Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

re: thoughts (not too long for me) » AuntieMel

Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 2:50:54

In reply to re: thoughts (not too long for me) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02

Hi, Mel,

Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.

Allow me to offer that as exhibit number one that I am not a good enough person to deserve your beautiful praise.

> Very well written.

Thank you. You make me feel good to think something I wrote has helped someone.

> It is interesting that you can see logic in your own block when that logic escaped many of us.

My loving friends don't know that they cut me more slack than they should. And I kind of tricked us. Well, I tricked myself and some good people who like me fell for it.

I posted something(s) that could make a person feel accused. That’s all the logic to my block. In my past I had received PCBs. Those are for the noobs who are afforded some leniency for being unfamiliar with the axiom of the “civil” universe.

There is escalation of the severity of sanctions for each poster’s civil violations’ repetitions sorta: Rephrase, Be Civil, then Block 1 week, Block 2 weeks, et cetera.

On the particular subject I touched, I had been banned twice before already, and should therefore reasonably expect to be banned for going there after my previous experience. I called this “complicated”. It is not complicated if I don’t go there. I felt I should make that parallel with Dr. Bob’s handling of the reduction of Lar’s block. They are the only two times we have been informed of block reductions.

Then I let myself believe that what I was posting was below the radar for being able to possibly make someone feel accused. (“It’s not that bad, Jim.”) I was wrong, in more ways than one of course, but besides my indulgent self-deception, I had not understood the nature of “civil” here. Here, “civil” is an absolute. There are no degrees of “civil”. Almost every statement either could or could not make a person feel accused. It is either possible or it is not. If something is capable of making a person feel even the slightest accused, it is not “civil”. What I posted was not “civil” and I was blocked. Trying to make the comparison and contrast to Larry’s virtuousness was too tempting to avoid. This made it seem “complicated”.

You also wrote:
> So, to put a positive spin on it:
The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
>> but the simple truth doesn't need to be

Indeed. “Civil”’s limitation on the truth only disallows accusations and insults, no matter how true or justified those accusations or insults may be. This still leaves a vast territory for truth(s) to work.

> The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon
>> but it doesn't have to be.

Indeed, again. No tool has to be a weapon. It is hoped that here in the land of “civil”, weapons would not be necessary. Since offense is illegal, no offensive weapons are allowed. However I keep my defensive weapons sharp. That would be my skepticism. Very little is what it seems.

> Welcome back

Thank you.

> - you are a shining star on a foggy night.

I wouldn’t want to make anyone feel accused or put down, you know, but I feel we need to work on your night there or I am going to really have to get cracking on my shining here. I mean, I am not worthy. And thanks.

~ jim




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:lil' jimi thread:346427