leonardcohenforum.com

Nan and Paula,

I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to "muzzle" anyone.
Freedom of speech, though (and forum health), does require
personal responsibility.

Tchocolatl,

Most of your points re: "this game" are sound, I believe. The desire
to get one over on someone else, the essence of the game, doesn't
stem from the healthiest of egos. You rightfully ask:" What is the
difference to hit someone with wit, fits, laughters, feet, guns,
bombs, in regard of Karma Stephen? Negative energy is negative
energy it boomerangs with the force it was launched. So why
bother too much? The only way to win is not to play. When you
play, the winner of the game is the biggest loser but he is happy
about that,..." While there is merit in not getting caught up in
others negativity, self-defense is a good way to teach others
that unacceptable behavior isn't going to be tolerated and can
prevent wrongdoers from further Karmic harm to themselves.
Society does this via its penal system (though rather poorly)
and some forums do so via moderator intervention. I've no
desire to "fix" anyone that does not ask me for such assistance.
I don't have the right or authority to otherwise do so, but even the
most ardent libertarians won't allow others to "get in their face," even
if the offenders hide behind an assertion of exercising "freedom
of speech."

I don't "badly perceive" most people here and enjoy most of
what takes place.

Oh yeah, ad hominem attacks are viewed by clear headed,
intelligent observers as a tactic that suggests that the attacker
is incapable of defending a position on its merits.

Nan,

"Ferocious" defense of positions can be lots of fun. When doing so,
though, its a good time for people to remember the "golden rule,"
the one about treating people as we would want others to treat us.
I'm usually more partial to honest exchange and discussion, rather
than debate. In debates, people want to win. In discussions, people
are more apt to learn from others and sometimes even reconsider
their own positions.

Steven, yes indeed, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hit someone with a speech.

Another interesting thing is how the Net-ethiquette is by-passed under the guise of polite/nice/friendly/whatever manners while what is under the guise is all asocial behaviors. What can do a moderator about this? Nothing.

I think that this is what Flojt meant. Something like, how could you be so irresponsible as to willingly destroy integrity?

Now cynic and/or uncounscious people who are making a game of harming others with their hability to conduct a speech and/or their formal or not formal power, I prefer to let them to their karma, at some point, when they are too involved in the game, because there is only 24 hours in a day, and I prefer use my energy on most constructive activities than to enter in games with them. Life is much more interesting this way for me.

I know that you don't want to fix people, and I know there is a difference between standing for opinions and trying to fix people.

Flots, first you write that you think we are spiteful, viscious, backbiters. (I think everyone is straightforward) Then you state that members need to go for the throat. That their posts are savage but polite.That's nuts and contradictory. (You should see the Hell for War thread) Which is the point I think Jurica was trying to make. You know little of the history of this board and all the interaction between the members to go making such sweeping generalizations.

I also think (my opinion) that your moderator duties on another board have gone to your head. And now you wish to admonish/correct/control us the way you do the members on your site. Which is fine because thats your site. I think Jarkko is an excellent Moderator and doesn't need your help.

Nan wrote:

Flots, first you write that you think we are spiteful, viscious, backbiters. (I think everyone is straightforward) Then you state that members need to go for the throat. That their posts are savage but polite.That's nuts and contradictory.

I noticed the exact same thing. Well said, if you don't mind my saying so.

Regards,
Laurie

Dear (hahahah) Laurie,

Would it make you feel much better if I were very, very mean to you?

Linda.

Nan: I was in a 'war' thread, and it was HELL.

Fljots wrote:In the other forums where I post, everyone - from young pre-teen, to ancient pensioner, whether newbie or present from the site's inception - is allowed to express opinions freely. Though no flaming, trolling, or spamming is allowed, naturally.

Yet, there is something not quite right about a 'polite' post? If ones' natural instinct is to be 'polite' in their posting, why is that unacceptable?

Linda.

Linda wrote:

Dear (hahahah) Laurie,

Would it make you feel much better if I were very, very mean to you?

Linda.

Only if I can smoke afterwards, Linda.

(hahaha)

Laurie, baby,

You can smoke before, during or after. Your choice!

Linda.

Nan wrote: Flots, first you write that you think we are spiteful, viscious, backbiters.

Not all of you. Just a few. And none to me - up to now - but, hey! those few sure had the knives out! I do not say it of you, Nan. You DO 'go for the throat'. :thumbs up:

Nan wrote:(I think everyone is straightforward) Then you state that members need to go for the throat. That their posts are savage but polite.That's nuts and contradictory.

I don't think so. Hm. How can I tell you so you catch on to what I'm getting at?
Have you ever come across people who are all smiles and sweet voices, but what they actually SAY drips sweet poison?

That's what I mean. I'd rather a fist in the face than that sort of thing. At least you know what's what with a fist in the face. Sweet poison confuses the mind. You KNOW the person is being vicious, but you can't put your finger on a single word to prove it. I hate that. It makes me ashamed to be human...
I'm basically a simple soul. Gimme a fist anyday. I can deal with a fist.

Nan wrote:(You should see the Hell for War thread) Which is the point I think Jurica was trying to make.

Well, I haven't.

Nan wrote:You know little of the history of this board and all the interaction between the members to go making such sweeping generalizations.

Now, this is a perfectly valid point. I apologise if my statement was seen as 'sweeping generalisation'. I can see that it could be, having re-read it. That was not my intention, however; I just didn't want to point fingers at individuals, since that would have been both unkind and presumptuous.

Nan wrote:I also think (my opinion) that your moderator duties on another board have gone to your head. And now you wish to admonish/correct/control us the way you do the members on your site. Which is fine because thats your site. I think Jarkko is an excellent Moderator and doesn't need your help.

ROFL! No, I have no desire to take over Jarkko's job!

I don't THINK being a mod in another forum has 'gone to my head', either. For one, the other mods in that forum wouldn't stand for it, lol, and for another, I post on several forums, on a very regular, frequent basis, and this is the first time anyone ever accused me that being a mod on one site had 'gone to my head'.

linda_lakeside wrote:

Fljots wrote:In the other forums where I post, everyone - from young pre-teen, to ancient pensioner, whether newbie or present from the site's inception - is allowed to express opinions freely. Though no flaming, trolling, or spamming is allowed, naturally.

Yet, there is something not quite right about a 'polite' post? If ones' natural instinct is to be 'polite' in their posting, why is that unacceptable?

Linda.

See my post to Nan, Linda.

Laurie ~

To borrow a Brit term, I am gobsmacked to see your photo! The reason is that you look exactly as I've imagined you! Perhaps, because I once had a roommate with the same name, who looked extremely similar to you, it carried over and in conjunction with your writings, it's just the image I had. Now, if you were to say, "Well, that's not me," I could only say, "Wow, was I ever wrong, then!" However, presuming that it really is you, I can truly say that I have rarely found such consistency in my imaginings of someone and the reality. Nice, playful photo, by the way .

Now, since you've 'surfaced,' how about one for the Beautiful Losers Gallery ?

~ Lizzy

On the same theme as Lizzie. Laurie I too was gobsmacked to see your picture you are the spit of my sister about the age of 12/13 I have a picture just like that at home of her.

Lizz & Paula~

Interesting about the imagined and the real, Lizz. None of my cyberfriends, who I eventually met, ever looked as I imagined. That is what is so great about this form of communication; the lack of visual 'prejudice' to influence us from the start.
And Paula, you got the time frame (pun intended) perfetto. I was 13. It was taken in one of those photo booths in the Space Needle (Seattle). As you can see, I was very bad then, too

And since this was more than 30 years ago and there is no remedying this and what has come to be, no pics on the BL for me.

L (yes, Linda, WITH Horns)

That must be the age for giving oneself horns, then, eh?

Well, let me count. It was 30 years ago that Laurie was my roommate, too ~ and looked like you, except she was older than 13. Yes, rarely do the ones we imagine look the way we imagined them.

I was face-to-face with Paula ~ and had no clue . All I could come up with in the moment was, "Going by the photos, that's not how I remember Wendy looking." Now, you'd have thought that since I was going to be rooming with her that she'd have at least crossed my mind!?! But, she was THE surprize guest ~ and a surprize she was . I all but screamed "Paula!!!!!!" once I was told . I must say it was not the typical, British-reserve response to an introduction , so it may have been a first for her [as well as the others present ].

Of course, inclusion in the BL Gallery remains personal choice, but I still wish you would .

~ Lizzy