Posted on 10/18/2003 6:01:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I can bearly hear you...
Move toward the light TP..
MOVE TOWARD THE LIGHT!!
I think he'd probably call TJ a "marxist".
Maybe it is the part of the country you live in, but personally, I don't think that's the case.
People in Texas -- through most of their history -- have out of necessity had to depend heavily on each other much more than those in other geographical regions.
If you can accept that, then it'd have to mean Texans must be able to forgive each other often & a lot.
Even tho' you're a "Texan" you're still "human," & that's the *equalizer* between y'all & peoples elsewhere.
Humans screw up.
"Said in private in the heat of the moment, perhaps. Said a year later on an internet site that has a special anti freeping section."
Meg.
Neil does not maintain "a special anti freeping section."
What he & Goldi have done is provide a section for people who would appear to be obsessed with this site, amoung other things.
Even then, we're only talking about a few very angry people you could count on your hands; &, specifically one in particular.
Not eeeeeeven being critical of those people either, I couldn't care what they do, say or *when* they do it because it's no skin off my nose & should be taken for what it is.
Gezzzz Meg think about it, if they didn't provide that section?
There's one guy alone who'd clog up the board so bad with his railing ad nauseum nothing else w/could possibly get accomplished.
The LF people created a website for the same reason(s) & purpose this board was started, ie, to bring conservatives together & disseminate the "news" of the day.
-Period-
If people distort that mission statement to their own [often twisted] agenda(s)?
That'd be their fault & not the board's founder(s) who did nothing more than invest huge amounts of their time & resources while risking a great deal more than most of us will ever know, nevermind appreciate.
Yup, *all* that created to simply provide a "forum" for we conservatives who'd otherwise be shut out & gagged.
We (all of us) must be ever vigilant to not make their gift to us any more complicated than that.
Right?
In fact, isn't that what the fighting's really all about here?
Just "how much" latitude should be granted in the name of "freedom of speech"?
Taken at face value I'd normally, *instinctively* say, "NO RESTRICTIONS!".
But IF talking about an Internet website, & one built for the express purpose of the founder?
Well after having witnessed what's happened (here & other places), I'd have to amend my answer to the freedom of speech question to something a good deal less than "absolute" freedom.
Now complicate the equation by taking into account the natural *filters* though which "moderator(s)" -- anywhere -- see & then judge what it is they hear from so many who're from incredibly diverse backgrounds & things can & will come unglued pretty damned fast.
And in this case, that's pretty much what's happened, I believe.
"...pure self indulgence and spite."
Or hurt, or anger, or outrage & all based upon what was percieved an injustice?
Actually, pretty normal in the scheme of things.
Got to consider the players when considering the motive(s) for this kind of stuff, Meg.
"How many passes does he get?I know how much he did and how much he was liked. Jim said he loved like a brother."
OK.
So how many "passes" does a brother, sister or any other loved one in your life get under similar circumstances?
If you're *married* than you already should know there *ain't* no set answer if you're to continue to survive, grow & even prosper with another person in a marital relationship.
Sometime ago I began the *habit* of "disowning" people in my life.
At first it'd be for their "politics," later their lack of "work ethic" was worthy of my shunning 'em & then it became rather easy so those excluded included those whose "physical condition" (or lack thereof) didn't please my eye, & one day before I knew it, y'know what?
I found myself *very* alone & "In perfect isolation, here inside my wall."
Understand?
I don't have an *enlightened* solution to all this nonsense; but, I do know excommunication is not the answer, either.
We *must* bend & never break if we've any hope of success, be it in any endevour.
Truth is I don't think for one moment Joe thinks he needs to be granted a pass & that's where people like you & I should butt-out of this without fanning the flames any more.
This can be *fixed* IF left to the two men to settle, for themselves.
Joe was being as honest as any man could possibly be, Meg; and, if you were to find a way to change that about him (*or* any other people in your life)?
Then don't be disillusioned when all you're surrounded by, eventually, are liars.
Because of your own efforts to create some kind of a *template* into which all "should" fit?
You'll have, in effect, made it *much* safer for one to lie to you than be honest.
...both men's honesty must be *celebrated* here, not ostrasized.
It sure as hell didn't help matters any, huh.
I'd have really felt as if someone had "used" me had JR told me I would be used as a pawn to the tune of $3-$4 thousand of my dollars, truth be known.
"Why didn't Joe just ask Jim to buy his merchandise out? Then there would have been none of this passive aggressive behavior."
Excellent question, assuming your theory's true.
If asking that question would help defuse this I'd suggest you ask BadJoe, yourself; but, if there's any truth to it then it'd also be a question best asked in private & by JR.
Don't you?
In these kinds of situations whenever certain internal *family* issues have been openly, publically discussed?
Our enemies -- within & without from across the continuum -- have played "the pride card" setting all against each other.
I'm tired of that because we're providing 'em fodder for their folly & the miserable SOBs never even have to break a sweat, nevermind having to get in least bit *creative*.
Questions like those you raise must be discussed in private because as far as I'm concerned, the bastards have been given all the help dividing us they're gonna get.
Well get from me, anyway.
"Now there has been a betrayal on Joe's part, he should realize that he betrays all FReepers when he proves untrustworthy with the confidences that he was trusted with here."
Joe's not betraying anyone IMO, he's POed & sounding off solely because it is he who feels betrayed.
At least that's what I came away with from all this given his letter & whether or not there's a kernal of truth in any of it?
I wouldn't know one way or the other.
But I do know Joe well enough to trust the man & the tone of his letter is one of pain, that's it.
The old "I tear you down to build you up" approach is used by all too many these days if they're desperate & very often employed as a last ditch effort.
If for no other reason than they know of no other way to open up a dialog; &, what they fear happening most of all?
...is being ignored.
HA!!!
...is that some great stuff, or what. {g}
If Joe posted facts at LP that Jim had always kept private, then that's a betrayal, not just as a trusted friend but he's also toying with his livlihood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.