Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    
    Re: .0
    
    > OK, enough for now.
    
    	I agree.
    
    Craig

    Re .0 (John)
    
    
    >Steve, you are over-reacting.  Notes have gone a lot further than
    >this one with no permanent effect.  One reason I stay in this
    >conference is because it has a rare brand of vitality born of freedom
    >of expression without out-and-out namecalling.
     
    Perhaps I was over-reacting, but emotions seemed high on this one.
    
    >OK, enough for now.
    
    I'll second that.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

     re: .0                                                        
            
     The fact that other notes have gone further than this one is past 
     history and was done before the guidelines were instituted.
    
     I don't think people are reacting so much to the contents of these
     notes as much as to the _way_ that people are saying them. Maybe if 
     more people _did_ worry about hurting others feelings there would be 
     less strife and hate in the world. Note 1.2 was posted after the last 
     "religious" confrontation to try and avoid another one. 
    
	    - Bill Keefe                                              
            

	re: 776
	
	Communication. Very important word. My American Heritage 
	Dictionary defines it as "1. The act of communicating; transmission.
	2. The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information..."

	It seems to me that the reason this note was started, as well as
	the reason behind so many of the replies to note 776, (and some other,
	similar discussions) is basically a failure in communication. What is 
	being "said" is not what is being "heard".  Sounds simplistic, doesn't 
	it? Bear with me for a moment

	The problems with communicating through this type of media, such as
	the lack of something equivalent to tone of voice, have been 
	discussed many times before, so I won't go into them again. But there's 
	one thing which I would like to throw out, something for everyone
	to think about.

	Who is responsible for "ensuring" that what is "received" is the same
	as what was "transmitted"? 

	When you get right down to it, *I* think the responsibility is shared 
	between the "communicat-or" and the "communicat-ee". But, in many cases,
	especially ones like this, (where it is not just a discussion between 
	two people who are sitting across from one another and can easily 
	hammer things out over and over until each understands the other), the
	lion's share of the responsibility must lie with the "communicat-or". 
	That person should be very aware of what he or she is saying, not just 
	what the words are, but also (and perhaps most importantly) the implied
	(intentionally or not) tone of voice.  

	Just so you all know where I am coming from on this issue: although 
	Richard may not have had any intention of "Bible thumping" or of 
	saying or implying that his way is The Truth, The Whole Truth, And 
        The Only Truth, or of saying or implying that any other suggestions 
        offerred by other noters would not be as Right as his suggestions, 
    	this is what I heard. And I don't agree. But that has all been
        said before by other members of the DEJAVU Community.

	Just a suggestion - writers: try to be aware of how you will come 
	across to others and try to make sure you are saying exactly what
	you mean _in exactly the way you mean it_; readers: try to understand
	what the writer _meant_ and not just what he said. Believe me, I know
	that neither of these are easy to do.

	Peace to all.  
                                                             
	-Amy.

        
        Amy, your comments are an excellent reminder of the things
        we all need to keep in mind when we try to communicate in
        this medium [or anywhere else, for that matter.]
    
        >Just so you all know where I am coming from on this issue: although 
	>Richard may not have had any intention of "Bible thumping" or of 
	>saying or implying that his way is The Truth, The Whole Truth, And 
        >The Only Truth, or of saying or implying that any other suggestions 
        >offerred by other noters would not be as Right as his suggestions, 
    	>this is what I heard.
         
        I wonder whether sometimes we 'hear' things that we are 
        preconditioned to hear, i.e. we've heard something so frequently,
        from sources with a common denominator [such as Christianity],
        that we *know* what to expect the next time we encounter another
        communicator with the same denominator. Therefore, we fail to
        hear what he/she is *really* saying, because subconsciously
        our receiver has been formatted to admit only that which
        complements what we already have stored from previous, similar
        sources.
    
        In other words, if you're used to 'Bible thumping' Christians
        who insist there is only one way [their way], you are
        likely to expect that all Christians come  a'thumping and
        it doesn't take much for people [all of whom tend to filter
        selectively what they hear] to jump to conclusions based on
        their past experiences and their association with words.
                                                                
        I have to admit that we Christians do feel intensely
        about the *rightness* of God's way, and some are much
        more *vocal* about it than others. Even when there may be
        many ways to do something, we promote HIS way because
        we feel it is RIGHT. That, of course presents an obstacle
        to some right up front, and I can understand that. Many of
        you don't have a firm conviction that any one way is the
        *best* way, so you're not conditioned to expect that position
        to be behind the statements of anyone *but* a Christian. 
    
        If we can understand that, and accept it as just a part of
        communication with a Christian of deep faith and spiritual
        experiences while remembering that the same God allows you
        the freedom of making your own decisions about what you
        have just heard...well, then, maybe there is a bridge, a
        firmer footing, a move in a positive direction in our mutual
        efforts to understand each other and exchange ideas. 
        Valuing differences means not just listening. It means
        appreciating the difference. We can grow when we begin
        to appreciate.
    
        I do enjoy this file because I come from a background of
        many years of involvement in the psychic before I became
        a believer in Christ. I now feel, happily, that I can
        enjoying a 'before' and 'after' perspective. 
    
        I do relate to many of you because of my backgroud.
    
        peace and light,
        Irena 
            

    Re: .4
    
    Amy,
    
    I would like to thank you sincerely for your lucid assessment
    of this particular situation and for you definition of communication.
    
    I agree that the burden *is* first and foremost on the writer to state
    first off what the message is, as clearly as possible, assuming at the
    onset, that it's going to be misunderstood by some by virtue of the
    impersonal medium being utilized. 
          
    With that in mind the writer should be at the disposition to clarify
    and restate his or her position as many times as necessary in order
    to ensure a good communication. I was and am.
    
    From what I have witnessed thus far, there has been little or no
    excercise of that method to clarify, or promote good communication; just
    quick, heated negative reactions.
      
    Nevertheless, if this interchange promotes (in retrospect) some
    reflection and self-evaluation and helps to hold the "ethical" mirror
    up for *each of us* to peer into, then I consider it a worthwhile
    effort of which I am happy to have fomented. 
    
    Thank you once again for your impartial objective insight and comments.
    
      Regards,
                                            
    - Richard
      
                                            

    Re: .0
    
    I would like to sincerely thank you also, for your insightful
    commentary regarding this situation. If there is one thing that has
    been made abundantly clear from these interactive response's is that,
    "misunderstandings" are all to easily generated; with little or no
    effort expended to clarify or qualify content much less pursue
    explanations! 
    
    I can't remember when anyone has ever said that, the "way to handle me" was
    one way or the other. You stated that that's how you would deal
    with me . . . using "counter-verses?" I find that remark strange.
    
    I am assuming that you feel that in order to "handle me" you would
    use what some refer to as "Scriptural Swordplay or dueling?
    
    I have never intentionally dueled with anyone regarding scripture. It's
    a futile, immature and for the most part degrading endeavor. On the
    other hand if you'd care to compare and contrast interpretation's
    regarding particular Bible verses and or passages (in context) I'd
    most certainly be open to that type of interchange. 
                              
    Once again thank you for your comments, you certainly clarified
    the intent of my original reply and aptly titled the same!
    
     

    REGARDS TO NOTE 776.01
    
       I feel that Richard had every right to voice his opinion.  There's
    noters that feel, that, if you want to get rid of a spirit, hang
    onions on your door or play with a ouija board; just about everyone
    accepts it. then a person comes along, and tells his remedy ( That
    MAY be of help!) such as "PLEADING THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!",
    then it becomes offensive to other participaters, then, just about
    everyone attacks his view point! MY question is WHY!?! doesn't his
    idea counts?
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re .8 (Lorenzo):
    
    >    I feel that Richard had every right to voice his opinion.
    
    Agreed.
    
    > ........ then a person comes along, and tells his remedy ( That
    >MAY be of help!) such as "PLEADING THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!",
    >then it becomes offensive to other participaters, then, just about
    >everyone attacks his view point!
    
    I don't think the initial business was quite that way.  In reviewing
    the note,
    
    1)  the base note indicated a presence of something probably
    supernatural; it did not ask for a way to get rid of it;
    
    2)  Richard indicated a method of getting rid of the presence _if_
    the person wanted to do so; and
    
    3) some of the noters in DEJAVU took umbrage with the way he said
    what he said.
    
    > MY question is WHY!?! doesn't his idea counts?
    
    Richard is certainly entitled to voice his opinion here.  I think
    the "heat" came because of faulty communications leading to
    misunderstandings.  In fact, I've been caught in one or two
    "communications misdunderstandings" myself, so I sympathize with
    all parties involved.
    
    My general rule:  when things start to get heated, back off and
    ask your question, Lorenzo: "Why?"  If you review what's gone up
    to the point of the controversy and still don't see why, a little
    off-line VAXmail exchange might clarify things.
    
    Friction generates heat but little, if any, light.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    re. -2, -1
    
    For one, I agreed with Richard's suggested course of action, I did
    wince once or twice though to the wording of his original reply
    to the base noter.
    
    *Personal Opinion*
    
    Someone who believes very strongly in something, be it religion,
    politics, or flying, or whatever, is often subject to scorn by others
    who haven't the same _firm_ beliefs. There are those with strongly
    held beliefs that don't express them as firmly as Richard does,
    and they usually don't become 'targets'. It seems to me to be a
    side effect of the broadening interests of the population in general,
    and general acceptance of greater personal liberties that those
    who subscribe to what other's would call a 'narrow' view of the world,
    life, or what have you, are somehow naive. This may be true, it
    may not, depending on the circumstances. In many ways I have a 'narrow'
    point of view, in others, I have what I believe to be a more worldly,
    open attitude.
    
    Interestingly enough, the 'open' views I have about things today,
    are _usually_ things that I had very strong opinions about only
    10 years ago.
    
    Many things that I feel very strongly about today, I was either
    ignorant of, or ambivalent towards 10 years ago.

    These attitudes will probably change before I die, many times.
    
    Scooter

    Re .10 (Scooter):
    
    >These attitudes will probably change before I die, many times.
    
    Oh, Scooter, _please_ don't die many times!  Once is rough enough!
    :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    Sorry; I have a weakness for straight lines.
    
    Confession: Once that weakness cost me a job opportunity.  Many
    years ago, I was interviewing for a job in a very good company,
    and one person wanted me to stay overnight to continue the interview.
    He asked his secretary to make hotel reservations for me.
    
    Conversation:
    
    Sec: A room for the night?
    Me:  Yes.
    Sec: Will that be for one or two?
    Me:  Better make that for one.  I don't know anybody in the city.
    
    She laughed, I got the room, but the following day's interview was shorter
    than I'd been led to expect. I believe there was a causal connection.
    Oh yes: I _had_ mentioned on my resume thast I was single....

    
RE: .-1

    > Oh, Scooter, _please_ don't die many times!  Once is rough enough!

    But, Steve, we all die many, many, many times,
    usually one/incarnation. {:')

    Terry

    
    are you familiar with the french expression - 'le petit mort' ?
    8^)
    
    Scooter