Daniel Amos Message Board | Print: Swirling Eddies - the midget, the speck and the molecule

Posted by Audiori J on 03-27-2008 at13:05:

quote:

Originally posted by audiori
Um... I think you misunderstood.

No one is saying it can't be there. No one said it wasn't "OK." No one made you remove them for a few days. No one doubts that anyone is BD's buddy. You were buddies before those signatures existed.

But lets not pretend that the signature isn't there entirely for a reason that is connected to this song. It's a statement - a reply to Camarillo. Its not being "over it," its keeping it going (at least in one direction). As Jason said, its not "letting it go," as everyone else is expected to do. Saying everyone else should stop talking about that part of the song - while keeping that in your signature doesn't make sense. It's like saying "I can talk about it, but you can't."

Exactly. You guys were friends with him before the song existed and didn't have the signature there, the signature is a response to the song. You can claim its not, but for the song it wouldn't be there.

There are those on the message boards who like to keep the pot stirring, they like to keep the conflict going. Metaphorically, a lot of issues and resentments can drop out of sight when nobody mentions them. One can "stir the pot" to bring issues to the surface, like bringing the ingredients in soup to the surface.

This is often why we will remove or lock a post or a thread, to allow the conflict to die as it should. I find it extremely ironic that often the people that like to stir the pot the most will request that others "let go".

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at13:12:

what happens to the ingredients in the pot? some evaporate, but others still exist. To extend the metaphor, ignoring the ingredients make them invisible to some, but when does someone say, hey, we're wrecking the soup, lets add more Worcester sauce!

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at13:14:

because, I think, at this state, if someone took one step to the left and someone took one step to the right, they could sit down at the table and enjoy some soup together!

Soup's on, who's hungry?

Posted by Audiori J on 03-27-2008 at13:23:

Yes, but to sit down and enjoy the soup together the first thing that has to happen is that people quit stirring it. Wink

In other words you cannot have peace with people that don't want to have peace with you.

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at13:29:

You also have to know that someone wants to sit down with you and I'm not sure either side of the table even know that the soup is on.

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at13:33:

Maybe each side needs to walk around the table and pull the chair out for each other so everyone can get back to talking about "Cardboard Box"

Posted by Strange Animal on 03-27-2008 at13:35:

Cool

quote:

Originally posted by Audiori J
Yes, but to sit down and enjoy the soup together the first thing that has to happen is that people quit stirring it. Wink

In other words you cannot have peace with people that don't want to have peace with you.

you can agree to disagree........and that's what i have done..
i don't have to NOT say that i am a bobd to do that..........
what kind of soup are we having? Happy

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at13:42:

when all's resolved, bobd will just be a good joke. for now, it may seem like salt to some and like the only chance to voice displeasure for others.

So, we can have "salty displeasure soup", or Boston clam chowder... I'm all for the latter.

Posted by Strange Animal on 03-27-2008 at14:17:

Cool

any good soup is a little salty... Wink

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at14:31:

I'd suggest that spicy is as good as salty, and so if we add the spices of humility and forgiveness to the soup, it should be great!

Posted by Audiori J on 03-27-2008 at14:54:

The problem is this;

Side A gets attacked by side B.

Side A defends itself and side B attacks it for defending itself.

Side B suggests side A should just let things drop, while side B continues the divisiveness.

Outsiders C, suggests both sides should work towards peace. Side A can do nothing towards that goal as long as side B continues the attacks. If B stops the attacks there would be peace.

So back to my original point, to have peace and reconciliation both sides have to want it. As it is now, one side does not.

Side A wants peace all along, Side B wants the 'freedom' to attack side A without responses from side A. Side B is not going to get what it wants.

Posted by .backs. on 03-27-2008 at15:18:

...

...

Posted by jiminy on 03-27-2008 at15:32:

Is Audi J
and Audi
the same person???.
I am confused by the sig by the pic on this pages posts.
its nice to know whos a talkin..

Posted by Audiori J on 03-27-2008 at15:33:

What are you talking about?

We have different names, different pictures, different signatures...

Posted by jiminy on 03-27-2008 at15:42:

sorry
I just had my meds refilled... Wink

my error
I know who you are (by pic) and your bro's Doppleganger pic too-
it was my mental error (emphasis on the mental)

move along- nothing to read here.....

Posted by Strange Animal on 03-27-2008 at15:53:

Tongue!

quote:

Originally posted by jiminy
Is Audi J
and Audi
the same person???.
I am confused by the sig by the pic on this pages posts.
its nice to know whos a talkin..

Posted by Ron E on 03-27-2008 at19:00:

quote:

Originally posted by Audiori J
The problem is this;

Side A gets attacked by side B.

Side A defends itself and side B attacks it for defending itself.

Side B suggests side A should just let things drop, while side B continues the divisiveness.

Outsiders C, suggests both sides should work towards peace. Side A can do nothing towards that goal as long as side B continues the attacks. If B stops the attacks there would be peace.

So back to my original point, to have peace and reconciliation both sides have to want it. As it is now, one side does not.

Side A wants peace all along, Side B wants the 'freedom' to attack side A without responses from side A. Side B is not going to get what it wants.

Okay, all I'm sayin' is "C" doesn't necessarily c it that way, it looks more to c that both sides are circling each other, that neither side is sitting at the negotiating table, and so we c an opportunity to pass the pipe and naively step in and get cuffed... okay, so far no cuffing, but hey, I'll duck on out of here and all can resume their assumptions about the whole alphabet from a to c.

Posted by Audiori J on 03-27-2008 at20:14:

Well, there is an aggressor and an aggressee, thats the original problem. The aggressor has more opportunity to affect change than the aggressee.

If someone starts lobbing little darts of hatred your way, there is not much you can do to create peace until the hostile party stops being hostile.

The aggression has always been one sided.