UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

On 9 Feb 2006 12:08:00 -0800, wrote:

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.

No Jayne,
You're more like a lady I used to work with. Sugary-sweet to your
face, but sniping at you.

Nan

On 9 Feb 2006 11:59:32 -0800, wrote:


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.

The proportion doesn't matter, though. If they're upsetting and you
continue to do it, that's a problem.

[...]
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.

Actually, your posting style was polite, but loaded.

Nan

"Barbara" ) writes:
Excuse me, but is this misc.kids or alt.mothers? If it's misc.kids (as my
headers suggest that it is), who gives a flying **** at a rolling donut
about what "they" do over "there"?

I'm not sure, but I think it might be from a book
by Kurt Vonnegut, possibly Cat's Cradle.

toto ) writes:
On 7 Feb 2006 14:26:00 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:

One possibility is that the amount of mercury in children is
increasing, due to mercury pollution (in fish, for example)
in spite of the removal of thimerosol from vaccines. Another
possibility is that it's not so much the thimerosol as the
vaccine itself that causes autism, and that that is continuing,
and increasing due to influence from some other factor, such
as pollution or poor nutrition.

But studies of children in places where vaccination rates were
down or eliminated still showed increasing rates of autism.

I understand everything except the word "but". What
you're saying is consistent with what I'm saying.

toto ) writes:
What If Dr. Seuss Wrote Technical Manuals?
Author: Gene Ziegler
A Grandchild's Guide to Using Grandpa's Computer

Very cute. Reminds me vaguely of this:

"Microsoft Windows = 'A thirty-two bit extenstion and graphical
shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system
originally coded for a four bit microprocessor which was
written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit
of competition.'"

"-L." ) writes:
It becomes strong evidence when multiple people from differing
backgrounds say the same thing.

That's why I chimed in. It's like casting a ballot.

) writes:
Sorry to be venting all this on m.k. It isn't really appropriate here,
but since the subject has come up, I am enjoying writing about this.
It gives me a such sense of closure. I feel good that I can now be so
calm about something that was so painful at the time.

If we're gonna vent, let me tell you (again?) about my
experience on alt."support".depression. (quotations
marks added for sarcasm.)

I visited the group as a lurker a few times, reluctant
to post since I wasn't sure what would be most helpful.
Then one day I posted a well-polished article: a list
of methods of treating depression. It wasn't perfect,
but I was proud of it. I got blamed, called names,
taboo words thrown at me, etc. etc. They asked if I
had read the FAQ. I hadn't. But then I went and read
it. It didn't say anything about not posting that kind
of post. In fact, the FAQ had a rather similar section
to what my post was. I would not have posted differently
if I had read the FAQ. Now that I've had that experience,
I have a little bit better idea how to do a first post
in other groups. But at the time, I was totally taken
by surprise.

Apparently, the correct way to begin to post on a.s.d.
is first to participate in some OFF-TOPIC threads, then
to announce publicly that one is depressed, and finally
very tactfully just maybe mention ways of dealing
with depression. This was not stated in the FAQ.
Possibly one of these days I'll get around to asking
them to include that in the FAQ, as apparently the
same thing happens to other people too from time to
time!!!

"Circe" ) writes:
Hmmm, I think of you as a well-liked and well-respected regular poster to
this group. Occasionally, you post ideas that some people feel wouldn't work
IRL for a variety of reasons and they say so, but I've never gotten the
impression that there's any concerted effort on the part of a large
contingent of other regular posters to be unfriendly or unkind to you.

I never said there was. However, a number of people each
posting things they happen to feel like posting for various
reasons can add up to something difficult to take, even if
there is no concerted effort. What's needed, and what most
people do most of the time, is to exert effort *not* to offend.

"bizby40" ) writes:
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.

That sounds likely. If you've already had a friendly
exchange with someone it may be easier to take certain
things -- there's a feeling of confidence that there's
an underlying relationship that's OK.

) writes:
This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here.

I don't expect conformity of ideas. I like debate.

I think it's natural for people to want others to
agree with them. That's not the same thing as
expecting it.