From: asar.196@wpi.wpi.edu (Prisoner)
Subject: For Black Pearl
Organization: Not the Anonymous Posting Service @ WPI
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 08:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.173639.16588@midway.uchicago.edu>
	gery@midway.uchicago.edu (Black Pearl) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.055746.13069@wpi.wpi.edu>,  (Prisoner) writes:
> >                                      So, even though Black
> > Pearl probably didn't intend it that way, her anger WAS an
> > acceptance. I'm feeling like laughing because of the irony
> > in the notion that I ought to say "thank you" to her for
> > being angry at me!

> Well, believe it or not, I'm glad you feel that way! That was
> the first time I had ever done such a thing, and as I told Sim,
> I've thought of little else since I did it. It was a real
> dilemma for me because I struck out in anger and it felt GREAT!

Wonderful!

I'm not being sarcastic or anything. One of the great myths
is that there is something wrong with being angry and
something even more wrong with doing things from one's
anger. That you could be angry and deal with it without
being self-destructive is a good thing.

> I don't use the word "acceptance" the same way you do, although
> I see your point, and in your terms I agree that my post was an
> "acceptance" of you.

It's very important to keep the ideas that I'm referring to
separate, whatever words one uses for them. Acceptance, as I
use the word, is something you have to do BEFORE you approve
or disapprove. To not accept (a person) is to pretend that
the person you are dealing with is not a person or is not
the person he his; the effect is that you end up dealing,
not with the person, but with your mental image of him. To
affect approval or disapproval of that which you don't have
acceptance of is to be judging, not the person, but your
distortion of him.

The thing about acceptance is that there is no way to deal
properly with that which you don't accept. How can you deal
with it when you won't even look at it?

Did you read the post by Robert Ankeney where he was talking
about reclaiming his body? What he was describing was the
difference between rejecting and accepting his body. By
rejecting it, he was unable to even SEE it! Now that he's
begun the process of accepting it, seeing it and dealing
with what is, he is in a far better position to know what
sort of body he actually has. Seeing what is, he can now
acknowledge that his body isn't the thing he had been taught
and he can now act to complement his body by taking care of
it (e.g., getting his hair styled, if he sees fit) and by
finding appropriate (in his own estimation) clothes.

When all is said and done, acceptance as I use the term is a
combination of honesty and integrity: the honesty of seeing
what is and the integrity of acting on what one sees.

So, even if I can't say I like what you said to me, I have
to approve of the acceptance that I saw in it.

> In my terms, "acceptance" means something else entirely.

As most people use the term, acceptance means pretty much
feeling comfortable with or approving of. Is that how
you use it?

>                                                          One of
> the many things I did wrong in my post was that I didn't differentiate
> between you and your behavior. Re YOU, then I agree with you that
> you deserve to be accepted "warts and all." Re your behavior, though,
> I don't think so. I believe very strongly in conditional acceptance
> when it comes to behavior.

I think that it is worthwhile to distinguish between the
person and his behavior, but I don't think I distinguish it
the same way. For me, a person's behavior is rooted in the
person; when all is said and done, I cannot judge a person's
behavior without also judging him. The two judgements aren't
necessarily the same thing, but it is from the total of the
former that one derives the latter. So, I would agree that
one should not automatically transfer the judgement of
someone's behavior to the person, I could neve agree with
"he did something I don't like therefore he is had"; but I
would not completely separate my judgement of a person's
behavior from the person himself, I could never agree with
"he has done nothing but rotten things but he is a good
person at heart".

I do think that you went overboard in transferring your
judgement of what I did into a judgement of what I am. But
in the final analysis, my opinion of that is irrelevant;
what counts is yours.

>                            Since ASAR is my group too, I feel I have
> the right to reject harsh and offensive posting.

By "reject" I am assuming you mean what I would mean by
"disapprove". If so, then absolutely. And you have the right
to express that disapproval.

>                                                  The way I define
> ASAR to myself, there is an unspoken agreement that "you can only
> play here if you behave yourself."

But what is "behave yourself"?

>                                    Well, obviously this is just a
> fantasy of mine and you can send 24 posts a day telling us all to
> go to hell if you want to!

Could. It wouldn't do me much good, though, would it? :-)

>                            This is the first newsgroup I've ever
> read so I am pretty new to netiquette.

There's little special about netiquette. After all, we are
still people. Netiquette is more a matter of learning the
special limitations of this form of communication rather
than a separate way of dealing with people.

Newsgroups vary widely in how people interact; for the
record, this newsgroup is one of the most humane in
existence, even when you count the recent brouhaha. If you
put all the flames in the entire lifetime of this newsgroup
into a single day, they couldn't hold a candle to the
typical flaming even in the technical newsgroups. The only
thing that compares in civility are the moderated groups.

For all our supposed lack of social skills and all the other
negatives in our lives, we are probably the most considerate
large group on the entire net!

>                                      . Clearly this is my problem
> and if I reject the harsh and offensive posts, I just shouldn't
> read them. Sigh. Or I can keep reading 'em and keep sending harsh
> and offensive posts back to you in response. But this upsets too
> many others, so probably not a good idea.

It's a dilemma alright. No matter what you do, someone will
be upset or offended. So, farg 'em and me too. Do what YOU
think right. As for what I think, if it matters, I'd much
rather have the acceptance of your anger than the rejection
of your silence. I've been invisible far too long.


APS-Name: Prisoner
ap.3029@layout.Berkeley.EDU