Conference hydra::dejavu

    A few simple thoughts:
    
    Often, people take a different interpretation of the words we speak
    and write.  Suppose someone says, "Unsolved murders fascinate me."
    That person might be a reader of mystery stories, a forensic
    criminologist, a student of psychology, a budding writer wanting
    ideas for stories, or an investigative news reporter.  Conceivably,
    he or she might also be a sociopath who wants to commit crimes; however,
    the probability of that is low.   
    
    Things that are not understood are often viewed with suspicion.
    Many folk who tune into this Conference do so to learn.  But others
    may get wrong ideas, if they misunderstand what's being said.  If
    you don't know what, say, "SO" stands for, you might think it referred
    to something supernatural [say, "Spirit Oligarch," "Satanic Oracle,"
    or "Supernatural Outsider"] rather than a shorthand term for a beloved
    person ["Significant Other"].  This could cause a great deal of
    confusion, and usually not for the better.
    
    DEJAVU is particularly vulnerable to possible misunderstanding by
    "read-only" folk.  We can interchange information, but we ought
    to do so in the light of potential misunderstanding by folk who
    don't understand the language.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

 My curiosity is killing me.Has someone expressed concerns about
the topics and content of this file? 

       George D. Who used to read quietly in Maine.

    Without going into too many details, some people, myself included,
    have been contacted both by people who don't participate in the
    file, but apparently read it.  It is neither proper nor constructive
    to detail some of the communications, but some were the result of
    sheer misunderstanding.  
    
    Also, some of us have been contacted by others who want to ask a
    question or relate an experience, but are a little timid of identifying
    themselves.  Some of these queries have been posted "anonymously."
    
    I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion.  The observation
    in the previous note (643) and the discussions here are to lessen,
    not to increase, any misunderstandings about open Conferences and
    their extents and limitations.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	I must disagree that posting a note or reply in here is the
    	equivalent to tacking up a printout outside the cafeteria.  
    	The very nature of DEJAVU and its (to some) controversial 
    	topics keeps those people uncomfortable with these types of 
    	discussions away.  I strongly doubt there are many who fear 
    	metaphysics and/or the supernatural even reading this conf-
    	erence.  (But I could be wrong.)
    
    						Carla
    	

    Re .4
    
    Notes in DEJAVU may not get the same number of readers as a note on a
    cafeteria bulletin board, and certainly it will get a different set of
    readers, but both are equally public, which is the most important
    qualitative similarity.  I will put it a little more strongly that
    Steve did:  Don't say anything in a public notesfile you wouldn't be
    willing to say out loud in a conversation in the corridors.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

You should assume that everyone with access to the network may read this
conference.  You should just keep that in mind when expressing yourself
in this and any other conference.

		Dave

    
    Ditto with the last few.  
    
    Carla - there are very good reasons for this, because what Steve 
    mentioned earlier has also happened to me.  And as he also stated, 
    it is not 'paranoia' time, but there are discussion topics and personal 
    detail/stories/testimonies that are better expressed outside this 
    conference due to the 'public' nature of an open conference.
    
    Since this is more a conference without moderators (or rather
    *everyone* is a moderator to some degree), if anyone reading a posting
    which could be drastically misinterpreted as something other than
    what the writer intended, it might be a good idea to have us all
    take on the responsibility of contacting the writer directly and
    voicing concern in that way.  After this is done, the writer could
    then either make the decision to have it stay as written, have it set
    hidden or delete it outright (or ask the official moderators to 
    delete it if the cluster node name has switched for that day)
              
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy
         

    everything you say can and will be used against you.  don't say
    anything that violates consensus reality or you will be taken in
    for regrooving.

    Re .8:
    
    No, I don't think that's quite accurate.  The opposite side of the
    coin from privilege is responsibility. Paraphrasing your excerpt
    of the Miranda quote, "Anything you say _could_ and _might_ be used
    against you."  Maybe not.  
    
    However, in one case, somebody told me off line that an entry in
    a Conference caused someone to contact the person who entered it.
    That person showed surprise, and a mild degree of discomfort that
    from left field would come interest in what was thought to be a
    subject from a "special interest" conference.
    
    I don't think it's a matter of "thought police."  It's just my trying
    to sensitize people about the nature of public Conferences.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .8
    
    


    I've always felt that people should understand all the ramifications of
    noting, and 643 and 644 make some valid points. 
    
    However, I also feel that we need to be aware of the ramifications to
    our liberty and our identity when we are afraid to openly be who we
    are. 


	less cryptically Bruce
    

    I agree with Carla;  I agree with Bruce.  My cats agree with Carla,
    too ;-)
    
    I wonder how many of us would stand up in the cafeteria and ask,
    "Does anyone know a good psychic?"  It would be much easier to do
    this if one was in a room full of DEJAVU noters/readers, and I wonder
    what would be the place of someone who attended the conference in
    such a gathering, if that person thought we were all nothing more
    than a bunch of crazies, or Satan worshippers (some already do think
    that, judging from 455.61).  That person would be free to speak
    out, as well...but why bother being there, with a group representing
    interests so different from one's own?
    
    My Jewish mother used to take me to the synagogue on Friday nights.
    One night, a newly-born-again Christian showed up; sat in front;
    stood and started speaking out on how Jews were all going to go to
    *That Other Place* because they did not accept Jesus as Christ.
    I guess the synogogue is a public forum too, isn't it? But,
    he was firmly told to leave by the Rabbi.  My suggestion to the
    silent readers who tie themselves in knots over their objections
    to what they find here is to remove this file from their realities.
    The people who speak out here do not need to be tormented for their
    beliefs.  We can argue; we can get excited; we can *learn*;...we
    can help one another; we can ask questions and get answers from
    people with whom we've never even been acquainted.  *That* is a
    *valuable commodity*.  We should maintain that freedom.

The point is to be aware that whatever is entered into non-restricted
conference can be read by anyone on the network.  There are those who were
not aware of this.  It can appear that the only people who access DEJAVU
are those who make entries.  Just realize that whatever you enter is read
by an unknown audience.  There will be no restriction of anyone's freedom
to express themselves unless their entry violates corporate policy (ie.
profanity, commercial advertisements, etc.)

		Dave

    I think that 643 is one-sided.  A noter who opens this file gets
    a message pointing to 643, which says in effect "be careful what
    you say,"  with no indication that there is any further discussion
    of the matter.  I think this is "chilling."  I do not think that
    643 should be write-locked, and I think that 644.* should be appended
    to 643.  Or maybe 643 should be appended to the conference policy
    note.
    
    BTW, can anyone enter notes stating conference policy and
    then write-lock them?
    
    
    	bruce

    Its not "conference policy", just a reminder that this notesfile
    (like all notesfiles) is open domain and a matter of public record.

    Steve checked it out with Dave (who is moderator) before entering
    it.  Sometimes we forget how public notesfiles really are and there
    have been problems in the past for some members of the DEJAVU 
    community.  It never hurts to be reminded, to be aware.
    Mary

    When I enter a reply I usually find myself being extra cautious
    in explaining my point of view to avoid ambiguities.  If I offend
    someone, I expect to get a message, so that I can further explain...
    If I offend everyone, I expect to get keelhauled... But, I covet
    my right to say what I want, how I want, except to "cry fire in a
    crowded theater".           
    
    "Darn (sic) the torpedos, full speed ahead!"
    
    Larry  @.@
            O
    

    RE .2
    
    George D.
    
      If it will help to satisfy your curiosity, I'll admit to being
    the one who asked Steve what an SO is. I asked him off line because:

        1 ) I have had some correspondence with Steve in the dreaded CHRISTIAN
        note conference and felt comfortable going to him

        2 ) I wasn't sure of the term's meaning nor the ramifications of
        asking about it in a public forum.

        3 ) Steve is a *very* knowledgeable person ! 
    
    I'm sure that what Steve is talking about is broader than this,
    but since the example that he chose involved me I thought that I
    would fess up :-)
    
    Gil
    

    I don't think thats much of a problem Gil.  It took me awhile to
    figure out what SO stands for too, at first._:-)  

    re .16 (Gil):
    
    Please -- nothing to "confess"; _I_ had trouble figuring out what SO
    is, nor are you the only one who asked me off-line what it was,
    SO [sorry :-)] I thought it a perfect choice as a term that might
    easily be misinterpreted by folk unfamiliar with it.  Especially
    since, unlike some of the paranormal_event terms, it isn't in diction-
    aries I'm familiar with.  [Which, in accordance with Murphy's Law,
    immediately means that someone will immediately cite a work I haven't
    seen, like _The New American Encyclopedic Dictionary of Yuppie
    Phraseology_, with "SO" not only defined, but traced from some obscure
    dialect of Old English. :-)]
    
    Steve nKallis, Jr.

     In the Ideal World, notes 643 and 644  wouldn't  be  necessary,  i.e.,
     we'd all be able to say/write anything we'd like to, anytime we'd like
     to, anyplace we'd like to, and not care or  worry  who  heard/read  it
     because  everyone  would  understand  that  if  they didn't understand
     something, they could say  so.   Alas,  in  the  Real  World,  "gentle
     reminders" like these are a very good idea.

     Alvin

    I agree that these reminders are helpful.
    
    I also agree that write-locking the original "reminder" (643) left
    a very bad taste in my mouth.  Write-locking 643 carried for me a
    double message.  Conscious message = "we're not alone, folks, so
    it's a good idea to exercise prudence in what you put forth into
    what's essentially a public forum."  All very sensible.  Hidden
    message picked up from the way the reminder was presented = "a lot
    of you are space-shots who can't be trusted to make sensible replies
    in said public forum, so to "protect" the conference and put a little
    fear-o-god in you, you won't be allowed to reply--at least not directly
    to the base note."
    
    The thing that further irritated me is that I don't believe the
    author of 643 ever intended for the second message to get across,
    only the first, and I think the first is a good idea--but not when
    presented in such a way as to inspire fear and/or anger.  Neither
    of those emotions, when aroused, is conducive to a style of public
    conduct which I will call "prudent graciousness".
    
    I think, as one other has stated, that 644 should be moved to 643
    and 644 deleted.  Having a base note and its "replies" in two
    places seems to serve no purpose; if it does, will someone please
    enlighten this dimbulb (aka Marcia Butchart)?

    Re .20 (Marcia):
    
    Oh, how easy it is to misunderstand intent!
    
    > ....................................................... Hidden
    >message picked up from the way the reminder was presented = "a lot
    >of you are space-shots who can't be trusted to make sensible replies
    >in said public forum, so to "protect" the conference and put a little
    >fear-o-god in you, you won't be allowed to reply--at least not directly
    >to the base note."
    
    No, not even close.  The problem is that the default condition to
    the NOTES software, upon opening a Conference, is "Next Unseen." 
    Now, the problem with any reminder, be it 643 or whatever, is that
    it has to be read.  Now, many of our responses go off in strange
    and wonderful tangents (and I'm as "guilty" of this practice as
    anyone else here; that's one of the benefits of the free-form nature
    of Noting).  Lest at about 634.25 or so, the conversation some have
    transmorgified into a discussion of the merits of charka stimulation
    or the effectiveness of radiasthesia, I write-locked the note and
    _immediately_ opened a second note for discussion of the problems
    of "network access" ["public" actually implies "available to people
    beyond the Corporation," which this Conference isn't supposed to
    be] Notes conferences, including our beloved DEJAVU.
    
    >The thing that further irritated me is that I don't believe the
    >author of 643 ever intended for the second message to get across,
     
    Probably because that wasn't my second message, conscious or otherwise.
    I certainly had and have no desire to inspire (or promote) either
    fear or anger; neither are qualities I try to cultivate.  I had
    hoped (and still do) that a gentle reminder, particularly for people
    who are relative newcomers to Noting, would help reinforce
    sensitivities to those limitations to Noting that are now incorporated
    into Personnel Policies and Procedures; a situation that came about
    specifically because of an excess in a now-terminated Conference.
    To take an analogous example, suppose I handed a package to a postman
    labeled "Handle with care."  Should that evoke either fear ["What
    if it's a bomb?"] or anger ["Does this twit think I'm going to
    drop-kick it?"] in him or her?  I think not; it's merely a
    cautionary/reminder.  Which is all the other note was intended to
    be.
    
    > ...............  Having a base note and its "replies" in two
    >places seems to serve no purpose; if it does, will someone please
    >enlighten this dimbulb (aka Marcia Butchart)?
    
    Nobody ever accused you of being a dimbulb, Marcia, least of all
    me.  I hope the foregoing has shown my reasoning. 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                   

    re .21
    
    Steve, it's clear from your reply that Marcia is correct...
    You write-locked your note to keep its message from being diluted.
    I'm really glad that we have at least one keeper of absolute truth.
    
    You also reference "an excess in a now-terminated Conference"
    as justification for the self-importance and sanctity of your note.
    I don't think there is any parallel between DEJAVU and SEXETERA.
    
    	bruce

    re: .21 (Steve)
    
    >>	Lest at about 634.25 or so, the conversation some have trans-
    >>	morgified into a discussion of the merits of charka stimulation
    >>	or the effectiveness of radiasthesia, I write-locked the note...
    
    	Wow, Steve, your futuristic visionary capabilities *must* be 
    	good since 634 stops at 634.19...  ;-)
    
						Carla
    

    re .20
    
         I thought I was the only one with a bad taste in my mouth.
    
         Why was starting a second note necessary?  Was the first in
    danger of being edited or changed in some way?  Did not the subject
    of 644 veer slightly just a couple letters ago?(Not that I mind)
    
         Also there's a anomaly in your Postman analogy Steve.  The
    average mailperson has sent his own personal mail before and can
    understand the situation by putting himself in the shoes of the
    sender.  He would want his mail protected too.  When I put myself
    in your shoes I don't understand.  You have always seemed very 
    sensible and intelligent to me(not that I've changed that viewpoint
    now), but you have to admit the outcome and effect of your notes
    would both be the same(excepting maybe some replys) if you had combined
    them.  It comes off almost as a power play.
         Anyway I still have respect for you Steve.  I guess I just
    don't understand why you did it this way.  That is probably why
    some of us have this bad taste in our mouths - "lack of understanding"
    and its follower "fear of the unknown".
    
    guy
    

    re .25 (Guy):
    
    >     I thought I was the only one with a bad taste in my mouth.
    >
    >     Why was starting a second note necessary? 
    
    Well, if I haven't been able to explain it thus far, I guess my
    skills as a communicator have slipped badly.  I put 643 in as a
    public service, and felt a separate place to discuss it (the very
    next note) was a better way to go, no elitism, hidden agenda, or
    the like intended.
    
    People disagree with that methodology. Okay, I never pretended to
    have The Ultimate Answer or The Ultimate Viewpoint.  Sorry if I
    have inadvertently offended some people by doing so.
    
    >... but you have to admit the outcome and effect of your notes
    >would both be the same(excepting maybe some replys) if you had combined
    >them.  It comes off almost as a power play.
     
    Well, I'd thought of 643 as one thing; perhaps others think of it
    differently.  I don't have the corner on valid perspectives.  And
    certainly nothing approaching a power play was intended, then or
    now.                                
    
    However, I see one _big_ benefit from what's happened.  It gets
    us (me at least) to look more closely at our actions -- what we
    take for granted others will think.  I for one will certainly be
    a bit more sensitive to the manifold ways words and actions can
    be taken.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Sigh....
    
    It's worth reading COLORS::WOMANNOTES #738.71
    
    	/bruce