Saturday, February 18, 2006
A major spiritual insight, at LAST
A few days ago, I was power walking, and my mind was drifting around as it often does during extended exercise, touching on ideas both mundane and bizarre; one of the things it spent a few minutes on was a fictional scene in which I was trying to explain karma to a small group of, of all things, gangsters... when I say bizarre, I'm not exaggerating. They were low-level thugs, and not too bright or given to contemplating esoteric concepts, so I was trying to give them something physical to visualize that'd portray the basic rules of my version of metaphysics; out of total left field, with no conscious plan or awareness of what I was going to say, I told them:
"When you take an action that affects others, it's as if you handed each of them a long string that you've got one end of, along which the karmic energy you created by that action travels to them, and along which THEIR karmic energy in response to your action flows back to you... not just then but at every future time that they take action or otherwise produce energy (ie via thoughts or feelings) because of your action. Then, every time any of those people, let's call them "the 2nd person" because you're the 1st person in the chain and they're after you, affects someone ELSE (the 3rd person) because of your action, it's as if they took hold of the string somewhere in the middle, passed the end of it along to that person, and sent energy, yours and theirs, to them along it... and then the 3rd person's karmic energy in response to the 2nd person's action flows back up the string to the 2nd person, AND to YOU. If the 3rd person takes action based on what your action influenced the 2nd person to do, they pass on the end of the string to whoever THAT action affects, and THAT person's karma flows back to each person along the string, all the way back to YOU. The process continues on out to as many people as this ripple effect manages to reach... and it happens with everyone who was directly influenced by your action. Theoretically, dozens, or even hundreds, of people could eventually be affected by an action you took, and you could get karmic energy, positive, negative, or possibly both, from every one of them."
Is this sheer lunacy, or did the asked-for spiritual insight just drop into my mind as soon as it was receptive? Does putting out karmic energy REALLY form a pipeline between you and every person affected by it, however indirectly? If you've got a headache that's making you cranky, and as a result have a fight with someone at work, and they go home and lash out at their kid, who goes to school the next day and takes their upset out on some other kid, who picks on another kid, and 10 more kids down the line the little scrawny kid who has no one below him in the pecking order goes home crying and kicks his dog, does that dog's pain travel back along the chain, affecting everyone including YOU?
How could it?
How could it NOT?
This would mean that there are alot more people and events influencing our karma than we previously realized, almost certainly including people we've never even MET and events we'll never learn about; maybe not very often, as most of us don't do things extreme enough to others to cause the effect described above that frequently, but unless you're a hermit living in a cave it's gotta be happening SOME of the time.
Now here's the terrifying part; when someone does us a favor, pays us a compliment, or otherwise passes us positive energy, the glow we get from it dissipates quickly, more often than not before it prompts us to do a good turn for someone else, but anything negative that happens to us tends to get replayed over and over in our minds, causing us to be tense and angry or upset for WAY too long, making it easy for us to spread the unhappiness and stress to plenty of other people along the way... which means that negative actions can be far more powerful than positive ones, and that we're much more likely to get energy back from negative things we do than for positive ones... YIKES!!
That seems unfair, of course, and it IS, but karma does NOT adhere to the rules of fairness, which were invented by humans after all and aren't part of natural law; karma is just energy with certain properties, properties that are sometimes counter-intuitive or contrary to our ideas about how a "greater power" is supposed to be handling things, but nonetheless logical and consistent when seen as part of the big picture.
My question now is; does the karma coming from people further down the chain get weaker as it passes through and affects the intervening folks, or is it as if it were a person going down a line of people, hugging, or hitting, each one equally? My guess is that it probably fades over distance as other kinds of energy do, but that's JUST a guess; either way, we clearly need to show a great deal more self-control when we're upset, because we never know when the person we cut off in traffic or bark at when they try to serve us in a store might be put in a really bad mood by it and go home and smack their kids.
Actually, there's an even bigger question; just how interconnected ARE we?
"When you take an action that affects others, it's as if you handed each of them a long string that you've got one end of, along which the karmic energy you created by that action travels to them, and along which THEIR karmic energy in response to your action flows back to you... not just then but at every future time that they take action or otherwise produce energy (ie via thoughts or feelings) because of your action. Then, every time any of those people, let's call them "the 2nd person" because you're the 1st person in the chain and they're after you, affects someone ELSE (the 3rd person) because of your action, it's as if they took hold of the string somewhere in the middle, passed the end of it along to that person, and sent energy, yours and theirs, to them along it... and then the 3rd person's karmic energy in response to the 2nd person's action flows back up the string to the 2nd person, AND to YOU. If the 3rd person takes action based on what your action influenced the 2nd person to do, they pass on the end of the string to whoever THAT action affects, and THAT person's karma flows back to each person along the string, all the way back to YOU. The process continues on out to as many people as this ripple effect manages to reach... and it happens with everyone who was directly influenced by your action. Theoretically, dozens, or even hundreds, of people could eventually be affected by an action you took, and you could get karmic energy, positive, negative, or possibly both, from every one of them."
Is this sheer lunacy, or did the asked-for spiritual insight just drop into my mind as soon as it was receptive? Does putting out karmic energy REALLY form a pipeline between you and every person affected by it, however indirectly? If you've got a headache that's making you cranky, and as a result have a fight with someone at work, and they go home and lash out at their kid, who goes to school the next day and takes their upset out on some other kid, who picks on another kid, and 10 more kids down the line the little scrawny kid who has no one below him in the pecking order goes home crying and kicks his dog, does that dog's pain travel back along the chain, affecting everyone including YOU?
How could it?
How could it NOT?
This would mean that there are alot more people and events influencing our karma than we previously realized, almost certainly including people we've never even MET and events we'll never learn about; maybe not very often, as most of us don't do things extreme enough to others to cause the effect described above that frequently, but unless you're a hermit living in a cave it's gotta be happening SOME of the time.
Now here's the terrifying part; when someone does us a favor, pays us a compliment, or otherwise passes us positive energy, the glow we get from it dissipates quickly, more often than not before it prompts us to do a good turn for someone else, but anything negative that happens to us tends to get replayed over and over in our minds, causing us to be tense and angry or upset for WAY too long, making it easy for us to spread the unhappiness and stress to plenty of other people along the way... which means that negative actions can be far more powerful than positive ones, and that we're much more likely to get energy back from negative things we do than for positive ones... YIKES!!
That seems unfair, of course, and it IS, but karma does NOT adhere to the rules of fairness, which were invented by humans after all and aren't part of natural law; karma is just energy with certain properties, properties that are sometimes counter-intuitive or contrary to our ideas about how a "greater power" is supposed to be handling things, but nonetheless logical and consistent when seen as part of the big picture.
My question now is; does the karma coming from people further down the chain get weaker as it passes through and affects the intervening folks, or is it as if it were a person going down a line of people, hugging, or hitting, each one equally? My guess is that it probably fades over distance as other kinds of energy do, but that's JUST a guess; either way, we clearly need to show a great deal more self-control when we're upset, because we never know when the person we cut off in traffic or bark at when they try to serve us in a store might be put in a really bad mood by it and go home and smack their kids.
Actually, there's an even bigger question; just how interconnected ARE we?
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Odds and ends
Although my mind was still filled with thoughts of evil people and how they operate, I've forced myself to let the matter drop for now, because:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Increasingly as time goes by, I see the wisdom of that quote; the more I study evil with the intention of learning to better combat it, the more I see how effective it is, how helpless nearly everyone is against it even when it's clumsily done, the more tempting it becomes to adapt evil methods for my own use... and if I do that, how long would it take for me to cross the line from fighting fire with fire to becoming the human version of napalm? As for the abyss; it's as good of a metaphor for the collective power of negative karma as any, and if you focus on evil things (which are karmically negative, remember) that draws other negative things to you... and that's why I'm letting the topic drop for now.
I've had more insanity from Amazon.com; you might recall that I ordered a couple of items from them last month, only to have the order delayed when one of them suddenly went from allegedly having been released in December to not released yet (Amazon's started holding orders until they're able to send all the pieces at once)... that sucked, but at least it was consistent with their policies as they were recently explained to me. Amazon apparently loathes consistency, though, because a check of our account there a few days ago showed that the 2nd item had been delayed another MONTH, but the 1st item had been SENT; I received it that day, oddly enough. How did this happen? Did they change policies again? Was the customer "service" rep who explained their policy confused? Did their system belatedly alert them that the 2nd item was showing as in stock when I placed the order, and is that an exception to the policy? Is the fact that the availability of the 2nd item has been delayed TWICE what changed things? Is some combination of those factors involved? I'm sure I'll never know... but I'm REALLY going to think about it before ordering from them again, because they're out of their collective MINDS on that site.
And speaking of insanity; I posted on 8-19-05 about how I'd had an odd underwear-related early midlife crisis, leading to me throwing out a bunch of socks and panties and replacing them with nice new ones from eBay... and now, a similar frenzy has hit me in reference to my shirts. It started with a seemingly innocent event I posted about on 2-8-06; I found an old shirt in my closet that was too small for me now that my formerly-bony upper body is starting to fill out, so I tossed it in the Goodwill bag... and then I looked speculatively at the rest of my shirts, and BOOM, I was off on a tear, yanking out junior-sized shirts and finding a dismaying # of others that no longer fit over my boobs and/or are too clingy where all the crunches I do haven't managed to keep my middle tight. I tossed alot of shirts, and identified a bunch of others that are marginal at best; all of them were "dressier" shirts that I haven't worn in ages because I don't have occasion to (by "dressier" I just mean "not t-shirts," not that they were DRESSY), so the loss of so many of them meant that I'd be in trouble if I had to dress nicely... even though I'm a geek, it COULD happen, right? It was obvious that I had to get more shirts, so I did what I do for most things I need; I got on eBay and started composing searches. Having to think things out like that made me realize something else; although I get to dress like a college kid all the time, I'm NOT one, and I need to have a proper adult wardrobe, in other words one that'll let me dress properly for a wide range of possible occasions... and I'm not even CLOSE. I don't just need some "nicer than t-shirt" shirts, I need a few "office-acceptable" shirts in case I have to go to a meeting at a more formal workplace, or maybe out to a nice restaurant for brunch or something with people who're going to dress above t-shirt level, and I need a few long-sleeved casual shirts so I don't just have short-sleeved shirts and then sweaters and sweatshirts with nothing in-between for "in-between weather" (I've been wearing a jacket with a t-shirt for that, but it's sorta silly), AND I need a few honestly dressy shirts to be prepared for a more formal party than anyone I know gives, and that means shirts that aren't too clingy and aren't just t-shirts with some lace or fringe sewn onto them... I'm looking for ALL of those sorts of shirts currently.
Note to people who sell shirts on eBay: Because sizes vary wildly, especially for women's shirts and sweaters, do NOT just say "medium" or "size 10" on your auction page; take 30 seconds and measure the frigging thing and include the measurements as part of your description... don't make people email you to get them. Also, put in the fabric content, disclose if it's dry clean or hand wash only, and mention if it's sheer or semi-sheer so a woman doesn't belatedly discover that she's doing a "Madonna in the 80's" thing with her bra showing clearly through the shirt she got from you... one of the shirts I've already gotten turned out to be that way, and now I have to either find the right kind of camisole to wear under it that won't look grim under sheer black or give up a darling new-with-tags shirt that fits perfectly, GRRRRRRRRRRRR. And finally, as with any auction, you need to include the item # in all correspondence; it's NOT enough to say "re: black shirt" or anything equally vague... and don't wait until 10 minutes before the end of the auction to provide the info prospective BUYERS have asked for.
The other 2 shirts I got today were fine, though, and I have high hopes for the others that're in transit... and of course for the others I'm watching and waiting to bid on. Yes, I'm getting a PILE of shirts, but I'm getting them really cheap, so I don't feel bad even though it might literally be years before I wear some of them, if ever; I've gotta have grownup clothes, and that's that.
Shirts are a little trickier to get on eBay than underwear, because there are infinite styles, all sorts of things that affect how they fit and look, and other people will be seeing and paying attention to them, so they have to meet a higher standard than socks. Because I don't want anything sexy, though, that simplifies things a little; I won't get anything bare, skimpy, fitted, or sheer. I'll also avoid shirts small enough to emphasize my pear-shapedness, or that another half inch gained anywhere on my upper body would make unwearable... if you're getting slightly oversized shirts, there's much less worry about fit. I ignore anything remotely trendy, so that I don't end up with shirts I can't wear in a year or 2 without looking like a dork; I pick very basic, simple styles, in colors that I know look good on me, and take great care with patterns, because most of them are too "young," too conservative (and thus aging), masculine (especially vertical stripes) or just icky.
There WILL be some shirts that don't work out; that's unavoidable when you're getting things through the mail from people who aren't providing professional-level pics and descriptions. Still, through sheer #'s I'll end up with plenty of usable stuff in all the different categories; it may take a couple of months, but there's no huge rush, seeing as I'm still living a geek lifestyle and wearing my ample winter wardrobe of sweatshirts and the occasional sweater. The really tough part will be when I'm done with shirts and have to face the fact that I barely have any pants other than jeans, and have to begin the endless, excruciating task of finding khakis or slacks that fit a big butt when they make them as if they were being cut for teenagers...
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Increasingly as time goes by, I see the wisdom of that quote; the more I study evil with the intention of learning to better combat it, the more I see how effective it is, how helpless nearly everyone is against it even when it's clumsily done, the more tempting it becomes to adapt evil methods for my own use... and if I do that, how long would it take for me to cross the line from fighting fire with fire to becoming the human version of napalm? As for the abyss; it's as good of a metaphor for the collective power of negative karma as any, and if you focus on evil things (which are karmically negative, remember) that draws other negative things to you... and that's why I'm letting the topic drop for now.
I've had more insanity from Amazon.com; you might recall that I ordered a couple of items from them last month, only to have the order delayed when one of them suddenly went from allegedly having been released in December to not released yet (Amazon's started holding orders until they're able to send all the pieces at once)... that sucked, but at least it was consistent with their policies as they were recently explained to me. Amazon apparently loathes consistency, though, because a check of our account there a few days ago showed that the 2nd item had been delayed another MONTH, but the 1st item had been SENT; I received it that day, oddly enough. How did this happen? Did they change policies again? Was the customer "service" rep who explained their policy confused? Did their system belatedly alert them that the 2nd item was showing as in stock when I placed the order, and is that an exception to the policy? Is the fact that the availability of the 2nd item has been delayed TWICE what changed things? Is some combination of those factors involved? I'm sure I'll never know... but I'm REALLY going to think about it before ordering from them again, because they're out of their collective MINDS on that site.
And speaking of insanity; I posted on 8-19-05 about how I'd had an odd underwear-related early midlife crisis, leading to me throwing out a bunch of socks and panties and replacing them with nice new ones from eBay... and now, a similar frenzy has hit me in reference to my shirts. It started with a seemingly innocent event I posted about on 2-8-06; I found an old shirt in my closet that was too small for me now that my formerly-bony upper body is starting to fill out, so I tossed it in the Goodwill bag... and then I looked speculatively at the rest of my shirts, and BOOM, I was off on a tear, yanking out junior-sized shirts and finding a dismaying # of others that no longer fit over my boobs and/or are too clingy where all the crunches I do haven't managed to keep my middle tight. I tossed alot of shirts, and identified a bunch of others that are marginal at best; all of them were "dressier" shirts that I haven't worn in ages because I don't have occasion to (by "dressier" I just mean "not t-shirts," not that they were DRESSY), so the loss of so many of them meant that I'd be in trouble if I had to dress nicely... even though I'm a geek, it COULD happen, right? It was obvious that I had to get more shirts, so I did what I do for most things I need; I got on eBay and started composing searches. Having to think things out like that made me realize something else; although I get to dress like a college kid all the time, I'm NOT one, and I need to have a proper adult wardrobe, in other words one that'll let me dress properly for a wide range of possible occasions... and I'm not even CLOSE. I don't just need some "nicer than t-shirt" shirts, I need a few "office-acceptable" shirts in case I have to go to a meeting at a more formal workplace, or maybe out to a nice restaurant for brunch or something with people who're going to dress above t-shirt level, and I need a few long-sleeved casual shirts so I don't just have short-sleeved shirts and then sweaters and sweatshirts with nothing in-between for "in-between weather" (I've been wearing a jacket with a t-shirt for that, but it's sorta silly), AND I need a few honestly dressy shirts to be prepared for a more formal party than anyone I know gives, and that means shirts that aren't too clingy and aren't just t-shirts with some lace or fringe sewn onto them... I'm looking for ALL of those sorts of shirts currently.
Note to people who sell shirts on eBay: Because sizes vary wildly, especially for women's shirts and sweaters, do NOT just say "medium" or "size 10" on your auction page; take 30 seconds and measure the frigging thing and include the measurements as part of your description... don't make people email you to get them. Also, put in the fabric content, disclose if it's dry clean or hand wash only, and mention if it's sheer or semi-sheer so a woman doesn't belatedly discover that she's doing a "Madonna in the 80's" thing with her bra showing clearly through the shirt she got from you... one of the shirts I've already gotten turned out to be that way, and now I have to either find the right kind of camisole to wear under it that won't look grim under sheer black or give up a darling new-with-tags shirt that fits perfectly, GRRRRRRRRRRRR. And finally, as with any auction, you need to include the item # in all correspondence; it's NOT enough to say "re: black shirt" or anything equally vague... and don't wait until 10 minutes before the end of the auction to provide the info prospective BUYERS have asked for.
The other 2 shirts I got today were fine, though, and I have high hopes for the others that're in transit... and of course for the others I'm watching and waiting to bid on. Yes, I'm getting a PILE of shirts, but I'm getting them really cheap, so I don't feel bad even though it might literally be years before I wear some of them, if ever; I've gotta have grownup clothes, and that's that.
Shirts are a little trickier to get on eBay than underwear, because there are infinite styles, all sorts of things that affect how they fit and look, and other people will be seeing and paying attention to them, so they have to meet a higher standard than socks. Because I don't want anything sexy, though, that simplifies things a little; I won't get anything bare, skimpy, fitted, or sheer. I'll also avoid shirts small enough to emphasize my pear-shapedness, or that another half inch gained anywhere on my upper body would make unwearable... if you're getting slightly oversized shirts, there's much less worry about fit. I ignore anything remotely trendy, so that I don't end up with shirts I can't wear in a year or 2 without looking like a dork; I pick very basic, simple styles, in colors that I know look good on me, and take great care with patterns, because most of them are too "young," too conservative (and thus aging), masculine (especially vertical stripes) or just icky.
There WILL be some shirts that don't work out; that's unavoidable when you're getting things through the mail from people who aren't providing professional-level pics and descriptions. Still, through sheer #'s I'll end up with plenty of usable stuff in all the different categories; it may take a couple of months, but there's no huge rush, seeing as I'm still living a geek lifestyle and wearing my ample winter wardrobe of sweatshirts and the occasional sweater. The really tough part will be when I'm done with shirts and have to face the fact that I barely have any pants other than jeans, and have to begin the endless, excruciating task of finding khakis or slacks that fit a big butt when they make them as if they were being cut for teenagers...
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Happy Valentine's Day!! :-)
If you're reading this on the 14th, you'll have seen my cool Java thing pop up with a greeting (if you want to see it again you'll have to delete the cookie for it, because it's a show-once deal): if it's no longer the 14th and you missed it, fear not, it'll come back for the next holiday. In either case, I hope today's a day of love for you... or at least NOT one of torture.
I'm amazed at how many blog posts I've seen bemoaning the lack of flowers, gifts, etc that those bloggers will be enduring on this official day of romance; would you be surprised to learn that all of them were female? Is it that men don't care about getting stuff, or that women care too much? Many men say that both are true; they don't care about getting anything but extra sex, and would rather not be put on the spot to fulfill a woman's fantasies of what she should get, not to mention her desire to compete with her co-workers, all of whose partners are paying through the nose to have flowers delivered to the office so they can rub it in the faces of the single women that they've got men... what is the POINT of that? People living paycheck to paycheck spending all that extra $ to NOT see the look of joy on their partner's face when she gets the flowers; does anyone besides me think that's NUTS? Heck, it's silly to give flowers at all today, because it's MUCH more expensive than on other days (2-3 TIMES as expensive as on other days in some areas); if you or your partner MUST have flowers on the 14th, why not arrange to give/get them on the 13th and use the extra $ for something else? I'd be dismayed if I got over-priced flowers today; I'm practical, not romantic, and I'm given flowers regularly throughout the year, so it's not a biggie for me to get them like it is for most women... as often as my husband screws up, are you surprised that he keeps our florist busy?
I don't expect to get anything today, and couldn't care less; I've got more stuff than I need, my husband already gave me Godiva coconut truffles over the weekend (all the candy ads made me want some), and after my many years as a married woman I do NOT want lingerie that's in fact a gift for HIM. We won't be going out, no candles will be lit, and in general it'll be just like any other day; we're geeks, and we've been together too long to make a fuss.
Most people DO want Valentine's Day to be something special, of course, and that's easier to accomplish than you think: Men, if you want to make your ladies feel special, make it clear that you're giving them the goodies withOUT any expectation of sex. Ladies, if you want to make your men feel special, tell them you'll give them sex withOUT having to be bribed with the romantic trappings. Yes, that's contradictory; boys and girls are DIFFERENT.
My husband and I did do ONE holiday-ish thing; we've got our Valentine's Day display out for the 1st time in several years. In order to do that, we had to pack up a significant % of our Christmas stuff; yes, it was ALL still up, including the tree, and we now have Valentine's things in one half of the main living area of the house and Christmas things in the other... if you think that's freaky, wait until next month, when we stick a little St. Patrick's Day stuff in there too. We MIGHT get the tree down by Easter this year; I'm not holding my breath, though, as it's a HUGE project, and my husband resists it for as long as possible. I haven't had my Easter display for several years either, but I'm determined to this year; if necessary I'll just pack up the Valentine's doodads and have the Easter stuff alongside the remaining Christmas stuff... I doubt that the Valentine's doodads have much chance of going away before then, in any case.
Did I mention that we're GEEKS?
I don't often cover news or anything political, since a billion other blogs do in-depth coverage of those things, but I had to toss out a few comments about Cheney accidentally shooting Harry Whittington (who I of course hope will recover soon and suffer no long-term ill effects). First off is what I'd say is the funniest one-liner about it:
"Cheney's got a gun... everybody is on the run"
If you don't recognize what song that's from, here are the lyrics:
http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Janie's-Got-A-Gun-lyrics-Aerosmith/27066822903032074825686B0022282B
and you can hear a clip from the song here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005QEO1/qid=1139914478/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8570383-1034463?s=music&v=glance&n=5174
Most people can't remember vice presidents for very long after they leave office, but this'll make Cheney an exception; people will still know this story 100 years from now. Our descendants will think he must have been a really macho guy, given that the things he'll be remembered for will be the shooting and the much-remarked-on photo
http://wizbangblog.com/images/dickdick.jpg
where it was clearly visible that he wasn't wearing briefs... apparently because he couldn't find any, er, big enough.
A couple of people have reason to be pleased that Cheney's gained this new notoriety (aside from the liberals who're ecstatic to have an easy way to take a shot at the VP, no pun intended); Gerald Ford, aka "The World's Most Dangerous Golfer," and Jimmy Carter, aka "The Bunny Basher," are heaving sighs of relief that THEIR unfortunate incidents will no longer seem so bad. A couple of others were disappointed: Ted Kennedy had a hopeful moment when he discovered that Whittington was seriously injured, but his hopes were dashed when he heard that the latter is fully expected to recover... and people in the vicinity of Lyndon Johnson's grave swore they heard his voice saying "Too bad no one photographed it" followed by the yelping of beagles.
Ok, enough politics; if you're a romantic type, and coupled, enjoy today... and if you're romantic and NOT coupled, get a group of other singles together to go to happy hour, and maybe you'll spy a cutie over by the crudites.
I'm amazed at how many blog posts I've seen bemoaning the lack of flowers, gifts, etc that those bloggers will be enduring on this official day of romance; would you be surprised to learn that all of them were female? Is it that men don't care about getting stuff, or that women care too much? Many men say that both are true; they don't care about getting anything but extra sex, and would rather not be put on the spot to fulfill a woman's fantasies of what she should get, not to mention her desire to compete with her co-workers, all of whose partners are paying through the nose to have flowers delivered to the office so they can rub it in the faces of the single women that they've got men... what is the POINT of that? People living paycheck to paycheck spending all that extra $ to NOT see the look of joy on their partner's face when she gets the flowers; does anyone besides me think that's NUTS? Heck, it's silly to give flowers at all today, because it's MUCH more expensive than on other days (2-3 TIMES as expensive as on other days in some areas); if you or your partner MUST have flowers on the 14th, why not arrange to give/get them on the 13th and use the extra $ for something else? I'd be dismayed if I got over-priced flowers today; I'm practical, not romantic, and I'm given flowers regularly throughout the year, so it's not a biggie for me to get them like it is for most women... as often as my husband screws up, are you surprised that he keeps our florist busy?
I don't expect to get anything today, and couldn't care less; I've got more stuff than I need, my husband already gave me Godiva coconut truffles over the weekend (all the candy ads made me want some), and after my many years as a married woman I do NOT want lingerie that's in fact a gift for HIM. We won't be going out, no candles will be lit, and in general it'll be just like any other day; we're geeks, and we've been together too long to make a fuss.
Most people DO want Valentine's Day to be something special, of course, and that's easier to accomplish than you think: Men, if you want to make your ladies feel special, make it clear that you're giving them the goodies withOUT any expectation of sex. Ladies, if you want to make your men feel special, tell them you'll give them sex withOUT having to be bribed with the romantic trappings. Yes, that's contradictory; boys and girls are DIFFERENT.
My husband and I did do ONE holiday-ish thing; we've got our Valentine's Day display out for the 1st time in several years. In order to do that, we had to pack up a significant % of our Christmas stuff; yes, it was ALL still up, including the tree, and we now have Valentine's things in one half of the main living area of the house and Christmas things in the other... if you think that's freaky, wait until next month, when we stick a little St. Patrick's Day stuff in there too. We MIGHT get the tree down by Easter this year; I'm not holding my breath, though, as it's a HUGE project, and my husband resists it for as long as possible. I haven't had my Easter display for several years either, but I'm determined to this year; if necessary I'll just pack up the Valentine's doodads and have the Easter stuff alongside the remaining Christmas stuff... I doubt that the Valentine's doodads have much chance of going away before then, in any case.
Did I mention that we're GEEKS?
I don't often cover news or anything political, since a billion other blogs do in-depth coverage of those things, but I had to toss out a few comments about Cheney accidentally shooting Harry Whittington (who I of course hope will recover soon and suffer no long-term ill effects). First off is what I'd say is the funniest one-liner about it:
"Cheney's got a gun... everybody is on the run"
If you don't recognize what song that's from, here are the lyrics:
http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Janie's-Got-A-Gun-lyrics-Aerosmith/27066822903032074825686B0022282B
and you can hear a clip from the song here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005QEO1/qid=1139914478/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8570383-1034463?s=music&v=glance&n=5174
Most people can't remember vice presidents for very long after they leave office, but this'll make Cheney an exception; people will still know this story 100 years from now. Our descendants will think he must have been a really macho guy, given that the things he'll be remembered for will be the shooting and the much-remarked-on photo
http://wizbangblog.com/images/dickdick.jpg
where it was clearly visible that he wasn't wearing briefs... apparently because he couldn't find any, er, big enough.
A couple of people have reason to be pleased that Cheney's gained this new notoriety (aside from the liberals who're ecstatic to have an easy way to take a shot at the VP, no pun intended); Gerald Ford, aka "The World's Most Dangerous Golfer," and Jimmy Carter, aka "The Bunny Basher," are heaving sighs of relief that THEIR unfortunate incidents will no longer seem so bad. A couple of others were disappointed: Ted Kennedy had a hopeful moment when he discovered that Whittington was seriously injured, but his hopes were dashed when he heard that the latter is fully expected to recover... and people in the vicinity of Lyndon Johnson's grave swore they heard his voice saying "Too bad no one photographed it" followed by the yelping of beagles.
Ok, enough politics; if you're a romantic type, and coupled, enjoy today... and if you're romantic and NOT coupled, get a group of other singles together to go to happy hour, and maybe you'll spy a cutie over by the crudites.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Some more thoughts on evil
I had the urge to do a Google search for a screen name I used to use on forums a few years ago; my conscious thought was to see if any of those places, or any posts to or from me, were still in existence, but I think a deeper part of my brain wanted me to expand my understanding of evil... because I was in for a surprise.
I found something that was obviously a reference to me (that screen name was VERY distinctive, let's just say) on a site I knew I'd never been on; naturally, I went to take a look. I read the entire post, but had no idea who it was from or how I fit into what he was saying; the screen name was just a plain admin one, so that didn't help. I looked around the page for clues, and, at the top, where it showed the path of links that led to that thread in that section of the forum, I found the name of that section... and saw that it was the name of a "club" I'd been in when Excite still had that service available. With my head swimming, I tried to remember who the cockroach was that'd been the admin of that club; I'd only managed to recall part of his moniker when my continued searching led me to a post where he'd used it... all the intervening years didn't prevent me from instantly recognizing his name.
Scroll back to the year 2000; I'd just gotten online, and didn't know how to go anywhere or do anything other than click bookmarks my husband had created for me for my inbox and my listing of Excite clubs. I was still high on being able to have discussions with people from all over the world, blah blah bah, and wasn't yet aware that there was anywhere else to do this other than a handful of Excite clubs run, for the most part, by REALLY unpleasant individuals who'd somehow managed to gather little groups of people and keep them posting, so I was in several clubs with admins ranging from nasty to maniacal... and this guy who posted about me was one of the latter. It never ceases to amaze me how evil people don't have any trouble gathering themselves bunches of folks willing to accept their authority; it's just like in the movies, where the bad guy, whether he's a Bond villain, scifi mad scientist or whatever always has swarms of henchmen... don't you ever wonder how he GOT them to work for him?
Evil guy: Hi, I'm going to do a great deal of evil, and I need some help; I can't offer health insurance, but the wages will be good, and tax free as I'm operating in secret. Doesn't that sound fun? Do you want to sign up?
Random guy: Um... sure, I'll quit my legitimate job and go to work for you doing evil.
I know, that's facetious, but every time multiple people are involved in doing wrong someone had the idea to do it and somehow persuaded the others to go along with it; I'd love to have hidden camera footage of how this is done, especially when strangers are being recruited... or do evil people just automatically say "yes" if they're asked to join up with other evil people, with no persuasion necessary?
On the Excite system, while I don't know how people with no discernible social skills got their clubs going, I know what KEPT them going; folks want to post on active forums, and will endure all sorts of cr@p to do so... and they MUST endure it, because a forum that's active long-term is almost guaranteed to be run by someone who's sorely lacking in niceness, fairness, reasonableness, or any of the other qualities you'd assume were necessary for a forum admin to possess. WHY does it nearly always require a jerk in charge to keep a forum going... in other words, why do people prefer to post on forums run by jerks? Why do we accept authority so readily from mean people and nutjobs, and chafe under it if it's from a nice person? {sigh}
Back to the admin under discussion; with typical unoriginality, we'll call him John. When I found his club, it was barely hanging on; MY posts in the many empty threads, which other people then materialized to respond to, are, looking back, probably the only thing that kept it from dying completely... and if you think that the new life my presence brought to the club gained me any friendship or gratitude, you're not grasping how evil works. I saw John make several arrogant, high-handed, belligerent, and totally inappropriate posts publicly chastising other members; I was taken aback, as he was vicious even by Excite clubs standards, but I didn't know the history he had with those people, so I shrugged it off like I did the endless bad admin behavior in all the other active clubs I was in. Several months passed, with me remaining by far the major poster of that club.
Meanwhile, in another Excite club, I got into a debate with a couple of women who, when I refused to back down from my position even after about 100 posts were aimed at me over a period of a few days, not to mention countless personal insults and threatening messages, decided that I was "the enemy"; as I've seen happen several times since then on different online club systems when evil people targeted folks who didn't knuckle under, they searched through the hundreds of discussion-type clubs on Excite to find the others I was in (evil people are willing to go to unimaginable amounts of trouble to "get" their victims, which nice people don't expect and so are unprepared for, to their detriment), and suddenly showed up in all of them and started hurling snippy posts at me. They were so blatant about it that they got stopped most places (at least once I had to prompt the admin about who was a long-established member and who were the newbies that'd started being disruptive as soon as they showed up, though, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr)... but John was different; although quick to jump all over people for any minor, or imagined, infraction of his rules, 2 newbies attempting to bully ME in a club where supposedly no flaming or personal remarks were allowed didn't seem to concern him. A private message to John was replied to with pompous claims that HE didn't see anything wrong in the posts they'd made; if I'd been even a little more experienced with forums, I'd have known that that meant it was time for me to bail out, but I foolishly assumed that he'd get the point sooner or later... when in reality, he'd recognized that 2 people as evil as himself had shown up, and wouldn't have acted against them for the world.
That's another important point about evil people; they smell each other out, like drug users can supposedly do, and are drawn to each other, band quickly together, and will act as a unit from then on. Nice people, in contrast, have never, in my extensive online experience, been able to form those sorts of tightly bonded groups that'll act as one against whoever they've decided are their enemies; WHY can't nice people do that, instead of most of them fading away when there's trouble, and most of the rest being conciliatory towards the wrongdoers? WHY? I've been infuriated beyond words time after time when I've seen the rotten eggs working together like a well-oiled machine while the few nice ones that dare post against them are left begging fruitlessly for THEIR friends to join with them against the gang; is it any wonder why the evil people of the world manage to do as they please so much of the time when nice folks don't have the guts to even make a frigging forum post against them?
The really amazing thing isn't that the nice can't stand up against the bad, as it's human nature to fear being singled out and targeted; it's how the evil manage to maintain their tight alliances rather than mistreating each other the way they do everyone else and causing their gang to dissolve in acrimony. What is there about being a turd that allows a person to be part of a group where everyone is watching each other's backs and willing to make and carry out often very elaborate plans against others? Why can't nice people manage something this simple?
My death knell in John's club came when a political discussion started up; it turned out that he and both of the "ladies" were flaming liberals, and I'M slightly to the right of Attila the Hun... and I hadn't yet learned that it's foolish to argue politics online, and INSANE to do it when you'll be one against a group. It was them against me, and they made no attempt to be civil; as if that wasn't grim enough, John started make scathing "official admin posts"... against ME, for daring to rebut their attacks. If that doesn't make sense to you then, again, you don't understand evil; to the evil person, attacking someone, even a group attack of an innocent victim, is perfectly fine, but if the victim stands up for themselves, however politely in comparison to the viciousness of the attacks, that's seen as a high crime.
Pointing out that the personal attacks were contrary to his rules, and that *I* wasn't breaking any rules by rebutting, cut no ice; the "debate" raged on. The one bright spot was when another member stuck his neck out and put in a post with a bunch of links to sites backing up my argument (which I couldn't find myself in those days because I'd never even heard of a search engine); John was so infuriated that someone had helped me, not spoken in my defense, not posted an argument in agreement with me, but just helped me by offering references, that he made an all-caps admin post excoriating my benefactor and declaring that no one could provide URL's for anyone else; isn't that outrageous? Doubly so since he and the other 2 had been tag-teaming each other with URL's all along, and continued to do so no matter how many times I pointed out that he'd forbidden it... hypocrisy is standard with evil people.
Finally, the absolute last straw came; he made an admin post that essentially said that if I didn't lay back and let the 3 of them attack me every which way without defending myself, and give up all my arguments and admit that they were right about everything as soon as they rebutted me, I'd be thrown out of the club. In response to that, I finally realized that I was wasting my time there and needed to quit; as most people do under those sorts of circumstances, I put in a post telling them all exactly what I thought of them, especially John, with his ugly behavior, gross misuse of his admin power, blatant favoring of people who agreed with his views when he claimed to be impartial, and inexcusable supporting of newcomers who'd made it obvious that they'd joined specifically to harass ME, the established member... but before I did that, I did one other thing. I had a friend who'd joined the club a while before, at my request, for the sole purpose of putting in a massive post on the complicated political situation and history of his country, which John was eager to know about and turned handsprings over when he got it (fat lot of good that favor ever did me), and to answer John's endless questions; this friend had never returned to the club after that, as he's not the debating type, but I asked him to come back one more time... to go through and delete all of his posts, which he quickly did. I then edited the header post to the thread (which I'd put in myself because my friend was hesitant about starting a new discussion) to say that the info had been removed at my request, as a protest against how I'd been treated. My last line was something like; "I bet you never backed up this info, did you? Maybe from now on you'll spend more time handling admin duties like archiving and less time treating your most productive members like dirt."
My friend received a series of emails begging him to re-post the info, which he of course refused, making it clear that he was appalled by how John had treated me and allowed others to treat me; it was nearly worth all the abuse to actually have someone get right in an evil person's face, metaphorically speaking, and pass judgment against them.
The man that had posted the URL's for me stayed a while longer in the club; he was eventually targeted and driven out for the crime of not agreeing with John. He started writing to me within a couple of days of my departure, and kept in touch with me for 5 YEARS after, until his poor health made him give up online life; he informed me that he'd posted in protest of my being kicked out, that John shouldn't be using his power as admin to beat up on whoever disagreed with him... he got publicly bashed in return, of course. He gave me regular reports of John's continuing tirades against any who didn't parrot his opinions until the day he quit; another standard aspect of evil is that evil people will seek out new victims as fast as they get rid of the old ones.
Now here's the scary part; if you've been online for at least a few years, think of the minuscule % of people you get friendly with, and post on forums with, that you're still involved with even a few months later... and compare it to how, as I discovered in a further search of John's area of the forum I found him on, he's still involved with those 2 "ladies" almost 6 YEARS LATER. I couldn't have recalled their names if I'd tried, but I recognized them when I saw them; I shouldn't have been surprised to see those twits there, because it's a truism of evil people that they clutch tightly to each other in a way that nicer folks can rarely be bothered to make the effort to do, especially with people they just know from online, but... 6 YEARS!!
The post that I'd found via Google explained some aspect of the admin policy about how they handle troublemakers who try to spoil the enjoyment of the forum by others, and as an aside said that old hands would remember that incident with ME... which was why I had no clue what the deal was at 1st, since naturally I've NEVER made trouble ANYWHERE, much less tried to spoil anyone's enjoyment of ANYTHING. Does he really remember it that way? Did he keep telling himself even after TWO other people confronted him with his and his sidekicks' atrocious behavior that some sort of distortion of time and space had occurred, making THEM the ones who were posting pleasantly when *I* showed up and started posting attacks? Heck, why assume he mentally doctored the truth afterwards; at the time it was happening did he lose track of just who had shown up with the clear intention of spoiling whose enjoyment? That's another thing about evil people that we need to understand; their perceptions of reality are often massively warped, which is necessary for them to see themselves as being in the right and anyone who acts contrary to their wishes as in the wrong... this is part of why it's so hard to deal successfully with the evil ones, because we expect the truth to influence people, but nothing you can say will ever count for anything against what a bad person has decided the truth is.
Can you believe that after SIX YEARS he remembers me, remembers my exact screen name from those days, felt it necessary to include my name in a post on a site where I'd never been, 99% of whose members weren't in the Excite club... and that he expects those other 2 to remember also, and to recall it his way even though THEY were the ones that carried out a meticulous plan to track me down and jointly harass me in every possible club, making THEM the troublemakers by any definition of that word ever invented? Given how close they obviously are, I'm sure they DO mimic his psychotic memory pattern of those long-ago events; it's mindboggling that this would be so when *I* couldn't remember any of THEIR names until I saw them, and hadn't given any of them one second's thought after my URL-buddy left their club in disgust and stopped reporting on their actions.
And that's the final important thing to be aware of with evil people; they become utterly obsessed with whoever they decide are their enemies, and, while normal people move on with their lives and gradually forget things like arguments with total strangers, or even the specifics of most arguments with people they knew well, the evil treat their memories of these events like a dragon does its gold, hoarding them and going over and over them... and looking at them with eyes that aren't quite human.
I've said it a million times, but I'll say it again; a person who does evil is an evil person, and such a person should NOT be given a place in your life, but should be shunned, rejected, and driven away if possible. You should never support, trust, believe or defend them, and if you see them attacking someone you should step up to the plate and let 'em have it... don't go slinking off to leave the victim to fight a losing battle, because next time it'll be YOU who's been targeted, and you'll want karma to bring someone to help you.
I'll finish off with something amusing; tonight, as we were eating Chinese takeout and watching Metal Mania on VH1 Classic, Def Leppard's "Foolin'" came on; without forethought, I started singing along, using the jumbo eggroll I'd just put on my plate as a "microphone." I noticed my husband was looking at me. I noticed he was STILL looking at me. Finally:
Me: Quit staring at me!!
Him: You're using an eggroll as a microphone.
Me: If you don't like it, you can leave the room until after this song.
Him: No, it's CUTE.
Me: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!!
Him: It's really cute how you're doing that.
Me: Be quiet, you're crazy.
Him: {laughing}
And that, contrary to what's in the movies, and of course those eHarmony.com ads, is what love looks like.
I found something that was obviously a reference to me (that screen name was VERY distinctive, let's just say) on a site I knew I'd never been on; naturally, I went to take a look. I read the entire post, but had no idea who it was from or how I fit into what he was saying; the screen name was just a plain admin one, so that didn't help. I looked around the page for clues, and, at the top, where it showed the path of links that led to that thread in that section of the forum, I found the name of that section... and saw that it was the name of a "club" I'd been in when Excite still had that service available. With my head swimming, I tried to remember who the cockroach was that'd been the admin of that club; I'd only managed to recall part of his moniker when my continued searching led me to a post where he'd used it... all the intervening years didn't prevent me from instantly recognizing his name.
Scroll back to the year 2000; I'd just gotten online, and didn't know how to go anywhere or do anything other than click bookmarks my husband had created for me for my inbox and my listing of Excite clubs. I was still high on being able to have discussions with people from all over the world, blah blah bah, and wasn't yet aware that there was anywhere else to do this other than a handful of Excite clubs run, for the most part, by REALLY unpleasant individuals who'd somehow managed to gather little groups of people and keep them posting, so I was in several clubs with admins ranging from nasty to maniacal... and this guy who posted about me was one of the latter. It never ceases to amaze me how evil people don't have any trouble gathering themselves bunches of folks willing to accept their authority; it's just like in the movies, where the bad guy, whether he's a Bond villain, scifi mad scientist or whatever always has swarms of henchmen... don't you ever wonder how he GOT them to work for him?
Evil guy: Hi, I'm going to do a great deal of evil, and I need some help; I can't offer health insurance, but the wages will be good, and tax free as I'm operating in secret. Doesn't that sound fun? Do you want to sign up?
Random guy: Um... sure, I'll quit my legitimate job and go to work for you doing evil.
I know, that's facetious, but every time multiple people are involved in doing wrong someone had the idea to do it and somehow persuaded the others to go along with it; I'd love to have hidden camera footage of how this is done, especially when strangers are being recruited... or do evil people just automatically say "yes" if they're asked to join up with other evil people, with no persuasion necessary?
On the Excite system, while I don't know how people with no discernible social skills got their clubs going, I know what KEPT them going; folks want to post on active forums, and will endure all sorts of cr@p to do so... and they MUST endure it, because a forum that's active long-term is almost guaranteed to be run by someone who's sorely lacking in niceness, fairness, reasonableness, or any of the other qualities you'd assume were necessary for a forum admin to possess. WHY does it nearly always require a jerk in charge to keep a forum going... in other words, why do people prefer to post on forums run by jerks? Why do we accept authority so readily from mean people and nutjobs, and chafe under it if it's from a nice person? {sigh}
Back to the admin under discussion; with typical unoriginality, we'll call him John. When I found his club, it was barely hanging on; MY posts in the many empty threads, which other people then materialized to respond to, are, looking back, probably the only thing that kept it from dying completely... and if you think that the new life my presence brought to the club gained me any friendship or gratitude, you're not grasping how evil works. I saw John make several arrogant, high-handed, belligerent, and totally inappropriate posts publicly chastising other members; I was taken aback, as he was vicious even by Excite clubs standards, but I didn't know the history he had with those people, so I shrugged it off like I did the endless bad admin behavior in all the other active clubs I was in. Several months passed, with me remaining by far the major poster of that club.
Meanwhile, in another Excite club, I got into a debate with a couple of women who, when I refused to back down from my position even after about 100 posts were aimed at me over a period of a few days, not to mention countless personal insults and threatening messages, decided that I was "the enemy"; as I've seen happen several times since then on different online club systems when evil people targeted folks who didn't knuckle under, they searched through the hundreds of discussion-type clubs on Excite to find the others I was in (evil people are willing to go to unimaginable amounts of trouble to "get" their victims, which nice people don't expect and so are unprepared for, to their detriment), and suddenly showed up in all of them and started hurling snippy posts at me. They were so blatant about it that they got stopped most places (at least once I had to prompt the admin about who was a long-established member and who were the newbies that'd started being disruptive as soon as they showed up, though, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr)... but John was different; although quick to jump all over people for any minor, or imagined, infraction of his rules, 2 newbies attempting to bully ME in a club where supposedly no flaming or personal remarks were allowed didn't seem to concern him. A private message to John was replied to with pompous claims that HE didn't see anything wrong in the posts they'd made; if I'd been even a little more experienced with forums, I'd have known that that meant it was time for me to bail out, but I foolishly assumed that he'd get the point sooner or later... when in reality, he'd recognized that 2 people as evil as himself had shown up, and wouldn't have acted against them for the world.
That's another important point about evil people; they smell each other out, like drug users can supposedly do, and are drawn to each other, band quickly together, and will act as a unit from then on. Nice people, in contrast, have never, in my extensive online experience, been able to form those sorts of tightly bonded groups that'll act as one against whoever they've decided are their enemies; WHY can't nice people do that, instead of most of them fading away when there's trouble, and most of the rest being conciliatory towards the wrongdoers? WHY? I've been infuriated beyond words time after time when I've seen the rotten eggs working together like a well-oiled machine while the few nice ones that dare post against them are left begging fruitlessly for THEIR friends to join with them against the gang; is it any wonder why the evil people of the world manage to do as they please so much of the time when nice folks don't have the guts to even make a frigging forum post against them?
The really amazing thing isn't that the nice can't stand up against the bad, as it's human nature to fear being singled out and targeted; it's how the evil manage to maintain their tight alliances rather than mistreating each other the way they do everyone else and causing their gang to dissolve in acrimony. What is there about being a turd that allows a person to be part of a group where everyone is watching each other's backs and willing to make and carry out often very elaborate plans against others? Why can't nice people manage something this simple?
My death knell in John's club came when a political discussion started up; it turned out that he and both of the "ladies" were flaming liberals, and I'M slightly to the right of Attila the Hun... and I hadn't yet learned that it's foolish to argue politics online, and INSANE to do it when you'll be one against a group. It was them against me, and they made no attempt to be civil; as if that wasn't grim enough, John started make scathing "official admin posts"... against ME, for daring to rebut their attacks. If that doesn't make sense to you then, again, you don't understand evil; to the evil person, attacking someone, even a group attack of an innocent victim, is perfectly fine, but if the victim stands up for themselves, however politely in comparison to the viciousness of the attacks, that's seen as a high crime.
Pointing out that the personal attacks were contrary to his rules, and that *I* wasn't breaking any rules by rebutting, cut no ice; the "debate" raged on. The one bright spot was when another member stuck his neck out and put in a post with a bunch of links to sites backing up my argument (which I couldn't find myself in those days because I'd never even heard of a search engine); John was so infuriated that someone had helped me, not spoken in my defense, not posted an argument in agreement with me, but just helped me by offering references, that he made an all-caps admin post excoriating my benefactor and declaring that no one could provide URL's for anyone else; isn't that outrageous? Doubly so since he and the other 2 had been tag-teaming each other with URL's all along, and continued to do so no matter how many times I pointed out that he'd forbidden it... hypocrisy is standard with evil people.
Finally, the absolute last straw came; he made an admin post that essentially said that if I didn't lay back and let the 3 of them attack me every which way without defending myself, and give up all my arguments and admit that they were right about everything as soon as they rebutted me, I'd be thrown out of the club. In response to that, I finally realized that I was wasting my time there and needed to quit; as most people do under those sorts of circumstances, I put in a post telling them all exactly what I thought of them, especially John, with his ugly behavior, gross misuse of his admin power, blatant favoring of people who agreed with his views when he claimed to be impartial, and inexcusable supporting of newcomers who'd made it obvious that they'd joined specifically to harass ME, the established member... but before I did that, I did one other thing. I had a friend who'd joined the club a while before, at my request, for the sole purpose of putting in a massive post on the complicated political situation and history of his country, which John was eager to know about and turned handsprings over when he got it (fat lot of good that favor ever did me), and to answer John's endless questions; this friend had never returned to the club after that, as he's not the debating type, but I asked him to come back one more time... to go through and delete all of his posts, which he quickly did. I then edited the header post to the thread (which I'd put in myself because my friend was hesitant about starting a new discussion) to say that the info had been removed at my request, as a protest against how I'd been treated. My last line was something like; "I bet you never backed up this info, did you? Maybe from now on you'll spend more time handling admin duties like archiving and less time treating your most productive members like dirt."
My friend received a series of emails begging him to re-post the info, which he of course refused, making it clear that he was appalled by how John had treated me and allowed others to treat me; it was nearly worth all the abuse to actually have someone get right in an evil person's face, metaphorically speaking, and pass judgment against them.
The man that had posted the URL's for me stayed a while longer in the club; he was eventually targeted and driven out for the crime of not agreeing with John. He started writing to me within a couple of days of my departure, and kept in touch with me for 5 YEARS after, until his poor health made him give up online life; he informed me that he'd posted in protest of my being kicked out, that John shouldn't be using his power as admin to beat up on whoever disagreed with him... he got publicly bashed in return, of course. He gave me regular reports of John's continuing tirades against any who didn't parrot his opinions until the day he quit; another standard aspect of evil is that evil people will seek out new victims as fast as they get rid of the old ones.
Now here's the scary part; if you've been online for at least a few years, think of the minuscule % of people you get friendly with, and post on forums with, that you're still involved with even a few months later... and compare it to how, as I discovered in a further search of John's area of the forum I found him on, he's still involved with those 2 "ladies" almost 6 YEARS LATER. I couldn't have recalled their names if I'd tried, but I recognized them when I saw them; I shouldn't have been surprised to see those twits there, because it's a truism of evil people that they clutch tightly to each other in a way that nicer folks can rarely be bothered to make the effort to do, especially with people they just know from online, but... 6 YEARS!!
The post that I'd found via Google explained some aspect of the admin policy about how they handle troublemakers who try to spoil the enjoyment of the forum by others, and as an aside said that old hands would remember that incident with ME... which was why I had no clue what the deal was at 1st, since naturally I've NEVER made trouble ANYWHERE, much less tried to spoil anyone's enjoyment of ANYTHING. Does he really remember it that way? Did he keep telling himself even after TWO other people confronted him with his and his sidekicks' atrocious behavior that some sort of distortion of time and space had occurred, making THEM the ones who were posting pleasantly when *I* showed up and started posting attacks? Heck, why assume he mentally doctored the truth afterwards; at the time it was happening did he lose track of just who had shown up with the clear intention of spoiling whose enjoyment? That's another thing about evil people that we need to understand; their perceptions of reality are often massively warped, which is necessary for them to see themselves as being in the right and anyone who acts contrary to their wishes as in the wrong... this is part of why it's so hard to deal successfully with the evil ones, because we expect the truth to influence people, but nothing you can say will ever count for anything against what a bad person has decided the truth is.
Can you believe that after SIX YEARS he remembers me, remembers my exact screen name from those days, felt it necessary to include my name in a post on a site where I'd never been, 99% of whose members weren't in the Excite club... and that he expects those other 2 to remember also, and to recall it his way even though THEY were the ones that carried out a meticulous plan to track me down and jointly harass me in every possible club, making THEM the troublemakers by any definition of that word ever invented? Given how close they obviously are, I'm sure they DO mimic his psychotic memory pattern of those long-ago events; it's mindboggling that this would be so when *I* couldn't remember any of THEIR names until I saw them, and hadn't given any of them one second's thought after my URL-buddy left their club in disgust and stopped reporting on their actions.
And that's the final important thing to be aware of with evil people; they become utterly obsessed with whoever they decide are their enemies, and, while normal people move on with their lives and gradually forget things like arguments with total strangers, or even the specifics of most arguments with people they knew well, the evil treat their memories of these events like a dragon does its gold, hoarding them and going over and over them... and looking at them with eyes that aren't quite human.
I've said it a million times, but I'll say it again; a person who does evil is an evil person, and such a person should NOT be given a place in your life, but should be shunned, rejected, and driven away if possible. You should never support, trust, believe or defend them, and if you see them attacking someone you should step up to the plate and let 'em have it... don't go slinking off to leave the victim to fight a losing battle, because next time it'll be YOU who's been targeted, and you'll want karma to bring someone to help you.
I'll finish off with something amusing; tonight, as we were eating Chinese takeout and watching Metal Mania on VH1 Classic, Def Leppard's "Foolin'" came on; without forethought, I started singing along, using the jumbo eggroll I'd just put on my plate as a "microphone." I noticed my husband was looking at me. I noticed he was STILL looking at me. Finally:
Me: Quit staring at me!!
Him: You're using an eggroll as a microphone.
Me: If you don't like it, you can leave the room until after this song.
Him: No, it's CUTE.
Me: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!!
Him: It's really cute how you're doing that.
Me: Be quiet, you're crazy.
Him: {laughing}
And that, contrary to what's in the movies, and of course those eHarmony.com ads, is what love looks like.
