From: sbecker@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: response to eddir
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:39:18 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Nov19.003950.29471@unislc.uucp>, erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
> 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]
> 
> : 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.
> : >
> : >It is?  Hmmm...thanks for bring it to my attention.  No, I didn't make it
> : >personal - you took it personally.
> : 
> : 	Since Ed has continued posting this exchange, I assume responses
> : 	from the peanut gallery are acceptable? I remember looking over the
> : 	letter when this began, and I know I really REALLY loosely paraphrase,
> : 	but it seemed the two instances where names were used were like this:
> 
> I have used names in examples before.
> 
> : 	If Teresa feels a certain way, it reflects her feelings of self-love.
> : and 	Stephen likes me, so the reflects *his* feelings of self-love.
> : 	Now before anyone jumps down my throat for mis-quoting and basing a 
> : 	judgement of sorts on it, please note that *however* it was written,
> : 	that's how I interpreted, and clearly, so did Teresa. 
> 
> Yes, so that is your right, and Teresa's, to interpret any post any way you
> want to.
> 
> : 	*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?
> 
> :  	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.

There are a variety of reasons why a person might respond to what they see as
unjust or unfair descriptions of them (i.e. that Teresa doesn't love herself),
or to what feels like a flame (i.e. defending herself).  this doesn't
necessarily mean Teresa has an axe to grind.  Perhaps she feels that she wants
to share her pain, anger, etc., with ASAR readers.  That is her right, yes?
Perhaps she doesn't feel safe or comfortable responding to you in e-mail.
That is also her right, her choice to make.  It seems as if you too (along
with what you say Anika and Teresa have done) are making assumptions. . . 

> 
> : >: >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>

You cut a pretty good rug yourself, Ed. . . :)

> : 
> : 	*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.
> 
> : 	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'm sorry
> : 	if it hurt/upset you." Why force the issue and hope for Teresa to
> : 	break and apologize for a misunderstanding that clearly came
> : 	from what *Ed* wrote? I do NOT suggest apologizing for writing it.
> : 	I suggested apologizing for the pain it's caused. Is that so tough?
> 
> 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.
> 

It is the affair of all who read ASAR--you and Teresa made it our affair by
posting your disagreement.  You've made your "private" and "personal" stuff
public.  Now it's open for all to comment upon.  Realize, Ed, that you've made
a choice to continue to go public with this issue by responding to Teresa's
posts on the board.   By pos ting you make your issues/feelings/opinions
open to an ongoing dialogue with all who wish to engage you.  Your need to
defend yourself from what feels like "flaming" from Teresa lead you to choose a
public forum for that defense.  If you care enough about how asar readers view
you to defend yourself to them in public, then you owe it to yourself to hear
their/our responses.

> : >: 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.  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?  I think by now everyone on asar is aware that I was using an
> : >example.  Why are you still so offened by it?  Why are you trying to hurt and
> : >insult me by trying to rub my nose in the opinion that I made a poor choice in
> : >examples?
> : 
> : 	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?
> 
> : 	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.
> 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.
> 
Yes, Ed, you *do* have the right to reply in e-mail, but it'd would make things
a lot clearer for those of us reader's of your posts and flame wars, if you'd
include any apoligies in opublic.  By extension, all who read your posts become
 enmeshed in whatever comes of
enmeshed in them.  Many folks have come out of the wordwork latley to say they'
ve been hurt
or angered by your posts in the past--this ought to clue you in to how
widespread your impact can be on others.  When you offend, hurt, outrage one
person on ASAR, you can bet their are others who'd also like to hear an
apology.  Additionally, once you make your original statement public, why not
make your followups--those which take responsibility for their impact--public
also?  If nothing else it'll give the rest of us a truer picture of how things
are or are not resolved.

> 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.
> 
> 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?

We all have the right to ask for what we want from the people we encounter in
our lives.  You, of course, have the right not to comply.  But your goals in
being a regular reader/poster to ASAR are to help, support and listen to others
in need, as well as to learn from their experiences and get support in return.
So what's the problem?  Why not make a goodd faith effort to acknowledge and
take responsibility for the pain you've caused Teresa by mentioning her name
and making a statement about her feelings for herself in a post?  Why not
attempt to monitor your language and take a more personal approach to your
posts?  What have you got to lose?  It's not like you're admitting to being
wrong, or weak or anything.  You're just helping out a friend, allowing her to
feel more comortable with you.  Sounde like a winning proposition to me.
or maybe I've missed somethign important here. . . 

Ed, Teresa, Anika, I think I've learned a lot from the exchange among you, and
the others who've responded as well.  I just wish it was possible for you all
to reply from a safe emotional space, rather than react.  I hope that Ed can
stop defending long enough to listen, that Teresa knows that Ed's opionion's of
her (real or imagined) do not change who she is or how others feel about her,
and that Anika can learn to express her valuable insights with less overt
anger.

Well, ther's my 2 cents worth.  I'm ready for any flaming assualt I may have
inadvertently warranted.  :)  By the way, sorry I didn't delete more of the
body of this message--I don't know how--so it's longer than I'd like.

Sarah
> 
> : >: >Who told you I wasn't a survivor?  You and I have had many long-distance
> : >: >phone conversations about both my abuse and your abuse.
> : >: 
> : >: Allow me to be more clear.  The newsgroup is alt.SEXUAL.ABUSE.recovery.  I made 
> : >: the worst engineering error, I ASSUMED that people would realize that by using
> : >: the generic "survivors", I was talking about survivors of SEXUAL abuse.  In our
> : >: conversations, you never mentioned *any* sexual abuse.
> : >
> : >I'm not aware that this newsgroup is limited to survivors of sexual abuse only.
> : >It certainly isn't mentioned in the FAQ.  And, yes, I believe I *did* mention
> : >my own sexual abuse history, because I clearly remembered mentioning the "ex-
> : >pulling the gun" incident to you.
> : 
> : 	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...
> 
> : >: >I hardly know *everything* there is to know - 
> : >>: 
> : :> But your posts have the tenor of this omniscient.  This has been pointed out
> : :> to you before, by me and others, in posts and e-mail.  And you have not 
> : :> responded.  It should be clear to you by now that the *way*, the *tone*
> : >
> : >I believe I have.  And how do you know what email I have gotten, and what
> : >email I haven't, and how I have answered it?  For your information, I *do*
> : >answer *all* email I get, insulting or not.  Why don't you stop trying to
> : >build this thing up into a "us-vs-Ed" mob mentality thing?  I'd advise you
> : >to let it go, Teresa.  All that hate and anger's gonna eat you up, to paraphrase
> : >a movie...
> : >At least take it to email, instead of cluttering up asar with your own personal
> : >vendetta...
> : 
> : 	She may know what e-mail you've received if *she's* received e-mail
> : 	concerning it...  Just a thought. And answering e-mail doesn't mean
> : 	responding to the complaint. As has been said, it's not generally
> : 	the content which is offensive, but the *tone*, yet you refuse to
> : 	express your intent and assure yourself and us that your tone is
> 
> I *have* expressed my intent.  You have ignored those posts, it seems,
> preferring instead to flame.
> 
> : 	not misunderstood. And also, you've never once said you're sorry these
> : 	misunderstandings occur. Is *this* your intent? To create flames in
> : 	order to elicit support from the group?
> 
> Why are you trying to manipulate me into saying what *you* want me to say?
> If misunderstandings occur, that's what is.  That's life in general - people
> *will* have misunderstandings, and disagreements.  Flames aren't very productive
> but they seem to go on.  Perhaps if we all had an asar picnic, and we could chat
> face-to-face, you would understand a bit better.  Maybe.
> 
> : 	Incidentally, Ed, *you* posted this one, so who's doing the
> : 	cluttering? Looks like you just need the last word.
> 
> No, I'm just responding to posts.  Teresa ignored my email, which *did* contain
> an apology, BTW, and instead chose to continue her little vendetta.  I am merely
> presenting my viewpoint.  If someone doesn't like it, or my viewpoint, or me
> personally (but that seems hard to believe that someone would like or dislike
> someone they've never met), theere's a little thing called a "kill file".
> --
> Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177
> 
> "There is nothing to seek and nothing to find.  You're already enlightened, and
> all the words in the world won't give you what you already have.  The wise
> seeker, therefore, is concerned with one thing only: to become aware of what
> he already is, of the True Self within."  -- Zen maxim
> -- 
> Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177
> 
> "There is nothing to seek and nothing to find.  You're already enlightened, and
> all the words in the world won't give you what you already have.  The wise