But that's never stopped me before . . . (((((BtL)))))
T, I'm sorry the thread didn't turn out the way you expected. I've had a couple of those myself. (((((T_Smith))))) <-- just because.
Tristan, I will respectfully disagree with you, at least as far as this particular thread goes. I would hate for a thread that was all about goodwill and helping people feel better to make anyone feel worse. So if it was doing that for T, then he was justified, I think. So please, please, don't start tearing into him, 'k? (((((Tristan))))) I do tend to agree more with your theory on so-called "serious" or "intellectual" threads.
quote: I mean, we had people who basically posted nowhere ELSE -- but it wasn't like anything particularly deep or moving ever got posted to the hug thread. Was that the appeal, for the people who liked it? (emphasis mine)
Wow, I hadn't noticed this part of your question at first. But do you realize how insulting that assumption is? I imagine not -- you've never struck me as being deliberately hurtful. (((((TomD)))))
Marek has already answered the first part of your question -- just because you don't see the depth and were not moved, doesn't mean that was true for others. But just because it wasn't intellectual or soul-baring doesn't make it dumb or shallow, neh? And maybe I should point out that I have made posts elsewhere that were more intellectual, and several that were rather personal. But that thread was deeply special to me in a way that no other could be -- although the new hug thread is getting there. Thanks again, jexx. (((((jexx)))))
quote: Heck, if I'm actually concerned about somebody, or wish to wish them well with something, I usually E-mail them.
Well, I often did also IM people if I was concerned about them. But I usually knew that they were distressed because they had posted something to the thread. Or that they were over-the-moon happy -- there were posts like that too.
And while the "slightness and ephemerality of the comfort" may have been "part of its appeal" to kat -- and I'm very glad it was (((((kat))))) -- I did not view it as slight or ephemeral.
quote: And how many of you, when you were feeling down, would go back and read all the ((your name)) posts?
Um, me. Often. But more, it was knowing that all I had to do to get extra hugs was say I needed them. And that even without asking, I would get many. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why, but I do not appreciate this action, T. It's like saying 'oh well, our dog has died, never mind he was old anyway, no more fun, but you, if you miss him, take a new one'. Or in other words, I was emotionally attached to the hug thread, of course not to the extent of my love for my dogs, but something like that.
A new hug thread will never be the same as the old one. This forum contains mostly threads that only live for a couple of days. But the hug thread was sort of the living room of this family. The common room in the house.
It makes me sad that it's gone. Oh well. I'll get over it.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
(And I HAVE been following the discussion, but this is very exciting... I'm still sorry the old thread was deleted, nothing will change that, it meant a lot to me... but hopefully the new one will do SOMETHING to replace the old one, even if it can't really come close...)
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But the hug thread was sort of the living room of this family. The common room in the house."
Nope. That's the "Orginal Potry" thread. No contest. If you want, the hug thread can be the bedroom.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tristan, I will respectfully disagree with you, at least as far as this particular thread goes. I would hate for a thread that was all about goodwill and helping people feel better to make anyone feel worse. So if it was doing that for T, then he was justified, I think. So please, please, don't start tearing into him, 'k? (((((Tristan))))) I do tend to agree more with your theory on so-called "serious" or "intellectual" threads.
How do you weigh T_Smith's pain of having the thread remain against the loss to those who wished it to stay? And on what basis do you feel his pain takes precedence?
The thread is gone, and there's nothing to do about that. Since most of the participants seem to take the loss comparatively philosophically I don't feel it behoves me to press the matter. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'll shut up now .
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
T- You get random hugs from people, that's great, I'm happy for you. Not all of us do. I still don't understand why you felt the need to take away the one place on hatrack where everyone was accepted and loved.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as one of the most prolific hug-thread posters, I do feel that I can speak on this. And it's not a question of "weighing."
Do I wish the thread were still there, or that we'd had a chance to make copies of some of the posts? Yes.
Am I willing to cause more pain to the person who started a thread I loved, and continued it for quite some time, even when it was clearly a source of discomfort to him? Someone who I happen to like and think is a great guy? Even if we couldn't start a new thread -- no. And since we can, and have -- Definite no.
posted
blackwolve, you can search for the thread, find the URL, and change the URL to make it the second page. Deleting the thread only deletes the first page of it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
you people have a new thread. if it isn't as good as the old one, it's your own fault. you made the old one what it was, you'll make the new one what it will be.
if this thread were called "should i delete the hugs thread?" you'd all be well within reason posting what you've posted. as it is, that thread is gone, and badgering t about it isn't going to bring it back. honestly, how selfish are you people that you need to post here?
if i could delete this thread, i would.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celia, I would agree with you that some of the lamentations here have been hyperbolic--the complaints that it will never be the same hug thread or as good, etc.--but your own criticisms are a bit strong.
T started this thread himself. A thread is a discussion. He posted his reasons for deleting the thread. The rest of us have every right to weigh in regarding whether this was an appropriate thing to do or whether his reasons were hogwash.
Did you speak up when somebody posted a thread at GreNME criticizing Hatrackers behind their backs for posting on this thead? Did you speak up when people repeatedly made the implication, here and elsewhere, that everybody in that thread was a bunch of losers wallowing in their self-pity?
I frankly don't think that a thread belongs to the person who originates it. I always hate it when somebody other than a mod deletes a thread, deleting along with it the words and thoughts of dozens of other people. This is not new; I've complained about it before. And the sentiments that have been posted in this thread by some, that basically those posts weren't worth as much as other posts here, show extreme hubris.
I can't for the life of me begin to grasp the thought that the existence of the hug thread was somehow causing T_Smith pain. The only pain I see involved in it was the ribbing by the members of the cool clique of longtime posters here, and it frankly didn't seem like enough to me to warrant deleting the thread with everyone else's posts. As far as I can tell, T_Smith deleted that thread because he didn't like being associated with all of the losers in it.
T had the power to do it, though, and he exercised it. No amount of complaining will bring it back, true enough.
But I think it was a selfish act. And if T doesn't want to hear me saying that, he need not have started this thread, or he need not continue to read it.
Of course, once again, he has the power to delete my words, and the rest of the "you people" that you were addressing, whoever those "you people" may be.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You have a wife, four kids, and a loving extended family that adores you. Many of the people posting in the thread, who were dependent on it, don't have the same. It is definitely better to have the real thing rather than online, but many of the people, it isn't a manner of turning off the computer and heading into the living to be tackled by the extended family. For some people, turning off the computer means an echo of silence and some staring out the window. This can be for lots of reasons, and some of them are not uncondemnable, but I'm thinking that if something is important to someone, it is cruel to take it away unless you either (1) know they'll be okay without it, or (2) know there's a replacement for it.
(1) you don't know for everyone. Maybe true for some, but not necessarily true for all. And (2)... well, you're not volunteering, and the thread isn't hurting you. Why take it away like that? If it is a transition that is needed, does that mean you're going to explain it and help? Because otherwise you're just letting someone drown because they need to learn to swim. Lots will learn to swim, and some may not have learned any other way, but some drown.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is bothering me is the assumption by everyone that they know exactly what everyone in the thread was like. This is the stereotype I keep hearing over and over. And of course, stereotypes exist because there is truth to them. But it seems to have become OK lately for Hatrackers to dismiss a whole group of people as having no life, as being pathetic, as needing to get off of their computers and find some real people to hug. (Considering that we're all people who devote what may be an excessive amount of time to an online forum, that seems rather like the pot calling the kettle black!)
Did I think there were some things wrong with the hug thread? Yeah. I did. I also, though, thought there were some things profoundly right with the hug thread. And it can be recreated and it can exist again. But I perceive an insult in the jibes that have been made over and over again for months, gently at first but lately with ever-increasing insistence. It's a heck of a thing for us to conclude that a whole group of Hatrackers has no life because they get off on things that we don't get off on, especially considering that I know people who would say exactly the same things about all of us.
I dunno. It just seems kinda like . . . high school.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Considering that we're all people who devote what may be an excessive amount of time to an online forum, that seems rather like the pot calling the kettle black!)
I spend time at Hatrack during my down time at work, which can be a lot at times.
I do not have an internet connection at home, because I have made a conscious effort to not let the internet infringe on my 'real' time.
Listen, I'm sorry if I've offended people who are tied to that thread. I'm not trying to belittle anyone.
I DO stand firmly by my view that there is such a thing as spending too much time on the internet. To me, it's wrong to be emotionally attached to ANYTHING on the internet. But that is my view, and frankly, I don't really care if you think it's bunk or not.
Kat -- If I have a wife, four children and countless other family members it wasn't because I was born into it. If anything, I was destined to be a big time loser in life. The fact I've become something more is due to a lot of hard work, dedication, prayer and hard work.
posted
(I think a big problem on the internet is that we are unable to hear the tone of each other's voices. In my last post here and, to a greater extent, in this one, I am attempting to ratchet down my own rhetoric and discuss why some of us feel as we do about this situation. I'm doing this, Pat, because I would like to engage in a calm conversation about this specifically with you. So as you read it, please imagine it in a calm tone of voice. )
quote:I DO stand firmly by my view that there is such a thing as spending too much time on the internet.
I agree.
I think the issue here is whether or not some of us are fit to be the judge of that for other people. Why is this statement in a discussion of the merits of the hug thread? To me, it seems to be a suggestion that, if you saw value in the hug thread, you must be one of those people who spends too much time online. If you post in some threads, you have a life, but if you post in others, it's evidence that you do not.
quote:To me, it's wrong to be emotionally attached to ANYTHING on the internet. But that is my view, and frankly, I don't really care if you think it's bunk or not.
Feel free not to care, but I'll respond anyway, in case anybody else does want to hear my opinion on it, or in case you'd like to discuss it. Statements such as this are given as a truism, and frankly, I don't think it's so self-evidently true. I certainly would agree with you if all you said was that some people become emotionally attached to the internet to a dangerous extreme, but when that statement is presented as an absolute, I think it's mistaken. These are interactions between human beings. They are likely to have the same range of validity as physical interactions are. Cyber-friends can pose as what they are not and deceive you about themselves. So can real-life friends. But to me, what's at the heart of all my friendships, "real" or virtual, is the communication between two souls that goes on. And that goes on not only IRL, but here too. In fact, there are some advantages here that work to balance out the disadvantages of having friends you never physically see. It's a lot harder to disregard somebody for superficial reasons here: he's efeminate, she's got a speech impediment, he's black, etc., because most of what you have to go by is what they say, not what they look or sound like. (Admittedly, this is a disadvantage when it comes to relating with quality people of substance who happen not to be good communicators.) Hmm . . . I'm rambling . . . let me just tie it up by saying that I don't think it's invariably wrong to form emotional attachments here. There are people here who are very special to me. That doesn't mean that I don't have physical people in my real life, like my wife, my two children, my father, or my non-virtual friends, who are also special to me. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I've known people who had penpals years ago before the internet superseded the function of that for most people. Many of them had very close long-distance relationships with these people they had never met. (Unfortunately, I never had the discipline for keeping in touch this way myself.) It seems like we don't give online friendships the same credibility, and I wonder if, on a subconscious level, part of it is rooted in how technological this is, and the stereotype that people who are very much into technology are socially lacking. I don't mean anybody here personally; I'm just wondering if, on a societal level, that is a part of this automatic dismissal of any meaningful online relationship.
On another issue . . . I see this as part of a divide I think I see growing at Hatrack, between people who see themselves as being "not-touchy-feely" and the people they perceive as "touchy-feely." I've definitely seen that undercurrent from time to time in the last few months, and to an increasing degree.
EDIT to correct UBB code, spelling, and redundant word.
posted
Alright Icarus. I'll play ball. And I need to know your real name, you've moved beyond being an annoyance to someone I genuinely care about.
Listen up everyone.....
I'm not trying to infer that my online friends are somewhat less that those I have in real life. Hell, I hosted a Hatrack Barbeque down the street from my house, and close to 50 people showed up to the thing. Endercon was a lot of fun. I met alot of people who are regular posters here. It was fun to interact, to be with those people. I loved it.
So, the following quote....
quote:let me just tie it up by saying that I don't think it's invariably wrong to form emotional attachments here. There are people here who are very special to me. That doesn't mean that I don't have physical people in my real life, like my wife, my two children, my father, or my non-virtual friends, who are also special to me. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
.... I agree with.
quote: To me, it seems to be a suggestion that, if you saw value in the hug thread, you must be one of those people who spends too much time online. If you post in some threads, you have a life, but if you post in others, it's evidence that you do not.
I still think it's weird that people get up in arms about the deletion of words of text. Like celia said, there is a thread back there for everyone to hug everyone else on. Move on... go type all the (((((('s you want.
Obviously, my attempt to poke fun, and ask questions at the same time was off the mark, and for that I apologize.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm such a dork that I'm not sure if your first paragraph is a joke or not. :-p
If it's not a set-up, I'm deeply flattered.
My name is Joe.
Some of my favorite interactions at Hatrack have been with people I frequently disagree with, with whom I have come to feel a sense of mutual respect for where the other person is coming from. In these interactions, I know that each of us accepts that the other person is thoughtful and intelligent, and so we are each intrigued by getting to the root of how two such people could disagree. I feel like I am challenged most by and learn the most from these people.
(Interestingly enough, these relationships all seem to have "moved beyond being an annoyance to someone I genuinely care about.")
My posts to and about you on this thread have not been, on the whole, respectful, and for that I apologize. Same goes for Nate, for that matter. I won't try to explain it away, because that would mitigate my apology and make it less sincere. I know that you are a thoughtful and intelligent person, and I want to understand your point of view, and communicate to you mine, and find common ground.
-o-
I don't think "poking fun" or asking questions are inappropriate, or things that you need to apologize for. (I also would hate to think that you're apologizing because I've worn you down into submission. My friends tell me this is why I always win at Monopoly: eventually they take my trades just to shut me the heck up! )
I think the issue here (at least for me) is not with your poking fun or asking questions. My concern is that some people--not necessarily you--ask these questions with the answers already firmly in mind. And so my objection was not so much to the deletion per se--and as you say, there already is a replacement thread--and it is not out of a frustrated desire to type and receive ((()))s. Rather, it's with what I perceive as the dismissal of the people involved with a label and with corresponding generalizations.
(And once again, this post is not intended to chastise anybody or jump on anybody, but to work through my own feelings on this topic, because this thread did touch off a reaction in me. I'm trying to figure out why it irritated me so, and keeping my fingers crossed that, when the smoke clears, I will not have alienated anybody beyond the ability to be my friend.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never opened the hug thread. I'm no sure why. Perhaps it is because I am at some level a very private person. Except under very unusual circumstances, there are only two or three people in the world I bare my soul too when I am coming apart at the seems and need a hug.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant it Joe. I'm not afraid to apologize when someone points out a fault of mine. They way I see it, it's the best way to learn, the best way to grow.
I'm still going to taunt you, though.
I've always had an adversarial relationship with the patrons of the hug thread. I was probably out of line tonight with my comments I deleted. And I apologize again.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this, and I think the hug thread is important for many reasons. Patrick, I believe you when you say it is work that has gotten you the blessings that allow you to not need online interaction.
And so I was thinking, why is it sometimes very important to people to accept the online substitute for a hug? Well, because sometimes it can be a model. *thinks* How do I put this...
Any action requires a degree of faith that the action will have a result. The classic church example is planting a field in faith the seeds will grow. For some people, reaching out in the real world requires a degree of faith that people will return the affection that they do not possess, and since reaching out to other humans requires placing faith in humans (as opposed to the Lord), sometimes that faith indeed isn't justified. For whatever reason, the real world isn't working for them, and faith can disappear that it ever could.
I think one of the incredible benefits of online interaction is that it can be a model or a practice for the real world. It can also be a crutch and loop, but I suppose any kind of school can be.
In other words, in the absence of unconditional love around them, it can be very important to have a place where unconditional love is modeled, if only to inspire faith that reaching out in the real world can be worth it. It's like hope, and hope is cheesy and gooey and downright embarrassing sometimes, especially when you don't need it, but I still think that anyone who mocks or condemns is being heartless unless they also provide a hand for change.
posted
I only looked at the hug thread once. ::shrugs:: I suppose I'm a bit of a pill because I felt that "everyone is doing this", so it wasn't for me.
When I share my concern and compassion I give my most limited asset, time. For me, that caring just isn't real unless it costs me time.
Also, like T said, the thread seemed a bit of a downer. Seeing so many hurting made me feel guilty for not spending the time to get to know the problems and attempting to help.
As far as the reality of cyber hugs goes? ::shrugs:: As long as the person giving them is also sending out strong, positive, healing energy toward the recipient, I'd say that the kinetic energy (maybe a better word is aiua or philote) is real and is part of what has created the community of Makers that we are.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka - I never said I didn't like e-hugs. I said I thought the thread was sappy, but that it had become a sub-culture, and very important to people, so therefore should have been kept alive until it died it's own death.
I'm not sure how that amounts to "Ralphie doesn't like e-hugs." Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Ralphie, you called it "annoyingly sappy." But I did overreact, and I apologize. *scratches Ralphie off mental don't-hug list* Ouch! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I'm thinking you might just supplant Jon Boy as my Minion-in-chief if you keep it up. .
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I probably should have kept quiet about this and tried to drive the Pat-Jon wedge a little deeper.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(((((BtL)))))![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Um, me. Often. But more, it was knowing that all I had to do to get extra hugs was say I needed them. And that even without asking, I would get many. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But I did overreact, and I apologize. *scratches Ralphie off mental don't-hug list* Ouch! ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
