I just had an e-mail exchange with Tammy, who is quite distraught about this whole thing.

So much of this trouble — Tammy causing offense, Tammy taking offense — could be avoided if people simply considered their words before posting. Here are excerpts:

Tammy:
Some body wrote that they think [Alan] may be fixated on me and have pictures of me in his lair and such. Why did they have to write that. It's like putting the thoughts in his head.

J.D.:
They're making their point through a poorly thought-out joke. It is strange that he seems obsessed with mocking you, but it's likely there's nothing more to it than an immature man with too much time on his hands. There's no reason to feel threatened. From reading what Alan's written, there's nothing threatening there. He disagrees with you, and he has a sophomoric way of expressing his disapproval.

You reaction — to run away and hide whenever your controversial views generate any sort of negative reaction — is just as sophomoric, but in a different way. Especially since you never stay away for long. It's a "little boy who cried wolf" type thing.

Why does it matter what Alan thinks of you? He's nobody you know, and he's not influencing anybody you know. Why do you care? Why does the opinion of this one man matter more than the opinions of all those people who read you regularly, who enjoy what you have to say?

And if you really are bothered by negative reactions, then why share that information that you know is likely to stir trouble? You know that your views on homosexuality, though the majority opinion in this country, are not likely to be popular in the weblogging world, especially in Oregon. So why share them in that forum? It's obvious that many of us find these views ignorant and bigoted and anti-Christian, yet you continue to post this kind of stuff. If dissent bothers you, then just don't post those entries. There's tons of other stuff to write about.

As an example — and this is going to get personal in my own life — I could write about internet pornography. Most men who use the internet could. But you know what? I'm not going to bring it up, because I know that all of my female readers would be offended, would be floored. That doesn't mean I don't hold strong opinions on the pornography industry, its effects on women, on consumers, on me, but it does mean that I don't want to discuss it on my weblog.

Also, I rarely pay attention to what anyone else says about my weblog. Do other webloggers comment on it? Maybe. But the only time I notice is if I stumble upon these comments by accident. I'm sure my feelings would be hurt by negative comments, but I'd try not to let it bother me. Why should I? How can these comments possibly matter? I know who I am and what I stand for, and I'm happy being that person. I don't need the approval of Alan at BlueHole, and neither do you.

If you sincerely want to leave weblogging, then do it, but do it for good. Don't be wishy-washy about it. The wishy-washy behavior is, well, odd. If you want to stay, then ignore the criticism. And/or take steps to reduce it. Proofread your posts for typos and grammar errors. That'll get one class of losers off your back. Don't post about controversial subjects unless you're willing to take the heat; don't get offended when other people disagree with you. Don't post things that you wouldn't say to a person's face. You're not anonymous, as you've learned many times. (As I've learned many times. Kris and I have been shocked again and again to have people say they read my site that I never would have thought do so.)

Tammy:
Thanks for sticking up for me over there. I'm actually crying. I have no idea what kind of man he is. I am scared.

J.D.:
And this is exactly why people are sticking up for you, even people who have publicly opposed you. What he's doing is wrong, is juvenile. He's acting like a sixth-grader. But that doesn't mean you have to run and hide.

What a fantastic post. I am one of those people that stumbled on Tammys blog, and got hooked on reading. My views are more in lines with yours JD than Tammy's...hell I dont even live in America. But Tammy allowed us something special....she let us see in her world. She quite simply let us in, and we all felt like members of the family for it. We felt welcomed....not always accepted (especially when one of the many conversations went on that you would just have to say ENOUGH! we will not agree!), but we were welcome to read.
Your right that Tammy does offer something special in the weblogging community....she allowed us to read about her, her family, her life and even see pictures! She is special, her blog is special, and I will moss getting my doses of 'Tammy-isms' each day.

:)

oops...miss, not moss....guess we all make typos!!!!

Great post, JD.

I wonder sometimes why we (collective 'we') always tend to focus on and highlight the differences.

Some people take it a step further and use those as vehicles for classifying someone as 'other' and therefore worthy of a different kind of (subhuman) treatment, or assign behaviors and characteristics that might apply to one person in that group to the group as a whole. That's at the root of what's happened here - in both camps, alas.

Maybe we've all had too much classifying and grouping stuff in elementary school, heh ("put all the blue crayons together", etc.)

I agree with JD that censorship is bad.

At the same time, the fact that he's not just asserting Tammy's right to her point of view but actively working to give her a space to air her beliefs sometimes gives me pause.

I have no problem with Tammy speaking her mind, but I don't support her views. I would, personally, make her find her own space in which to air them. But that's just me, and I respect JDs decision.

At the same time, this other fellow has the right to his views, just as Tammy does, even if they are sophomoric. In for a penny, in for a pound. Say stuff negative about other people, have other people say negative stuff about you.

It's one thing to stand in a group and throw rocks at someone else, it's entirely another when a group of other people start throwing rocks back. It's an important lesson, and I wonder if Tammy will learn it?

Dane, you miss my point entirely! I have no problem with people differing with me. Many people wrote very rude comments on my site. It didn't make me quit. I can handle all the rock throwing anybody wants to give. But when somebody carrys the attack as far as a certain individual has than it's wisdom to withdraw and let him get over it.

I have not replyed to these things on his site and don't intend too. I was seriously having doubts about blogging this next year anyway and this guy just helped make the decision for me.

So don't for one minute think I withdrew from blogging because I couldn't handle it. There are blogs out there that delete every negative comment that comes in. These people have emailed me many times and wondered why I just don't delete the comments. But I didn't feel I could do that. I had my say and now they could have theirs. I am not shy when it comes to debate. We had some wonderful times over on the Dishpan. But now it's time to move on.

I blogged for an entire year. That's nore than you can say for the majority of bloggers. I say that out to validate my point that I didn't just run because somebody disagreeed with me.

And JD, I appreciate your support of my website in spite of disagreements. I guess some people don't understand how thick blood can run in some families! But need you refer to me as aging? I'm not that much older than you?

And again I do not like the term "undeducated". I am not uneducated! I do hold a degree you know. Sure it's not a masters degree but it's a college degree nonetheless.

I shut down my weblog, not because I'm a coward, but because I am a brave woman.

Tam, re: aging --> I never said I was young. :) re: education --> You're the one who always makes a big deal about your lack of formal education. And you cannot deny you lack a broad, liberal-arts education.

Tammy: Dane, you miss my point entirely!

Tammy, my name is Dana. I've changed it legally and everything.

You're right, Jd, I do lack a broad liberal arts education simply because I recieved only two years of college with no high school to supplement that. But I still contend I am not uneducated. :)

About what I expected. Thanks, Tammy.

How can you not have a high school education? Or am I reading that comment wrong? Home schooled? I have enjoyed the one-sided comments on JD's log without feeling the need to go to Tammy's site. I hope you will still comment at JD's blog, Tammy. You certainly get JD's back up sometimes. It is always interesting to read the comments.

I like this post JD.

Well Jenefer, there is no "Tammys blog" to go to anymore. And how do I not have a high school education? Because I attended a country schoolhouse for 8 years. Then quit school as many good conservative mennonite girls do. In my twenties I decided to go to college. After testing they discoverd I placed college level on everything so I just went for it and got my two year degree without having a day of highschool.

And Dana I will call you Dana but that doesn't change any facts you know. You can call a kangaroo a zebra but it don't make him a zebra.

Where it crosses the line for me is when parodies are made of private citizens (not to mention the kids of said private citizens.)

Being snarky...disagreeing...debating...etc. etc. etc. all you want is healthy, of course. But would you broadcast the results to the world in a way that violates that person's privacy, away from the environment where the person can read it and respond to it? Uh...that's murkier.

I don't think that we give up our rights as private citizens by posting to a weblog. And I do think we have a right to expect that the people we love not get dragged into the disagreements we might have with others, especially when a) they're minors, and/or b) don't have the choice to back away or distance themselves from the disagreement.
When Alan started mocking Tammy's kids, that's where what was mildly irritating became far more so.

I will mock George Bush all I want to on my own private weblog - and I'll take whatever consequences come down. One can argue that by choosing to enter politics, he's waiving certain rights to privacy (including the right to not be ridiculed if the behavior warrants it.)

The guy next to me on the bus this morning who needs better acquaintance with a bar of soap...or the woman in the next booth at the restaurant who's loudly espousing wacked political beliefs, in my opinion? Not fair targets, at all. In my book, anyway. They're still private citizens - and I have the ability to make all kinds of choices to avoid them or shake it off or change the environment somehow. Holding them up to public ridicle accomplishes nothing, other than giving me an opportunity to vent my own frustrations (a dubious exercise if that's all I have to say online, I'd argue...)

We all have the opportunity to make kind choices. And just because the 'other guy' chooses not to doesn't mean we lose the expectation that it ought to happen, and that we deserve to be treated with respect and accorded some degree of privacy.

Tammy: And Dana I will call you Dana but that doesn't change any facts you know.

I'm not asking you to change your opinions, I'm just asking you to use my legal name. You sometimes seem to forget, or choose to disregard, it and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't. Thanks!

one thing about Tammy's site, for sure, it made some true colors really show about people. Comments often proved that "tolerance" only extended as far as people who agreed with each other. That is true about any site that appears to deviate from the "norm", whether the norm is a bunch of liberal style sites or a bunch of conservative style ones. There is one who will raise the ire of the group and test its ideals, always.

Tammy: So don't for one minute think I withdrew from blogging because I couldn't handle it. There are blogs out there that delete every negative comment that comes in.

I don't think (nor would I ever) that you are shutting down your blog, even temporarily, because you 'couldn't take it'.

People have said and done things you perceive as rude and directed them at you. You haven't censored them (a decision I respect and admire). On the other hand, you have said and done things directed at other people which some of us perceive to be rude as well.

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. You say a lot of things which aren't always very nice, Tammy. And the result is that other people say things about you that aren't very nice, either.

Should we all be circumspect pollyannas to each other, never disagreeing or discussing anything controversial? No. But the ideas of polite, respectful, and tolerant public discourse need to be followed on all sides equally. I'm afraid you don't always follow them, Tammy. At the same time, there is no real way to force anybody else to follow them, either, short of censoring.

You are reaping what you have sown. Should this guy be scaring you? No. But, frankly, you scare me sometimes, too. I just don't do anything about it except argue with you as politely and respectfully as I can, and correct you when you get my name wrong.

And you do follow the rules? I've never known a bigger rule breaker.

I think it depends a lot on which rules we're talking about, Tammy.

Do I insult you and call you names? Do I express fear that you might harm my children by meeting or interacting with them? Do I deny you your right to your own life and your own opinions and the right to voice them freely? I don't think so, although perhaps I'm wrong.

I try and be polite. I'm sure I've not always done so, but I do try, and I do try and apologize when I haven't been. Which rules do I break?

Hmm. Interesting post.

On a completely unrelated (yet commented about) subject, it is quite possible to get a college degree without attending high school. 7th grade was my last year of formal schooling. I then went to home school (read: taught myself) for three years and got my GED when I was 16. At 18 I enrolled in my local community college and at 21 I graduated from Florida State University with as broad a liberal arts degree as one can get--a BA in Humanities.

And you do follow the rules? I've never known a bigger rule breaker.

Dana of course you know what rule I'm referring too and in the same way that you have never threatened me I have never threatened you.

And Amanda I do wish I could have gone the route of homeschooling and a GED. Unfortunately I had neither and still went to college. As for your final thought? I will pray for you.

Pray for yourself. Jesus Christ.

Tammy: Dana of course you know what rule I'm referring too and in the same way that you have never threatened me I have never threatened you.

First, Tammy, I do know what rule you are refering to. But that 'rule' is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the rules of politeness in public and when talking to one another. We can change the topic and talk about the 'rule' I break, if you want to, but that was not my intention and I didn't bring it up.

As for threatening me -- Tammy, you advocate positions and policies which will be directly negative to me. Not hypothetically.

I try to politely disagree with you, but I am the face of some of the people you want to discriminate against. How is advocating for legal discrimination against me not a threat to me?

I have no interest in restricting your right to be married to your husband, for example. But who do you think I should be allowed to marry? Someone I love? Or someone I love of a particular, restricted gender? Which gender would that be?

This is only one example, the obvious one given the current political situation.

I'm not trying to make you feel threatened or feel bad, Tammy. But I really don't think you realize how you sound to me and how much you frighten not just me, but other people like me, too. Our feelings get hurt by stuff, too, y'know?

Dana I know you're feelings get hurt. But I can't let that stop me from voting for what I know is right. I must stand for Truth and Righteousness whether or not that may offend someone. I try not to offend. But inevitably people get offended when other people stand up for what they feel is right and it's in direct oppostion to what they think is right. That's life. But I must keep defending the faith. I will until the day I die. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Tammy: Dana I know you're feelings get hurt. But I can't let that stop me from voting for what I know is right. I must stand for Truth and Righteousness whether or not that may offend someone. I try not to offend.

Right. But realize that what you see as standing for Truth and Righteousness, some of us see as a threat. So saying you haven't threatened me isn't exactly true. You have. You just haven't threatened me directly as a person. You're using laws and constitutions to do the threatening for you.

Dana, lets just say you're right. That's your main goal and objective in every conversation. So I'll give it to you. You're right!

That isn't my goal, Tammy. Please don't take your ball and go home.

If you want to stop talking, that's fine -- just say so. I'm not trying to make you feel attacked or threatened or bad.

I'm just trying to say that we're not necessarily wrong because we defend ourselves as much as you defend your interpretation of your faith

Dana, our talks never go anywhere. You know that. You also know that you HAVE to be right in everything. You accuse me of being dogmatic but look in the mirror. You insist that your way is right even beyond God's way. You don't think God himself knows what's right. You set out to make His creation of a baby boy into something YOU think is right. You have become your own God. You live unto Dana's law.

If even God can't get it right for you then how can I? You must have the final say in everything, even creation. There's no arguing such bull headed thinking.

Just as the Bible says that God gives people over to their own lusts when they persist in their sin and ignorance, then so must I. I cannot improve upon God's plan. Even though you think you can.

Dana, our talks never go anywhere. You know that.

That's true. They don't. I also know why they don't. You'll notice that nobody else keeps talking to you the way I do. They either agree, or they give up and go away. I won't go away any more than you will. I don't want you to go away, although you are free to. And if you do, I won't think that I won anything. What I'd really like is for us to coexist, and for me to be able to do my thing, no matter what you or your religion thinks about it, while you do your thing, no matter what I think about it.

You have become your own God. You live unto Dana's law.

If even God can't get it right for you then how can I? You must have the final say in everything, even creation. There's no arguing such bull headed thinking.

Well, aside from the fact that I am pretty bullheaded (runs in the family), most of that applies just as equally to you, Tammy. Your insistance that even non-believers (I'm an athiest, and therefore am quite happy with the fact that God exists only as an imagined entity that fallible people use to attribute opinions to) live according to your beliefs makes it just as useless to argue with you.

So if neither of us can convince the other person, what are we left with? Can we go and do our own things and leave the other person alone? Or do we need to enact legislation and use other, more extreme measures to make each other act like we think is best for them?

I don't think I'm a god, Tammy. I just think I know what's best for me better than you and your religion does.

I cannot improve upon God's plan. Even though you think you can.

I realize you believe this, Tammy. Seeing as how I perceive God to be imaginary, I see "his plan" as equally imaginary. And yes, I think I can do better for myself than an imaginary thing given form and opinion by modern preachers and religions with their own social and political agendas.

That's what I believe, and it's not what you believe. I accept that. You seem to want to vote to have the government repress me for my own good, as you see it. I think that's wrong.

To be fair, you're both infuriating to argue a point with.

Dana, Tammy's right: you do believe you are completely right. You rarely yield even the smallest point, and never a large point. I've never known you to admit you were incorrect or that there might be something to the other person's argument. Your position seems to be that your logical process is better, therefor you're right. This isn't necessarily true, of course.

But, Tammy, you're infuriating to discuss things with, too. You argue from an emotional point of view rather than a logical one. This makes it impossible to ever win an argument, because you don't concede facts. Whenever a fact contradicts with the reality you want, you simply play the Bible card. (Or, rather, a Bible card — the Tammy Bible card, which accepts some parts of the Bible but not others.) Or you just ignore the parts of your opponent's argument with which you have no suitable response.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm good to argue with either. I've frustrated Dana to no end in the past, I know. I'm just saying that having had many arguments with you both in the past — especially with Dana — I know your patterns. (Arguing with Dana is like arguing with Kris: neither will ever admit she is wrong. That's maddening, especially since I feel like I'm always admitting I'm wrong on certain points.)

Now I'll go back to ignoring you two again. :)

Well, if you were right more, perhaps I could admit to being wrong more. =)

Pot paging kettle, kettle, pot calling...

Dana says, " You'll notice that nobody else keeps talking to you the way I do. They either agree, or they give up and go away."

Tammy says, " Uh.. back at ya Dana!"

On a bit of a tangent.

Dunno if this is how Kris deals with discussions and disagreements, but here's what I'm doing:

Basically, I have arrived at a position of some sort through my own means. Means I trust.

When someone disagrees with me, I generally try and explain my means in some fashion, while at the same time trying to see by what means the other person has arrived at their position, and if it's a better or worse method than the one I used.

Eventually, one of a couple things happens. I'm not convinced the other persons means are any better than mine so I'm happy with my position, or I find that the other person's means are better, and I re-evaluate.

The thing is, almost nobody else's process is much like mine. This is a pretty scientific way of going at stuff, and it bugs JD to no end because he's not this process oriented (I'm not always, either -- pretty much just about this).

The thing is, I'm not actually trying to convince anybody. I'm trying to explain my position and how I got there, while at the same time find weaknesses (or differences) in how the other person got to their conclusion (if I can). And other people are almost always trying to convince me of something.

Here's the thing.

Look at this argument right here. What exactly is there for me to concede to Tammy that is right?

Nothing.

She's asserting that her God has a plan, and I'm contravening it.

I don't believe in her God, so that's not superior to my own means. She does, so it is superior to my means to her.

But to convince me, she has to engage me with tools I actually find to be authoritative.

Likewise, Tammy hasn't much to cede to me. Even when I argue using the bible, she doesn't find my arguments valid because what she believes is the correct interpretation is different than how I've interpreted it. Belief over facts. And I just give her different facts, including, sometimes, different religious facts.

What Tammy could cede to me is that a) we don't agree, and b) she's willing to let me live my life without being oppressed by her religion because I don't believe in it.

She certainly cedes point A. She won't cede point B because it's one of the things she believes she can't do.

I don't see anywhere to go, not because we disagree, but because Tammy insists on using legal means to deprive me of things if I don't act in accordance with her beliefs.

If we simply disagreed and respected and tolerated the difference, that would be one thing. But that's not what we have here.

Okay, now I'll shut up. I promise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

For the most part, as an American, I don't really care much as to the beliefs that any one individual may have as to the origin of the universe, their existence, or my existence (this from someone who doesn't actually exist, by the way). But the moment that someone begins asserting that I should live by their rules, or that society as a whole should conform their rules and shape itself with their rules in mind then I become concerned. Perhaps I should live by those rules. Maybe I would be a better person. On the other hand, it is very troublesome that I should be expected to live by those rules because someone interprets a book to say that God says I should live this way.
...It's based upon my own conclusions as to what is right and what is wrong and why they're right/wrong. Where those things overlap with other people's beliefs, then you have the basis for a system of rules. For example, we can all probably agree that killing each other is generally wrong. You may believe it's because God said not to. I may believe that it's because we can't have a manageable society if we're free to kill each other at the drop of a hat. But since we both agree on it, we can adopt it as a rule in our society. The problem arises when one of us tries to force the other to adopt the thinking that forms the basis for the conclusion. That will almost always get a negative response. As a result, it's not much of a surprise that you would think that you were getting negative responses if you believed you were right and attempted to force your thinking on me.

Dana & Tammy disagree because they're both pigheaded and, although Dana will deny this, they both want the other to buy into the reasoning that forms the basis of their position. This is because neither position is inherently provable with our current understanding of biology and metaphysics. For Dana it's genetics, feelings and free choice. For Tammy it's feelings and God's will. Face it folks, you're never, short of a religious conversion (or de-conversion) on the part of one of you, going to agree on either basis.

But this misses the point. Point being, that Tammy has a right to express her point and have it debated in the public forum. If she chooses to withdraw from that discussion, then we can safely conclude that her point will not stand up to rational scrutiny and move forward from there. But the effort, and the point of view, is valuable if for no other reason than it sparks the debate. The debate has value in and of itself.

Well, every discussion that Dana and Tammy have reads like 'chicken and egg'. Not that their discussion is based on the same idea as C&E...just that the argument never seems to end...

Dana & Tammy disagree because they're both pigheaded and, although Dana will deny this, they both want the other to buy into the reasoning that forms the basis of their position.

(Happy, JD?)

Dana, do you have a blog?

Nope. JD keeps bugging me.

Our memories are short, it seems. My lineage and Tammy's goes back to people who suffered tremendously under a "Christian" government that felt it needed to burn people for their own good.

I wouldn't like that. I wouldn't want to help make that happen again.

Wow! I heard it got crazy over here....that was an understatement with this post,huh? Sorry, I just couldn't keep up...my eye twitch came on after about the 10th post.

What I can say from the actual "post" not any of the comments is I agree, ANYONE should be allowed to keep WHATEVER type of weblog they want. Those of us who don't like them should simply not read them. It's that simple. There is no reason to let things bother us, that don't need to bother us. If someone doesn't like what Tammy, or anyone else, posts on their website-then fine...don't go back. No harm , no foul on anyone's part that way. And if you REALLY, REALLY hate their website-then feel sorry for them, or scream in a pillow...whatever, in the privacy of your own home.

Religious or not religious, we should all agree on the "do unto others as you would have done to you" concept, right. Tammy didn't go out mocking anyone else's website....it's not something that Alan or anyone else should have done to her.

WOW !!!