From: intgrec@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (CHRIS GREB)
Subject: RE:  response to ed
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:13 EST  


I'm sorry -- I've been following this thread for quite some time now, and
I finally feel like I should let my voice be heard.

Fair warning, some of it may not be very nice, but it's how I feel. . .
Flame away.



>Once again, Anika (anon-1218@twwells.com) jumps to conclusions and writes
>
>: Warning***Anika's strongly felt opinions follow****
> 
>[based on incomplete evidence, it seems]
Talk about _jumping to conclusions_!!!  Why not look before we leap.

>: 17-Nov-92 22:38	erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)	Re: response to ed  writes:
>: >Teresa Kline (aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: >
>: >: >Nope, not at all.  Your name was drawn merely as an example.  Anyone would've
>: >: >done as an example.  Tell you what ... replace "Teresa" with "Person A".  
>: >: 
>: >: Since this is your usual way of formatting examples, by *not* using it, you 
>: >: made it personal.
> 
>I have used names in examples before.

Point 1. . .
	I see a contradiction here.  Teresa says that it is not your usual
	practice to use names.  I'm not saying that you've _never_ done it,
	(used names), but by deviating from your *normal* practice, you may
	have *inadvertently* personalized.
Point 2. . .
	What exactly was the point in bringing out names here?  Seriously, 
	does it really make any difference *who* the example centers upon?
	I think not.  again, I'm not saying that names are never appropriate,
	but I am asking you to consider your motives more carefully before
	focusing the attention of your examples -- if for no other reason
	than to avoid future complications like this.

>: 	*Anyway*, since the names were used and references to the owner of
>: 	those name's self-love were made, I think it *becomes* pretty 
>: 	personal, regardless of the intent. If someone said, "If Anika doesn't
> 
>That's your opinion, that's what you got out of it.  You obviously ignored
>the message behind the posting and got caught up in "emotional content" and
>"intent of poster".  Why can't you just accept a post at face value and stop
>getting caught up in your emotional issues behind what you think the poster
>meant?

Again I see a contradiction.  How can there be a *meaning behind the post* 
without there being *intent* and *emotion*?  Besides, wouldn't it be sort
of hard to *just accept the post at face value* and still get the *message*?

This is your chance, Ed.  We're all listening.  To avoid the inevitable
comfusion of our interpretations, could you please spell out for us what
_exactly_ the meaning of the original post was???  Thank you.

>:  	like me then that's a reflection of her self-love," I'd come back
>: 	with either, "Who said I don't like you?" or "What the @#!@ do you 
>: 	know about my self-love?" As the latter is what Teresa did, I suspect
>: 	this is why. 
> 
>If Teresa had bothered to reply via email, I would've been happy to explain.
>She chose to post, which indicates to me that she has an axe to grind.

Excuse me, I don't want to harp on the name thing, but didn't you give her
that axe.  (Recall that she began the first reply with "It is my guess that,
since my name was quite prominently displayed. . ., Ed was trying to draw me 
out". . .Perhaps this is the axe of which we speak).
> 
>: >: >But I *do* know you, and, to somedegree, how and why you think as you do.
>: >: 
>: >: No, you *think* you know me, how I think and why I think as I do.
>: >
>: >Well, I stand corrected.  I never knew you could dance so well on the head of
>: >a pin.  <sigh>
>: 
>: 	*sigh*????!!?!?!?! Resignation at being manipulated and down-trodden 
>: 	by yet another woman. *sigh* (Anika sticks finger down her throat)
>: 	Give me a break. She has a legitimate reason to be upset, IMHO.
> 
>That's not what I meant.

Again, could you spell it out, then.  We really do need the benefit of you
interpretation if we are to take the posts at face value.
> 
>: 	If it was really a misunderstanding, why the hell can't Ed just say,
>: 	"I'm sorry you took it that way, that's not how I meant it."
> 
>I don't feel any obligation to you or anyone else to publicly apologize for
>a post which causes soneone else personal stress or embarassment.  Of course,
>you are making the assumption that my apologies weren't tendered in email to
>the person or persons concerned.  In fact, I *did* apologize in email to
>Teresa - but that's none of anyone else's business.  She chose to ignore my
>private email and continue to flame me - that's her business.  In any case, it
>is *not* your affair, and I resent your attempt to manipulate me into making
>some sort of public statement about the whole thing.

I beg to differ.  You are as much a part of this flame war as is Teresa.
And by feeding the fire, you have made it our business.  All that we see is
the hate and anger and bitterness.  How can this be a place to heal if
there is never any *public* display of compassion or consideration for 
others? (Just my humble opinion)
> 
>: >: And it was based on that past association that I resented the personalization
>: >: of your post.  It is because of the "personal history" that seeing my name in
>: >: your post made it personal. 
>: >
>: >It was a not-so-random personalization.  

Are we admitting something?

>: >Perhaps I should've turned it around,
>: >perhaps I should've mentioned someone else.  But why are you so upset?  What's
>: >the big deal?  
>:
>: 	No, everyone on asar is aware that you *feel* you used it as an
>: 	example. Teresa has stated several times why it upset her. Why can you
>: 	not say you're sorry for the misunderstanding and let it go? I think
> 
>What business is it of yours, or anyone else's, what settlement Teresa and I
>come to in private email?

Again, it's a question of security.  As a result of this whole escapade, 
the survivors who post here need the reassurance of compassion.
> 
>: 	of all the posts you've been flamed for and note that NOT ONCE have
>: 	you said, "Hey - sorry if you misunderstood me." Your stance has
>: 	always been, "Fuck you if you misunderstand me. I'm right I'm right
>: 	I'm right." In fact, on that memorable occasion you called us all
>: 	illiterate dipshits because we "misconstrued" your post. You never
>: 	apologized for that smear, either.
> 
>No - what you mean to say is that I have never apologized THAT YOU KNOW OF.

Yet another illustration.  Anika seems to be looking for an apology.  IMHO,
she took the dip**** comment as a blanket flame and feels that the subscribers
deserve an apology.  I tend to agree.

>I certainly don't make every email public, nor do I make apologies public,
>unless it affects a large number of people.  Why do you need to be right?
>Why do you need for me to make some sort of public apology?  Like I said
>before, my policy is, if I offend someone, they have the right to say,
>"I was offended", and I have the right to respond in PRIVATE email.

Consider this, Why do you need to be right.  It seems that, by replying via
email, you can save face while concurrently easing your conscience.  Yes,
it is your *right* to apologize privately, but it *doesn't* right any wrongs.
A commitment (or admission if you prefer) doesn't hold any water unless
there are witnesses.  

I'm not claiming to be right, I'm just asking you to try it out for a while.
> 
>Oh, and as to your accusation that I called "us all illiterate dipshits",
>that wasn't one of my posts.  I said something completely different.  I
>think you have me confused with someone else.

Sorry again, Ed, I do recall that post and it was you.  What did you think
you said (just for clarification)?
> 
>Anika, I think it's time you realized that I will never conduct my life the
>way you want me to - and I will never expect you to conduct your life the
>way IO would want you to.  Why keep trying to make me behave according to
>your standards of conduct?

I don't recall her telling you to change.  She was simply pointing stuff out.
> 
>: 	Actually, it *is* mentioned in the FAQ, but that's neither here nor
>: 	there. This group has often welcomed survivors of other forms of
>: 	abuse, though generally they ask if it's alright first.
> 
>Oh, I see.  If I'm right, "that's neither nere nor there", but if I'm wrong,
>well, let's flame away...

It doesn't seem that you're right here, AND I can't seem to find a flame.
(?!)
> 
(stuff deleted)
>I *have* expressed my intent.  You have ignored those posts, it seems,
>preferring instead to flame.

Clearly, we missed the point.  Perhaps instead of crying that you were flamed,
you could have taken this as an opportunity to enlighten us.  Again, just a thought

>Why are you trying to manipulate me into saying what *you* want me to say?
>If misunderstandings occur, that's what is.  

And _communication_ is to clarify those misunderstandings.  Could we try to 
communicate?  Please?

>Teresa ignored my email, which *did* contain
>an apology, BTW, and instead chose to continue her little vendetta. 

VENDETTA?  I'd like to remind you once again where this began and where the 
fuel to keep it going comes from.  Please keep replying, but give up the 
vendetta theory about Teresa.  Maybe it's time to ask her what her purpose
in all of this was?  Until that's clear, it's a pretty egotistical
assumption that she has some sort of grudge, don't you agree?

Chris

Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery