|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : For the Geeks
New section and new policy | from Jules - Tuesday, February 04, 2003
accessed 3786 times Sadly, online forums can often degrade to the level of the lowest common denominator. Lately, the LCD here has reached an all-time low. I have been debating whether to even keep this site open, as I really don’t see the point in me personally providing a place for sexism, insults, reposted spam and obscenity. When thinking about what to do, I realized that (as is so often the case), most of the nonsense is caused by a small number of people. I don’t hang out with these types of people in real life, and I don’t think I really care to do it online either. There is a line between provocative dialogue and pointless flame-baiting. If you don’t know where that line is, then there is a new section just for you where you can be with your own kind: “The Trailer Park”.
I will be cleaning out some of the threads and moving the nonsense into this new area. Articles, posts and comments that have no redeeming discussional value but are entirely offensive will be moved into here. This way the rest of us can ignore it, and those people who are socially challenged can still interact (and continue to interbreed) with people who share their IQ. People who persist in flame-baiting and trolling will be restricted to this area, so consider this fair warning.
So that’s my plan to “take back the site”. Transferring something or someone to The Trailer Park will be based entirely on my own discretion because that’s the kind of gal I am.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from charity
Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 08:40
| from charity beats the system ;-)
Monday, February 10, 2003 - 05:34
| from maria
Friday, February 07, 2003 - 06:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have known Charity for most of my life. Charity is one of the most kindest and understanding people I have ever known.
I know a lot of you have a hard time dealing with her foolishness. (harhar charity) But really, i've seen a lot worse on this site. Maybe some of you shouldn't take it so seriously?
Sometimes you get to a point where you just don't want to explain
everything or take everything so seriously!!
Sure, move her comments to the trailer trash if you want. But she should not be banned any more then anyone else on this site. And you know that Jules!!
Charity really couldn't care less anyways. I know she's had some extra time on her hands lately and I doubt she would ever come to this site in normal circumstances.
Charity is not white trash!! Anybody that knows her would never say something like that about her. She has more respect from me and others then you all will ever know.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From Jules
Friday, February 07, 2003, 20:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Maria", to say you have known Charity for most of your life is a bit of an understatement, wouldn't you say?
I'm sure she is a lovely person in real life. She has been mostly a troll on this site though. Humour is great, but there is a difference between sport and the WWF.
I do get her point about the anger she feels towards SGs who sold out in the Family and she has every right to feel that way. If she wants to make that point, then she should, clearly, and she did actually in one of her posts. Unfortunately the flaming was so crazy at that time that I don't think very many people read it (I know I was just ignoring anything by her at that point). Anyways I've reposted it into a separate article.
I'm not sure what to do with the time limit for the Trailer Park. I really hate blocking anyone from anything, but I felt I had to do something.
Do you all think a week in the Trailer Park would be reasonable initially and then I'll remove the restriction? Honestly, now that it's there I can't see it being used too much, it's just good sometimes to know what is or is not appropriate. Some of my own comments have been equally trailer parky, but there are 11,000 comments and cleaning up all the threads takes some time, so bear with me here.(reply to this comment) |
| | from xhrisl
Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
God love you Jules,
It's been a long time comming---In any society people gravitate toward their own, thank you for providing a place for these unfortunates, and thereby freeing the rest of us from their misery.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Jules
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 21:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, some guidelines are up for the Trailer Park.
http://www.movingon.org/trailer.asp
I TARGET="_new">http://www.movingon.org/trailer.asp>http://www.movingon.org/trailer.asp
I probably should have posted something like instead of the original article here. While I claimed to PJ this article was partially tongue-in-cheek it was actually more like tongue-sticking-out-of-mouth, and a little Trailer Parky myself.
Anyways, hope this clarifies things.
Jules
(reply to this comment)
| from Stella
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 15:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we please please have a trailer park chat room too? I'm really trying to find some of my kind.
(reply to this comment)
| from Charity
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:29
| from John
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:02
| from cz
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 08:57
| from tigress
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, - pls.,pls. do not shut down, though I can understand where you are coming from....I am an adult, exer since 5 years---this site has helped me tons!!!!( though some of the lingo goes right passed me, esp. being European and not from the US ) I understand my kids better, it has helped me face reality and helped destroy my illusions - it broke my heart and helped me laugh again - and why give the F. a victory? I think you are a real threat to them when it comes to helping young adults thinking about leaving....keep it up! And when I hear some exer- adults say "the F. was not so bad"...I tell them to read what's on this site....simply one of the best and one of my favourite sites for reading!!
(reply to this comment)
| from exotik tom-boy
Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules,
I think that the 'trailer park' site is a GREAT idea! I'm sick and tired of all the brainswashed, sexist, and perverted fools who post whacked things on this site. I thank you for trying to remedy it! I know that you're a 'kick-ass chick'! :=)
(reply to this comment)
| from Prisma
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 23:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules,
I have to say that because of what you have done here I have a newfound respect for you. This is your site and there does come a time when enough absurdity is really enough. You are exercising your right as site owner and administrator to place these senseless, offensive and meaningless comments exactly where they belong -- “The Trailer Park”. Nicely done!
--Prisma
(reply to this comment)
| from Don't shut it down!
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, you know if you shut it down, there's going to be a day of rejoicing in the Family that their prayers worked against the "evildoers"! :P
And for those of you who have issues about it, just don't freakin' come to this site!!!
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Friday, February 07, 2003, 21:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are right about that, and I know that the Family has been praying against this site and against the participants here. However, when I set this web site up, it was not to "get back at the Family" or really anything to do with them at all. The idea was to create a place were those of us who shared the same upbringing could interact and it was supposed to be interesting, informative and fun. If it's not interesting, informative and fun anymore, then this forum no longer serves a purpose.
Their response to our little forum has been unprecedented, but what TF has to say is irrelevant to me or my life. I absolutely believe that no matter what we do or how we feel about TF, our number one priority is to ourselves and what we feel is right for us. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Zola
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 05:18
| from Pharmaboy..
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, one word, “moderators”. Almost any serious forum out there has moderators to keep things at a certain level of decency. I suggest you give certain users who have proven their mental stability mod rights(no, I’m not thinking of myself). As soon as a topic degenerates to personal insults and toilet talk that topic gets closed, or if the problem is just one post, the mod should delete that post or just remove the unnecessary crack about JoeH being a depraved transsexual Puerto Rican lesbian. The posts you seem to remove are the informative ones, like that link to that Suicide FAQ. Think of it as constructive destruction, or a sort of harm reduction, isn’t better if someone ends their life cleanly, rather than be vegetable on life support=useless parasite? Anyways Jules, get mods!!!!
Btw, Jules, in your reply to Alf, you did mean a codeine high, didn’t you? :) You naughty girl, but it’s ok, I promise not to tell mom where her migraine tablets went..
Another thought comes to mind(sometimes I surprise myself). If you shut this site down think of the article in the next grapevine about the glorious victory in the spirit against our enemies and an evil website of bitter apostates has just been shut down(the keys do it yet again). This site is like a blinding set of brights on the freeway at night in this confused, twisted world of pain ( I think of that shuttle blow-up and I can’t keep from weeping, TYJ). Don’t give up Jules, we’re all behind you in this great war of good vs evil(say, that is a nice ass).
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 17:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pharmaboy,
Thanks for your suggestion regarding moderators. There are actually about 20 people who, though I can't vouch for their mental stablity, do act as editors for different sections right now. (They spellcheck and post articles submitted to their categories.)
I have asked them what they think about taking over bumping nonsense to the trailer park in their own sections, and it seems to be okay with everyone.
I've made some modification to allow editors access to these screens, so we'll see how it goes.(reply to this comment) |
| | From pfff
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 17:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Explains why some articles don't get posted!! - Whatever happened to "within 24 hours".
Starting to be stikingly obvious that some of your "mentaly unvouchable" editors are withholding articles because of their own personal reasons, deciding between eachother whether you want something posted. - Becoming your own "inquisition".(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 18:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hold the conspiracy theories there sugar. Actually, if things aren't posted right away, it's probably due to my slackness with the coding of this site.
When an article is submitted to someone's category, an automatic notification email is sent to the editor informing them of the new submission.
However people frequently submit things to the wrong section, and it's then transferred to a more appropriate section by another editor. When an article is transferred instead of being posted directly, there is no email notification and it sometimes takes awhile for the editor to see it.
What I need to do is set up an notification email when an article is transferred as well as submitted, but it's another thing on "the list" that I just haven't gotten time to do yet.
For now, if I see something that's been pending for more than a couple days, I just post it myself.
PS: If you want to see who an editor is for a section, their name is on the main page for that section.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 20:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't understand your point.
Anyone can be an editor. Some people suggested sections so I set them up with them as the editor. Other people I whined and pleaded with to take on sections.
To be honest, it's basically a way for me to pawn off as much of the work here as possible.
If you like you can have your own section and post your own articles right away. Send me a title and picture and it takes about a minute to set up. Perhaps JoeH would like one on grammar (oh the non-stop excitment there :p). Actually there isn't a editor for the trailer park yet. Although the week restriction for her being stuck there has expired already, I was wondering if Charity wanted to take it on.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 02:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you Jules!!
(reply to this comment)
| from Alf
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 21:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ha. So are you finally throwing your toys out of the pram Jules? I agree that the site is completely shit and that it would probably be better for all of us if it were shut down.
(reply to this comment)
| From exotik tom-boy
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 06:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course that's what you think! However, there aint much substantial merit in your viewpoints! Then again, being a second generation abused kid, by your first generation of derelicts; I would share your same twisted mode of thought, if I were as perverted as you guys are.
YOU CAN RUN.......BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE HIDEOUS CRIMES YOU'VE COMMITTED AGAINST YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!
You guys (as in ANYONE who joined the Family/COG as an adult!) are all a bunch of burnt-out, abusive freaks who've tried to intimidate their children! But, check it out; we aint kids no more, and we're becoming more educated by the moment; which brings a wonderful element to our lives: FREEDOM! Freedom to understand that 'flee bags' , 'The Anti-Christ', 'Heaven's Girl', child abuse (both mental, physical, and sexual), 'sharing schedules', and 'teen training camps', are the biggest CROCK of SHIT!
So, yo; maybe you ask yourselves why you believe in the white trash theology that you do in the first place?!!!! Perhaps it's because it's (as in "the family's") not a healthy lifestyle! Why would anyone propogate ZERO sense of self esteem? why would anyone encourage lack of formal education? (wait, I forgot, earning a PhD is 'too stressfull' according to you guys!), Geez, must be because they are afraid of being exposed for their bogus doctrines!
We are (as in us kids) brave enough to face you 'adults', and ask you why you subjected us to the SHIT that you have?
When death comes to knock on my door (whenever that may be), I know that I will answer it with full confidence; knowing that I got away from you fools as soon as I was able to; but that most importantly........I've never tried to 'control' and 'brainwash' ANY innocent offspring or kids!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from WickedWhisper
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 19:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe the Family is the ones sending these jerks to you? It seems like the best thing they could do to stop MovingOn wold be to flood it with vain babblers.
Also I think that "Charity" is really just Andrew(7*)in disguise.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Tuesday, February 04, 2003, 22:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although I can assure you that Charity is not Andrew J, I am suspicious of our new Trailer Park residents (Charity, cz, Becky, Zola, Sandi, Shaenock). They all live together in Taiwan? That's either a fabulous case of MPD, some REALLY friendly roomates, or a Family home.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from bintoro-lost
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry-what brought this on? I mean specificly. I'm trying to find the thread.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From alias
Wednesday, February 05, 2003, 01:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Were the threads on Sunny the precipitous that brought this on? Sorry that it had to come to this, but as much as many hate the thought, someone is going to have to show some type of "leadership" if anyone is ever going to get past just words and dreams. I admire differnt ones on this site and their efforts to do what they are trying to do, but the energy spent degrading and putting people and events down will only provide the impetous for movement for a term. The negativity and hatred will excite for a season, but only positive thrusts forward (no sexual pun intended)are going to accomplish anything. I wasn't "born" into the family as most on this site so I chose to come and go when I pleased. I left home early and made it on my own, and one of the main things I learned was not to spend the rest of my life blaming people, my boss, my partner, my girlfriend on my woes. It's counter productive. The thing that bothers me is that the hatred will only feed on itself and spread to other parts of your life, and in this case this site. A lot of it can just be marked up as immaturity, but I am glad somebody is trying to do something to make a difference. I have kids now and though I am a lot more lenient that many, there is a time when you have to just say, "this far and no farther" for their own good, because you want to grow up to be productive and successful, and you know that if they continue the thread they are on they will not have the juice to attain that goal. I'll probably get a big "kiss ass" from a lot of people, but hey, right is right. "Im not counting my words here-just chatting-as the Italians say, "come mangiare, come parlare." talk like you eat-in other words, when you eat pasta you aren't counting the noodles and when you talk you should have the confidence that your friends will understand and not have to be so careful about the way you say things. I wanted to write earlier but couldn't find the thread about the put Sunny down conversation. Somebody said something like we should have the right to put her down just as we do Britney, Whitney and Pitney. (Gene Pitney-check Kazaa.) Point taken, but if you are a friend of these artists, on a first name basis, go the same parties and frequent the same clubs, then it takes on a different level. I play with a lot of musicians and back up artists that aren't my favorite people and specially aren't my preferred listening channel, but you just learn after a while that it's not such a professional thing to do to put other artists down-whether you like their style or not. Anyway, it only backfires on you. Remember the quip-he that speaks to you of others speaks of you to others too. Your rep follows you and productive people don't have that much leisure time, and when you get it, you don't want to fill it with a bunch of immature shit. Hey man, 'ow 'bout uh liddle respect. Gotta go now. Not finished but needs be gone.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, February 05, 2003, 20:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Frankly, I couldn't care less if people are "negative" or "positive". We all live our own lives and make our own way. I'm not about to tell anyone what they should do or who they should be. Regarding setting boundaries for kids, well we are all adults here, and besides, I got out of childcare when I left the Family. There's a certain level of decency and civility however that we have a right to expect from others, no matter where they are at in their life, what their opinions, or how heated the debate. That's what this is about.(reply to this comment) |
| | From alias
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 01:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
agree with the second half-as far as getting out of childcare when you left the family, it sounds clever, but if you have a child you never get out of childcare. Sorry, maybe I got a bit pious there in the beginning of my statement about being positive, but I just wanted to share what I've seen to work. And as far as you not telling anyone what to be or what to do, you have just sent a bunch of people to the trailer park. The point I was trying to make is we shoudn't waste all our time on destroying and cutting down and we should find some points we agree on besides threads that are built on defamation of character whether someone is in or out of the Children of God, gay, lesbian. or in the trailer park. Are you going to give the trailer people equal space for rebuttal to say what they think if they are willing to be more civil and decent,is it 3 strikes your'e out or are they already doomed? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 07:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
In regards to childcare, what I meant was sticking my nose into strangers lives and telling them what I/God/everyone thinks their problems are and what they should do to fix them, not parenting your own children.
Who people are and what they do is their own business. If someone is having a bad day (bad life?), fair enough, I hope they feel better soon. If someone takes their bad day out on someone else here, that comment will be put in the Trailer Park where it can be continued by anyone who feels like it and ignored by the rest of us who don't.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Friend
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 00:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a thought, Jules, a lot of people haven’t been out longer than say 5 years & some may still even be in “The Family”. Have you considered that perhaps some people have a bit bottled up, which, when realising their new found freedom of expression may not automatically know the best way to express things?
Sure I agree with you that there is a certain level of decency and civility which we have a right to expect from others. But I think the level of civility in some of the comments probably equates even positively with the lack of civility experienced whilst in “The Cult” by some who are now speaking their minds. Especially if maybe they were forced to endure or accept things which they are only now realising were in breach of their personal freedoms. I’m sure you don’t intend this site to be a haven only for those who have ambitions for success in the entertainment industry or only for intellectual scholars, or only lawyers, because that wouldn’t be fair. Neither is it fair to discriminate against those who are less articulate or against those who feel they must stoop to gutter-level trash-talk to express themselves. If those who choose not to use that kind of language think that are so far above it, why can’t they have the understanding & empathy for those who feel they must?
Just considering that just because someone leaves doesn’t mean they automatically “fit in”, or know what to say or how to say it, but they may feel the need to say something, & quite possibly they will understand later how it would have been better phrased. But should they be discriminated against while they are still coming to grips with or gaining a better understanding of how to communicate sensitive issues? I read something the other day about how its not at all uncommon for someone who’s been raised in a cult much like “The Family” to be so disassociated from “society” that they when taking a bus ride will often approach the driver to ask where he would like them to sit. Of course it would probably seem to a normal person a “simple-minded” thing to do, but the person doing it could be of perfectly normal intelligence.
I guess what I’m saying is, yes, there is a level of civility and decency which is preferable and which we have a right to expect, but I would think we, of all people should be able to understand this isn’t a “normal” discussion, this isn’t a “normal” forum discussing issues that “normal” have gone through, where “normal” rights have been in force all our lives. So regardless of whether you decide to bar me from this site, (which you are perfectly entitled to do, I might add) I’m going to have to disagree with you when you try to apply “normal” rules of civility to people who have just come out of, or who are now coming out of a practical psychological war zone & are trying to say what’s on their minds. Have you thought even they probably will look back in a few years & wish they’d said it better?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 07:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
You raise some good points and this is actually one reason why I didn't do anything before this now.
However, in the real world there are consequences for our actions. Most of us have issues with authority figures which comes from our upbringing. But if we walk into work and start yelling at our boss for being such a domineering control freak, we are likely to find ourselves out of a job pretty fast.
I think that to not apply "normal" rules of civillity to this forum is actually patronising. It's saying that people are too immature/messed up/brainwashed to know any better. I don't agree with that.
Nobody is being barred or banned, but removing the initial flame to another forum will allow people who really want to respond to do so, and those who want to continue the initial conversation to do so as well. It's a very small minority of the content that falls in this category, but a single insult can spark 50 retorts of "You suck", "No you suck more" and we have PJ in trouble with his wife again, and Joe H thinking now would be a good time to share his BJ skills. Look how much nonsense was generated over Charity's initial Jon Waters post. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Friend
Friday, February 07, 2003, 02:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with what you’ve said about not patronising people. I suppose there is a fine line between patronising & giving reasonable allowances. As far as the real world goes you’re right, but to expand on your own example the very reason for some of the “outbursts” could be some people letting some of their previous “bosses” know they had no business being “boss”. Perhaps some people who felt helpless as kids or young adults don’t feel that way now & they are letting them know. There are probably often times where, in the real world, we feel like telling our boss “where to go”, & we probably decide to hold our tongue for the sake of our job, reputation, or because its not worth making a fuss about, yet if our "boss" pushes things too far, all of us I'm sure have a breaking point.
I suppose one difference is that these family “bosses”, “VS’s” or whatever title have you, weren’t abiding by lawful legislation set in place for work place bosses/ employee relations, & were most often trying their best to dictate peoples lives, personal love relationships, friends, leisure activities & future occupational prospects & would often manipulate events & give benefits to those who suited them. To say they were “slavers” would, IMO, be almost too kind. I believe the sense of betrayal toward SGA’s is maximised as it was expected that “peers” would understand, empathise & be loyal to each other instead of siding with the FGA’s. Similarly, I believe the opposite is true for those who decided to exceed their boundaries of pushing people around & getting what they want, they develop an overlording mentality, which is seems to lack normal conscientiousness. I think what is happening here is a sort of re-assertiveness, that’s why I have a hard time levelling blame at the trash-talkers.
I do know exactly what you’re saying and identify with your not wanting to turn this site into a trash dump. I agree absolutely that nothing will be gained by people continuing to “trash” those like Sunny who are now trying to make it in the world, outside “The Family”. At least they’ve got more guts, IMO, than those musicians who remain in & they deserve that credit.
As far as those in positions of authority (or who were in positions of “authority”), I think that’s a tough call. I wonder if the empathy we often show to SGA’s who also grew up in “The Family”, simply because of that fact (& I’m specifically referring to those SGA’s in “authority”), is little more than excessive permissiveness of impermissible behaviour. If we show no outrage to those our own age who have tried to dominate & control others lives then IMO we have little or no reason to show outrage to our parents for not showing outrage at their own peers for actions they’ve done. I try to remember most of them (the FGA’s) are too products of their own misguided youth & perhaps lack of parenting. I believe our parents now only truly identify with each other, & next with those SGA’s who are willing to do anything they say because they’ve created their own reality, their own version of right & wrong. But is that the same for us? Will we also excuse the same way? If we do, IMO, we’re no better.
I don’t understand why many of us realise the harm our parents have put us through and yet why others raised in the same “Family” seem to back them up entirely even to the extent of, on their own sites, blatantly attacking, bickering and trying to contradict us who tell of our experiences & the sadness & hurt we’ve gone through. It’s as if a choice has been made at some stage to side with our parents & agree with them & I don’t wish to speculate the reasons. One of the people you barred from the site tells a story about how bad she felt after spanking a kid. There are numerous parenting books about people coming to grips with the proper way to discipline kids, it’s a fairly normal thing to deal with, but what of all those parents who never bother to look themselves in the mirror & see what their doing wrong.
Jules, I have to agree about the insults and trash, & I know you’ve considered the “allowances” of those who are so upset they’ve said things the wrong way. I suppose, IMO it’s easy for those who perhaps hurt people in the past to cry foul at trash-talk comments but not to come to terms with how much their previous “shepherding” was most likely a serious intrusion into a lot of people’s lives. I think any SGA’s still in “authority” should be warned, if you mess with peoples lives, you bear the consequences, just like if you attack someone you have to live with the repercussions. If there is no restitution, there is no peace.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, February 09, 2003, 23:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
The issue of flaming other participants is different than the one of expressing outrage and anger over things that we experienced in the Family. The flaming thing has been a long time coming and the recent stuff was just the last straw for me.
I was very disturbed when someone posted in the creeps section some months back that they hated a young woman because she was a "bulimic bitch" and an entire conversation in which physical violence towards her was threatened ensued. I have taken a lot of flack for having that section up in the first place, but I felt that despite the potential problematic issues, the need to have some place to speak out about abuse and name the perpetrators outweighed the concerns. That some people didn't seem to be able to distinguish between criminal acts such as sexual and physical assault and just disliking someone was more than a bit worrisome.
This issue of SGs in leadership roles in the Family is definitely one that warrants discussion. There is obviously a lot of anger there from some people. I've been on both sides of this fence (though I left a month after turning 20), and have been thinking about this for some time. I'll write something more on this topic in another thread when I get some time. The issue is that with any dialogue, if you want to actually discuss something, you have to state your case and your reasoning behind it, not just throw out insults.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Friend
Friday, February 07, 2003, 02:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, Jules, a misprint of 2nd paragraph above. It should read:
To say they were “slavers” would, IMO, be almost too kind. I believe the sense of betrayal toward SGA’s is maximised as it was expected that “peers” would understand, empathise & be loyal to each other instead of siding with the FGA’s.The real damage done as a result of this I believe, is psychological, if someone puts up with being pushed around, beyond what is really acceptable, they develop a servitude mentality which follows them long after they leave the cult. Similarly, I believe the opposite is true for those who decided to exceed their boundaries of pushing people around & getting what they want, they develop an overlording mentality, which is seems to lack normal conscientiousness. I think what is happening here is a sort of re-assertiveness, that’s why I have a hard time levelling blame at the trash-talkers.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
"and we have PJ in trouble with his wife again"...huh? Is it just me, or do the limits of acceptable discussion material seem to be narrowing? Can we maybe get a list of stuff that's ok to talk about?
I'm not against this trailer park thing, and I think the comments of mine that got moved there definitely belong there, but you're flame-baiting here and you know it.
Joe never "shared his BJ skills" with anyone, he posted a spam-mail that's been circulating the internet for at least 4 years (that's when I first read it, and I think it was old even then)It was dumb, I know, and I'm sure he knows it now too; but you're suggesting he goes around performing felatio when he already gets hounded for looking "gay", (and try as he might to deny it he is surely forming a complex).
Most of us communicate with each other on and off this web site because it is supposed that as fellow survivors we are uniquely capable of mutual understanding and compassion. To take this understanding and use it as a weapon just to spark discussion is something of a betrayal and is beneath you, Jules.
Yeah we can't get away with yelling at our bosses like you say, but most cubicle-slaves don't think much of their bosses, and most people here think a lot of you. (though I don't think many consider you their "boss")
So if you're so concerned about conversation degenerating, why do you have to take cheap shots like this? You've pointed it out to me when I contradicted myself, well now you're doing it, too. I've said that "you rock" in the past, and I still think you do, but great bands do lame songs sometimes, and I think this may be one of yours.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good lord, I'm kidding. Lighten up already.
I pick on Joe all the time but I don't mean any harm. A sense of humour got me through some dark times. If the web site gets this uptight it will be no fun at all.
The idea behind the Trailer Park is to keep the flame bait off the main site, not to exorcise the foolishness demons. The initial article here was partially tongue in cheek. I don't really think that our trailer park residents actually interbreed, or have a lower IQ than anyone else. They basically just need to chill.
Hmmm, perhaps a list of "trailer park posts" criteria would be a good idea. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 13:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Obviously it's hard to objectively evaluate my own smart-ass comments. Perhaps until I can work out the details of the Trailer Park thing, I should just steer clear of sarcasm.
oh.. so.. hard... :'(
I wasn't trying to be offensive to you, or start a fight, just lighten the mood a little. I was trying to say that arguments here sometimes lead to additional stress in our real lives, something we all have quite enough of already.
Perhaps my example of self-control in the workplace was not the clearest, I didn't mean that in reference to me or the new section here specifically at all (though I should have seen that comparison coming). It was just an example of us all being capable of behaving when we have to.
Another example might be the sexual ethics (or lack thereof) in the Family. We all grew up with some pretty liberal socialization, but in many cases, if you act that way in the real world, you have to deal with the social fallout from that kind of behaviour. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From WickedWhisper
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 01:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
The thing is, Jules didn't throw them off the web site. They have their own section in the trailler park and can continue to vent to their hearts content. Confining offensive speech to one area of a web site is a very reasonable alternative to simply banning it, like they do on NDN and ExFamily.org.
If it was a case of people with unpopular opinions being blocked from the web site entirely, I would agree with you, but no one's being censored here. (Except 7*, and that was for openly approving of Berg abusing Mene. He got off easy with banishment, some of us would have preferred an execution. ;-))(reply to this comment) |
| | From maria
Friday, February 07, 2003, 07:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
huh? She did throw them off the website. They can't reply to anything or even chat in the chatroom, much less defend themselves!! Any postings that they have done since being banned, I'm sure have come from the use of another computer.
This is exactly the case of unpopular opinions being blocked from the web site entirely. People are being censored here!! Hello??(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Friday, February 07, 2003, 19:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just read Jule's guidelines for the "Trailer Trash" section & should say it seems pretty fair. She doesn't want excessive insults or flame-baiting & she wants the participants of this site to communicate without resorting to too much trash-talking. I think that's fair.
I think Jules will probably give those banned a second chance...once she cools down & has had a chance to set up her guidelines to a level she thinks is fair. To be fair to Jules I don't think its fair to say she "knows" that Charity is not Trailer Trash. If she hasn't met her, how would she know? Jules can only go off of what Charity has shown her, & even you admit there was a fair bit of nonsense.
I think Charity has stuff to say which makes plenty of sense but I suppose it’s all in the words we choose to use.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From
Friday, February 07, 2003, 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
From fairy to troll, or vice versa, from foe to friend, or no, you've used fair fairly often your own fairly self. But yes, to be fair the word "fair" has fairly been well fairly overused. May you feel unfairly fared, please treat your fair fairly self to transpose as many “fairs” as deemed excessive with as many fair synonyms as your fair fairly fairy self requires.
Enjoy a fair fairly day, fair natured fairly fairy.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From NatK
Friday, February 07, 2003, 07:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree that this site should not be used to slag others off, although it goes on, even out of the "Trailer Park", if you read most of the threads and there is one or two nasty comments that should probably be exiled to the Trailer Park, but that would be near impossible. Maybe once the articles are placed and are deemed to be trailer trash then they should be relocated to the appropriate section. WDYT Jules?
I happen to share my computer with one of the "degenerates" and now am unable to log into the chat room, is there anyway this can be sorted out?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from butterhead
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you, Jules! My visits to this site were getting less regular as I just couldn't stand all these pointless squabbling any longer! Arrgh! I just feel sorry for you since you're the one who has to sort through all that junk. Thank you!
(reply to this comment)
| from Jules
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, so the first residents of the TP are from the little commune in Taiwan. cz, if you register your nickname, you'll still be able to post on the rest of the site.
(reply to this comment)
| from Sunny is very happy indeed!
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
That pretty much says it right there.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]