Page 1 of 5

I want my Squidgy back!

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:37 am
by bee
I want my Squidgy back! :evil:

Since I've posted most important news on the wrong thread, it has been buried under weather report. I had to relocate it over here.

Quote:
To Joe, Greg, and anyone else who may know Squidgy ~

As a result of the notice I posted on the Gulf Coast News site [asking if anyone knows of Squidgy's whereabouts], with my contact number, I received a phone message from Rick [I'll give you his last name] in Oakland, California. He said that he used to work with "Jo" and is wondering about her, concerning Katrina, and wondering if I [we] have any information; or can pass along his good wishes, and, if so, to tell her that Rick from the San Francisco Chronicle called. He gave me his phone number, which I'll give you, as well, if you'll contact me. He said he hopes all is well.

~ Lizzy
There are rumors going around San Francisco. Squidgy has been spotted in San Francisco in North Beach near the 'Tosca' club, where currently an office of the actor Sean Penn has been set up. Insider tells, that Squidgy and Snow have signed a book and script deal-
"How I was lost, but now I'm found by Lizzytish." Sean Penn has agreed to play the part of Joe. There are some difficulties though-as a main character- Lizzytish has demanded that her part must be most beautifully played by Sharon Stone. However-the spoiled dame Sharon Stone has stubbornly refused-stating that she was too busy observing those lovely animals dolphins, she cant be bothered. Lizzytish then has changed her mind alltogheter- she realized, that the best job to portray her socially progressive, compassionate persona should be done by a black women, and only black women. There are negotiations going on with Woopy Goldberg- also, some problems are arising- Ms.Goldberg insists on using swear words. To rather strict objections from Lizzytish- Ms.Woopy was heard shouting- whatda fuck? what da fuck?
The outcome of negotiations is not yet known. :roll:

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:20 am
by linda_lakeside
:lol: Bee!! :D !! What's the matter!!?#%^ Have you gone nuts??? :wink: Well, I hope you find what you're looking for and all that stuff... :D

Linda.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:39 am
by lizzytysh
This is in very poor taste, Biruta/Bee. You should know that.

This is not Comedy Central, nor is Squidgy, the friend of several people here, a topic for a routine, and neither are her personal safety and welfare.

This is also the News section of the Forum.

Your posting of this is appalling.


~ Elizabeth

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:19 am
by bee
Dear Linda- I want my Squidgy back-and that is a news-nuts or not! :twisted:

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:14 pm
by jurica
you are lucky, bee, that i'm not a moderator on this forum, because i'd not only move this thread but most probably ban you.

wasting my time like this, posting garbage on news section.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:14 pm
by linda_lakeside
Bee,

This is a 'real' crisis. It's not a fantasy designed for 'gain' by anyone. Squidgy is a 'real' person and there are people concerned about her welfare.

I'm sure you know that when someone is 'missing' in a hurricane that, that is not 'good' news. The concern expressed by Squidgy's friends is genuine. I think we should go easy on those that are having 'true life' dramas with regard to Katrina. Or any catastrophe. There are many other things to 'have fun' with. My hopes are that Squidgy (although I don't know her personally) is safe. That's all I can say.

Linda.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:35 pm
by Young dr. Freud
Maybe Squidgy doesn't want to be found by the benighted members of this forum. Didn't she leave the newsgroup because of some very disagreeable posts regarding her religion.

The only "true life drama" going on here is the one in Lizzy's head.

As for banning anyone....oh please. Any section that can contain a Kelley Lynch punching thread can stand a little Lizzy bashing.


YdF

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:42 pm
by tom.d.stiller
I don't know Squidgy, but I hope she's well.

If she left the newsgroup, she will have had her reasons. But besides Lizzy there are others who care for her.

Yes, YdF, the forum can stand some "Lizzy bashing", but exactly this is not what's going on. The feelings of some others, I believe, could be hurt as well, as they expressed their care in another thread.

bee, this is indeed poor style. I wouldn't go as far as banning you, but this thread would be gone before you could say "lizzytysh".

If you wanna do some bashing, I'd say: "Feel free." Just pick a topic that doesn't hurt and ridicule those you don't want to bash.

Cheers
tom

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:16 pm
by lizzytysh
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, again, but will now, for two reasons.

The first is to briefly comment on another discrepancy I'm seeing here, Tom. With what you've said, the measure shouldn't be what the Forum can or cannot stand, but in your own words:
Oh, I never took a mediator position when it came to content, or opinion, or theoretical approach, or premises. There I ever stated mine, and invited others to state theirs. My mediation, if at all, concerns itself with the forms of communication that are in use.

I believe there should be a battle of minds, but the means should be civilized. The purpose of a discussion is never to win over someone else, but to gain insight. And this can't be done by means of arguing ad hominem instead of ad rem.

On this level, and only on this level, I might try to mediate.
I'm not asking or suggesting that you "mediate" [what I've seen in that regard, of late, has been one-sided, anyway, so doesn't really qualify], but for me, there exists a discrepancy between what I've quoted your saying, and your words here; the two, sets of which, you apparently rather easily reconcile:
Yes, YdF, the forum can stand some "Lizzy bashing", but exactly this is not what's going on. The feelings of some others, I believe, could be hurt as well . . . If you wanna do some bashing, I'd say: "Feel free." Just pick a topic that doesn't hurt and ridicule those you don't want to bash."


The last I knew, "bashing" and 'attacking' were pretty close bedfellows, and not acceptable by your standards.

***********************************************************

The second is just to bring the response I made on the "Sadness and Joy in the News" thread [which Bee dubbed the "weather" thread]:
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I hope Squidgy's okay. I'll be happy when I hear that she is.

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. 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.


~ Elizabeth

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:53 pm
by tom.d.stiller
lizzytysh wrote:The first is to briefly comment on another discrepancy I'm seeing here, Tom. With what you've said, the measure shouldn't be what the Forum can or cannot stand, ...
Elizabeth, my measure is what I think the forum can stand. Which is different from what I think should be done. And which is different from what Jurica thinks the forum can stand.

BTW: Here, once again, 'If' is the operative word in what I said to bee...

I oppose bashing in general, and I don't believe it is necessary to repeat the same thing over and over again, so I won't include all the things I personally do not approve of into every post. But the forum can stand some bashing. In this YdF is right.
lizzytysh wrote:I'm not asking or suggesting that you "mediate" [what I've seen in that regard, of late, has been one-sided, anyway, so doesn't really qualify]...
Well, Elizabeth, your stance seems to be qui non est mecum contra me est. When I'm not with you when you bash someone, as today I'm not with bee in her bashing, you consider this as "one-sided".
lizzytysh wrote:The last I knew, "bashing" and 'attacking' were pretty close bedfellows.
Reading more closely, Elizabeth, would have avoided that trap. 'Bashing' and 'attacking' are pretty close, I agree, though I'd say that I could very well 'attack' a position I deem to be wrong without 'bashing' the person who defends this same position. But where did you find my battle cry "Attack!":?:

The 'discrepancy' exists for you, as you said. I won't say, however, it's there.

tom

PS: If you want to continue this barren discussion, please feel free to do so. I can't promise I'll participate in it. Most probably I won't.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:14 pm
by lizzytysh
Call it "barren" if you like, Tom, and participate if you like, and don't if you like.

Yes, I was comparing what you said against what you said, not against what Jurica or anyone else said.

You say, "But the forum can stand some bashing. In this YdF is right."
What YdF said wasn't the forum can stand some bashing. He said, "Lizzy bashing" ~ and, not making any distinction there, you said he is right. You, who don't believe in bashing :roll: ["in general" :roll: ].


What you "think should be done" is far more easily read into your words [shall we say between the lines?] when you say:
Yes, YdF, the forum can stand some "Lizzy bashing", but exactly this is not what's going on. The feelings of some others, I believe, could be hurt as well . . . If you wanna do some bashing, I'd say: "Feel free." Just pick a topic that doesn't hurt and ridicule those you don't want to bash."
"If you wanna do some bashing, I'd say: 'Feel free.' " goes just a tad further than speaking of everyone has free will here, particularly when it follows, " 'Lizzy bashing', but exactly this is not what's going on. The feelings of some others, I believe, could be hurt as well"....which pretty clearly says, 'It's fine if you hurt Lizzy's feelings, but the others ........' and Just be sure that you keep your bashing restricted to her [and not those whom you don't want to bash].' When it comes to implicit agreement with and approval of what she's doing, you're getting pretty close, if not already there.
Well, Elizabeth, your stance seems to be qui non est mecum contra me est. When I'm not with you when you bash someone, as today I'm not with bee in her bashing, you consider this as "one-sided".
This is pretty hard to justify, as is, Tom ~ when with/against me aren't even the issue. The issue was whether you DO or whether you DON'T believe in bashing. The objections you expressed weren't regarding the bashing itself, but who else got caught in the crossfire. What you suggested to her was that she invest in a scope for her rifle, or an empty room with her sledgehammer, or whatever analogy would be best understood by you.

My questioning on your role of the binary function of a mediator had to do with your performance in that regard on the other thread, regarding the interactions on the Katrina issues. I'll get to those and your discrepancies there, still, but at another time.

If you will look more closely, you will see that I did not enclose the word attack in quotes, but did it thus: 'attack' ~ meaning, an approximation of the word [the inclusive meaning of it existing there, but the word not literally used] ~ ad hominem generally has the word "attack" following it.....and personal attacks were discussed in the Katrina and/or News threads. "Bashing," however, I did place in quotes, as it was directly used. The concept was what I was going for, in bringing the two together.
I oppose bashing in general
It would appear that you do not oppose it, specifically, however ~ in these circumstances.

Reply or not, Tom. It's irrelevant to me at this point.

~ Elizabeth

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:11 pm
by Young dr. Freud
Gosh.

That was some pretty good "bashing."



YdF

P.S. Did I use the "quote marks" correctly?

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:18 pm
by tom.d.stiller
Young dr. Freud wrote:P.S. Did I use the "quote marks" correctly?
This my dear Young Dr. Freud is irrelevant to me at this point.

~ tom

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:22 pm
by Young dr. Freud
That's because you are a "binary mediator".



Ydf

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:48 pm
by tom.d.stiller
Young dr. Freud wrote:That's because you are a "binary mediator".
This is pretty hard to justify, as is, YdF ~ when mediation/no mediation aren't even the issue.