![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 16:54:51
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
Posted by mair on April 5, 2002, at 7:19:50
In reply to Yes, thanks Mist from me too! (nm) » mair, posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 16:54:51
Posted by Zo on April 5, 2002, at 17:12:18
In reply to Zo - why was your nm post directed to me? (nm) » Zo, posted by mair on April 5, 2002, at 7:19:50
Posted by Jonathan on April 5, 2002, at 19:20:49
In reply to a word that offends me, posted by mist on April 3, 2002, at 21:55:53
Posted by mist on April 5, 2002, at 22:21:39
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
> The only time I've actually seen Dr. Bob reproach someone for using four letter words are when they've been used in headings or in a confrontational way,
If I remember correctly someone was blocked earlier this year for using a swear word in the body of a post in which he was discussing meds. Also, I'm not entirely sure which post Trouble was blocked for last weekend, or why. She was admonished when she used a four-letter word in the heading of a post but was blocked for a later post (I believe) in which she was explaining her position on swearing. She used a swear word in the post (and it was very fitting given the style of writing she was using and the ideas she was expressing). I don't think her post was confrontational in any aggressive sense although I suppose she and Dr. Bob were both "confronting" each other in the sense of arguing.
> guess I don't see this rule as inhibiting, particularly since you can use asteriks also.
I don't understand the point of asterisks in a forum like this. Everyone knows what the word is anyway.
Posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
In reply to asterisks, etc. » mair, posted by mist on April 5, 2002, at 22:21:39
I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
Shar
Posted by Zo on April 6, 2002, at 1:20:08
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Sorry, I missed that. Who used the term? Maybe you can link me.
Zo
Posted by mist on April 6, 2002, at 5:35:35
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Shar,
If you were referring to what I posted earlier my point isn't that artists swear more but that in general it's more important to the artistic personality type to express themselves authentically than, for example, to fit it, get the approval of the group or of authority, not make waves, etc. Even though these might be part of what the artist values too, in general self-expression would take a higher place in a hierarchy of values/needs than it would for others.There's a book called The Career Guide for Creative and Unconventional People that discusses the artistic personality type, mentions its percentage of the population (small—can't remember the exact number), and compares it to other types. For people with this personality type having to suppress their self expression can be extremely painful. It's not just a matter of wanting to "do their own thing" (although there's nothing wrong with that if it doesn't harm others) but that they have to say what they have to say in the way they have to say it or die inside. And I'm talking about things that come from the inner dictates of their gift, which includes the artist's way of looking at the world, not things like verbally abusing others. And there are of course artists who can be as truly rude as anyone else and having that personality type doesn't excuse it.
I don't believe, though, that just because something is considered rude in mainstream society means it's considered offensive by everyone. Nor does it mean the idea that it's rude is based on anything substantial—it could be just that some people don't like it. To me, for something to be truly offensive it has to put someone down—attack them—not just be a word they don't like to hear. When four-letter words are used to call people names they can be as rude as any other insult. But in other contexts, they can simply be used to express a feeling. -mist
> I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
>
> Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
>
> Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
>
> And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
>
> I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
>
> I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
>
> Shar
Posted by mist on April 6, 2002, at 10:15:34
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Shar,
In response to something else you said, I couldn't consider anything pertaining to artists as a whole (to the exclusion of other types of people) elitist because I don't consider artists an elite. The way I understand it, elite means a group with more power, influence, resources, and privileges than most of society, that excludes others from these advantages based on the fact that they aren't part of the elite (in other words, for no good reason).
Most artists I've known (and they are mainly poets and other writers) don't have much money, influence or power. They give up a lot because they make their art a priority and because many of the things that mainstream society demands of people to survive (cubicle jobs, etc.) are to them a robbing of their identity (although some do these things anyway--but at a cost to their mental health).
The reason I brought up the artistic nature in connection with swearing is that some writers use four letter words as part of their art or general self-expression in writing, because they convey what the writer wishes to convey better than another word would.
> I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
>
> Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
>
> Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
>
> And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
>
> I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
>
> I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
>
> Shar
Posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on April 2, 2002, at 23:59:17
My handy dandy Funk & Wagnall's says elite is 'the choicest part, as of a social group.' It doesn't really talk about money or power, nor do I think of it in those terms. Every group has its elite; academia, arts (and subdivisions thereof), government, community organizers. The elite is like 'the in crowd.' The elite may be accepted as leaders or may not be; some may be above the conventions of leadership. Then, there is the 'real' elite group that thinks the group that thinks it is elite is actually NOT elite but rather bourgeois. And so it goes.
What gets my goat about distinguishing one group from another as below:
Mist said:
"One thing to keep in mind is that original self-expression is a **much stronger need and value** among artists than among other personality types. And particularly for writers, the words they choose to express themselves **are not incidental or interchangeable.** The thing about "four-letter" words is that they can be used to convey an energy and power in the face of oppressive circumstances and an undiluted honesty of feeling that you can't get with other words. And even if this isn't an outlet for art or other types of writing, **writers and other artists are who they are,** and they need to be welcome here too." (emphasis mine.)This type of thinking paints people with a pretty broad brush, and SEEMS to suggest that one group gets a special dispensation from social custom because of their special status (in this case artists). This type of thinking is never applied to only one group, it is everywhere. And, frankly, words are extremely important to MANY people, including non-artists. Even to people in cubicles, or who work 8-5 jobs, or just appreciate language. I love words, it is a major weakness of mine that people who couch things in certain ways can seriously get to me. Even if that person is a carpenter.
I don't think anyone really deserves a special dispensation from the rules or customs of this board or society in general simply because of their 'need' to write, paint, draw, act, sing, play an instrument, compose, etc. Or, if they do feel entitled to exceptions from custom, they should not be in the least surprised when others are offended or uncomfortable with them.
True, some people in groups just push the envelope enough to catch the spotlight. Others take it further.
Mist said:
"Four letter words can also simply be about style and the subculture that one identifies with. To me these things are very important—being in an environment where everyone has to adhere to narrow, sanitized standards of acceptable behavior and speech has a depressing effect on me."Who said anything about "sanitized standards of acceptable behavior and speech"? I don't believe people here are saying no four letter words ever! Just, offering their opinion about them. And stating if they are not comfortable with them. Personally, I think they are largely unnecessary, that there are almost always better ways to emphasize or make a point than by swearing. However, I use them also at times.
I believe the style/subculture remark is very pertinent. Some folks want to *be themselves* to a much greater extent than I want them to be themselves...just acting naturally, they say. Well, picking one's nose is natural, and I do not care to share that with anyone, or belching and farting is natural, but remains unappealing, to me at least.
There is much more commonality among groups of people than differences, and the remark about artists vs. other personality types simply emphasizes a perceived difference. In fact, some research has shown that within-group differences are greater than between-group differences. Thus, it is likely we have more in common with artists than we have differences.
I do well in a conventional setting, I hold many traditional values, and I also believe my love of words is just as present for me as it is for an artist (writer). My words are chosen carefully, with attention to nuance. By what objective standard can we measure how important the artist's words are vs. how important my words are to me?
Well, that's probably enough said.
Shar
Posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 4:54:17
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Shar,
What kind of contempt do you suppose you express when you compare what a writer/artist does to picking your nose?
There's this misapprehension about creative people. We're all ego, we do everything we do just to put the spotlight on ourselves.
When what I know is that artists are the people who stand by their words, themselves, and try to communicate what it is they see. *That's* the urge, the drive. . . to show you my little piece of heaven. Or hell. But it's about the farthest thing from showing off. More like very risky, very vulnerable.
And hey, there IS no special dispensation. If you're an artist or writer, you have to grind out your own dispensation from a world which grants NONE---and then pays to buy your books, to see your plays. Pays to get your message back again.
I'd like to think that my work is something more than a "need." My guess is if you knew how bloody f**kin' hard it is, to make anything authentic at all, never mind to then get it seen or read or heard, you'd sing a different tune.
Just thought your posts on this had unnecessary jabs, not required to get your point across. Unless, of course, your point is that you are contemptous of artists. . ..
Zo
Posted by trouble on April 8, 2002, at 10:25:38
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Sorry, no time for greetings,
>> elite is 'the choicest part, as of a social group. It doesn't really talk about money or power, nor do I think of it in those terms.
LADIES, LADIES!
I believe the word we're struggling for here is snobbery. Snobbery is typiclly found in those who profess a heightened aesthetic sensibility, ya think?
Quoting now, "Being alert to...distinctions is a large part of the fun of being alive today, in a moment teeming w/raucously overvalued emptiness and trash." (will cite author later)
My condensed theory of art, and I'll try to stretch this into 9 pages for y'all, but no promises:
Because we are all stuck w/ SOULS we are ALL artists, like it or not. We are not artists b/c of any art we PRODUCE, but by the kind of art we COLLECT...the aesthetic this-n-that's w/ which we adorn our personal environments. You can play Lawrence Welk on your juke, hang velvet elvises on your living room wall, next to a collection of 280 sad ceramic painted clowns, display in pride of place an autographed copy of poet Rod McKuen's, LISTEN TO THE WARM and put a framed copy of the DESIDERATA over the fireplace and baby, THIS IS YOU AS ARTIST and it may bring out the booger-eating H.L.Mencken in someone who doesn't relate, but you got it girl, no dispensations for anyone and that includes, well, you.
The late 20th century democratization of the arts has brought forth the crass and abject naked and unwashed masses, drag queens, nobodies, riff-raff (sorry mist) such as myself, who work all day scrubbing rich peoples toilets and then stay up all night, writing furious manifestos and then handing them out to strangers on street corners and if you see no courage, no beauty in the boldness of putting yourself on the line like that, so be it. Snub me. I claim no nobility in my habit of writing and promulgating poetry.
It's just my favorite waste of time.You have every right to define "bad", according to your own sensibilities, and the more opinions we express the clearer picture we present of ourselves, the easier it is to find people who connect w/ those sensibilities, artistic or otherwise. Is there a problem here? Am I missing something?
"BAD is something phony, clumsy, witless, untalented, vacant, or boring that many Americans
can be persuaded is genuine, graceful, bright, or fascinating...
"...numerous awful things to be met w/in the United States which if not offensive b/c pretentious are offensive b/c banal, stupid, or subadult."Damn. Wish I'd said that. (BAD or, the Dumbing Of America, Paul Fussell 1991, Simon and Schuster.)
> This type of thinking paints people with a pretty broad brush, and SEEMS to suggest that one group gets a special dispensation from social custom because of their special status (in this case artists).Please enlighten me about these spoiled and over-indulged aristo-brats, b/c in my personal pantheon all of 'em lived lives of sheer and unrelenting and yes, self-pitying nightmarish hell. To wit:
Robert Johnson,
Billie Holiday,
Raymond Carver,
Charles Bukowski (among much public farting), Marilyn Monroe,
George Jones, Tammy Wynette,
Dorothy Parker,
Sylvia Plath,
Jackson Pollock,
Gertrude Stein,
Anne Sexton,
Kurdt Cocaine,
Janis Joplin,
George Depeirdeau,
Richard Hell,
me,
Lester Bangs,
John Lennon (gave back his knighthood or whatever the hell dispensation the U.K. tried to apologize with),
Tennessee Williams,
Jimi Hendrix,
Lou Reed,
Eugene O'Neill,
Marvin Gaye,
R.D. Laing,
Virginia Woolf,
J.P. Sartre,
Ayn Rand,
Sam Phillips,
Mark Eitzel,
Lee Hazelwood (from whom I borrowed my "handle")
Vincent Van Gogh,
William Burroughs,
Nick Drake,
Ian Curtis...I'm leaving out the survivors, the Patti Smiths and Boy Georges who keep the rest of us going, and I haven't even mentioned Cassavetes, Fassbinder, Peckinpah, and oh don't get me started on the filmakers, there will be no end to this!
Do arty folk have a place on PSB?
The leading vocation for mental cases then and now:
1.writers (depression)
2.artists (bi-polar)Pain propels artistic expression, it's publish AND perish, there will always be rabid critics, hatemongers and debunkers nipping at their heels, but I'm still looking for the public privilege and adulation, please someone show me what you see in the lives of these people that I have missed.
Now, if there's no room for befuddling, soul-baring, messianic, passionate, cockeyed sentimental visionaries on PSB we're gonna have to start by knocking off the good doctor's unique and idealistic and supremely individualistic apparition you are now gazing into with, admit it, rapt attention, this historical, and believe it, this is history we're making here friends, this on-line support/education/research booger thingie which was nothing but a concept dr. bob brought to spectacular fruition, a creation of something out of nothing, i.e. "ART"--to say nothing of that slippery dadgum policy of civility, and if THAT'S not social engineering in the purest and most romantic tradition I'll eat a six pack of stetsons.
> I believe the style/subculture remark is very pertinent. Some folks want to *be themselves* to a much greater extent than I want them to be themselves...just acting naturally, they say.
Right, this is known as the great American culture wars, the gang's all here, pleased to meetcha.
>>> I also believe my love of words is just as present for me as it is for an artist (writer). My words are chosen carefully, with attention to nuance. By what objective standard can we measure how important the artist's words are vs. how important my words are to me?Well Shar, that's a good question. The only one here who seems to be abdicating their responsibility as an artist is, you.
>>Well, that's probably enough said.
Why? Are you finished? Or have you "used up" too much of your slice? Speaking your truth has been stimulating to read, and I sense you have much more than this in you.
In weird but some sincere version of idiosyncratic friendship,
trouble
Posted by jane d on April 8, 2002, at 11:04:38
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Posted by mist on April 8, 2002, at 18:37:07
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Shar,
I don't think artists should have special dispensation—I never said that. My point is that artists (writers) use words as part of their art, which makes words especially important to them. By the same token, most people value their body and physical health--and should--but for athletes the body, and health and fitness, have a special, additional importance.
My belief is that no one should be told what words they can and can't use, artist or not.
However, there are differences among people. For example, I'm introverted, other people are extroverted. I'm terrible at math and sports. Others are great at those things. But it's also not clear who is and isn't "artistic." Just because someone isn't devoting 100% of his or her time to their art doesn't mean they aren't an artist. Some people live with hidden, unexpressed talent all their lives and suffer for it. Some people are artists because of the way they respond to life, and a need to create something to express that response.
>I love words, it is a major weakness of mine that people who couch things in certain ways can seriously get to me. Even if that person is a carpenter.
I don't see carpenters and artists as opposites. A person can be both a carpenter and an artist. I personally don't see artists as an elite, separate group at all. I also think if you love words the way you say you do there must be something of the artist in you too. Why should you exclude yourself from that group if you clearly have something in common with them?
Posted by Shar on April 9, 2002, at 0:37:46
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words » Shar, posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 4:54:17
Zo wrote:
> What kind of contempt do you suppose you express when you compare what a writer/artist does to picking your nose?
>>>>>
Zo,
This is your thoughtful, considered analysis of my message? That I was comparing what a writer/artist does to picking one's nose?Shar
Posted by beardedlady on April 9, 2002, at 6:06:48
In reply to Now, Zo....., posted by Shar on April 9, 2002, at 0:37:46
Maybe she was posting after midnight?
I got your meaning, though. I use a similar argument with my husband. He doesn't like to cut his hair or shave because hair grows there naturally. I tell him that body odor is natural, too, but it's nice to wash it off every once in awhile.
Natural alone does not make it good. And you can certainly be yourself without using the f-word.
beardy : )>
Posted by mist on April 9, 2002, at 16:41:53
In reply to Re: Now, Zo..... » Shar, posted by beardedlady on April 9, 2002, at 6:06:48
>And you can certainly be yourself without using the f-word.
Actually, I know people for whom using the "f-word" is so characteristic of their style of verbal expression that I can't imagine them never uttering it again. It's very much a part of their persona. And in the circles they move in (the particular people I'm thinking of are primarily filmmakers, activists and journalists) it's almost a requirement.
Posted by mist on April 9, 2002, at 20:40:51
In reply to Re: Now, Zo..... » Shar, posted by beardedlady on April 9, 2002, at 6:06:48
> Natural alone does not make it good.
What I've been talking about isn't about "going natural." Someone not wearing deodorant, for example, because they want to be "natural," isn't the same thing as a writer choosing a particular word because it says best what they want to say. And there will always be people who don't like what someone writes, for whatever reason--content, wording, style, etc. That doesn't make it wrong to write it. There are things written on these boards at times that I consider unsupportive (although not enough to be obviously uncivil) that don't contain any four letter words. Supportiveness is about meaning and intention, which can be expressed with different types of language.
Posted by beardedlady on April 10, 2002, at 5:54:41
In reply to Re: Now, Zo....., posted by mist on April 9, 2002, at 16:41:53
> Actually, I know people for whom using the "f-word" is so characteristic of their style of verbal expression that I can't imagine them never uttering it again. It's very much a part of their persona. And in the circles they move in (the particular people I'm thinking of are primarily filmmakers, activists and journalists) it's almost a requirement.
Sorry, Mist, but I think that's kind of sad. I know people who cuss all the time (moutain climbers and ballerinas and my father, for example), but when my four-year-old daughter is in the room, most of them manage to keep those words out of the conversation--and still be very much themselves.
Please remember that I never said I thought "bad words" should be disallowed from the board. My real opinion is that it doesn't bother me a bit to read them, say them, or hear them (though there is a particular c word that makes my beard stand on end).
But if Dr. Bob doesn't want them here, then we shouldn't use them. It's his sandbox, after all. And if it's so much our persona that we simply can't be ourselves or express ourselves, well, that's kind of a sad thing. (To me, of course.)
beardy : )>
Posted by mist on April 10, 2002, at 11:06:49
In reply to personas and cussing » mist, posted by beardedlady on April 10, 2002, at 5:54:41
Most of the people I was referring to don't use four letter words all the time (as in, not in every other sentence) but enough that without them they'd seem strangely unlike themselves.
> But if Dr. Bob doesn't want them here, then we shouldn't use them.
Yes but Dr. Bob is human and his mind can be changed. That's my mission. :)
>And if it's so much our persona that we simply can't be ourselves or express ourselves, well, that's kind of a sad thing. (To me, of course.)
I don't see what's sad about it, but that's why people are different. To me it's just a style of speaking and, in general, I tend to feel more comfortable and relaxed with people who use these words at least ocassionally than those who never do. This is in part because the people I've known in real life who most strongly object to four letter words are, for the most part, the same people who object to any variation in behavior or lifestyle from the conventional and traditional. Since I'm not either of those things I tend to breathe easier around people who are freer in their speech.
At the same time, there are situations in which I find four letter words unpleasant and jarring. Then I think, well, that's my reaction, but this person still has the right to speak the way they want, as long as they aren't directing insults at me or anyone else.
But what I've really been talking about more is using this type of language in writing, where a writer (meaning anyone writing something) uses a word deliberately to contribute to the total effect of a post, email message, poem, essay, etc.
Posted by Shar on April 10, 2002, at 11:07:00
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words » Shar, posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 4:54:17
What I've posted, in summary, is that IMO writers here on Psycho-whatever, even people with 'artistic natures' or delicate sensibilities, all need to play by the same "rules." That is, IMO an "artist" shouldn't get a special dispensation from following "rules" about language or civility.
My comment about elitism was based on statements such as the following, that seemed to put "artists" in a special category as compared to people in general (PIG). I felt a "yes, but" coming on. Yes, the rules here make sense for p.i.g., BUT.....
...in general it's more important to the artistic personality type to express themselves authentically...
...self-expression would take a higher place in a hierarchy of values/needs than it would for others...
...with this personality type having to suppress their self expression can be extremely painful....
...they have to say what they have to say in the way they have to say it or die inside....
...original self-expression is a much stronger need and value among artists than among other personality types....
Maybe it would be easier to apply that kind of "yes, but" if the consequence was more visible. Like if it was truth that "artists" who don't get to swear in their posts at this site will balloon up and then explode.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I wanted to respond to Trouble's post separately because it was of a different nature than the others.
Trouble: Your response seems to want to wend its way into a personal (not really attack, let's call it) lecture toward me. And it doesn't seem to have much to do with what I was talking about. Ie,
...but you got it girl, no dispensations for anyone and that includes, well, you.
...if you see no courage, no beauty in the boldness of putting yourself on the line like that, so be it. Snub me.
...but I'm still looking for the public privilege and adulation, please someone show me what you see in the lives of these people that I have missed.
...The only one here who seems to be abdicating their responsibility as an artist is, you.
...have you "used up" too much of your slice?
...enlighten me about these spoiled and over-indulged aristo-brats, b/c in my personal pantheon all of 'em lived lives of sheer and unrelenting and yes, self-pitying nightmarish hell.
-------Trouble: I don't Even know how you managed to come up with this. A dispensation from Social Custom (eg, getting to use 4-letter words here at Psycho-whatever because one is an artist) does not even brush up against a suggestion of spoiled, over-indulged, aristo-brats, public privilege, or adoration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~To folks who took my comments about something on this site and expanded them exponentially after a little massage on them, Color us Not on the Same Page, k?
Thanks!
Peace and love,
Shar
Posted by mist on April 10, 2002, at 11:52:48
In reply to And the original post was about......., posted by Shar on April 10, 2002, at 11:07:00
> even people with 'artistic natures' or delicate sensibilities
the "delicate sensibilities" is sarcastic
> all need to play by the same "rules." That is, IMO an "artist" shouldn't get a special dispensation from following "rules" about language or civility.
I agree. It's the rules (one rule) I object to, not who it's applied to.
I stand by my statements about artists. I have the utmost respect for artists, including those on this board. There are several here whose writing ability I greatly admire, including one who's no longer with us. But there is nothing elite about the artists I know. Most have a very hard time of it.
Posted by Shar on April 10, 2002, at 15:43:28
In reply to Re: And the original post was about......., posted by mist on April 10, 2002, at 11:52:48
> > even people with 'artistic natures' or delicate sensibilities
>
> the "delicate sensibilities" is sarcastic~~Telling me what I meant to convey by using a particular phrase is a little chancey. It may be that I know what was in my head better than you do. Now, I could get sarcastic about THIS pretty easily, but I will refrain.
>
> > all need to play by the same "rules." That is, IMO an "artist" shouldn't get a special dispensation from following "rules" about language or civility.
>
> I agree. It's the rules (one rule) I object to, not who it's applied to.~~I'm glad we finally agree.
>
> I stand by my statements about artists. I have the utmost respect for artists, including those on this board. There are several here whose writing ability I greatly admire, including one who's no longer with us. But there is nothing elite about the artists I know. Most have a very hard time of it.~~I stand by my statements as well, which were not about artists, per se, but about the practice of putting one group of people (WHATEVER the group) above others or saying a group (WHATEVER or WHOMEVER the group is made up of) should not be held to the same rules as others--that is what I see as an elitist practice. If someone thought I used the word elitist and the illustration of elitist behavior, to mean financially well-off or something of that sort, then someone did not understand what I was saying.
Peace,
Shar
Posted by mist on April 10, 2002, at 16:59:30
In reply to Re: And the original post was about......., posted by Shar on April 10, 2002, at 15:43:28
> ~~I'm glad we finally agree.
We have always agreed about this. I never said artists should have a special dispensation from any rule here. There is nothing in any of my posts that says that. In fact, I've explicitly stated the opposite.
> ~~I stand by my statements as well, which were not about artists, per se, but about the practice of putting one group of people (WHATEVER the group) above others or saying a group (WHATEVER or WHOMEVER the group is made up of) should not be held to the same rules as others--that is what I see as an elitist practice.I am opposed to doing this as well. I don't see artists as "above" others because in some ways they are different. Different doesn't mean better, although everyone is better at some things and worse at others. But I do think artists as a whole are worthy of much more respect, understanding, and support than they are generally accorded in a society like this.
Posted by mist on April 10, 2002, at 17:13:24
In reply to Re: And the original post was about......., posted by Shar on April 10, 2002, at 15:43:28
Shar, even though I've already stated my position several times I thought maybe it would help if I put it by itself in a separate post, so here it is:
My belief is that no one should be told what words they can or can't use to express themselves.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.