Ok. Tried to stay out of it, but now feel compelled.
This is how I 'read' the progression.
When I read your posting, Linda, it also struck me as being an over-the-top response, perhaps [inclusively], to my
own correction on what seemed your misinterpretation of what Isobel had meant. Like, "OK, OK, guys! [to us]" and, then, to Nan ~ "DO IT! Just DO IT! Do it as many times as you want, in as many places as you want! OBVIOUSLY, we ALL want to reread it!" etc. With that, I felt that Nan [the innocent bystander] was sabred down in the process, and I didn't see it as a commentary on the quality of the poem, itself, but rather on things apart from that. I also felt, "Dang!
That seems
unfair to Nan!" At best, it seemed to make her the brunt of your joke.
However! And, this is a biggie. I know you from behind the scenes, and know that you're not intentionally hurtful to people, so I let my own commenting go, and left it up to Nan to deal with it [my day off on trying to 'rescue' others]. It remains that you, initially, commented on its being good, and that can't be ignored, either.
However, again, when Nan questioned it, I felt her questioning publicly was absolutely valid. She didn't violate "better to find out the facts first rather than jumping to conclusions that are upsetting for everyone." Her questioning
had no conclusions ~ it was,
"Linda, I Don't Understand this post you have written.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
and ~ in this ~ she wasn't alone. I didn't understand it, either.
At this point, to suggest that she should have made private contact for questioning/not "jumping to conclusions," is unfair to her, again. It, somehow, places the responsibility and blame right back on her, i.e. "If
you'd handled it better, it wouldn't have come to this." That perspective sidesteps, or jumps over, the initial thing that she was responding to, and
its initial impact. For me, that causes me to feel uncomfortable, again.
When the initial comment was made publicly, there is no less reason for the inquiry to have been made publicly. As the National Enquirer says, "People want to know" [or something like that
].
If suggestions are to be made for follow-up privately, then it seems no less a good idea for the initial support of posting it separately, on its own thread, for others to read again ~ or to be more certain to read in the first place ~ could/should have also been done privately, as well! However, the joke seems to have been what it was about. It was a joke I didn't get, either. Though, even at the time, I tried to consider it from that perspective, I still ended up with "???????????????????????????" in my own mind.
Nan has posted very little here, and it's been a long time since she has, so tink is correct that she wasn't "in on the fun." With
". . . it's just a few people who know each other, goofing around"
~ it seems to me that this is the crack that Nan falls ~ or fell ~ through. She hadn't been engaging, at all, whatsoever ~ much less been in the status of "know each other" or "goofing around." However, I'd like to
see you engaging, Nan. We've had a couple, private exchanges a long time ago.
OK, that's how I feel on all of that. Now, I want to say that
I'm not getting tired of you, at all, Linda. I like your quick wit and the creativeness of the perspectives, that zip in so quickly from left field, in your responses. I find the exchanges that go on between you, Byron, and C2 very entertaining. I find some needed reprieve in reading them. However, Nan wasn't a part of that dynamic. That's why all of this has resulted in my feeling
.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
tribute. Isobel's suggestion was that Nan create her own thread for posting it. Hence, it'll be the very first thing on the thread, and won't be lost within it
.
.
