Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 19:26:33 CST
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.suicide.holiday
Subject: Re: KHARE
 <ogorman.721323887@unix1.tcd.ie> <92314.221216U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <1992Nov10.130632.2350@udel.edu>

In article <1992Nov10.130632.2350@udel.edu>, awatson@pecan.cns.udel.edu (angela
watson) says:

First I do want to add that I think it is an excellent tribute to Khare
that his name is appearing in the headers of these posts!  A well-
deserved tribute to him and his new life!  <Clink of champagne glasses
heard faintly in the background>

>in ASH.  For the most part, they get ignored or flamed constantly (like you).

I feel I get flamed because people mired in negative thinking get very
scared when change/insight is suggested in any way.  It threatens their very
identity IMHO.  So, they flame the person giving off that message.
It is quite predictable.  It does not phase me personally, but
I will surely respond to it by pointing out what I see as the
underlying motives.  I generally do not start flames, but neither do I
shirk from them if they are blown my way.

One could ask why you felt obligated to respond to it or if it
threatens you.  Do you have a lot of control issues going in your
head, bloodied though that cranium must be by now after all that *thunking*?
Does this bothers you so much that you had to post when you have
never contacted me personally about it?

>You seem to be the worst culprit right now... and we flame not because

The culprit attitude is one I do not adopt.  I think it is another
example of narrow perspective and negative outlook.  It implies
that you can decide the validity of my rights in the group.  You cannot.

>we're trying to censor you thoughts or 'control' you, we just find your
>articles irritating in some way and we express our distaste for them.

That is certainly your right.  You can find my articles irritating
if you so choose.  They can be, and are, certainly distasteful to some.
I accept this and it is agreeable to me.  If you do not want to
consider my views, by all means ignore them or say they don't appeal to you.
You can say that you disagree intensely with my views if you need to.
I don't know of one person who is committed to negativity that likes
my views.  That's okay with me.

Responding with "ignorant-mofo-head-up-your-ass-dry-fuck" will not go
unanalysed however.  I think things can be learned from how this kind of
talk is received by others and how it appears to be a control mechanism
to the receiver.

>        You say you're not trying to control people, yet you constantly
>try to tell everyone why (you think) they are feeling the way they do.  No

I believe I point out the motivation behind flaming in some cases
for some people.  Most posts on this group I do not feel any need
to comment on.  I think a lot of excellent opinions are offered and
I have not been seen to be flaming them, even if I don't agree.

I believe as in the case of David Conibear that some people's pain
in this group is intense and/or fatal.  Some of the posters *right now*
are in terrible personal anguish.  I take this very seriously and
feel for their pain.  I also believe though that there are ways out
if one will explore them.  I believe the commitment to negative thinking
can impair this growth process.  I offer the view that life can feel
better.  Those who reject this view are free to do so.  It is not
without pain and risk to decide to change.  It is a personal decision.

I think people are in serious pain in many cases by the time they find
a.s.h. and venting this pain can often be a release to them.  I think
a lot of sincere and heartfelt concerns are expressed.  I think we all
learn something from what the other ASHers write and feel.  I want to
expand that openness to include as many views as we can.  If there is
any control in my motives, that is it.  I will always advocate
expanded options and horizons.  That is what I believe in.  I also
believe in hope and sometimes post to counter the despair I see in
some notes.  But if the people in despair want to keep it, that is their
right.  I don't have to agree that it is the only choice though, hard
though it may be to opt for change and deal with the pain of change.

>one asked you to analyse the minds of any ASHers (esp. since you have

People are responsible for their actions.  If they flame and do not
know why, I may provide one possible explanation.  If they reject it
that is their right.  It is my right to believe that I know what
often lies behind flaming and other bullying techniques in general.
If they feel it does not apply to them they can so state.

I offer an hypothesis for consideration.  If one is being a bully,
of course one will not like what I have to say about it.  This will
not, however, deter me in the slightest.  I am not intimidated by flaming
one iota.  I will generally respond in some fashion to public flames
if someone else starts them though.  Sometimes this is good if it
provokes a fruitful discussion later on.  I'm willing to take the risk
that something good might come of it after the flaming is over.
I believe some ASHers need to be more assertive rather than more aggressive.

>such limited contact with any of them).  Your attempts to coax/shame
>people into doing what you want them to do [post articles that follow your
>personal tastes for opinions/expressions] is an attempt to control ASHers

I believe you mistate my views:  I have never stated I want people to
follow my tastes in their posts--not once.  The basic thing I want ASHers
to consider doing is to be more tolerant of divergent views.  I accept most of
what is written other than obvious flame-for-flame-sake posts of some
inveterate negativists.  I believe that you mistate my
opinion totally.  I believe the group should tolerate a range of opinion
without flames erupting and epithets being thrown about.

For example, I find your posts rather attention-getting and tedious, with
and undertone of sexual provocation (Why Psycho *Kitten*?), but I believe
in your right to post what you want and I have never flamed you because I
disagree with your style, your mood, or your content.  You do seem to like
negativity though so I would expect that we would not get along that well,
as I advocate the view that choosing negativity is a personal choice
for which each individual is responsible.  No one mired in negativism will
like that idea certainly.  To learn from the views of others and to
understand their pain and frustration I do not believe we have to all
agree or even like each other.  I believe we can still co-exist and
each express our views unless we deteriorate into obvious flaming.

And, I actually think some level of controversy is *good* for a.s.h. in that
it gets people's anger out and I feel that could alleviate some
depression.  I actually feel it is better to be somewhat actively angry
verbally than to be hopelessly depressed personally, but I think we can
be angry with more class sometimes.  I think we can be angry without
denying the other their rights to post too.  I believe you Ms. Kitten should
post exactly what you want and feel even if it is not something I agree with
and I will never flame you for it, nor have I.

But, still, some posters simply are too threatened by any view that
is not in sync with theirs.

>        You say that taking your flames to email "just results in mindless
>flaming and a nasty headache."  And just what do you think it results in

This response was in regard to Ollie's request alone.  It was not a
general statement of mine.  I have spoken--and flamed--personally
with ASHers via e-mail.  I don't care to now with Ollie resorting to
head-up-your-ass lingo.  In this state no discussions would be
productive IMHO.  Perhaps later we will communicate in a more useful
manner on a.s.h. or via e-mail.  I don't know now.

Furthermore, I feel Ollie is perfectly capable of sticking up for
himself and negotiating his own relationships.  As I have said, I think
he brings many interesting and worthwhile views to the group.  We don't
have to like each other to respect divergent views either.

>when you insist on doing it in public???  Can you say "hypocrite" boys and
>girls?

Well, you were doing well in this post and now you are degenerating into
name-calling.  Too bad.  I am not biting on this either Ms. Kitten.

We are not boys and girls.  We may act that way sometimes, but we are adults
who are responsible for our flaming.  I did not start this flame in
public.  But if others flame me in public, I will answer in public.
Ollie flamed me in public so I answered in the same mode.  That's it.
I deserve the right to defend myself if flamed. If they flame me privately,
as some have, I will keep it private, as I have and as some ASHers know.

In addition, I hope that the results of this flame war of recent
duration will finally turn into a discussion of relevant issues and
feelings, such as the one I tried to discuss a while ago on "Why Are
People So Confused About Anger?"  If this now occurs, then it will be
useful to have aired the issue in public.  I think, as I have said before,
that anger, reasonably handled, can be useful and I don't shirk from it.

I try my best assert my views without resorting to "dry fuck" responses though.
I don't always succeed either but I do try to maintain some decorum.
The fourth-grader lurks in us all however, waiting to bluster and bully
when threatened IMHO.

>        Flames are a fundamental part of the net.  But your insistance
>on _always_ doing it in public just shows how much you desire to control

As I have just stated, you have no awareness of what goes on in my private
e-mail so your assertion that I *always* flame in public is patently false.

I believe that if a flame is started in public then it is the right
of the person flamed to answer in the same medium.  I'd ask you
if anger makes you feel uncomfortable but you wouldn't like that much.
I think the cop-out of "taking a public flame to e-mail" is a dodge.
If the flamer wanted privacy, they would have started with e-mail to
begin with.  I personally do not exchange e-mail with people until I
get to know them a little.

And, I wonder why a group like a.s.h. that is so wedded to negativity
has such a problem with anger.  I think it is a topic that Megazone and
some others addressed well a while ago.  I thought their posts were
very insightful.

>words (which I don't think he was)... but you try to censor people's
>_thoughts_ which is a much greater evil by far IM(NSH)O.

I think this is a distortion of my views for your own purposes.
I've already explained it:  Interpreting an action and controlling an
action are far from the same thing IMHO.

>        Don't worry, we'll always feel free to flame you to a cinder...

Sorry to report that you have failed however.  But, if anything
in this discussion has caused another reader to think a new thought or
view a new way, then it has been of some value perhaps.  I certainly hope
that you have received enough attention from my response Ms. Kitten.
You deserve that much I feel for taking the time to post.

I am certainly not worried.  I know this gambit very well.
I am not a cinder and have no fear you will make me one.  I understand
that my views threaten you.  You can try all you want.  I am not
intimidated in the least by your threats.  I know what I believe in and
feel and am committed to it.  Do you?  Are you?

I hope now we can move on to more pertinent topics such as why
many posters feel they have no hope of change or improvement.  From
what I have been reading in the posts this is a prevailing mood here.
I am sorry to see it.  I wish them all well.  And I wish them all the
courage to try and change and consider new options.

>                                Psycho Kitten

>P.S. I would have sent this via email, but I don't trust Brady to not
>post private messages.

So why did you Ms. Kitten?

Actually, I think Ms. Kitten posted this to get the attention she
seems to need.  But that is my opinion.  Blaming it on my
believed lack of trustworthiness, a person she does not even know in the
least, is very suspect to me.

This statement is, IMHO, baiting pure and simple.  I'm not biting
Ms. Kitten.  Now back to your regularly scheduled head-bashing. . . .
*thunk*thunk*thunk*

Enjoy!  Holler if you need a cold compress or something.  ;))

Brady

=-=-=-=-Brady Woodward PhD=-=U56503@UICVM=-=u56503@uicvm.uic.edu=-=-=-=-=
  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.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=