To JuliePosted by Dorothy on 12/16/04 at 12:07 (165742)
This morning I read your recently written note asking me to continue a presence here and I will look for your posts based on that request. I read the other posts in the thread that began that very odd series following a post by Elyse and then Rachel and a response by me, but I won't read them anymore. I am going to make oblique response to them in this note to you, by way of 'crossing the street' to stay away from their menacing presence. There are some people here who are always quite gleefully eager to attack me and I wonder about the level of mean-spiritedness and anger and hatred that must move spirits like that. The completely misplaced and erroneous interpretations, coupled with the profligate use of quotation marks, as if quoting someone when no statements/words like those quoted were used, almost draw me into their bizarre little coven of argument - but I ain't gonna go! At least, I'm not going any further than this post. There is no logic, no wit, and no common ground with minds like that. I don't know how it is in England or Europe these days, but what many of my friends and I note with increasing concern is the arrogant, bullying rise of an anti-intelligent, anti-intellectual segment of society - a tyrrany of the ignorant. It is not necessarily attached to any one political 'stripe', but is a kind of mindless attachment to ignorance. I saw the circle that had rapidly gathered around to attack me get momentarily distracted to turn themselves to lash out at you as well. One could almost feel and smell the fetid, hot saliva spewing from their lashing tongues as they smelled blood and rushed to join the circle. It is true that I don't suffer fools gladly, but I sadly acknowledge that the world is in the control of same. We see and hear these kinds of tactics all the time in this country. Demogogues like Sean Hannity use them all the time on the radio, for example. So when one of these posters puts the words 'heinous' and 'harm' in quotes, then reacts to them as if someone actually said them about her, she is employing practiced tools of manipulation of fact, and disingenuous , false assumption of victimhood. No one but she used those words that she put into quotes.
So, I've reacted in this post to you as much as I'm going to respond to Elyse, Susan, RALPH, and Hilary G. - and any others who have joined the fabricated fray.
To you, Julie, I'm sorry that you got attacked by this gang, but their numbers - the Anti-Dorothy faction - seem to be many. I sense floorboards being lifted and spaces under rocks opening just a bit to let them out; they gleefully step up to the microphone and screetch excitedly about how they've been waiting again for the moment when the masses could attack Dorothy. Their own witlessness makes them shiver with joy. They're weird and they resent intelligence and they disdain what, in informed circles, is common practice and accepted custom; they call these elements 'rules' and, like children have always done, they rail against them. And that's how it is in America these days and that's how it is here. This 'RALPH' only seems to come out when he/she gets word that there is to be an anti-Dorothy rally and Susan seems to enjoy those, too. Elyse got all ‘het up' in a long post being upset over my 'sarcasm and negativity' and yet 'again jumping down another poster's throat' or words to that effect, all actions that the boards don't need, as she said. Susan and Elyse volleyed back and forth for a while about what the boards don't need and Susan even so kindly educated you, Julie, about what an appropriate post might look like and what an inappropriate post might look like. I know you will benefit from her instruction. (That's some of that sarcasm, Elyse – and Susan). Hilary G even joined the rally by jumping to the defense of Elyse, whom she felt had been wronged by me, apparently.
Just for one brief moment I would like to ask anyone with a remnant of intact cognitive function to review the first three posts (Elyse's, Rachel's, my first response) to see if they find anything that should elicit the posts that followed. It is my opinion that Elyse's original post was not at all clear as to who was making those statements about treatments. Her sections were separated by a line of demarcation, with the second beginning with comments about being a doctor…..it was not clear whether this was now Elyse speaking or was another writer. When she said 'I read these'….was she referring to the first paragraph's words? It doesn't matter – the whole matter would have been a non-issue if she had said 'I read these in Runner's World…' and/or The Wharton's book…and then proceeded. These were not her opinion. These were the words and writings of SOMEONE SOMEWHERE and attribution is the decent, correct and, in many circles, legal thing to do. However, all that said, I wasn't even quibbling about those points I just now made – I was WISHING she had cited the comments because they expressed a point of view that I share and I wanted to know who said them – because, unlike Elyse and her bullying gang, I am curious and I like to learn and I read and study and to know where information comes from – and because, as a writer, I think the words and ideas of another should be given attribution, when the source is known, as they were known by Elyse.
By the way, Julie is a published writer, as am I.
Now to Elyse, Susan, RALPH, Hilary G, and anyone else who feels so inclined to get yourselves excited and make yourselves better by attacking Dorothy, grow up. The world does operate by what you call 'rules'; you would do us all a favor by honoring a few of them – start with courtesy, perhaps.
To Julie – if you still want to engage with me, after my using my ostensible post to you in this way, then I will continue to look for your posts to me – as I will for any from Suzanne.
To Elyse: what you mean to say to me is 'you have way too much Invested in these Boards' , not 'vested in these Boards'; they are completely different ideas. It will be to your advantage to know the meaning of words that you use. I have nothing 'vested' in these boards, but I do have something 'invested' in them – some of my heart, spirit, care and affection for many of the people here.
Re: To DorothyJulie on 12/16/04 at 14:59 (165763)
Hello Dorothy - I'm glad to see you back.
I didn't feel attacked - Susan clearly has issues about me, I don't know why, but it makes no difference to me; I have far more important issues of my own to deal with right now. Which is why I'm not going to say any more, except that there has been a new development in the saga of my back, but I'd rather not talk about it just now. In fact, I am going to lie down with my ice pack and then go to bed.
Do stay, Dorothy. This will blow over. Nobody can be liked by everybody, and it doesn't matter. You know that you are valued here, don't you?
Re: To DorothyElyse B on 12/16/04 at 15:32 (165767)
Julie... not to beat a dead horse .. but as I reviewed all the posts, I do not believe Susan 'has issues with you' (forgive my use of quotation marks as I believe Dorothy thinks that is a faux pas)and I wanted to make that clearer to you.
Susan was asking you for your impression of Dorothy's responses to my posting... her tone and the way they were asked. Since you responded concurring with Dorothy, I believe Susan wanted to know what your impression of their tone, what was asked and the way things were asked and whether you would have like to be responded to in the manner in which Dorothy posted and whether you thought it was appropriate?
That is all that Susan was asking and again, it is my belief that Susan has no issues with.
Re: To ElyseJulie on 12/16/04 at 16:09 (165769)
I sincerely wish I had never spoken. I did agree with Dorothy. I thought you should have cited your sources. I responded to Susan in a factual way saying what I thought the problem was, because I thought that doing so might defuse whatever it was that was brewing up. I was wrong. I got my head bitten off - twice - by Susan, who clearly does have issues with me. I do not care. This has now a very dead horse, and I am not going to say any more. I am in a lot of pain and am going to bed. Please let it go now. I apologised to you and that should be enough.
Re: To DorothyDorothy on 12/16/04 at 18:08 (165778)
Julie - You are probably not reading now, but for when you do -
I am so very sorry to hear that you are in a lot of pain - it sounds as if maybe you've had a setback - or at least not further progress
If either of those are the case, I am really sorry - and doubly sorry that this posting brouhaha blew up out of nowhere over nothing and even indirectly involved you. You are right - it will blow over - and this will be a more peaceful spot again.
I do hope when you get up from your rest that the ice and the rest - and we hope healing sleep - will have helped you.
You are in the good thoughts of most of us here and prayers as well.