RoR: Forum

Fair game? To whom? And why?

The idea behind value is "of value to whom"?

Posting something on the Internet does far more than setting yourself up o be fair game for a small number of people. The text also becomes a value appreciated by many folks.

Not everybody reads these things and tries to compete. They seek and receive another, more selfish, message.

Michael

Post 41

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:24pm

Michael,

You may have misread me.

My fair game comment applies to us all, but was more specifically in answer to Mike E who appeared indignant that anyone criticise dear Hong. Apparently this is beneath contempt. Why? She can most admirably defend herself in any online skirmish.

I was defending her question, your answer, and those who responded to the original question. Perhaps a bit too ecumenical?

I would not have asked the question myself. It is more appropriate to a private email. And I recognised the undertone. Maybe not. (Maybe this entire post is beneath contempt for young Mike E.) But she was ably answered by several of us, even those of us who rightly or wrongly have pillored you in the past.

Ed,

I know better than to spar with you. You are a surgeon in your comebacks. But I may just for the hell of it in a masocistic moment.

cheers

John

Post 42

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:43pm

Hi Newberry,
After reading the "Wick-ed" crown you bestowed on me, I can't help but thinking "gosh, if I don't go to hell, who would?" ;-)

Post 43

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:59pm

John wrote about me
"She can most admirably defend herself in any online skirmish."

Yes, I suppose I can. But I still very much appreciate the gesture from those chivalrous gentlemen. They are adorable. Thanks guys.

Post 44

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:33pm

Hong wrote: " I can't help but thinking "gosh, if I don't go to hell, who would?" ;-)"

And then: "Yes, I suppose I can. But I still very much appreciate the gesture from those chivalrous gentlemen. They are adorable. Thanks guys."

Ah, but they don't make you pant?!

;) Michael

Post 45

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:56pm

Thanks for the kudos, John!

You, kind sir, are welcome to spar with me -- anytime that you see fit.

Ed

Post 46

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:58pm

Ed: "You see me as..."

Ed, come clean. You have no clue to how I see you.

Ed: "Michael, how is it that you could know so much about the mental hurdles (or rather, unscalable psychological walls) [You�re the only one who mentions the concept of unscalable] of ex-religioso's? What are you basing that claim on?"

Happiness.

Michael

Post 47

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:04pm

Michael N,
Don't you know the difference between "adore" and "pant"? Aah, may be it just takes this much to make you pant?! I think I do see you pant a lot all over the forum...

(Sorry, have to live up to your wicked expectation and be deserving of going to hell.;-)

Post 48

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:27pm

Hong,

==========
I also found that to understand where a person come from helps a great deal in understanding his/her real argument.
==========

Good point. After all, it is only this type of understanding that allows me to integrate (without contraction) Newberry's oft-aberrant and rarely-justiable pontifications.

Thanks for reminding me of the importance of that.

Ed

Post 49

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:07pm

Newberry,

==============
You have no clue to how I see you.
==============

ahhhh-hahahahahaaaaaaaaa! Admit it! ADMIT that at least PART of that short-story I wrote (about how you see me) is itself -- at least, in part -- true. I want votes. Let's go social metaphysical on this one. Who else thinks that New-B thinks these things of me? Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Bueller??

==============
Ed: "Michael, how is it that you could know so much about the mental hurdles (or rather, unscalable psychological walls) [You�re the only one who mentions the concept of unscalable] of ex-religioso's?
==============

C'mon, man. I'm using an interchangeable expression for the global limitation you conjectured for all ex-religioso's. And c'mon, did you think that I would fall for this low-browed version of appeal-to-abiguity word-play? I would've thought that you would've thought higher of me than that!

Who knows? Maybe you actually enjoy me putting you in your friggin' place, time and time again. But doesn't that get a little old, Michael? ...

MN:
I've never experienced what Ed went through -- but I'll tell you all about his psychological battles with mental demons, etc. Just ask.

ET:
You can't know that -- stop making baseless claims.

MN:
ahhhh-hahahahahaaaaaaaaa! You don't know what I know!

ET:
But you just said that you knew what I knew?? Well, unless you're some sort of super-natural entity ...

MN [cutting in]:
I'M AN ARTIST, fool!

ahhhh-hahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

ET:
Artist-schmartist. I don't care if you painted the Sistine Chapel. That doesn't qualify you to read another's mind.

MN:
Show me where. Show me where I *specifically* said that I could read another's mind. hmmm?

ahhhh-hahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

ET:
Well, I guess that I should just go and crawl under a rock now, huh?

MN:
It's too late, Ed! If you had stated THAT as your first intention -- well then maybe I would have let you off the hook. But now, it's quite clear that you are merely attempting to gain some unearned pity -- and that is beneath contempt.

One day, young Skywalker, you will see things a little more clearly (you know, like I do). But you must first learn to reach inside -- for that passion that drives a soul. The passion that drives a soul to do and be. In short, you must learn to be more like me -- and then you may be said to be truly living, rather than just merely existing as a fear-soaked ball of disability -- staving off death.

ahhhh-hahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

ET:
@^%@^%$@^%$@^#&^&@^!!&^*$*&!^@&^*#&*^%#*^%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MN:
Slow down, Ed (remember that you're not 17 years old anymore). Now, if you would just sit down and shut up and listen, then we wouldn't be getting these outbursts from you, now would we? ;-))

ET:
[bang!]

Ed

Post 50

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:26am

Ed,
Are you losing it? I mean you are having a fictional dialog between yourself and yourself as me. Now is that your alter-ego�s wish, to be me? Or is it your idea to put words in my mouth that you create so that you attempt to win an argument? I am sure everything would be fine if I wasn�t free to write anything for real, then you wouldn�t have any unexpected thoughts to deal with�you would then be in control! No more real living breathing people to deal with just hand puppets with Ed the Master Ventriloquist manipulating their head movements, facial expressions, and their mouths.
Eh?
Michael

Post 51

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:36am

George said:
"In describing, Hong, "wicked" is somewhat of an understatement."

Do you want to say that I am evil???!!!

Post 52

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:46am

Hong, I've never known you to be the type that wastes time.

So why are you stating the obvious?

;-)

George

Post 53

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:37am

Michael,

It was my idea to put words in your mouth which I had created -- in an attempt to win the argument. Sometimes folks need to attain a more panoramic view of someone else's arguments, in order to truly understand another's motive or sensibilities. This panoramic view is often attained via paraphrasing, which is precisely what I was doing when I wrote that piece (as well as that little ditty I wrote in response to Mike E. recently).

Ed
[ :-) ]

Post 54

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:01am

Michael,

=============
I am sure everything would be fine if I wasn�t free to write anything for real, then you wouldn�t have any unexpected thoughts to deal with�you would then be in control!
=============

In spite of my (apparent) spite -- I do appreciate that about you, Michael (that you are a wellspring of unexpectedness to be dealt with).

;-)

Don't ever change.

Ed

Post 55

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:19am

"So why are you stating the obvious?" asked George of Hong.

Because she is truely wicked, George.

Her ability to make pawns of us mortals.

Post 56

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:50am

Should this thread be renamed Gods, Goddesses, and Wankers?

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/20, 1:21pm)

Post 57

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:36am

This is an "interesting" forum.

Michal, I just read your article.

I found it powerful and engaging.

I truly appreciate and respect folks who are willing to share what I call the "real" stuff of their lives.

To me, human experience writings are the most engaging and the most valuable in terms understanding ourselves and others.

No questions popped up for me except as they relate to my own life and thinking. That's what a good read will do.

Post 58

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 8:25am

Thank you for your kind words about Michael's article, Like a Lamb to the Slaughter.

He is truly an amazing and wonderful man and my kids love him too. He relates very well to them and he is one of the very few people in the world that my son will open up to. He does set a good example for them. We are all looking forward to becoming a family. People may criticize or even hate Michael, but that will never affect who he is or what I feel for him. I know more details about his situation than was revealed in the article and IMHO he undoubtedly did the right thing. I love and respect him for the man he is, a kind gentleman of high moral character and integrity. He makes me purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Kat

Post 59

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:12pm