From: wolffrnd@starburst.umd.edu (The Wolf Friend)
Newsgroups: alt.suicide.holiday
Subject: Re: KHARE
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:18:35 GMT

Brady writes:

>In article <ogorman.720998794@unix1.tcd.ie>, ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
>says:
>
>>Brady,
>>
>>Follow your own advice huh? I'm sorry man but you are one arrogant,
>>ignorant mofo. Please, please get your head out of your ass and stop:
>>
>>a. Trying to shrink people online.
>>b. Being so irritatingly superior.
>>c. Being such a dry fuck.
>>
>>Yes I've tried talking politely to him. Though not recently.
>
>I think Ollie is volunteering to start up the a.s.h.flame group all
>on his own.  

I've seen you post as many or more flames than anyone else... and many of the
flames that *aren't* posted by you seem to be directed *at* you.  And that 
includes flames written by Ollie.  In other words, most of the flame
throwing/receiving seems to be centering around you in particular.  There was
one post which you actually signed "From a Chicago Flame!".  For someone who
doesn't approve of flames, you certainly seem to be eager to frequently post 
them yourself......


>He's too easy of a volunteer though.  We know he is having
>a bad day when he sinks into juvenile anal terminology.  Sigh.
>And there was even an Oedipal term too!  I'm impressed.  Ollie, what
>happened bad to you in the fourth grade that you like to go back to
>that stage of coping so often when you can't control others?

And look at all the times *you* have called people names like "vile", "whiny," 
or "pathetic."  I guess that's supposed to be more befitting from someone with 
a PhD?

>Why do you think it is that some people on this group just *have* to
>try and control the ideas and opinions of others?  

I might ask that same question of you... why did you tell Stephen Okay to keep
his comments to himself if you believe this?!  And you encouraged KHARE to
leave too, although for different reasons.  Why should it be all right for
you to tell one person to go away, yet you then strongly object when someone
else like Ollie tells you the same thing?  Interesting double standard
there...

>I think people should
>be free to post what they want.  No one had to agree with them.

For the most part, I agree.  However, there are certain guidelines of net
etiquette which most people try to follow out of simple politeness and common
sense.  One is that the material be at least reasonably appropriate for a
given newsgroup.  For example, someone  could spend hours talking about the
finer points of volleyball, but I don't think it would be a very useful topic
on this particular newsgroup.  Another is that posting something
*deliberately* inflammatory--such as your "fear of change" post--is often
considered to be bad form.  Someone who posted "I hate cats" to rec.pets.cats
would instantly be hit with so many flames they'd be charbroiled by the time
it ended.  The number of flames you get here are *NOTHING* compared to what
I've seen happen in many of the other newsgroups, where *many* posters rally
around to all attack at once when the occasion seems to warrant it (and
sometimes when it doesn't, as well).

If someone walks around loudly stating their opinion over and over, that may
their "right"; but that doesn't mean that I don't also have the right to get
tired of it.  You said no one has to agree with you; that's fine, so I'm just
disagreeing with you. :) :)

You have reiterated repeatedly that you wish only to help others.  Why then do
you often seem to use such a condescending manner when talking to other
posters?  For example, let's once again consider your "fear of change" post. 
I fail to see how anyone can profess to be helping others while simultaneously
putting so many of them down.  Would you try to get a child to do better in
school by telling him/her that s/he is a complete failure, just because that
child's grades didn't live up to your own personal standards?  Or would you
publically humiliate a subordinate worker whose job you weren't pleased with? 
I think not... at least I sincerely *HOPE* not.  Yet those are the tactics you
sometimes seem to be employing here.

Moreover, you must remember... this is a public newsgroup, not a private
counseling session.  It is one thing to try and help a group of individuals
who have intentionally sought you out for counseling; it is quite another walk
up to a group of strangers who are just standing around talking, and then try
to "help" them using the same or similar methods as you would in the first
instance.  It's a different atmosphere, a different set of rules.  The methods
which are perfectly accepted in the first instance may not always be
appropriate in the second instance.  I think wanting to help others is a truly
admirable trait.  And I imagine that when someone knocks on my door and
tries to say I should convert to some "life changing" religion, they are often
just trying to help as well.  But that doesn't mean that their "help" is always
wanted or even needed.  If someone doesn't want your help, then so be it;
instead of wasting your time flaming that person and trying to make them
listen, why not talk to someone else who genuinely does want to hear what
you have to say?  Simply by letting people know that you are there, that
gives them the freedom to then come to *you* if they wish, and discuss their
problems in private.

Your post about how you personally attempt to relieve stress in your own life
seemed useful, informative and friendly.  Your questions about dealing with
anger spawned an interesting discussion as well.  Too bad you don't post
more things like that, instead...

>Do you think some people's opinions are so fragile that they simply
>cannot tolerate an opposing view.  Do some people feel they must
>flame every person who does not feel as they do?  Do some people feel
>they *own* a.s.h?  Do they feel their ideas are more equal than others?

There is a *BIG* difference between an "opposing view" and an *imposing* view.
You are right, everyone has the right to post.  My neighbor also has the right
to own a dog.  However, if that same dog barks all night long and keeps me
awake, I have no reason to simply listen to it without objection.  My 
neighbor may think I am being unreasonable for stating that I am tired of 
listening to his dog bark, but that doesn't mean he's right.  Similarly, if I
get tired of listening to you flame others, that doesn't automatically imply
I'm trying to "control" you.  Do you *honestly* think people are trying to
exhert control over the *entire* newsgroup every time they disagree with *you*
*personally*?  When you flame others, by your definition doesn't that mean you
are therefore trying to exhert control as well?  Where does it all end?

I have no wish to control anyone else.  I don't care whether you post or not.
I *DO* care whether you keep flaming other people and mocking them.

>
>Brady
>>
>>Lucifuge...
>>
>>--
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  The Lord is my Shepherd............................but I'm not a Sheep
>>-----------------------------ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie-------------------------

>=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~Brady Woodward PhD=~=~U56503@UICVM=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
>  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.)


Unfortunately, although I'll be able to read your response, my ability to
reply will be *extremely* limited, due to a problem I'm currently having with
my hands.  And at any rate, I have no wish to get into a protracted flame war.
But regardless of whether or not you agree with anything I say, I hope you
will at least try to *truly* think about it a little.  And if afterwards you
still disagree with everything; then so be it.

-------
Kathleen                                        Wolffriend@Kavishar.umd.edu

Every person has a secret dream, buried deep in their subconscious.  Like
a fire, that dream can be fanned into a heartwarming blaze; or it can be
smothered into charred ashes.  But it can never be destroyed, so long as
that person is alive.