this network.  After all, such is the purpose of the network.
I have the responsibility not to flame people (as opposed to flaming ideas -
a problem we seem to be having some difficulty with).  I have the responsibility
not to overstate my case (by repeating myself in 100s of posts on the same
thread).  I have the responsibility to read with an open mind what others are
saying.  And there are others.  

But I do not feel compelled, as I believe you would have me do, to keep silent
on something that I see clearly and wish to express to others because I
percieve that in the 1200 people reading the net, someone will feel offended
even though the post is not offensive in and of itself.  In some cases, I feel
that freedom of speech overrides even this precaution and there are times when
an offensive post is acceptable.  This should be once a year at the most,
however, since I consider this to be a very rare exception to the net.etiquette
rules.

>From one of your recent posts, it appears that you think that when
>people flame you, it is because you have been "labelled". I can
>assure you, as a complete newcomer, that this is not so in my case.
>I had no knowledge of any "label" that may have been attached to you.
>It is some (not all) of the things you actually write which make me
>very angry (even if that does not excuse me, or anyone else, flaming
>you).
>

Anger is a valid response.  And discussing those ideas that anger you is
a valid discussion, a dialogue I welcome.  After all, if you are angry, then
you are not apathetic.  That means you're thinking about what I wrote.  That
is all I will ever ask of any net.reader.

What I was discussing in the post you refer to is the attack of the person
rather than the idea.  That because I as a person have this idea about life,
then I am _______ (fill in the blank with whatever derogatory comment you
choose).  I have seen this news group go in for the kill against certain
posters on various topics.  Not only is the idea attacked with a vengence,
everything ever written by that poster becomes labelled because only a 
______ could ever hold such an outrageous idea.

>If you want to avoid being similarly flamed in future, I suggest that
>it would pay you to reflect on what you might be doing to cause it.
>
I have.  Those things I have felt needed changing I have changed.  I doubt
many of my old adversaries have noticed ;-)

>(I think this message is not a flame. And perhaps I no longer care very
>much if it is or not.)

It is a partial flame.  I will use my personal definition, however, since
there is very little concensus even on what constitutes a flame.  Most of
your message was discussin the ways in which communication takes place and
the fact that you felt certain things reading what I wrote.  That is not a
flame.

The partial flame came when you extrapolated this feeling into "you don't 
ever reflect on what you might be doing to cause this."  In fact, this statement
came accross in exactly the same condescending manner in which my statement
hit you.  It came accross that way because you ASSUMED that I have never
reflected on why people have flamed me.  

I will state that there is only a small difference between the two condescending
articles.  That being that in mine you were one of many readers and not one
of the people to whom I was responding whereas, your article was directed
most particularly to me.  However, since you are new to the list I will not
expect you to know my past history and so I am not offended by what is really
only partially a flame.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?  Am I missing something that you
think I should know?  

You see, it is my concerted opinion that the amount of flaming that goes on
in this news group is caused more by people seeing offense where none was
intended than in people actually being offensive.  Do others concur?



-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
Newsgroups: misc.kids