Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Seed Discussion Forum
as per your request
Stripe:
JU- You wrote:
The architecture (and intent) of this site is designed with the Seed as defendant. If we are going to continue to hold court, why shouldn?t it be the other way? Why shouldn?t The Seed be the complainant?
To answer your proposal - I think perhaps theseed already had its day: As the plaintiff, as the judge and as the jury. That's what it did for all the years of its existence. It was designed to hold people accountable for their personal transgressions, problems, mistakes, crimes, errors, drug use - whatever you want to call them.
And you and me and every other person who was in that program,voluntarily or not, were the judge and jury and in some instances, the emotional executioner of other program participants.
Stripe:
--- Quote ---On 2005-09-04 15:05:00, Ft. Lauderdale wrote:
"Stripe,
Where did you come up with JRENFRO. I went skiing
with someone by that name in 1978 or 79. I back tracked but am baffeled? :question: "
--- End quote ---
I mistyped that - It should be rjfro22 (it's right backup the thread). Sorry for the confusion. [ This Message was edited by: Stripe on 2005-09-05 10:38 ]
Anonymous:
Or running your country for that matter!
marshall:
I appreciate sarcastic humor too, as long as it isn't mean-spirited. I am curious as to how familiar you might be with this form of communication (internet message boards). Have you participated on other sites? When I first encountered message boards, I had a tendency to approach them much like you did this one. I'd read and think; 'Those' people are so f*cked up!...and lump everyone together as one.
There are specific problems with this form of communication that lend themselves easily to misunderstandings. It's often hard to tell if someone is being silly, sarcastic or cruel. None of the cues that we usually rely upon are present. No voice tone, no body language, no facial expressions. It's easy to have conflicts even with people that you may see eye to eye with in this medium. Civil discourse takes extra effort. People tend to talk past each other regardless of the topic. Given this, it is easy to see how others might misunderstand you (thinking you are serious when you're kidding or sarcastic) & you may be misunderstanding others for the same reason.
For much of the same reasons listed above, it is also a fool's task to attempt to determine another person's state of mind, intention, attitude, etc just by reading posts on a board like this. I once believed I was having conversations with 5 distinct people on a website only to later find out that they were all the same person using different monikers! There are lots of good points for this form of communication, but to use it profitably we all need to keep in mind it's basic shortcomings as well. A person may spend 90% of their time giving to others in some way yet it might be easy to conclude that they are completely selfish or self-indulgent based upon what they choose to write on a message board such as this....especially one that specifically asks for personal experiences. Conversely, one could write all sorts of glowing, wonderfully compassionate things here and be a mass murderer or rapist in real life. Unless your gift of awareness extends into literal ESP (which I think Art and some others did embrace, btw) it is silly to attempt to judge and evaluate anyone based soley upon what they write here...just as it is foolish for anyone to judge your own state of mind based upon the same. It is for this reason that it's best to stick to agreement or disagreement with actual ideas being discussed rather than attempting to dissect the person behind them. This may be partly why you see much of what is discussed here as 'pseudointellectual'.
You may be an old hand at message boards, if so you probably already know all of this. Thanks for the individual responses...much nicer even when people disagree.
marshall:
Hi marc. The reference to "spewing venom" was John's term describing critics of the seed used in his first post here. Not my term and it wasn't directed towards you. (See how confusing this can be :silly:
-------quote------
"There were a number of kind human deeds I witnessed in the Seed. Kindness can happen anywhere. But the institution itself . . . I think it was evil. Is that venomous?"
------------
I think I've said the same thing in slightly different words. Instead of 'institution' I think I said I found the methodology (coercive thought reform) repugnant. You & I seem pretty-much on the same page when it comes to the Seed. I appreciate your input.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version