You obviously [what insight that took
] don't agree with my methods regarding trying to establish the whereabouts and safety of St. Squidgy during and since Hurricane Katrina hit.
Your wailing mockery of the fact that anything is written here at all, by people who do care [the ridicule, of course, focused on me]; mockingly screaming a real person's name, who more than one person here personally knows, and have expressed concern about; and then launching into your sub-standard parody that goes tangentially into directions that don't even make sense; and then posting that mess in the News section [vs. the Member's Poetry section ~ where creative/uncreative (as the case may be) writing of members is posted ~ and where fictional stuff would
belong ~ even if it's intended for ridicule of another member here] is what made this thread and your initial posting disrespectful and disgusting.
This is a public site, Bee ~ one where either Squidgy or someone who knows her would be likely to show up at some point. I didn't initiate a thread for the purpose, but placed my postings regarding her on Greg's "Katrina" thread [vs. my own regarding the "News"], as given recent events and where she lives, it was the most highly-favoured one for either Squidgy or someone knowing her, to read.
Whereas, another person also
sought information on his friend, Squidgy, on another
public site [where I had posted request for information and contact information]; this
site is also
one that makes full sense for posting a similar request. Anyone who loves Cohen enough to travel from New Orleans to New York for an Event ~ regardless of ill-will in the past with other members or sites ~ is
likely to revisit, for whatever
reason. She did not
have a falling out with Greg or Joe. Greg and Joe may also not be the only ones who know her here and who share our concern. As I've already said, Squidgy may not be the only one who will visit here at some point. Someone who knows
her may, and knowing that the hurricane hit her area, may read the Katrina thread. They will know that we are not the only ones concerned and may, in fact, deliver a message to her about her friend in California, as well as us. Others already here
, who may also know her, may at some point be in contact with her, and let her know about Greg, Joe, and the man in California.
Posting the basics I've done is not unreasonable in this way, as it prevents duplication of efforts. In my notice, elsewhere, I included Joe's name ~ in fact, put it first, for someone to be contacted. Anyone who knows me at all, Bee, would recognize what I've done as not unusual for me. This trait has worked well in situations where action vs. talk accomplishes more. I don't always "spring into action," but where quandaries exist, I do start moving in the direction of gathering information and seeking solutions and resolution, rather than just 'standing around' talking about it. That is not
to express any criticisms of Joe or Greg. It is
to express that different people have different strengths, and are more at ease in performing different roles. One of mine has always
been information gathering. Diligence has always been another.
When two people expressed concern, and that this was a person they knew and cared about, I knew that I could, perhaps, assist in finding out something concrete, and simply began moving in that direction. It wasn't necessary to contact Jarkko or anyone else here to do so. I did not do it behind the scenes, as I don't communicate with Greg privately; and I don't know who all comes here, and in that context, who may know who, who knows still another who, who may know Squidgy, and, of course, Squidgy herself. Implicity keeping them informed, as I periodically, along the way, informed the others, is not an unusual thing to do.
I am still hoping that, at some point, the word will get to her that we are wondering and concerned about how she is and how she fared. The man from California certainly understood the benefits of requesting information publicly and, sharing our concerns, did not hesitate to contact me.
Since you've called attention to yourself, via your attempted parody, Squidgy's name is
now easily spotted. In that way ~ and that way alone ~ you may have inadvertently served a functional purpose, in its way. Anyone reading it, of course, will quickly realize that you do not
have any genuine concern related to this person ~ that your writing is solely related to vendetta purposes regarding me.
Your attempted parody, punctuated by profanity, as well as your follow-up post, are, at once, both flippantly and derisively mocking, and clearly intended to be "bashing" of me. Still, what was, by far, the most objectionable about them weren't the sections about me, but rather what/who you had no qualms about using as your basis.
Your skills in parody are lacking, as one must come closer to truths to really be effective. You brought together really disparate elements that created more of a butcher job, akin to your Eva Braun attempt to disparage me. In the end, it was just 'more of the same' from you. My comments to Tom regarding "bashing" were based on that word being introduced by YdF and followed up on by Tom. So, my ensuing discussion followed in that vein. My initial response to you, however, included my comment that "Your 'comedy' is at Squidgy's expense. She may even, in retrospect, find it humourous. I can deal with the portion that's at mine, and it actually reflects on you."
Regardless of how you feel about my methods [and the motives you wrongfully assign to them], I'll repeat the rest of my initial comment to you: "However, I don't appreciate your going off on this silly tangent, regarding someone whose whereabouts and welfare still remain unknown to those here who care."