« Lego Man Goes to...well, not outer space, but really really up there | Main | Etymology Man! »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You know, usually when the SNJ is about something political, I think, "Too bad," or maybe even "Yuck," and I just kind of skim over it. However, I was hoping that you would write something like this, because, unfortunately, I think we have gotten to the point where we just have to.

It's a very rare thing for me to post anything on Facebook that is in the least bit controversial, because I just don't want to start discussions there that I don't want to finish there. This morning, however, I reposted an article on this topic by a priest who is a friend of mine because I think it's something that we have to talk about. I'm not really looking forward to it, though. I'm not sure when I got to be so wimpy. I probably need to take some lessons from Louise.


I'll get back to you in a bit--first I have to recover from the shock of learning that you don't read and ponder every word I write.


Well ok, that didn't take long. :-)

I'm the same way with Fb. I have some liberal "friends" (old acquaintances I haven't seen for years, for the most part) on Fb who air their views often and loudly, sometimes abrasively. Sometimes I think about replying, and then I think, "why bother?" They'll only get more worked up, and it will be both unpleasant and a waste of time. I haven't seen the thing you posted--I'll look for it.

Really, I've gotten that way about almost all political discussion, or "discussion," with people who aren't somewhere in the same general vicinity. It takes a certain amount of common ground even to get started, and then there's the rage factor. But as you say, there comes a point...


The ones I ponder, though, I really ponder.


I will have to go look for it too.

You're excused, then, Janet.

I didn't notice that Maclin said he would go look until Ex Pat said the same. There were a couple of people that I thought would say something negative, but I guess they didn't open it to see what was there.

I wonder if you saw the moon pictures.


No I didn't see the moon photos. I suspect the problem is I have too many 'friends' all posting like crazy, or a few 'friends' who post all the time. So I miss a lot of posts because they are pushed down the page. I don't go out of my way to 'friend' people. But it seems rude most of the time not to confirm those who 'friend' me.

I might drop out when they make timeline compulsory for me. Not because it's compulsory, but because I find it makes the page bouncy (the cursor jumps from spot to spot unpredictably), and generally, it's not my cup of tea. In other words, I fear it is beyond my computer nous.

Oddly enough I keep trying to get out of the habit of posting controversial stuff - that's hard for me. I do wonder "what's the point?"

Just in case that wasn't clear, I do now wonder what's the point of posting controversial material, but I can't seem to help myself. Janet I read that wonderful essay you recommended about the writings of St Theresa benedicta ( Edith stein) and have been contemplating ever since the notion that women are meant to bring healing more than correction to others.

Maybe I should go read it again.


Francesca, I've never seen what you are talking about on the timeline, but just reading about it makes me a bit ill.

Louise, I think I'm not so much talking about correcting people as I'm just saying, that this is where we draw the line--whatever horribleness that might lead to.


I read the piece, and naturally I agree. I didn't see the moon photos, either, btw, although I guess I would have if I'd gone to your page instead of just scrolling the main page.

I haven't even seen this timeline thing. I keep hearing people say it just appeared and they don't like it, but Fb continues to look for me more or less the way it always has, "always" being...two years or so?

I still have that urge to get into controversies periodically on other sites, but it's a lot less strong than it used to be. One reason I don't post here on that stuff as much as impulse might lead me to is that I often think "Ok, I'm going to spend some time on this, but almost certainly someone else has said the same or better on the same topic, so maybe I should spend the time on something else."

And, of course, you should spend the time on something else, not because somebody else can say the other stuff better, but because everybody is saying it, and nobody is saying what you say.

When you get a minute, go to my page and scroll down to the moon pictures. I think you will like them.


Thank you.

I will. Not till tomorrow, though. I need to go to bed so I can be alert for my dentist appointment.

I loved those moon pics, Janet! Very clever.

Louise, I think I'm not so much talking about correcting people as I'm just saying, that this is where we draw the line--whatever horribleness that might lead to.

Oh absolutely. And it does have to be stated sometimes. I was thinking of myself. I mean, if one engages in a lot of controversy, is one in danger of merely trying to bring correction, instead of healing first? Or is it even possible to bring healing without also stating the relevant truth etc? What is the balance? I'm working through questions like this.

Cartload Houselander, Louise

I hate auto corrupt on this kindle! Caryll Houaelander.

"Cartload" is hilarious. I guess there's some way to turn that helpful feature off?

I think when I engage in controversy I'm pretty much always trying to bring correction, preferably via a blow to the head. Which is another reason for me to limit myself.

"Is it even possible to bring healing without also stating the relevant truth?" That's a very good and tough question.

When I get a minute, I'm definitely going to look at the settings and see what I can do. Although, I might miss the joy of battling with it over whether "color" ought to be "Colorado," or "Maclin" should be "Mackinaw." I rather like the latter. ;-)

WRT Louise's question, I don't think there's a pat answer. I think the person you are talking to has to trust you before you can either correct or heal them, so I don't think either can happen with someone you have a confrontational relationship with. Of course, there are situations where it's your job to correct someone--like your job. And writing or speaking to a large group of people is different.


I know the grammar in that was awful, but I don't have the auto-correct on.


That's so true, that the person must trust you before you can correct them.

As for Obama: I didn't vote for him in 2008 but I respected him. I no longer do.

Dude I just learned from our secretary that if this goes ahead, all the employees of this University *lose their health insurance*. I had no idea! Given that the best thing about living here so far is the medical care, I henceforth throw myself behind the election of Mitt Romney!

You are now way more enthusiastic for Mitt, or whoever the Republican nominee is, than I am. I think Obama & Co. may have taken a step too far--even E.J. Dionne (liberal Catholic Obama fan) thinks so.

Of course I'm never *enthusiastic* about any candidate. I'm always a lesser-evil type of guy. So this pricks my conscience a little.

Sorry to be enthusiastic, but I can get into a cheer leader state about not living in the USA without health insurance.

I have no generalized opinion about 'Obamacare'. We have discussed that before, and I said I don't see why you should not have an NHS and you said Americans are too crazy.

Oh, you're welcome to be enthusiastic. Anyway, you're not enthusiastic about Romney, you're enthusiastic about your insurance.

Crazy, and also unethical. I wish I had kept that letter from a Dane that was published some years ago in National Review--he said he was perfectly happy with his NHS but that such a thing would not work in the US. I think the term he used was "undisciplined," but he was probably being polite.

I very seldom read NRO these days, but I just skimmed it and read that Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare.

That is enough for me.


Remember, though, that Romney can't actually do that. He can push for it, but Congress has to do it. So it probably also needs a Republican Senate.

This is hilarious: "A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first ten minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)