UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:35:59 GMT, "Stephanie"
wrote:

Oh sorry. I thought I was one of the aforementioned 3.

Thanks for letting me clear it up.

Nan

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

The other thing is that most all of us can be "off-putting" at
times, even without being mean. And so if you are posting
to a group, chances are that sooner or later you will say
something someone disagrees with. And then a debate
may start, and it might even get heated. Witness, for example,
the Matchbox cars debate. Ericka and Banty and I have
been quite heatedly disagreeing. And yet I hold no animosity
for either of them, nor do I think they hold any for me.

Part of the reason why I don't take it personally is that I
already know them and like them, and I know that we
do agree on many other subjects. *If* this same discussion
had happened when I was new here and didn't know
anyone, I might well have felt unwelcome.

And so I think that perhaps in many cases, the person who
feels unwelcome is perhaps misinterpreting heated feelings
about a *topic* as heated feelings about them.

Bizby

In article zQMGf.365$Sb.217@trndny04, Stephanie says...


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:20:30 GMT, "Stephanie"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

Nan

Thanks! You are such a peach.

I wasn't considering you in that. Lyn brought up another person who
complained about a.m. as "evidence" that a.m. is an exclusionary group
and one in which everyone must engage in groupthink. The person she
brought up was abusive and rude to a.m. posters, so I wouldn't say
she's the type most people would want to befriend.

Sorry for making you think I meant you.

Nan


Oh sorry. I thought I was one of the aforementioned 3.



No, that was Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Nan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 18:02:56 -0800, wrote:


Nan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 14:41:02 -0800, wrote:

I was called names by quite a few people. I was also told to go away
and that I didn't belong there.

Jayne, you didn't exactly start off on the right foot when you
crossposted issues to try and cause problems with a regs husband.

I was not trying to "cause problems". I was inviting the regular in
question to post to a newsgroup where her husband was being disruptive
and unreasonable, thinking that he would behave better if someone he
knew from real life was there. It was a stupid idea and didn't work at
all, but you insist on attributing bad motives to me that are simply
untrue.

See, this is the type of thing that other posters got tired of. You
continually made impulsive posts that bothered others and then you
apologized. I have trouble thinking anyone could be so..... clueless
in reality, so as to continue upsetting people and not getting it.

I was a rather high volume poster for my time on a.m. Only a small
proportion of my posts upset people.

[...]
Yes, I recall a few vociferous posters that were against you. They're
no longer posting at a.m. either. But you did continue to post in a
manner that upset others. It wasn't just your first post. You just
can't see that your posting style caused you problems beyond the
initial posting.

My posting style was kind, polite and friendly. Since I don't have
this problem in other groups that I have participated in, it seems
likely to me that some people there were unusually inclined to get
upset at me. Often what they were upset about were hidden meanings
that they saw in my posts - things that I didn't mean at all. I was
once even called a troll for asking if anyone else was into "attachment
parenting".

I am not going to take responsibility for other people's choice to be
upset with me. There is nothing wrong with my posting style. There is
a certain amount of giving people the benefit of the doubt needed to
make relationships work and it was not granted to me on a.m.

Jayne

Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

Jayne

In article , bizby40 says...


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Feb 2006 17:31:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:

It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

Not really. Considering the "multiple" people (which is 3 in this
case), have the type of personality that a lot of people will find
off-putting.

The other thing is that most all of us can be "off-putting" at
times, even without being mean. And so if you are posting
to a group, chances are that sooner or later you will say
something someone disagrees with. And then a debate
may start, and it might even get heated. Witness, for example,
the Matchbox cars debate. Ericka and Banty and I have
been quite heatedly disagreeing. And yet I hold no animosity
for either of them, nor do I think they hold any for me.

Part of the reason why I don't take it personally is that I
already know them and like them, and I know that we
do agree on many other subjects. *If* this same discussion
had happened when I was new here and didn't know
anyone, I might well have felt unwelcome.

And so I think that perhaps in many cases, the person who
feels unwelcome is perhaps misinterpreting heated feelings
about a *topic* as heated feelings about them.

Right.

And a particular poster may be good, or not so good, at defending their position
in a discussion newsgroup, and might feel hounded by disagreement. Folks don't
as often do this IRL, and they're just not used to it. The "why do I have to do
you homework for you" folks.

Banty

"toto" wrote in message
...
Another thought too. Autistics used to be confined and not have
children. That too has changed. More autistics are having children
of their own who are on the spectrum.

The same thing is happening with asthma. Rates are going up like mad. I was
talking to some friends the other night because they'd taken their son to
the ER with a bad attack on Sunday and wanted to pick my brain about asthma
control (they know about my little "incident" a couple of years back).
Anyway, the dad was asking why asthma is becoming so much more common and
one of the things I said was that better treatment was making it possible
for more asthmatics to reach adulthood and reproduce, which naturally drives
up the incidence of asthma.
--
Be well, Barbara

In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

See, the problem I pointed out has nothing to do with how politely written each
post is. And doesn't have anything to do with "conformity of ideas".

Think about it.

Banty

In article .com,
wrote:

Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in
misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

Jayne


Given the rather strong differences of opinion between some of us
regulars on a couple of threads lately, I continue to find this
accusation of "group think" rather amazing!

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Banty wrote:
I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in
misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up,
but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

Given the rather strong differences of opinion between some of us
regulars on a couple of threads lately, I continue to find this
accusation of "group think" rather amazing!

The thing that's even more amazing about it is that it was first levelled in
a thread where quite a number of us "regulars" were ACTIVELY disagreeing
with one another!
--
Be well, Barbara