Re: No troll.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> In case people haven't noticed, the troll is gone, and has been for

> nearly a week now. I'm responsible, and will take whatever blame or

> credit there is.

In case you have not noticed, I am the moderator of this list, not you,

and it is my job to decide if people need to be kicked off. Steve had

some substantive posts, and I have no doubt that he is on the spectrum.

Once I put him on moderated status, he ceased being a problem in terms

of disrupting the list. He is welcome to be on this list as long as he

can control his outbursts, and with me moderating him, that would be no

problem for him.

> There are several here who know how he attacked and

> insulted , Gareeth, and on the other List, but would not

> respond to me when I tried to calm him down.

As I have told him, what happens on other lists is irrelevant here. You

and he both were guilty of carrying an outside grudge into this list,

and disrupting the list with your bickering. You were able to stay

within the general realm of civility, though; he was not, and he

received the brunt of my comments and actions, but I do realize that

this was a mutual combat between you.

> While the flame war was here, many people argued with him at first,

> but I persevered, because I knew more about him.

Yes-- despite the fact that I asked you (and others) not to carry your

off-list grudges into the list several times. Don't expect thanks for

persevering in this regard.

> I was worried that

> the stink of it would rub off on me, but hoped that people would

> understand what was happening.

Yes, I understood perfectly well-- two people with a grudge against each

other chose to use this list as a battlefield, despite me asking nicely

that you not do so. I realize that Steve has a tendency to take any

little slight and fly off the handle and post huge tirades, but I think

I also saw a little of you using this knowledge to provoke him into

tirades. That's abusive of this group as well, and I did not mention it

at the time because I realized that this, too, would provoke Steve.

Unlike the two of you, I have tried to avoid placing blame; I only

wanted to return the list to the civility we had here before the two of

you joined, and that was finally accomplished a few weeks before Steve left.

> So I just want to reassure people that it's really not in my nature

> to argue and carry on so; I've always hated arguments, because that

> WAS my family's style. I just felt that needed doing.

It didn't need doing. You continually provoked Steve into tirades, and

disrupted the list. You disregarded my requests to drop the matter, and

chose to take advantage of my dislike of censorship. Some moderators

would have stepped in before I did, and moderated both of you; I tried

to take the least invasive approach. It's really bad form for you to

post this message gloating about it now, and it seems like you expect

people to thank you. Well, I'm not going to.

> I can't

> imagine any circumstance where I would be in- volved in another such

> " war " , because I understand the power of the printed word, (even if

> it's on a monitor). I enjoy the sense of " community " that we have

> here, and that it is a " support " group, best conducted with civility.

It's not really a support group. It's a group for autistic people to

get together and discuss whatever they want, as long as they don't

attack one another. Support forums (in which I would include Gail's

" Aspie Hangout " ) are less tolerant of strife and contentiousness; this

group has always been (and was founded as) a group where a lot of debate

was welcome.

Steve's lack of sense of proportion made him the worst offender as far

as the personal attack rulr, but he reminds me of another autistic

spectrum person I know, in person, who has also resorted to " trolling "

online, and who is geniunely a nice guy, one that desperately needs to

be listened to. He has calmed down greatly in the time I have known

him; I know that Steve could be the same way. He's wounded; you can see

the hurt oozing from his messages, and as spectrum people that have also

been hurt, we should not be so fast to throw him away.

[Guest guest]

Yes, Clay, I think the stink may have rubbed off on you- it has to me, anyway.

I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up-

When you told ME you were going to join his list, you said you were going just

to " piss him off " , and be a little spy.

I thought it was really creepy to join another person's list by lying, no matter

who they are. It's immature, petty, small minded and ridiculous- just let it

die.

So others may be talking about you, me, and others on this list. Who cares? I

don't care what they say about me, their opinion of me doesn't matter to me.

It almost looks to me like you were " getting even " , since you wanted ideas on

how best to piss him off- of course I won't participate in that- I'm bigger than

that, believe it or not. Is this how you settle differences with others? Is

this a " spiritual " , " healthy " thing to do? That's pretty sick, and a red flag to

me.

BTW, IS/ WAS monitoring him- maybe that's why he's gone? did his

job, and now we can enjoy the list.

Clay, for the sake of everyone on this list - practice your supposed " spiritual "

happy-think stuff and just LET IT GO. GET OVER IT.

No one cares about it and we'd all like to forget it.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> In case you have not noticed, I am the moderator of this

> list, not you, and it is my job to decide if people need

> to be kicked off.

You are, and you can kick me out, moderate me, or accept me,

as you choose. I knew the risks in becoming involved, and

made my choice. (I would like to stay.)

> You and he both were guilty of carrying an outside grudge

> into this list, and disrupting the list with your bickering.

I can't deny that, but I didn't act out of a personal grudge

against him, just wanted to protect others from personal

attacks, and didn't mind if he attacked me. Kept him busy.

> It's really bad form for you to post this message gloating

> about it now, and it seems like you expect people to thank

> you. Well, I'm not going to.

I wasn't gloating. I was admitting and taking responsibility

for what I had done. These are my reasons for making it known:

1. I wanted people to know that he was gone, and that they

could post about anything without fear of being attacked.

2. Also to understand that *I* am not a troll.

3. That they might respond to my posts, if they wish, without

fear of appearing to take sides, or being filed in his mind

as an enemy for doing so.

4. Larger than any of these reasons, I made a suggestion not

long ago that our best advocates put together some of their

best essays to counteract CAN. *I* have no such essays, and

would not profit from it, except that public awareness of

autism would be improved. I beg that you consider that

suggestion, even though it came from me, with the taint of

the recent unpleasantness.

Clay

[Guest guest]

>>These are my reasons for making it known:

>I was admitting and taking responsibility for what I had done.

When did you do that in the last post?

>1. I wanted people to know that he was gone, and that they

>could post about anything without fear of being attacked.

Since when did anyone feel like that? Since when did anyone not post out of fear

of Steve? Not me.

>2. Also to understand that *I* am not a troll.

Saying that you are not something that you think everyone thinks you are doesn't

help anything. It makes you look worse.

>3. That they might respond to my posts, if they wish, without

>fear of appearing to take sides, or being filed in his mind

>as an enemy for doing so.

LOL! Who the hell was worried about what Steve thought of them, or if they

" appeared to take sides " in Steve's mind?! Who the fuck cares what Stevie

thinks, anyway? Why on earth would Mr. Steve be a factor in whether or not

someone posted something?! Why would anyone on this list be afraid of anyone

else on it?!

*sarcasm* Well, I for one was " shaking in my little space boots " at the thought

that Steve may NOT like me! I was SO worried about that!! I swore he'd come

through the computer and get me!! And only CLAY could SAVE ME by sacrificing

himself! Just like the AS knights who say " Neem! " *sarcasm*

BTW, the " shaking in my little space boots " sarcastic remark comes from the

movie, Austin Powers II- The spy who shagged me. Dr. Evil, my favorite

character, said it to Austin towards the end of the film. I thought it was

hysterical.

>4. Larger than any of these reasons, I made a suggestion not

>long ago that our best advocates put together some of their

>best essays to counteract CAN.

What does this have to do with your last post?

Clay, you were not the action hero of the day, sad as that fact may be.... to

you.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jeanette danced around singing:

>Who the hell was worried about what Steve thought of them...

Actually, one of the times he attacked me, I was already under a lot of

stress from a situation in my relationship, and some of the specific things

he said were just enough that I went from " stressed " to " suicidally

depressed. " The person interacting with me on Instant Messenger that night

almost decided to call the police because of how deeply deranged my

thoughts were by the level of self-hatred Steve's comments had

provoked. (The comments would have hurt regardless of who said them; it

was the words, not the speaker, that were problematic for me.)

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

Are you on any anti-depressants or something to help with that? It comes up a

lot for you and it sounds pretty horrible- pretty deep.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Message: 7

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:28:50 -0000

Subject: No troll.

..

" I just felt that needed doing. "

ah, like hitler.

__________________________________________________________________

McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.

Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!

http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

>Saying that you are not something that you think everyone thinks you are

>doesn't help anything. It makes you look worse.

Not to me. I have the advantage of knowing Clay from another

venue, so I have more basis for my comprehension. He may (or

may not) have made incorrect decisions in this case, but he

is not a bad person. In fact, he's a good person. It's

possible that, as is true of me, his conscientiousness and

sense of responsibility occasionally are not matched by his

ability to carry out the tasks he sets for himself. If so,

I think we should be able to ask for some lee-way (not an

absence of critical comment, but surely an absence of

nastiness) on the basis of the fact that such a mis-match

often is a manifestation of our autism.

>LOL! Who the hell was worried about what Steve thought of them, or if

>they " appeared to take sides " in Steve's mind?! Who the fuck cares what

>Stevie thinks, anyway? Why on earth would Mr. Steve be a factor in whether

>or not someone posted something?! Why would anyone on this list be afraid

>of anyone else on it?!

I wasn't afraid of Steve, but his posts made me less happy

to be here, less likely to read list mail, less likely to

post. That's not Steve's fault, of course. Perhaps the list

as a whole would be better off if it were limited to active

members like Steve, Jeanette, and others who aren't depressed

by the kind of exchanges that were taking up so much room here

for a while. My druthers are of no import, but I express them

simply to demonstrate that Steve's posts were having a negative

effect on some members of the list (whether you consider that

worth taking into account or not).

I'm not " taking sides " on this issue, BTW, because I don't

understand it. I had stopped reading the posts, partly

because they depressed me and partly because I always stop

understanding what is going on when people start slinging

at one another. As I said before, I know Clay is a good

person, though (as is true of all people, including me)

that doesn't save him from making mistakes. Whether he made

a mistake in this case, I am not capable of ascertaining,

but I hope he will not feel alienated by the response and

stop posting.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jeanette danced around singing:

>Are you on any anti-depressants or something to help with that? It comes

>up a lot for you and it sounds pretty horrible- pretty deep.

Nope, no meds for the depression at current, just for the anxiety. I can

understand the idea of taking medication for emotions aren't directly

related to recent physical events; that is, an error in the brain's

production of one chemical or mistake in absorbing another. In my case,

the source of emotion is always easily identifiable and fairly logical. In

order to make that appropriate emotional response go away, it would require

making my brain chemically function in ways brains *aren't* supposed to.

I've had quite a few people that know my life/history suggest, in fact,

that my *lack of* constant unhappiness indicates more of a problem than the

periods of depression do! I actually had to learn not to talk about

certain events in my life or my outlook on reality to people, because they

would become upset and assume I must be horribly depressed. When I would

tell them that I wasn't, they'd be weirded out over that instead,

suggesting that I must be blocking it out or something odd like that.

[Guest guest]

hey denise, I know what you mean... when I can use humor about my

challenges, I think it takes away from people the ability to understand

that I am still being decoimated by the challeges (at the moment

referring to my fibro)

to me the image people then have of me is that I must be incapable in

every way, otherwise, my asking for help accomodation etc, is then

looked upon as not really neccessary because of course, I can talk about

what I'm doing wrong, even when I am in it.

so apparently, if I can ask for help I don't need it.

danielle

DeGraf wrote:

> Jeanette danced around singing:

> >Are you on any anti-depressants or something to help with that? It

> comes

> >up a lot for you and it sounds pretty horrible- pretty deep.

>

> Nope, no meds for the depression at current, just for the anxiety. I can

> understand the idea of taking medication for emotions aren't directly

> related to recent physical events; that is, an error in the brain's

> production of one chemical or mistake in absorbing another. In my case,

> the source of emotion is always easily identifiable and fairly

> logical. In

> order to make that appropriate emotional response go away, it would

> require

> making my brain chemically function in ways brains *aren't* supposed to.

>

> I've had quite a few people that know my life/history suggest, in fact,

> that my *lack of* constant unhappiness indicates more of a problem

> than the

> periods of depression do! I actually had to learn not to talk about

> certain events in my life or my outlook on reality to people, because

> they

> would become upset and assume I must be horribly depressed. When I would

> tell them that I wasn't, they'd be weirded out over that instead,

> suggesting that I must be blocking it out or something odd like that.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >Saying that you are not something that you think everyone thinks

you are

> >doesn't help anything. It makes you look worse.

>

> Not to me. I have the advantage of knowing Clay from another

> venue, so I have more basis for my comprehension. He may (or

> may not) have made incorrect decisions in this case, but he

> is not a bad person. In fact, he's a good person. It's

> possible that, as is true of me, his conscientiousness and

> sense of responsibility occasionally are not matched by his

> ability to carry out the tasks he sets for himself. If so,

> I think we should be able to ask for some lee-way (not an

> absence of critical comment, but surely an absence of

> nastiness) on the basis of the fact that such a mis-match

> often is a manifestation of our autism.

>

> >LOL! Who the hell was worried about what Steve thought of them,

or if

> >they " appeared to take sides " in Steve's mind?! Who the fuck

cares what

> >Stevie thinks, anyway? Why on earth would Mr. Steve be a factor in

whether

> >or not someone posted something?! Why would anyone on this list

be afraid

> >of anyone else on it?!

>

> I wasn't afraid of Steve, but his posts made me less happy

> to be here, less likely to read list mail, less likely to

> post. That's not Steve's fault, of course. Perhaps the list

> as a whole would be better off if it were limited to active

> members like Steve, Jeanette, and others who aren't depressed

> by the kind of exchanges that were taking up so much room here

> for a while. My druthers are of no import, but I express them

> simply to demonstrate that Steve's posts were having a negative

> effect on some members of the list (whether you consider that

> worth taking into account or not).

>

> I'm not " taking sides " on this issue, BTW, because I don't

> understand it. I had stopped reading the posts, partly

> because they depressed me and partly because I always stop

> understanding what is going on when people start slinging

> at one another. As I said before, I know Clay is a good

> person, though (as is true of all people, including me)

> that doesn't save him from making mistakes. Whether he made

> a mistake in this case, I am not capable of ascertaining,

> but I hope he will not feel alienated by the response and

> stop posting.

>

> Jane

*******

I was going to say that i think clay is being treated unfairly, but

then i realised i hadnt read their flame war, so decided not to. But

i will say now, after reading janes above, that i felt sorry for Clay

when i read the responses, some of them seemed downright nasty.

Anyway, thats my small thought on this.

Gareth.

[Guest guest]

>

> I was going to say that i think clay is being treated unfairly, but

> then i realised i hadnt read their flame war, so decided not to. But

> i will say now, after reading janes above, that i felt sorry for Clay

> when i read the responses, some of them seemed downright nasty.

> Anyway, thats my small thought on this.

Mine too. It's not that I never disagree with Clay or his methods

(which sometimes, at least the one like this, seem a tad

underhanded/deceptive to me, although I either didn't read, didn't

notice, or can't remember the flamewar in question), but that I don't

think they warrant the vitriol and Hitler comparisons they've been

getting.

[Guest guest]

Yes, , I know what you mean- that's why I have to lie to NTs about how

" happy " everything is or just not get involved because they can't handle reality

-or my view of it.

People take it personally when I don't have the manic body language they think

I'm suppose to have, and then decide that it must mean that I don't like them,

when it has nothing to do with them.

It's just that when you talk about these " bouts " they sound pretty bad.

*Something* and I don't know what that something is, needs to be done to prevent

them from happening, or have them happen less often.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Ok, I will say it. I was a little afraid of Steve. On other lists I have

seen him threaten people who disagreed with him. Threaten to hack into their

computers, saying that he had the knowledge to do so and would do it. I also

saw him threaten someone who lives in the USA by saying that he knows

someone in the USA that he could send to that person's front door, so they

shouldn't feel safe that he lives in the UK! To me, this is scary stuff.

Take care,

Gail :-)

[Guest guest]

Steve couldn't hack his way out of a paper bag; he doesn't talk

the talk, so I'm pretty sure he can't walk the walk, either.

Louis

In my house, " normal " is only a setting on the dryer.

From: Gail Pennington

Ok, I will say it. I was a little afraid of Steve. On other

lists I have

seen him threaten people who disagreed with him. Threaten to

hack into their

computers, saying that he had the knowledge to do so and would

do it. I also

saw him threaten someone who lives in the USA by saying that he

knows

someone in the USA that he could send to that person's front

door, so they

shouldn't feel safe that he lives in the UK! To me, this is

scary stuff.

Take care,

Gail :-)

[Guest guest]

Gail Wrote:

>On other lists I have seen him threaten people who disagreed with him.

>Threaten to hack into their computers, saying that he had the knowledge >to do

so and would do it. I also saw him threaten someone who lives in >the USA by

saying that he knows someone in the USA that he could send to >that person's

front door, so they shouldn't feel safe that he lives in >the UK!

That is kinda scary- and weird. I didn't realized he threatened people that

often. It's really dumb.

Threatening persons in the US, no matter what country the threatener is from, on

the internet, is very illegal since 9/11 and could get Steve in serious trouble.

Anyone he has threatened can go to the police, their ISP, etc and he's screwed.

It's pretty stupid in that regard, especially since he does it repeatedly, and

it also made him look like a total nut to me. Later he somewhere said his

threats weren't serious, which I believed, as I imagined I would be difficult

for someone like that to actually carry out stuff. But you never know.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Gail Pennington wrote:

> Ok, I will say it. I was a little afraid of Steve. On other lists I

> have seen him threaten people who disagreed with him. Threaten to

> hack into their computers, saying that he had the knowledge to do so

> and would do it. I also saw him threaten someone who lives in the USA

> by saying that he knows someone in the USA that he could send to that

> person's front door, so they shouldn't feel safe that he lives in the

> UK! To me, this is scary stuff.

If he had tried that on Treehouse, I would have kicked him out

immediately. It's just the ravings of a disturbed person; he can no

more hack into someone's computer than he can grow roots and become a

tree, I am sure. People that can actually do things like that don't

need to make threats. They just do it.

What someone does outside of this list is not my concern, as I have said

before. On this list, I am concerned only with what happens on this

list, and Steve's alleged threats did not happen here. I am willing to

give people one chance; that is why I did not kick Henson off when

I learned that he was " the " that disrupted another ASD list some

time ago.

This Steve problem was taken care of when he went on moderated status

again; no one needed to take it upon himself and get him to quit. The

only reason to do that, after I had told the list that he was on mod

status, was one of personal vendetta, not one of protecting the list

membership. If people have concerns that a member needs to be moderated

or even removed from the list, bring it to me... two members

specifically know that I will handle it if there is justification for

some action to be taken.

Every person cannot appoint himself as adjunct moderator; if that were

the case, the list would devolve into a series of attacks by list

members against other list members, off the list or on, trying to get

them to quit. That's not what this list should be.

[Guest guest]

Klein danced around singing:

>Every person cannot appoint himself as adjunct moderator; if that were

>the case, the list would devolve into a series of attacks by list

>members against other list members, off the list or on, trying to get

>them to quit. That's not what this list should be.

I wish I could argue, but having tried it on a couple of lists I was

moderating, I have to agree. I tried it first with a ~2,000-member animal

model collector's group that was largely NT; the result, much to my shock,

was flamewars and mafia-type behavior between groups of physically

proximate members. It was a serious mess that ended, ultimately, when one

of the various " gangs " harassed the original listowner into handing control

over the list over to them after discovering that I couldn't be persuaded

to favor them over all others on the list.

I then tried the experiment again with a group of hand-picked people that I

thought were all " mature " enough not to fall to such behavior even when

given full moderator powers along with everybody else. For the most part,

I was right -- but there was still about a third of them that surprised

me. The weird thing was, it was the outspoken pro-fairness individuals

from other lists that were quick to act like bullies in an equal-power

situation. Even though everybody literally had equal amounts of ability to

control the list on a technological level, I think there was quite a bit of

social " bullying " going on that I could only detect/understand when it was

severe/blatant. That's the one I ended up closing earlier this year.

I'm still experimenting with the lists I'm in charge of. Things become

rough once in a while between members, but luckily, regardless of what else

goes on, I haven't seen the powermongering behavior on the autism lists

that I experienced as moderator of mostly-NT groups. I don't think we can

be bothered to form factions the way they can, at least not cohesive ones

that exist by virtue of exclusivity and last any real period of time. If

we do, I haven't seen evidence of it -- as opposed to the NTs, which would

actively create full-on websites about their subgroups! :-p

[Guest guest]

Note that Yahoo's web interface is being screwy, I'm sending this

through my email program, and I hope it works this time.

> Klein danced around singing:

> >Every person cannot appoint himself as adjunct moderator; if thatwere

> >the case, the list would devolve into a series of attacks by list

> >members against other list members, off the list or on, trying to get

> >them to quit. That's not what this list should be.

> I wish I could argue, but having tried it on a couple of lists I was

> moderating, I have to agree. I tried it first with a ~2,000-member

> animal model collector's group that was largely NT; the result, much

> to my shock, was flamewars and mafia-type behavior between groups of

> physically proximate members. It was a serious mess that ended, ultimately,

> when one of the various " gangs " harassed the original listowner into handing

> control over the list over to them after discovering that I couldn't be

> persuaded to favor them over all others on the list.

Actually, I think was speaking of *unofficial* self-appointment

as co-moderator: Taking it upon oneself to drive out people whom the

moderator was already handling or whom one just didn't want there.

But as for my experience, I may be lucky, but I have *never* had

trouble with shared moderator powers on lists. I was co-moderator on

a list at one point where another moderator immediately unsubscribed

someone without discussing it with the other moderators, but given the

focus of the list, that person had already pretty much invalidated

their right to be there long before this happened (it was a list with

a specific focus for discussion, not a list for people to try to

convince us our focus itself was wrong and that we were evil

disgusting nauseating people for having it).

I've moderated/co-moderated 3 or 4 lists, if I recall correctly. I

currently co-moderate two small, low-traffic lists, one of which

includes *everyone* so far as a moderator.

But I think what may have made it easy, even on the contentious lists,

was that the other moderators and I were about the same when it came

to moderating -- fairly laid-back within the rules but firm when

necessary as dictated by the rules of the lists, and having the same

general focus in mind (usually). And would generally talk to each other

about what to do about anything major.

The only time I ever had a problem with a co-moderation sort of

situation was in a non-list forum, in which a person who was sharing

large amounts of power suddenly and inexplicably decided that there

were nearly no *real* autistic people online and it was her job to

prove it or something. *That* was unfun in the extreme and ultimately

destroyed the forum. But that was also so far out of nowhere that

nobody had planned for it and there were no structures in place to

stop it.

, with a bad-enough-to-prevent-sleep,

not-bad-enough-to-prevent-computer-use,

bad-enough-to-*impede*-computer-use migraine that's been sitting

around waxing and waning since Saturday

--

" Let us celebrate the spirit of non-compliance that is the self

struggling to survive. Let us celebrate the unbowed head, the heart that

still dreams, the voice that refuses to be silent. " -Judi Chamberlin

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> If he had tried that on Treehouse, I would have kicked him out

> immediately. It's just the ravings of a disturbed person; he can no

> more hack into someone's computer than he can grow roots and become a

> tree, I am sure. People that can actually do things like that don't

> need to make threats. They just do it.

Not necessarily. I have read newspaper accounts over the years of people

(usually disgruntled employees) making threats and people not taking them

seriously because they thought they were either just blowing smoke or too

" wimpy " to carry them through. Then they did, to everyone's great shock and

surprise. So I take every threat seriously, unless the person is making it

clear from the get-go that they are just kidding.

> This Steve problem was taken care of when he went on moderated status

> again; no one needed to take it upon himself and get him to quit.

I just want to comment here that when I wrote my post I was just validating

what Clay said that some on this list were afraid of him. Some found the

idea silly and I just wanted to say that I personally was and deliberately

did not engage him at all because of it.

Take care,

Gail :-)

[Guest guest]

Gail Pennington wrote:

> wrote:

> > If he had tried that on Treehouse, I would have kicked him out

> > immediately. It's just the ravings of a disturbed person; he can

> > no more hack into someone's computer than he can grow roots and

> > become a tree, I am sure. People that can actually do things like

> > that don't need to make threats. They just do it.

>

> Not necessarily. I have read newspaper accounts over the years of

> people (usually disgruntled employees) making threats and people not

> taking them seriously because they thought they were either just

> blowing smoke or too " wimpy " to carry them through. Then they did, to

> everyone's great shock and surprise. So I take every threat

> seriously, unless the person is making it clear from the get-go that

> they are just kidding.

The difference is that any idiot can go to his place of former

employment and bust the place up. It takes some skill to be able to

hack into people's computers... and it takes no skill at all to threaten

to do it. They're just words; no need to let someone scare you like that.

> I just want to comment here that when I wrote my post I was just

> validating what Clay said that some on this list were afraid of him.

> Some found the idea silly and I just wanted to say that I personally

> was and deliberately did not engage him at all because of it.

I wasn't and am not afraid of him, as I showed in one of my posts to

him. Like Steve said, words on a screen.

[Guest guest]

I thought most of his posts were totally nuts and really funny. They made no

sense and it was obvious that we was just a wounded bird trying to make himself

feel big, and it was so silly and so obvious and his comments were so

nonsensical that I just laughed, and laughed.

I didn't mean to be insensitive to those who were afraid or hurt or annoyed. I

know I came across that way and I'm sorry- I actually thought you didn't care

because I couldn't fathom anyone caring what Steve thought of them, or that

people would be afraid of him. That was my mistake.

I just saw him totally differently, and when someone says things about me I

consider the source.

Being on this list has strengthened me to the point where I just don't give a

shit anymore about what people like Steve say about me. They don't know me, I

don't like them, so why would I consider what they said about me to be valid at

all? What they have to say about me says more about them than it says about me.

I've just kept that to heart and tried to follow it as best I can.

It is very hard not to feel hurt when a whole group of NTs gangs up on me and

hates me- I KNOW what they say is meaningless, but it's hard to get over having

SO MANY people all at once hating me.

But in a case like Steve it doesn't matter- to me.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> Jeanette wrote:

> > I thought most of his posts were totally nuts and really funny.

> > They made no sense and it was obvious that we was just a wounded

> > bird trying to make himself feel big, and it was so silly and so

> > obvious and his comments were so nonsensical that I just laughed,

> > and laughed.

>

> Seeing a wounded bird doesn't make me feel like laughing. It makes me

> anxious and sad.

Agreed. It did not make me afraid, but it did make me sad. I do not

like the outbursts to which Steve subjected the list, but I could see a

lot of things in him that I have observed in myself (years ago, when I

was very depressed) and in others. I never posted attack mail like he

did, but I can still see that he is one of us, and he's in a lot of

pain. That's why I don't hate him for what he did to the list. I think

that there is potential in him... he was not a total troll; he posted

some messages of substance. That's why I didn't throw the book at him

when he started disturbing the list. I thought he deserved another

chance after he started posting " real " messages, and he blew that one

too. I would have him on moderated status if he chose to come back to

the list, but I would not deny him access. He's not a lost cause.

[Guest guest]

JANE,

Oh, come on.

I wasn't laughing at the FACT that he was a wounded bird, I was laughing at his

attempts at denial of that fact.

I'm not going to sit here and get sad and anxious everytime I see a " wounded

bird " . That's not productive for them or me. I get sad if they get hopeless,

like if he hurt himself seriously or killed himself, yes, that would be sad.

But " Wounded Birds " can recover, and the can do something about it- or not. And

sometimes if they choose to do nothing for themselves, that doesn't mean they

are totally hopeless or even sad. Maybe they are just doing whatever they can

to try and heal themselves at the time and it doesn't look the way I think it

should. Maybe they just need to be as they are who they are no matter what and

I should just mind my own business, and let them process and " ferment " the whole

" wounded " experience.

I don't like feeling sad for people like that. I think it's kind of pity, and

my pity isn't going to help them at all- and it's insulting to them. Pity is

for some NTs who get stuck in their false mode of life, not knowing what it is,

trying to be and do the NT thing, thinking they have real friends and real love

and real support, then when something bad happens, and they can no longer do

what they did before (traumatic incident, severe illness, etc. stops them ) they

realize they are fucked, and have nothing real.

Pity is for the drunk on the corner pissing himself, that you know probably got

himself where he is, but it still feel bad anyway.

I usually get angry, then sad. For example, if a child is hurt or killed, I get

mad as hell, not sad. I want to go and defend the child and hunt down the

perpetrators and bring them to justice somehow. Of course, I can't do this.

Then, when the jerks are caught and punished, I get sad for the family and the

child. I tend to be mad longer than sad. I don't like sad- I'm already

depressed, and I don't need anymore of that. I'm taking something to help that,

and it's working, but I need to not dwell on sad stuff like that where I can't

do anything to help. I have to admit I am uncomfortable with my sad feelings.

You know I tried to burst Steve's " denial " bubble, but it didn't work, so I had

to let it go. And maybe he SOUNDS worse than he is. I'm not down there, so I

don't know. He sounded really wacko, and I was a little worried, but then he

just kept doing his thing, so I let it go.

Hell *I* could be thought of as a wounded bird, and all fucked up and over the

edge. So what. I don't care, and I don't want people feeling sorry for me or

" sad " . Empathetic, sympathetic, compassionate, yes, that's good. But I'm not a

helpless hopeless blob of whatever to make people " sad " or " anxious " , no matter

how horrible I sound on the screen or whatever. I've already got enough to be

anxious about without having to think about more stuff in that realm.

So I found humor in it (Steve's behavior) and laughed, because in the end,

that's all I could do, and be effective at something. Worrying about it isn't

really going to help anyone, and laughing at it all is better for my health, and

could be a wake-up call for someone who acts like that. Then again, I could

just laugh here and not say anything, thereby doing nothing at all, except

relieving tension.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

>I thought most of his posts were totally nuts and really funny. They made

>no sense and it was obvious that we was just a wounded bird trying to make

>himself feel big, and it was so silly and so obvious and his comments were

>so nonsensical that I just laughed, and laughed.

Seeing a wounded bird doesn't make me feel like laughing.

It makes me anxious and sad.

Jane