Dear all

this is not meant at all as an emotional outlet but contains highly
emotional content.

i went to a christmas party last night. we bought a christmas tree
today. i just had tea and cake. when i was sipping my tea, i was
thinking about an offlist message sent to me yesterday about my post on
"The ruling is clear: no deception", then  a very disturbing chain of
thought came to me.

"Ken wrote that message although it was sent by a different member!"
"NO!"
"You should write to them, as Klaus has advised Alec to do".
"I am not writing to them".
"If they admit, then i will be extremely angry."
"If they deny, then i won't believe them."

now, let's analyze my disturbing chain of thought.

something has really changed in me. i become very suspicious and i used
to be very trusting and maybe naive. and i cannot trust people yet.
someone has stolen my trust in people. will sending the police, cry in
the dark, drink my head off, have a good laugh help me get my trust back?

am i acting childishly to say what i really mean? am i blowing things
out of proportion?  is my expressing myself seen as weak, irrelevant?
like some women who are raped physically, should i remain silent for
fear that i would receive comments like what jean has made?

this is serious. i think we should get this straight.

i think Jean's post is not directed at me because i have announced i
forgive ken. but i do believe Jean's post is not helpful. some members
might not be ready  or might never be able to forgive. and what's so
wrong about that? and deserves such a humiliation?

i am writing this not to steer up troubles but i really think and feel
it is very important. some people are geniunely suffering whether you
believe, care or not.

rosan






Jean Schneider wrote:
>
> Hello,
> It is the first time that I am considering unsubscribing this list.
>
> If you consider the number of silent members, it is obvious that the
> texts that are disseminated by only a few authors are "blown in the
> wind". It is hard to call this a dialogue... and thus there is very
> little co-elaboration of any discourse(s).
> >> it is the responsibility of the "receiver" to decide whether or not
> an idea, a notion, a definition, a comment is relevant to his/her
> research, studies, ideas, development, etc. And -at least in my
> education-, the first thing one had to draw a distinction between was
> 1/facts, 2/interpretations, 3/explanations, 4/theories. It is up to any
> member of the list who wants to use any contribution to put it somewhere
> in any of these categories...
>
> It is also clear that any member of the list can declare any position.
> Unless it becomes a prerequisite to certify that you are a Ph-D student,
> a professor, a designer, I always thought that people would sign with
> what they sign, and that if I declare that I hold a PhD in quantum
> physics from the university of Zombiland, or that I am just a lurker
> from Midelt, either you send the police and cross check declarations, or
> realize that the sig gets the meaning I want to give to it. This is
> precisely why I also think that the Internet is a wonderful "lubricant"
> that gives some fluidity in the author-text monolith.
>
> Unless, of course, people want to -perversely- play with the power
> structure of any discourse (please read "l'Ordre du discours", by Michel
> Foucault, it certainly is available in English : it is short, clear, and
> healthy), and put at the forefront the position (e.g. : The -of course
> ?- authoritative Professor, the -of course ?- naive innocent Student,
> etc, etc... ), among other things that one might easily identify without
> holding a degree in discourse analysis and deconstruction.
>
> If I can admit that some people got unhappy when Ken declared that he
> was in some duo with Cindy, how can they even be sure that Ken from
> PhD-Design would be the Ken Friedman they might have met in the real
> world (and this can go "ad libitum"). As I pointed out, for me, the hoax
> was the Hans Blix aka Alan Sokal aka ??? post.
> My interpretation is that "Ken", who teaches in Denmark, is in fact
> Shakespeare reborn in this high-tech century and this electronic
> "Hamlet" wanted us to realize how deep "there is something roten in the
> Kingdom of Denmark" ;-)
>
> I feel sorry for those who consider that they -and subsequently "the
> list"- cannot recover from such trauma.
> Send the police, cry in the dark, drink your head off, have a good
> laugh... if you never ever got cheated when buying something for face
> value, then, true, it is sometimes painful to grow up.
>
> Or let's start a new list where real names will be forbidden ;-)
>
> Jean (Mr? Ms? ...)