Hi Bee and Tchoc ~ You should both be pleased to know that I have not only taken the time to think twice and more about the matter, but to analyze, as well, before responding to both of your postings. You, of course, may or may not read this. Perhaps, others will [or not]. At least, I've clarified my position, for you or anyone else who may be interested.
I guess I'll start by addressing Bee regarding this section of your posting [italicizing the particular areas of it]:
But, because it was between you and him, and there was no way of knowing all the details, I thought it was better to leave it at that. Liz's interference later, posing as an advocate for Tom/Jurica was just her self serving way, I would suggest not to pay much attention to that.
(1)
"because it was between you and him" ~ It wasn't between Tchoc and Tom. Had it been, I would never have read those words; nor would anyone else on this 'worldwide stage' have read them. It would have been handled "between Tchoc and Tom" in a PM or in an e-mail. I have never visited Wikipedia and, possibly, neither have a number of other people from this site. So, questioning and maligning Tom's honesty, integrity, and character
here, in the form of what someone appears to consider an 'expose,' of what they
think may/may not have occurred over
there, has clear, ulterior motives. Without checking, much less knowing, the facts, the approach to this was one of indictment and malignment.
(2)
"Liz's interference later" ~ "Interference" relates to something ongoing. All that was going to be said, had been said, by Tchoc, Tom, and Jurica, with Tchoc concluding that [their choices were] "to stay angry . . . or "to realize it was a necessary thing to do and you gain to have done this exercise."
No one "gained" by this "exercise," which had every earmark for having been conducted behind closed doors, to first determine the facts before conducting a public, worldwide, smear campaign. There wasn't anything "necessary" about it. Nor do I concur that Tchoc knows in the least what Tom and Jurica can gain by.
I returned to this thread as a matter of conscience and caring, as it was very important to me to
publicly demonstrate to them that it wasn't so, that everyone tacitly agreed with the charges expressed by you, Tchoc. I wasn't willing to leave it unsaid, or to just contact them privately. This had been a public spectacle, and my support came into the public eye, as well. The severity warranted it.
(3)
"posing as an advocate for Tom/Jurica was just her self serving way" :
Not "posing," but being;
Not "advocate," but friend;
Not "self serving," but supporting them
(4) I could be wrong, but I had the sense that Tchoc was referring to me, with regard to the "respect" and "patience" issues ~ as there was
something about her seeming to feel
I didn't respect her request [to them?] for silence. Something like she had notified the world, and someone [me, in this case] trespassed? "Patience" she has recently used directly in reference to me, as my 'trying' hers. Well, she's not the first, and won't be the last. So ~ as I said, I could be wrong, but I
think it was me she was referring to with this passage. I hope that helps.
Now, Bee, since you consider my having commented on all of this as being "interference," wherein I go "on and on and on and . . . . ", I want simply to remind you of a time,
fairly recently, when I was actually minding my own business, documenting a dramatic, real-life event [and ultimately, some of my own reactions and concerns with regard to it], and someone entered in with a psychobabbling 'diagnosis' of me, in the third person, as though they were in a mental-health staffing, with 'guess who'
as the 'patient,' and stated unequivocally what was the
only condition, in which I am able to find happiness. This, of course, was presented to all readers, as if it were
fact. Since the person not only does not even know me, much less know what does or doesn't make me happy, I immediately did the most
reasonable thing, under such a circumstance, and questioned their already-publicly-posted
credentials for making such a claim. There, of course, exist no such credentials. Thereupon, began a debacle of the 'highest' order.
Interestingly enough, however, even though it 'only concerned me and the other person,' almost immediately I found myself faced with two more. When I directly addressed Tchoc, regarding the
instant situation, by quoting what she'd actually said, followed by explanations of how it was demeaning,
without getting personal against Tchoc's personality or character, by saying, "Tchoc is this or that; Tchoc always does this or that; Tchoc . . . ," etc. ~ I stuck to what was said, and the implied insults and meanness, therein. In the
other case, as I recall
, you were one of those involved
, and it did not take the same, objective path, at all. Might you consider
this as having been 'interference'?
Another possible application of the word "interference" and "going on and on and on . . . ," with your disapproval of such activities, might be your own support of Bush's invading of Iraq ['justified' by his later claim that it was to oust Saddam because of his treatment of his people] ~ Well, this is a more extreme case, of course, but the principle remains the same. Interference is interference, and this is something you feel is a bad thing, when I did it, verbally, on behalf of my two friends, here. Any difficulty you may be having in squaring up your criticism of me for doing this, in light of the two, above examples of the same principle, is certainly understood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To both of you, Bee and Tchoc ~ Since you said it, Tchoc, and you agreed, Bee:
"she don't take the time to analyse the situation, she goes on and on, and on and on and on and on and on."
~ I asked questions, and was not given satisfactory answers, until someone else came along and succinctly stated what I'd been asking in regard to. I analyzed what I had been watching occur, and which was sickening.
~ After making [what turned out to be an
unwelcome] simple statement of support of Tom, I responded in detail ~ going "on and on, and on and on and on and on and on" in
direct, one-on-one ratio to what Tchoc had said, as she went "on and on, and on and on and on and on and on."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tchoc ~ It's patently absurd for you to diametrically oppose yourself to Tom and Jurica, with "T&J are the 'goods' I am the 'bad' and the ugly."
(1) I've not taken this position with regard to you. I am, however, saying you appear to have had ulterior motives in handling this as you did. What your reasons or rationale is I don't know. You do not appear to have meant for either of them to "gain" from the "exercise" and your cavalier statement that they, in fact, did "gain" from the "exercise" is equally absurd. You appear to have said everything you could in an attempt to undermine and invalidate them ~ and, yes, this in what appeared to be a "crusade" on "a world stage." This was bad behaviour on your part.
[I would copy your emoticon, at this point, as a representation of what you actually
did do, but it doesn't appear to be copyable.]
(2) You end your posting to me with the advisement that:
"The wise think to do now about all this, would be to agree to make silence for a while, in order to let ideas fall in places like I asked it may be done. When inner peace is made, it is easier to see facts clearly."
You
seem to be very willing to tell everyone what their wisest choices would be [including with John K., over there on that Other Poetry thread with, "I'll finish by the advice any wise parent gives to his/her teens when they claim that "all others are doing it". Well, don't be the one who follows other, then, be the one who others follow."] ~ somehow, it seems you feel you're in a position to know this very thing, and in an advisory to tell it. I have the "inner peace" with what I originally did, and with what I'm doing now. So, I am guessing that you will, perhaps, come to see your own actions more clearly, in a different light.
(3) Regarding your concern over the use of the term "buddy," when you used the phrase, "you are my friend, buddy," suggesting that this is what I was saying to John K. ~ I want to explain that [even though I would consider him such, that is not including in the meaning of
what I said,
when I said, "that's what you get, buddy
" ~ that's a very impersonal usage of the term, as in, for example in a confrontation, saying, "Hey,
pal, what d'ya think you're doing!?!" "Pal" is certainly not intended to mean "friend," anymore than "buddy" is intended to mean friend ~ in fact, it's more of a 'distancing' technique, in both circumstances.
(4) Regarding your implications with:
" . . . and then it is easy to twist the post of somebody in gang behind closed doors, than come back on the forum being 2, 3 or more having the same twisted opinion about a poster and do harassment. I try to understand why people are doing such a thing, maybe it gives a false sentiment of force and security, of being part of a community 'against' others. I don't know. But this is truly sick."
This is not what I have done with you, at all. I have openly, in the light and fresh air of the Forum, stated my support. I, then, followed that with my assessment of what you had done. If what I did is what you consider "harassment," I can only question what you consider what you did originally.
As far as:
"I also think there is PM messages that add to the fog of what is really happening in the thread . . . come back on the forum being 2, 3 or more having the same twisted opinion about a poster and do harassment . . . maybe it gives a false sentiment of force and security, of being part of a community 'against' others"
I want to clarify that I consulted with
no one [as in
zero persons] neither prior to my initial statement in support of Tom, nor prior to my lengthy delineation of all that you had said to/about Tom and Jurica.
In fact, Tchoco, regarding
this, [above] false implication and allegation regarding
me ~ any feeling I may have, of "being part of a community" here, is based on being 'for' ~ not 'against' others. I believe in consensus building [which has only
positive connotations, at least as I'm using it, by the way]. I do
not believe in gang building [as you know, an entirely
different kind of,
negative thing]. Any of the latter activity, on my part, would, in
fact,
lose favour and credibility for me, with the group of people here, with whom I feel a sense of 'community' ~ it is as a result of
positive feelings and actions that I have this feeling of being "part of . . ." In fact, it
is those
very things that
motivate me.
Regards, Tchoc. I have oft spoken to you [and others] openly on your behalf. It seems you so willingly forget, as you take the stance, as though my position is one of being against you. I don't like what you did regarding Tom and Jurica. I told you so, in detail, why.
Now, I guess the 'appropriate' thing for me to say at this point would be, may I have some silence on this, please
?
~ Elizabeth/Lizzy
P.S. I'm still 'on my own' here.
