 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2
|
|
|
Subject: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Noreen Date: 19 Nov 00 - 01:48 PM Continuing discussion from original thread Serious Ethical Question |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 00 - 02:44 PM Spaw - saw your comments back on first thread, and yes, you answered my question well. The Cuba thread was amazing... Guest, Elroy Jetson - you said "Praise: Bye-Bye. But, the fact is, we need a whole lot less of Jesus and a lot more rock and roll." You are tilting at windmills, my friend. I just had a chance to visit with Praise recently and she DOES NOT proselytize or try to convert anyone. We discussed all kinds of stuff, barely even mentioned "Jesus", and would probably not have at all, had I not brought the subject up in the first place. Most people who are consciously opposed to what they see as "organized religion" mistakenly assume that a spiritual-minded person's concept of "god" is as limited as their own...and they judge accordingly. Something like an old guy on a huge throne, separate from his own creation, judging, rewarding and condemning the "saved" and the "damned", and fighting for their souls with a fallen angel, despite the fact that he is supposed to simultaneously be all-powerful!!! That's a tale a child might believe, but I don't. The "god" that most atheists claim not to believe in is a "god" that I don't believe in either. But I do believe in a God that is large enough to be inclusive of all reality, observable and unobservable, matter and energy, reality and potential reality, manifest and unmanifest. Such a God is not separate from anything, does not judge or condemn anyone, does not demand anything from anyone, and provides all that is to everyone, and IS everyone. I'm not saying that's what Praise believes, that's what I believe. It has nothing to do with organized religion or with the church or with any one holy book, but with all of them, plus all observable reality. It is in equal accord with science and with spiritual seeking. It is ALL THAT IS, including you, which doesn't necessarily mean that you are aware of it, however. I repeat, Praise does not proselytize (however you spell it...), and it is unfair to accuse her of such. She simply has faith. And she loves rock and roll, and so do I. And there's room for all subjects on this forum. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 00 - 02:57 PM Matt R - I was looking at the previous thread, and I see you're getting upset with the negativity on Mudcat. Well, yeah, the election probably has a lot to do with that...it's just horrible to subject a whole public to such a divisive excercise over such a long period of time. Elections are replete with character assassination and negative propaganda of every kind. The Florida thing has just made it worse. As for Mudcat in general...all I can say is that every such association of people has its peaks and valleys. I've noticed this with the Orillia Song Circle, for example. For a while it's just absolutely great...then it's...okay...then it's downright disappointing, at least for some people. Sometimes I give up on it for a while at those times. Then I come back a month later...and WHOAAAA!...it's absolutely great!!! My feeling is that Mudcat is just in a bit of a slump right now, but that will no doubt change as time goes by. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amos Date: 19 Nov 00 - 03:16 PM Spot on. Mister Hawk. Cold weather is probably depressing everyone's fireboixes, too. Even in San Diego, where cold means wear a sweater, we get the silliest mass reactions -- flu bugs and bad tembers. Why our days even get shorter, can you imagine!?? There oughta be a law, is what! Well....maybe there is....
Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: GUEST,Joerg Date: 19 Nov 00 - 09:00 PM Don't know how much more or less of Jesus or Rock'n Roll I "need". But I'd really appreciate a little more Praise. Joerg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amos Date: 20 Nov 00 - 08:28 PM Nicely put, Joerg..
A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Nov 00 - 09:02 PM Well, I like a bit of heat in this cold weather.
You just can't have positive without you have negative. Like you can't have North without South.
"Why are you banging your head against a wall?" "Because it feels so good when I stop."
Anybody I know whom I'd feel unable to argue with, I couldn't wholly count as a friend. Or rather, it'd be a defective friendship, because there are people like that, and they can be good people, but you can't ever really feel close. (And there are friends I've never argued with and likely never will, but that's not the same thing. If we disagreed, we'd argue.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amos Date: 21 Nov 00 - 01:44 AM Well, I know this -- spontaneous and unsolicited well-wishes poured in the last time my BBW was in hospital for an overnight surgery; and seeing that flood of unexpected wishes just made her day, and surely speeded her healing. And she had not one thought about whether those who sent their good wishes were properly qualified or not. They were sent in good will and taken as such. So, jeez Louise, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but this is such a morsel of codwallopery! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Skeptic Date: 21 Nov 00 - 05:58 PM Initially, I believe the idea that a copyright exists without it being asserted is more common in Europe than in the US. I always understood that the standard in the US was that the copyright had to be asserted in some way. Specifically and very simplistically, "The Copyright Act is very clear that while express licenses (waivers) must be in writing, other licenses don't have to be. That means a license can be granted orally, OR by behavior, or by any other of the means of expressing a waiver. There is a body of case law on implied licenses, so there's nothing new or radical about this. " see http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-02/0133.html Even if there is an implied copyright, re-posting excerpts (as above), would probably fall under the fair use rule. So the issue would seem to be one of community ethics. Virtual or not, there are certain unwritten ethical or moral underpinnings of the Mudcat community that evolve out of the forums. This may be one of them. IMO, anyone who wants to share anything I've posted is in serious need of a life. And then, Anyone who followed the "alternate beliefs" thread can probably guess that I am....well skeptical...... about the strictly therapeutic benefits of prayer, magic or whatever from any flavor of belief. The social and emotional benefits are another matter. Whether I believe doesn't lessen the positive value, for me or the pray-er. There seems to a undercurrent that by somehow being on a prayer-list (in the broadest sense) there is a tacit acceptance of the underlying belief structure of the person or group doing the praying. I always looked at and accepted such as expressions of concern or compassion for a fellow human being that was essentially altruistic. Regards John What we need is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out. Bertrand Russell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Kim C Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:33 PM I can speak only for myself but I need Jesus AND rock-n-roll. And I miss Praise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM I miss Praise too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amergin Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM Me too, KimC, I wish the sugar dog was in my lap at this moment.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Matt_R Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:50 PM Sorry, wishing isn't going to bring her back. Believe it or not, there is life for people outside Mudcat. Try it, it's fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Nov 00 - 06:09 PM ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! Oh that's really rich. What great advice. Gimmee peace............................ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amergin Date: 22 Nov 00 - 06:14 PM Why don't you try out some of your own advice, Meebo? Spaw is right that is hilarious coming from you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Matt_R Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:08 PM I have been, for a while now. And it's many times more fun than Mudcat. Maybe you should just stop ASSUMING things about me. You've been doing it the moment I got here, and it's time to quit. Next time, do some research before making foolish statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: SINSULL Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:17 PM Matt, First I miss Praise too. But she is taking a much needed break. If and when she needs to, she'll be back. Now where is your sense of humor? For months, Mr. Spaw begged you to try life outside Mudcat. Please tell me that you see that this statement from you is at least ironic (I think. I'm not good at irony) if not downright funny... Mary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Amergin Date: 23 Nov 00 - 03:29 AM Well, Meebo, you maybe starting life in the outside world now like a big boy, but you still have not learned to grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Matt_R Date: 23 Nov 00 - 12:27 PM There you go again. I am just words on a screen. There is no way for you to know anything about who I **really** am. So lay off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Nov 00 - 01:50 PM How do we know anyone except through words? Face to face there are a few more clues, but it's all a matter of putting the pieces together, and imagining the bits that are mssing. What we arrive at is our individual version of the people we know.
Since we only know the people we get to know on the Mudcat through the words on screen, it's easy to build up an image of them in which that is the centre of their existence, unlike ourselves of course. When we meet face-to-face people we've "met" here this illusion gets dispelled.
Susan (Praise) clearly has an extremely busy and involving life outside of the time she snatched to spend on tye Mudcat. Like most of us. That doesn't mean the contributions she used to make aren't missed. In the same way, people missed the Mbo/Matt R contributions when it looked to some people as if they might be ended. In neither case I don't think that means anyone wants either of you to spend your lives inside a virtual community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: mousethief Date: 23 Nov 00 - 02:04 PM Y'all need to quit picking on Matt. Sheesh, you're like a bunch of schoolgirls. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: GUEST,sometimes Date: 23 Nov 00 - 04:38 PM A lot of people have been nice to Matt, but the sarcastic nasty posts from him never seem to end. Maybe some have just given up. It happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Iarf Date: 23 Nov 00 - 07:47 PM Hey Matt...Close me down if you want too. I am wide open for that. But as a new member who came in with the attitude of an arshole I have found nothing but positive comments since I decided to stay. This makes it good for me. As you are a long term member and I don't want to assume anything about you (I have no right) please stand back and have another look. People like you make this list what it is. I like it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Nov 00 - 07:59 AM I'm about thirty years older than Matt, but I recollect still well how I felt at that age about some remarks from older people. It was less the content of the remarks that bothered me than the 'you'll see when you grow up' or 'you're still a kid' tone of them. I thought these remarks were (very nicely put) - unnecessary. And I still think so today. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Bill D Date: 24 Nov 00 - 07:15 PM ah, Matt...*smile*...you DO feel compelled to keep popping in to TELL us why you are not popping in anymore. "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, it's too crowded" ........ Yogi Berra |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Liz the Squeak Date: 24 Nov 00 - 07:20 PM Wolfgang - I reckon you have about 10 years on me, but still I'm told I'm too young for some stuff...... like early retirement from work!! The day I grow up is the day they nail the lid down on me for the last time.... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 00 - 09:42 PM "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Mind you, it's the young people in their forties and fifties who think they're grown up who get up my nose at times... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: mousethief Date: 25 Nov 00 - 12:14 AM I hate having ANYTHING 40 years old up my nose.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: Troll Date: 25 Nov 00 - 12:48 AM Growing older and growing up are mutually exclusive. Wisdom does not always accompany age but experience does. There are no new mistakes, just reworkings of the same old ones. That's why we sometimes laugh at the pronouncments of those younger than us or become impatient with them. We are not dismissing them, it's just that we've been there and we know from (sometimes bitter) experience that Sportin' Life was right. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 00 - 09:01 AM Two things. Both are true at the same time.
One is that things do change, and that means that the experience and advice of older people may in fact no longer be applicable.
And the other thing is that things don't change, and that means that the experience and advice or older people may in fact still be applicable.
When you're talking to someone younger than you, you need to concentrate on remembering the first. And when you're talking to someone older than you, you need to concentrate on remembering the second.
|