Re: Tom's message to me

[Guest guest]

" Does this listserv have a requirement that members send " support "

messages to other members? "

Nope. You can come and go as you please and participate as you

please, but I think people would be less inclined to respond curtly

to you if they knew you better and felt that you were not trying to

troll the board.

" Does this listserv have a requirement that members must satisfy other

members' expressed or unexpressed wishes for a particular amount

and/or type of information about other members' personal lives? "

Nope. But it is hard to get to know someone and relate to someone who

chooses to remain aloof. Given that you have AS like the rest of us,

remaining aloof is perfectly understandable, although I in particular

am not used to people keeping such a distance between herself and us

as you choose to do. Admittedly, this ought to mean that the onus is

on us to accept you as you present yourself.

Yet I feel that we could all have lots of interesting and deep

discussions here that would include you if your manner was a bit more

warm.

" I had always supposed that individuals could choose to share — or

not to share — information about themselves. Here, does some other

rule apply? "

You may share as much or as little about yourself as you choose.

" In my experience so far, people who suppose that I should feel

obliged to tell much about myself do not make friends worth having. "

Okay. But how much of a chance to you actually give them?

Inger did not like you at first precisely due to your posting manner

and lack of personal warmth, but I persuaded her to let you stay.

Then she did grow to like you after a while and surely she still

does. But this could not have happened if she had chosen to keep her

mind closed to you.

" I do not feel a need to " feel free here. " The listserv has what rules

it has. If I find those rules intolerable, I'll leave. If you find me

intolerable, don't tolerate me. "

Let me ask you a direct question then: Why are you here? At present I

feel that you participate seldom and when you do, it is to stir us

up. Is there somenthing specific you are looking for or helping to

get from posting here? If so, let us know so we can provide you with

it. Or, by knowing why you are here, at least those of us who are

feeling uncomfortable with your presence can then perhaps cause

ourselves to feel comfortable with your presence.

" Similarly, I do not feel a need to " get along with everyone " — either

with everyone generally, or with everyone within a group. "

One would hope that you would attempt at least not to stir us up. You

can post or not post. The choice is yours. But maintain a standard of

politeness when posting if possible please.

" Thanks, though, for your concern. "

You are welcome.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Tom asks:

> Why are you here?

I joined out of curiosity (still only partially satisfied) about what

I might find here.

Having come here, I intended (and intend still) to ask about matters

raised by others(when if, and as these matters attract my interest and

curiosity). Others may or may not regard this (incorrectly, in my

view) as " stirring things up. "

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -

[Guest guest]

Nick - I don't recall what I mentioned in my previous message about

architectural styles, and no longer have a copy of that message.

Tnough sites on Aboriginal stories abound, I've yet to find one that

talks about (e.g.) when those stories originated. (Hmmm ,,, I wonder

if there exists a story about how stories originated ... )

Re:

> ... I remember talking with someone on a band trip who tried to tell me I was

one

> of three things: An agnostic, atheist or believer. I thought she was crazy

> for telling me something like that. I told her I'm not any one of those and

> I don't like those labels.

As I understand it, " atheist " refers to someone who believes that no

god (or goddess) exists — " believer " refers to someone who believes

that at least one god/goddess really exists — " agnostic " refers to

someone who doesn't believe for sure either way (an " agnostic " says

s/he doesn't know whether any god/goddess[es] really exist).

Nick — Given that your own beliefs don't fit any of those three

categories (and given that you don't like those categories anyway),

what would/might you call your own beliefs (if you want to tell me -

please don't feel that you have to answer, or anything)?

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -

[Guest guest]

My neurologist diagnosed me as an Aspie eleven years ago — but at

least five family members had already independently come to that

conclusion.

If I came here to advertise, I would not cut down my signature as I

shall now do. (See below.)

Please note that I had severe Aspie-type handwriting problems till age

24 (long before I'd heard about Asperger's) when I worked out a way to

help myself and (later) others who had these problems.

Does knowing the above change anything for you?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Everybody's beliefs are changing every second and that's the way the world works. One cannot be one belief all the time. One can hold the belief but, being that belief is just not possible. Kate Gladstone <handwritingrepair@...> wrote: Nick - I don't recall what I mentioned in my previous message aboutarchitectural styles, and no longer have a copy of that message.Tnough sites on Aboriginal stories abound, I've yet to find one thattalks about (e.g.) when those stories originated. (Hmmm ,,, I wonderif there exists a story about how stories originated ... )Re:> ... I remember talking with someone on a band trip who tried to tell me I was one> of three things: An agnostic, atheist or believer. I thought she was crazy> for telling me something like that. I told her I'm not any one of those

and> I don't like those labels.As I understand it, "atheist" refers to someone who believes that nogod (or goddess) exists — "believer" refers to someone who believesthat at least one god/goddess really exists — "agnostic" refers tosomeone who doesn't believe for sure either way (an "agnostic" sayss/he doesn't know whether any god/goddess[es] really exist).Nick — Given that your own beliefs don't fit any of those threecategories (and given that you don't like those categories anyway),what would/might you call your own beliefs (if you want to tell me -please don't feel that you have to answer, or anything)?Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 2006 beth sullivan wrote:

> All relgions were passed down by way of mouth, Who

> Authored the Torah, or the Bible, or the Koran or any

> religious text, no one knows, but we assume it was G-d.

Actually there are several answers. The Bible came from several

sources and there are several answers. e.g., Torah (first 5

books of the Bible) are traditionally held to be given by God to

Moses, but there are theories it is an aggregation of several

stories. All of this was believed to be compiled by Ezra the

Scribe. (With a perseveration like that he must have been one of

us!) One might add which explanation they believe and perhaps

in what way. In any case, there is no one answer.

As we move to the N.T., we begin to have more accurate records

from the Church, and it is my understanding that these books are

asserted to be testimonies by people, as compiled under The

Decree of Damasus, Roman Synod, 382. So there we have at least

some explanation.

I believe the Koran also has fairly specific origins.

So when coming from someone who has taken an interest in

religion, one would expect a question as to where the stories

came from. Most religious cultures do have stories or

explanations in that regard, and those explanations may be

interesting.

This isn't just speculation on my part. Browsing through the

messages (before sending this one!), I noticed:

" ... people disagree on who first said or wrote down the

stories:

God, or Moses, or some later editor or group of editors.

I'd hoped to know what Aboriginals say about the origins

of Aboriginal stories. "

That clearly states the intent of the earlier question.

Also consider that we have a mixture of people who believe that

their scriptures should be accepted without question, and people

who are trained, often as a part of their religion, to question

the text. That doesn't go to " where did these stories

originate " but does suggest that questioning the meaning of

something is sometimes respectful.

From all of this, I never did figure out the significance of the

questioning of why the question as to the source of The Seven

Teachings. I had presumed it to be a straightforward question,

well, because there was no reason not to.

-s

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 2006 beth sullivan wrote:

> All relgions were passed down by way of mouth, Who

> Authored the Torah, or the Bible, or the Koran or any

> religious text, no one knows, but we assume it was G-d.

Actually there are several answers. The Bible came from several

sources and there are several answers. e.g., Torah (first 5

books of the Bible) are traditionally held to be given by God to

Moses, but there are theories it is an aggregation of several

stories. All of this was believed to be compiled by Ezra the

Scribe. (With a perseveration like that he must have been one of

us!) One might add which explanation they believe and perhaps

in what way. In any case, there is no one answer.

As we move to the N.T., we begin to have more accurate records

from the Church, and it is my understanding that these books are

asserted to be testimonies by people, as compiled under The

Decree of Damasus, Roman Synod, 382. So there we have at least

some explanation.

I believe the Koran also has fairly specific origins.

So when coming from someone who has taken an interest in

religion, one would expect a question as to where the stories

came from. Most religious cultures do have stories or

explanations in that regard, and those explanations may be

interesting.

This isn't just speculation on my part. Browsing through the

messages (before sending this one!), I noticed:

" ... people disagree on who first said or wrote down the

stories:

God, or Moses, or some later editor or group of editors.

I'd hoped to know what Aboriginals say about the origins

of Aboriginal stories. "

That clearly states the intent of the earlier question.

Also consider that we have a mixture of people who believe that

their scriptures should be accepted without question, and people

who are trained, often as a part of their religion, to question

the text. That doesn't go to " where did these stories

originate " but does suggest that questioning the meaning of

something is sometimes respectful.

From all of this, I never did figure out the significance of the

questioning of why the question as to the source of The Seven

Teachings. I had presumed it to be a straightforward question,

well, because there was no reason not to.

-s

[Guest guest]

There is a clash of expectations, between expecting not to be hurt and

expecting to be welcome to pursue any intellectual topic raised. Both

these expectations are fair.

When news media get accused of favouring bad news, an answer is given

to it that makes you think. When things go wrong, that's news. When

things go smoothly and without disasters, that's not news. That's why,

at the time of Chernobyl, it made funny satire to portray Soviet news

reporting: " there have not been any nuclear accidents today - rescue

services are not at this moment racing to the scene, that would be

stupid because there is nothing for them to race to. " Real news would

never say that every day. In the same way, one of us may not have the

art of intervening in any discussion except when there is something to

answer, to question, i.e. to disagree with. This vindicates your

aspieness, it's a gap in communication. In speech settings I have no

conversation, and except on topics I know well and can go deeper into,

I find it impossible to make any out of saying how ever so keenly I

agree with the other person - it would sound funny, like lovey-gushing

all over them, and they might not like that!

On avoiding hurt - if some members have some topics they don't want to

be questioned challengingly about, then let's learn from experience

not to pusue those with them.

>

> Tom asks:

>

> > Why are you here?

>

> I joined out of curiosity (still only partially satisfied) about what

> I might find here.

> Having come here, I intended (and intend still) to ask about matters

> raised by others(when if, and as these matters attract my interest and

> curiosity).

[Guest guest]

I see your point, Nick: to me, too, it makes better sense to say a

person has a belief rather than equating a person with a belief.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I think Maurice has done a far better job than I could ever have done

of putting my " take " into words:

> one of us may not have the art of intervening in any discussion except when

there is >something to answer, to question, i.e. to disagree with. ...

I'll do my best to take his advice on avoiding hurt.

Kate Gladstone

On 7/18/06, Kate Gladstone <handwritingrepair@...> wrote:

> I see your point, Nick: to me, too, it makes better sense to say a

> person has a belief rather than equating a person with a belief.

>

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

--

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -

<advertising removed by moderator>

[Guest guest]

I think Maurice has done a far better job than I could ever have done

of putting my " take " into words:

> one of us may not have the art of intervening in any discussion except when

there is >something to answer, to question, i.e. to disagree with. ...

I'll do my best to take his advice on avoiding hurt.

Kate Gladstone

On 7/18/06, Kate Gladstone <handwritingrepair@...> wrote:

> I see your point, Nick: to me, too, it makes better sense to say a

> person has a belief rather than equating a person with a belief.

>

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

--

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -

<advertising removed by moderator>

[Guest guest]

Hopefully everything is settled now between us all. Let's try to go

back to regular discussion topics if we can everyone.

Tom

Administrator

Re: Tom's message to me

I think Maurice has done a far better job than I could ever have done

of putting my " take " into words:

> one of us may not have the art of intervening in any discussion

except when

there is >something to answer, to question, i.e. to disagree with. ...

I'll do my best to take his advice on avoiding hurt.

Kate Gladstone