h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I posted this on the LST, but I'm posting it on your space too, in case you're *really* unsubscribed from this conversation. You've been notorious for saying that you're unsubscribing from here, and yet you keep on posting! (No criticism intended ... that's totally harmless!)

Hoovooloo: I never asked that you should go read FoLKZ. I think that LeKZ's message there was a case of extreme over-reaction. It was clear to me that they saw only the one message, asserting, on the face of it, that they would lie for a frivolous reason. Now: I know them well enough to know that they don't react *mildly* to any accusation of dishonesty or untrustworthiness on their part. Such constitutes a 'button' for them. Press that button and you elicit an extreme reaction. I know ... I have unwittingly pressed buttons of theirs, on numerous occasions, and elicited negative reactions towards me. When that happened, I *immediately* stepped back and apologised, *because* I know that LeKZ have PTSD and that if I 'trigger' them, it causes for them an extreme amount of emotional stress ... I have a good idea *how* extreme and painful and harrowing and damaging that can be, because I have PTSD myself. And I *care* for them. I *don't want* to hurt them. I *don't want* to do that to them. From my interactions with LeKZ I *also* know that they are *extremely willing* to apologise for unfairly accusing someone while under extreme stress. Note that extreme stress *does* interfere with a person's judgement. If it did not, it would not be extreme. I've always found that if anybody ever accidentally trigger LeKZ and they respond vehemently and unfairly, they are willing afterwards, when calmed down, to apologise for it and to respond kindly to the person again.

Now, though, I want to produce one more piece of the puzzle: LeKZ's reaction there seemed to me to be a very clear example of their being hurt extremely badly by someone they care very much about. The reason of the extremity of their reaction is because they care much for you and felt betrayed. You've only seen that, and a few other postings. I've seen all the postings *leading up* to that, so I know what has been happening in their minds to lead them to that vehemence. They've been going through and absolutely immense amount of hurt lately. It's been so intense that it's devastated *me*, over here. I don't blame *them* for that ... I only wish that the hurting could end sometime.

Like I said, I never asked that you should go read there. If you want to know what's going on there, you should read the backlog as well, not just the recent postings.

Also, there was no way in which you could prevent me from reading what you said. I have it saved on my computer, just so you know. LeKZ never could keep me from reading what *they* said either. They could post trigger warnings, but I can use my own discretion as to whether I would read it or not. The trigger warning *would* help me to brace myself for whatever may be coming, though. Your 'warning' said, 'anyone who is a friend of LeKZ and don't want their illusions shattered, I suggest you go and read somewhere else'. I am a friend of LeKZ but I *want* illusions shattered, if I am under any. I was *never* under the illusion that LeKZ was a compulsive truth-teller. I consider them *more ethical* than that. What you revealed was, to me, totally consistent with what I know of LeKZ's character. It was a prank. I still consider them extremely honest and trustworthy where more important matters are concerned. As do you. LeKZ said that your *further* clarifications of their honesty was acceptable to them. They *also* did not contest the information you revealed. They apologised for what they said, explained that it was said under what was, to them, extreme provocation in the midst of extreme general stress, and asked that nobody attack or malign you.

In all of this recent nonsense, I've pretty much stuck to the same position: disagreements between people should be *reasoned out between them*. This has been consistently *not happening*. Under the 'reasoning out' system, what would have been proper would have been if you took note of that LeKZ felt extremely offended by what you said, clarified what you said *to them*, and accept their retraction and apology. I *know* they would have retracted and apologised. As it is, they *did* - even after further hurt, betrayal and provocation.

I wanted you to take note of the fact that there exists a rift in the communications between you, which puts *them* at a great disadvantage., making *them* very vulnerable. This situation still exists. Under this situation it would be decent *not* to make accusations in a place where they cannot defend themselves. The *problem* is further exacerbated by the fact that you have, from your end, broken off communications with them. This makes misunderstandings millions of times more likely than would otherwise be the case, and it makes talking things out between you *impossible*.

Now take note that they have lost *another* forum in which to talk. This disempowers and disadvantages them even more.

I still contend that the decent thing to do would be not to make any accusations, or even assertions, about them ... unless you are willing to re-enter communications with them, so that you can hear for yourself how what you say makes them feel. In my code of ethics, which I cannot expect everybody to adhere to, but which I still consider a very reliable guide for action, it is *always* necessary to take into account the way other people may feel about what one says *about* them.

I want to point out another thing: I did not complain about that particular posting of LeKZ's on Topica, because I did not want to add one more complaint to the burden that was busy causing the probable downfall of FoLKZ. *However*, I started out a message to them, privately, about what they said there, because I was certain that that was *not* the way they really feel about you and I wanted to defend you as well. As it were, things happened too fast, so that message did not get sent before things became even worse.

That's how I see things from this end. I still respect you as well as LeKZ. I would prefer that neither of you press any of these points much further. I don't need unnecessary quarrelling between friends of mine.

I just want to add one last thing: for me, betrayal of confidence is a triggering act. I have a tendency towards paranoid psychosis. *Anything* that makes me distrust people, or start to question the trust I put in friends of mine, is destabilising to my state of mind. I have many friends who have entrusted me with sensitive information. I could 'bring down' some of them with this information if I wanted to. In turn, I have entrusted some friends of mine with sensitive information about me. They can use that to hurt me and damage my reputation if they so wished. I trust them not to ... but your willingness demonstrated here to reveal sensitive information entrusted to you makes me feel very unsafe now when I consider that some friends *I* trust may do the same. Some have already, which has hurt me immensely, but I have managed to clear it up between us and our friendship is still continuing. But I can't very easily handle too much of that sort of thing.

>I posted this on the LST, but I'm posting it on your space too, in case you're *really* unsubscribed from this conversation.

I am. And from topica too, in case anyone cares.

>You've been notorious for saying that you're unsubscribing from here, and yet you keep on posting! (No criticism intended ... that's totally harmless!)

None taken. My unsubscribe button just doesn't seem to work sometimes...

>Hoovooloo: I never asked that you should go read FoLKZ.

No, you didn't, but GTBacchus and I think Barton *did*. So I did.

> I think that LeKZ's message there was a case of extreme over-reaction.

Well, we agree on something...

>Now: I know them well enough to know that they don't react *mildly* to any accusation of dishonesty or untrustworthiness on their part.

They also go on and on and on about reading what was SAID, NOT what you might think was said. What I SAID was "I happen to know LeKZ *is* capable of lying" to contradict Col. Sellers inaccurate assertion that they are not. They didn't react mildly to being banned for something they did not write. Why should I react mildly to being vilified like that, and having her say "he does NOT have such information" when not only do I have it, but SHE KNOWS I have it?

>Such constitutes a 'button' for them. Press that button and you elicit an extreme reaction.

I didn't press that button. That button was jammed by her hard up against something I wrote which was nowhere near it. She *wanted* it to be calling her a liar. It wasn't. Plain and simple. Read it again if you don't believe me.

>I know ... I have unwittingly pressed buttons of theirs, on numerous occasions, and elicited negative reactions towards me.

She has told you in no uncertain terms that trigger management is the responsibility of the triggered person. How would you rate her trigger management, now? (rhetorical question)

>I *don't want* to hurt them.

Neither do/did I. But Col. Sellers wasn't helping matters by setting her up as some kind of angel who cannot tell a lie. I didn't think that characterisation helped. So I said so. I suspect most people wish I hadn't.

>From my interactions with LeKZ I *also* know that they are *extremely willing* to apologise for unfairly accusing someone while under extreme stress.

Well and good, but how about having the restraint just not to do it in the first place? What was the proudly and repeatedly advertised one and only rule of FoLKZ? THINK. Look at the post entitled "F**king Liar" and tell me that didn't break the one and only rule LeKZ herself imposed on that group.

>Note that extreme stress *does* interfere with a person's judgement.

I know. Hence that rule, surely?

>I've always found that if anybody ever accidentally trigger LeKZ and they respond vehemently and unfairly, they are willing afterwards, when calmed down, to apologise for it and to respond kindly to the person again.

By which time, it may be too late. I've spoken about this to someone else here, but I'll tell you too. If I beat someone up in the street because I enjoyed it, and said so, I'd be charged with assault and locked up. But if I beat someone up in the street because I'm under extreme stress, I may have a defence. In English law, it's called "diminished responsibility". But guess what? I'd still get locked up. Apologising, or not being able to help myself, doesn't change the fact that I'M DANGEROUS. It doesn't change what I did to that person.

There was a serial killer in the UK called the Yorkshire Ripper. He killed over a dozen women, but never faced a murder charge, because he was judged not to be sane. He was therefore charged with "manslaughter with diminished responsibility." But guess what? He still got locked up, and he'll never get out.

>The reason of the extremity of their reaction is because they care much for you and felt betrayed.

Betrayed by having me say they are the most honest person I've ever met. Some betrayal. I wish someone would betray *me* like that.

>You've only seen that, and a few other postings.

Correct. I have no wish to see more.

>I've seen all the postings *leading up* to that, so I know what has been happening in their minds to lead them to that vehemence.

Good for you. I haven't, and you may be surprised to know that I'm NOT INTERESTED. I shouldn't NEED a context for that kind of venom, because it shouldn't be there in public for anyone to see. Peta didn't like it when CS posted that thing about her, which wasn't even really about her. That post WAS about ME, just me, nobody else, and was a LIE, and insulting and all the other things you can guage for yourself. NO CONTEXT justifies that, so don't bother trying to defend it.

>They've been going through and absolutely immense amount of hurt lately.

So have a lot of people. So have I, as you well know. I don't need that kind of abuse, and I will not tolerate it.

>It's been so intense that it's devastated *me*, over here.

Because of your admirable empathy...

>I don't blame *them* for that ... I only wish that the hurting could end sometime.

It can end now. I have no wish to go on discussing it. I wouldn't be, if you hadn't messaged me here.

>Like I said, I never asked that you should go read there.

No, but like I said, two other FoLKZ did. I don't know why, I don't want to know and I don't care. If either of them is reading this and is thinking of offering explanations, please don't.

>If you want to know what's going on there, you should read the backlog as well, not just the recent postings.

I read about three messages over there and saw "F**king Liar". I have no wish to see more of that. When I used to read there, it was constructive, humourous, rigourous and thoughtful. It now seems to me to be... well, not that any more. Don't tell me to go read there, because I'm not going to.

>Also, there was no way in which you could prevent me from reading what you said. I have it saved on my computer, just so you know.

Fine. I was aware LeKZ posts trigger warnings, so I thought I'd better. Good for you for bracing yourself - I mean that.

>I am a friend of LeKZ but I *want* illusions shattered, if I am under any.

Good.

>I was *never* under the illusion that LeKZ was a compulsive truth-teller. I consider them *more ethical* than that.

Eh? I'd characterise her... no, I'm not going there. I wouldn't characterise her any more. That's all.

> What you revealed was, to me, totally consistent with what I know of LeKZ's character. It was a prank.

Precisely. Nobody was in danger. No terrible fate would have befell anyone if she'd been truthful. Nobody would have been offended. She and I had an entertaining time, getting together to deceive the Editors and get her credit on an article she contributed to while banned. A prank, with no possible bad consequences for anyone. Except her, when she accused me of having no information that she would ever do such a thing.

>I still consider them extremely honest and trustworthy where more important matters are concerned. As do you.

Completely correct.

>LeKZ said that your *further* clarifications of their honesty was acceptable to them.

Whoopy-f**kin-doo. My first statement should have been acceptable, being, as it was, 100% demonstrably accurate.

>They *also* did not contest the information you revealed.

How could they? If they had, they knew for a fact that either Col Sellers, Barton or you would then have gained access to my old hotmail account and shown them to be lying again. Lying at that point would not only have been WILDLY, diametrically out of character, it would have been seriously counterproductive.

>They apologised for what they said, explained that it was said under what was, to them, extreme provocation in the midst of extreme general stress, and asked that nobody attack or malign you.

Hmm. You mean "nobody else", don't you?

>Under the 'reasoning out' system, what would have been proper would have been if you took note of that LeKZ felt extremely offended by what you said, clarified what you said *to them*, and accept their retraction and apology.

Under the 'reasoning out' system, what would have been *proper* would have been if LeKZ was offended by what I said, they should have thought "DOES he have such information? Oh yes, of course he does, BECAUSE I SENT IT TO HIM. I'm glad he didn't actually reveal it. Perhaps I should let it pass, as he has characterised me in a way I agree with, on the whole, and has stated only facts." There would then have been no explosion of vitriol on topica, and no need for a retraction or apology. Oh, I forgot, she's allowed to react like that, but I'm not, because I haven't suffered enough. My mistake.

>I *know* they would have retracted and apologised.

They should never have put themselves in the position of having to.

>As it is, they *did* - even after further hurt, betrayal and provocation.

WHAT? Further provocation? BETRAYAL!? I was called a liar in public. The fact I held information SHE KNEW I held was publicly denied. I did the only thing I could under the circumstances and PROVED that I had that information. If that hurt her, betrayed her, or provoked her, is it not *just possible* that she brought it on herself by calling MY honesty into question? Oh, I forgot, I was supposed to ignore that because SHE was "under stress".

>I wanted you to take note of the fact that there exists a rift in the communications between you, which puts *them* at a great disadvantage., making *them* very vulnerable.

If they're vulnerable, especially to me, common sense would seem to dictate that p**sing me off is a seriously bad idea. It usually is.

>This situation still exists. Under this situation it would be decent *not* to make accusations in a place where they cannot defend themselves.

As has been amply demonstrated, there are plenty of people here willing to defend *her*, and almost none to defend *me*. I made no accusations. She did. I said nothing about her I couldn't back up with documentary evidence. She called me a "hateful stinking brute" and a "son of a jackal". So don't, please, speak to me of decency.

>The *problem* is further exacerbated by the fact that you have, from your end, broken off communications with them.

Can you blame me?

>This makes misunderstandings millions of times more likely than would otherwise be the case, and it makes talking things out between you *impossible*.

Good. I have no desire to talk anything out. What I'd like now is to be left alone.

>Now take note that they have lost *another* forum in which to talk. This disempowers and disadvantages them even more.

I have a question. Are they learning yet? Have they taken the hint? Even a little bit? If you're at a party, and people start complaining about you, it's reasonable to assume that it's them, at first. But if you go to another party, and another, and people are still complaining, how long before you start to take the hint and think it might be YOU? No, don't answer. It doesn't matter.

>I still contend that the decent thing to do would be not to make any accusations, or even assertions, about them

As of right now, anyone who asks me anything at all about LeKZ will get a pointer to your user space. I'm done discussing her. You can take over for me from here. Best of luck.

>... unless you are willing to re-enter communications with them, so that you can hear for yourself how what you say makes them feel.

No.

>In my code of ethics, which I cannot expect everybody to adhere to, but which I still consider a very reliable guide for action, it is *always* necessary to take into account the way other people may feel about what one says *about* them.

In which case, I suggest you speak to LeKZ about how much they took *my* feelings into account when they called me a "son of a jackal". Or "hateful stinking brute". Or, for that matter, "F**king Liar". Go on, ask.

>I want to point out another thing: I did not complain about that particular posting of LeKZ's on Topica, because I did not want to add one more complaint to the burden that was busy causing the probable downfall of FoLKZ.

I wouldn't have expected you to for a moment.

>*However*, I started out a message to them, privately, about what they said there, because I was certain that that was *not* the way they really feel about you and I wanted to defend you as well.

For which I thank you.

>As it were, things happened too fast, so that message did not get sent before things became even worse.

Isn't the sheer speed of the internet wonderful? (sarcasm, sorry)

>That's how I see things from this end. I still respect you as well as LeKZ.

I'm happy to hear that. I do value your opinions, as do a *lot* of people. I might go so far as to say You Are Loved.

>I would prefer that neither of you press any of these points much further. I don't need unnecessary quarrelling between friends of mine.

Consider me gone. Anyone asking me stuff about LeKZ will get a pointer to you and nothing more from this moment on.

>...betrayal of confidence is a triggering act. ... but your willingness demonstrated here to reveal sensitive information entrusted to you makes me feel very unsafe now when I consider that some friends *I* trust may do the same.

Willem, I have something very serious to say here. I thought that by phrasing what I said as I did, i.e. "I have information to the contrary" it would be clear to LeKZ that I meant our amusing little deception. I very carefully and deliberately DID NOT say she lied, just pointed out that despite what CS said, she WAS capable of it. I thought she would read it, think "what can he mean?" then realise that yes, actually I DO have information like that, and let it go. She didn't. Oh, boy she did NOT. She posted an insulting message implying I was an utter liar for suggesting I had such information, despite the fact that a split second of trawling her well-advertised prodigious memory would have reminded her that I did. The sheer viciousness of that message, especially in the light of the other stuff I'd written, characterising her as the most honest person I've ever met, led me to think that the only defence I had against that LIBEL, that outright lying DEFAMATION of me, was to present the information she had categorically stated I did not have, in order to prove her wrong. I wish I had not been forced into that situation, but if you can suggest and alternative course of action I could have taken, I'd be completely uninterested in hearing it because it would probably involve making special allowances for HER feelings when she made no allowances at all for mine.

So, there was the unfortunate context for my revealing that information, something I would much rather not have done, and something I thought I wouldn't have to do given how carefully and specifically I said what I did.

But please be clear, NONE of the above has any bearing whatever on what other people do. Understand this if nothing else, Willem - I am NOT LIKE the other people you know. Ask LeKZ. I am not like the other people she knows, either. I wish you well, always.

H.

Okay, Hoovooloo. I accept that you don't wish to talk about this any more. I won't press any of *my* points any further. Just to tell you one thing: we will meet again, on a different plane of existence, and discuss these matters again, from a different perspective. That's my intention, right now. But here, you will hear no more of it.

Bloody hell,

Cavalry's too late. I did... oh, okay, Einaunimuz Nobotti is Return...Pillowcase... I didn't know. Now I do. Right. I *said* that would probably not be met with a very positive reaction here. Drat timing.

Just one thing, Hoovooloo, and I'm going to ask you to *consider*, rather than reply to this, because I'm all for your not saying another word about LeKZ at this site or anywhere they are likely to see it, since they *do* care what you think of them, and the necessary precondition for that also applies.

You said this, '"I have information to the contrary" it would be clear to LeKZ that I meant our amusing little deception. I very carefully and deliberately DID NOT say she lied, just pointed out that despite what CS said, she WAS capable of it. I thought she would read it, think "what can he mean?" then realise that yes, actually I DO have information like that, and let it go. She didn't. Oh, boy she did NOT. '

I, reading it cold, wouldn't see the subtext you intended them to see. That is to be expected. Oddly, I can see a different one, and saw it last night, though I didn't know it was relevant until this morning.

Can you take the concept 'blackmail', put it together with 'person who has cut off all contact and been snarky about efforts to resume same', and the words 'I have information to the contrary' and yes, they know you *do* have such information, and consider the effect that could have? There's a big issue around the idea of 'blackmail'. I don't know what it involves, but I daresay you might do.

Don't tell me unless you say whatever they know to be the case, because they do read, and they do care. So if it read like a threat of some sort -- trigger thing, which I'm coming to understand -- the issue wouldn't have been the perfectly true statement you made (though splitting hairs over that frivolous a degree of veracity seems a bit petty, you're impatient with inaccuracies), and they'd have been rather distracted from the subtext you intended them to read.

I am not basing any of this on anything I've read anywhere, except the concept of 'blackmail'. Since you created the premise 'severed all contact', a reference to a shared joke isn't *necessarily* going to come to their mind, is it? And since you used the words 'I have information to the contrary', at the beginning of what you said, do you see where someone who was already feeling hurt and possibly afraid might read 'blackmail' where there was none?

I did. I thought, 'blimey, what's he on about with this "I know and I can reveal information at my pleasure" nonsense?', and then I waited, because I didn't think you were like that, and so it followed that I was wrong in what I read in. Of course, I don't have a history involving being hurt by you, either.

To add chlorine bleach to the ammonia, you then *did* expose that material. That was your response, not unjustifiable, though extreme, in my opinion, to their reaction to *possibly* perceived blackmail on your part. That's when the blackmailer says, 'sorry, not enough money, I'm publishing the photos anyway' -- to keep the analogy going from the other perspective, not *yours*, which I do understand, you know. I don't have any idea what that might or might not do to them. You might.

It's something to think about, because if *you* were operating on a presumption that they *should* be able to read what you intended for them to read, that you didn't make explicit, then context is relevant. They've been hurt and scared by you. Are they at fault for seeing something that was there to be seen, whether *that* was what *you* meant them to see or not, if you expected them to read in?

What happened to 'read the WORDS'? There's been a mockery of communication here, and you understand the consequences for them much, much better than I. I am of the opinion that if you expect people to read your mind, and they get it wrong, because of your actions, you're at fault for setting them up to fail. I should know. I've knocked more than one person about for failure to read my damn body language/mind/tea leaves, etc. I am not proud of that.

I said all this because you're a fair-minded and decent bloke, (and they think so too -- I know you don't care). It's less about them than it is about you. The effect on them is something you can consider, but you've made it *clear* you don't care. Yet I can't imagine you don't care that *you* set someone up to fail so dismally.... More to the point, is this something you do often? I don't think you would want it to be, if it is, and I don't believe it's intentional at all. So I thought, since I've been there and done that to the detriment of myself and virtually everyone in my life, that I'd call it to your attention.

There's a point or two about Hoovooloote II (god, I hope it doesn't become a series like 'Nightmare on Elm Street'! ) that I consider valid. Einauni made some of them, and I don't know if (s)he had seen that yet. I shan't *bore* you with any of it.



~Silent Lucidity~

Two things SL.

1. Blackmail. I never even saw that reading until now. I see it now, and regret not phrasing it better. I'm really, truly, sorry.

2. I'm asking, one more time, please, don't engage me any further on this subject. I don't like talking about it, I can't imagine she likes me talking about it, and it isn't going to do you any good. There are many, many other people here you can talk to about her - she wasn't here long, but she made many friends. You know the names. Please, leave me out. Because if you don't, if you continue to needle me on this subject, you may pierce the skin and then I may bleed on you. Ever seen "Alien"?

H.

S**t. I'm even more sorry about point 1 now. I've been thinking, and trying to work out why "blackmail" was making me uncomfortable, and I just remembered. Sitting here like a block of ice wishing I could rewind the world 24 hours, and wishing my f**king memory still worked like it used to a week ago. It might even be worth the price. Too late. Ice

H.

Re: Ice, you've got the right friend. I know ICE.

Re: Point #1: the information is there in the Continuing Series 'Et tu Hoovooloote' -- I don't know what number sequel it is not.

Re: Point #2: too f**king late by several hours. I've posted a monstrous long thing that may or may not be any help.

I don't mean to, want to, or have any intention of 'needling' you. As for 'bleeding on me', yes, I've seen 'Alien', and no that's not a problem.

What is a problem: I will *never* write volumes of stuff like I did today again for *anyone*. You're a decent person. It sounds like you're in a spot of trouble. You're wondering why your memory isn't working this week? Does it have lapses or something?

'Yellow' wandering through your mind in search of something to connect with? I couldn't begin to say what's happening. But I *can* say I may have guessed right again, in the reply at the 'hello' thread, about why you chose to phrase things as they did, quite unintentionally. I was right about the blackmail thing, as it turns out... you knew that. I'm sorry, friend.

No needling. Email if you want, though I don't check it often, so you'd have to leave me a note. It's on my page.

Take care of you. Poor Ice-man. I know what that is. It's both paralysing and safe, but it does terrible things to your health... long term.



I hope your girfriend is able to help you thaw.

~Silent Lucidity~