Warning!

19 December, 2012

Much Ado About Nothing.

(No. Really. Nothing. No double entendre here.)



"Anyone up for some golf?"
"Out of my shot, griefer!"

29 November, 2012

Part-time bitch.

Some delicate flower decided that he/she was so very offended by my calling myself a bitch in my SLF signature line that they just had to RIC it.



It's been part of my sig since late August. Some shrill, obviously unbalanced, creature called me a bitch on the feeds, thinking that I would be offended. I countered that at least I was only a part-time bitch and the rest, as they say, is history.

I did have to work around the "obscenity" filter by replacing one of the letters, but again... I was calling myself a bitch, and nobody else.

I'm still dumbfounded by what gets a pass and what doesn't, sometimes. Oh, well. It will probably never make sense.

Oh, and to my little RICster: Two can play at that game. Watch your back.

30 July, 2012

An Update.

I was able to view the Forum thread referenced in my previous post from my phone today (Monday, 7/30). All three of my posts to it are gone. The first was the one copied back to me in my warning.

In the second, I responded to the OP's statement that he had expected more of a backlash from religious fundamentalists than from "the homosexuals" by pointing out that he wasn't implying that the fundamentalists were broken and in need of fixing and that his message was the same as theirs (which is that "the homosexuals" are broken and in need of fixing).

In my third and final post, I agreed with the OP that many Christians misinterpret scripture. As an example, I added that I had no recollection of ever using the services of or being employed as a temple prostitute, which is what Paul is referring to in Romans. I then responded to his request that I be his friend by telling him that he was welcome to send a friend request but that I couldn't see the point, as the sympathy that I felt for him was not in my mind any sort of basis for a friendship.

An examination of posts from others that remain include: one where the OP is called a "fundamentalist nut job" suffering from "delusions"; one that discusses "religious brainwashing"; one that references the OP's "thick head"; and one where his beliefs are described as "crap".

So, we're back to "Get some help." Which I believe the OP truly needs.

I should add that I don't believe that the OP is the person who RIC'd my posts. I think I may have made myself an enemy on the Forums who has decided to abuse the moderation process by being a RICtard. The fact that with that last post I reached Helper rank, by virtue of it being my 3,000th post, may or may not have something to do with it.

29 July, 2012

"Get some help."

That phrase can be taken a number of ways. Quite often, it's thrown out as an insult. Other times, not so much.

A poster to the official Second Life Forum recently revealed that he has been fighting his same-sex attraction in order to better conform to his Christian beliefs. I won't bore anyone with statistics on the failure rate of reparative and other such "therapies" in "curing" people of homosexuality. Suffice to say that the numbers are not good, and such "therapies" would appear to do more harm than anything else.

Even if the poster is not undergoing one of these "therapies" or connected to one of the various "ex-gay" ministries and is instead going it on his own, I can see the potential for great heartbreak ahead.

It was in this spirit that I posted the following:

Well, that certainly explains a lot of things.*
You've been brainwashed to believe that your same-sex attraction is a sin, so you try to suppress it. Been there, done that. It ain't pretty.

You talk about "hurting" yourself. Trying to deny who I was led me to hurt myself. Safe to say I'm lucky to be alive.


You may not see it now, but you're kidding yourself, b-------.


Get some help.
* There had been a previous thread from this poster dealing with religion, sin (with the "sin" of homosexuality standing out) and hell.

I felt alarm, and genuine concern. I shared some of my own sometimes difficult path (without going into the nitty gritty) and advised the poster to seek help.

No offense was meant, and in subsequent posts it did not appear that any was taken. In fact, the OP thanked me for the links that I had provided with the above, and asked me to be his friend.

So it came as a surprise that I received the following message:

Dear Griffin Ceawlin,

Thank you for participating in our community! However, your posts in "Freedom of religion in SL?" on 7/26/12 and 7/27/12 were found to be in violation of Second Life Community guidelines. Please review the posting guidelines (http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Discussion_guidelines) Additional violations could result in a ban from the site. Here is a copy of your posts:


"Well, that certainly explains a lot of things. [...]"


Thank you,
Jennifer Criss

I clicked to go to my Forum profile to see which of my other posts had been deemed objectionable, as only one was copied back to me in my warning, and saw that the whole thread had been pulled (temporarily; it had been restored sometime prior to about Sunday 9am SLT).

I clicked to go to another Forum page and instead got this:


Sure enough, I received confirmation in my Inbox:

Dear Griffin Ceawlin,

Thank you for participating in the Second Life community. However, your account has reached the maximum violations allowed and is now banned for one week. Any account created to avoid this ban will also be banned. Copy of last violations:


"Well, that certainly explains a lot of things. [...]"


Thank you,
The Second Life Moderation Team

OK. This was, I believe, my fourth warning, so a ban was actually overdue. The rule is, or was, three strikes earns a one-week ban (except when it isn't; there's been at least one case where a permaban, which was later overturned, was given with no warnings at all).

But I should not have received a warning for this. No warning, no ban.

So what was the warning for? My advice to the poster to seek help? My opinion that he's been brainwashed by decades of allegedly Biblically-sanctioned intolerance?

The poster himself referred to people being brainwashed, and went so far as to denigrate a faith not his own.

What about my rights as a non-believer? In that other thread that I referred to, the poster said that very few would escape hell. I know that this is part of Christian dogma and that according to some, homosexuals will be the first into the fire, but is this really what LL wants to present to the world? They might as well invite Fred Phelps to be a guest blogger.

03 June, 2012

Housecleaning.



Twice a year, I buzz off all the hair on my head. Besides making it easier to deal with the summer heat (last weekend, it got into the 90s), I find it... liberating.

I don't devote much time to my hair... not like I used to... but having next to none frees up even more. Time spent in maintenance and in trying to keep it out of my face. There's also a "cleansing" element to it. And it's a weight off my shoulders. Literally. Like half a pound's worth.

And so it is with this here blog thingy.

I've "reverted to draft" all posts dealing with the antics of Sus and friends (which account for the majority). Anybody who has or had any interest in them probably has copies saved, or was subscribed to the feed, in which case they are still available.

They served their purpose. Don't mind me while I clean house.

08 May, 2012

Questions.

This started out as a very different post. I was going to recap recent events from my own point of view (ignorant as I am of so very much of it) and relate some of my own experiences with some of the "subject matter." It all got very personal and very depressing, and I decided that all of that was unnecessary and/or irrelevant, anyway. All I was left with were questions.

Why would someone who has their own feed locked down tight post something of such a personal nature on a feed that they know full well other people (people outside of their circle of friends who need only an account that isn't blocked by the feed owner) read and comment on, and yes, mock?

This is the internet. People can be unbelievably uncaring, cold and cruel. If I'm considering such drastic measures, I'm not going to announce it on the internet. And certainly not in a venue which I know has detractors that have stated that this is all a game in which they are playing roles. I censor myself even in closed venues, and with people that I've known for years.

This isn't meant as a criticism, by the way, nor am I "blaming the victim." I just don't understand the thought process there.

Why would anyone think that someone who has expressed very publicly their utter disdain for another party... why would they think that what that other party says would have any affect whatsoever on that person? Is that person really going to take what that other party has to say to heart? And make decisions and/or take possibly irreversible courses of action based on same?

Given that we are talking about what I believe is a well-adjusted adult, and not some angst-ridden teen, I think the odds are kind of slim. If I have nothing but contempt for someone, I simply don't care what their opinions are and I'm certainly not going to base my life choices on them.

It would seem to me that ascribing such power to that other party's words indicates that the people doing the ascribing either think very highly of that other party or very little of the target of those words.

Did the people who have expressed such outrage over this incident ask the person that they pretend to be "protecting" whether they were comfortable with them making so very much noise about it? Did they ever think to stop long enough to consider that they might not be comfortable with it?

If I announced that I intended to do something that I later thought better of, I would want as little fuss made about it as possible. You have concerns? Private message me, email me, text me, call me. Offer me your own, and possibly point me to other sources of, support.

You have problems with someone else whose input is unwelcome involving themselves? Take it up with them in a manner that is as discreet as possible, if you must. Maybe even ask me about it first because maybe, just maybe, I don't want you to make a big deal about it. Don't just climb up on your soapbox and start screeching, because you're really not doing me any favors by doing so. I've moved on and would rather forget about it, and would rather you did, too.

Who's a bully?

We've all heard the proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." There are some who would turn that around to "The friend of my enemy is my enemy." I'll admit that I've sometimes been guilty of that sort of thinking. In my case, however, at least the friends of my enemy were not my friends to begin with.

Not everyone shares the herd mentality that says "If you're not with us, you're against us." There are those who are able to give everyone a fair shake and be friends, or at least be congenial, with just about everyone.

I've watched, on more than one occasion, people be driven from a group and relationships damaged beyond repair because they refused to condemn the actions of someone outside of the group. I witnessed it again this past week.

If that's not bullying, I don't know what is.

Lastly, let me just paraphrase one of the few people in that group that seems to have any sense:

Someone posted something that could be interpreted as a cry for help, and instead of reaching out to them, people are wasting their time taking shots.

That's tragic.


Note: I've decided to not allow any comments on this post. I have some sympathy for the only person who might be considered a victim here, and unlike some of their own friends I think their privacy is paramount. I've also removed my previous post in hopes of helping to preserve it.

Note to L_____ and D__: There is more than one Anonymous that has recently posted comments to your blog. I'll leave you to figure out which one I am.