This is Zzzooey's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Zzzooey's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
'These aren't social media issues, these aren't health care professionalism issues, it's the common struggle to be human and communicate both accurately and honestly.' Very true. These things happen in real life too, the technology only constitutes a minor difference in how these things happen and unfold as compared to real life. Humans still behave like humans, on twitter, mailing lists, blogs and elsewhere... Of course, the internet would be unbelievable boring if people weren't behaving like humans -- there would be no conversations at all, for one thing (obviously) -- but this also means any conversation is fraught with the same potential for disaster as any other human encounter IRL. I'm guilty of lots of mishaps in this department... /alicia
Jenn -- You can't know this someone didn't identify you from the google profile. You can't know this person came through my blog. And, even if he did, there's no way in this world I could control all the loons. I can't guarantee no loon is lurking on my blog; I blog about anthroposophy every now and then, loons come with the territory. I do find it rather incredible that someone would go through the trouble and waste time and effort calling you because you wrote something embarrassing. So I agree with Thetis. On the other hand, I know there are all sorts of people, so just because it's a bit unlikely doesn't entirely rule it out. What I'm certain of is that this person must be quite unhinged, which, I hope, applies to very few of my blog readers. In principle, this (someone unhinged picking up a phone) could happen every time I mention someone by name (or link to their name) -- this is, of course, not something I can predict or prevent. It's the first time I've heard of someone who had this problem and who connects it to my blog. I hope you're open to the possibility that it's not a loon on the critics' side -- it could just as well be a loon on the anthro side of it, someone who wishes to make critics look like idiots. Still -- whoever it is, it's unacceptable. And I do understand it's scary. 'Plus, I spoke with [WP] on the phone and they only indicated they would make private the posts in question until we could sort it out.' You can't be referring to your initial complaint to them. You must think about some action you took on Sunday when my blog had been blocked for too long already. Still, your problem was with someone who made phonecalls. You now cites this unknown someone as your reason to report my blog. I don't think it's a valid reason to take the steps you took. No matter how much you wanted that link to go. (Besides -- you could have asked me! Your reporting me instead backfired spectacularly, if I may say so...)
Jenn wrote: 'I lost more than you did I'm sure, in stomach aches, sleep, worry, and money.' How would you know? I lost full access to my blog -- my established blog, my writing, my photos, things that mean a lot to me. And I lost it for something that wasn't really my fault. Maybe you don't think my time, my worry, my sleep have any value -- but you're wrong. And don't play the 'I have children'-card on me. Lots of people have children. It's not enough to grant you more respect and consideration than anyone else who writes a nasty email. 'I was sick with worry and felt I had to act in the most urgent, official way.' So why did you take action against me and not the person who made those phone-calls, whoever it was? You knew they came from someone in the US. Don't pretend you ever thought that they came from me or had anything to do with me; you knew better. * As for the hate stuff -- I'll say what I always say: criticism isn't hate. I find anthroposophy fascinating, and I would not, for anything in the world, want to see it subjected to hatred (and much less eradicated). And, needless to say, I don't hate anthroposophists either. I'm quite happy about them, these days ;-)
First, the comment error message -- yes, it could be! I didn't encounter this problem the first time I commented, but I think I'd left the computer for quite a while before I wrote that particular comment, and I think this page was open all the time. Second, 'I explained that Alicia's comments provoked me into losing my temper. In no way, shape or form does that excuse my response!' It's ok that you lost your temper. I understand that. Your subsequent actions leave a few things to be desired, though. Instead of owning up to your temper tantrum, you took action against my blog, in a way that was totally unacceptable to me. You now say I provoked it, i e, the letter. Sure, I provoked you. You said a few things that could be construed as provocative, too, if one is inclined to be sensitive about provocation. So? I have explained my child comment -- and there's definitely more to it than being pissed. If I say that I dislike children -- would that provoke you too? It's the truth, a truth which I frankly don't see why anyone would feel provoked by. The comment is about me, and my feelings; it's a general statement, not about, e g, your children or anybody else's. Anyway, as to this: 'my letter entirely out of context on Alicia's blog' Of course it wasn't out of context on my blog -- how on earth could it be? (Prey tell -- what's the 'context' of my blog?) I write on topics like waldorf and anthroposophy frequently. I had a letter sent to me by someone who disagreed with me. This letter was of a certain nature. People who criticize waldorf education do get nasty feedback, although I'm luckily spared most of that stuff. On the other hand, since I'm open about who I am, I'm also in the position where I'm able to expose nasty behaviour when it occurs. '(You did provide some context here, but not the most significant of it).' I find it pretty unbelivable that you complain about lost context when you've forced all your messages on W-C to be deleted. They contained the original context -- and since it's gone, I'm not sure you could reasonably complain about lost context anymore. Or, you could, but it does look pretty silly.
OT, Liz: I just had the same problem Jenn must have had (an error message: we can't accept this data, or something). Had to copy/save the comment and open the page again. Paste the comment. Then, suddenly, it worked fine.
Jenn wrote: 'someone over on critics would say that Alicia misspelled "decieve" because she went to Waldorf. That's the kind of personal attack people will find over there' I think they would put it down either to mistake or to my being Swedish, which I can spell just fine, despite my waldorf education. (As I told you already, I started to learn English as a teenager -- and I knew more German than English until I was well into my 20s.) Some waldorf kids spell atrociously though. (Because they aren't taught basic stuff like this. And some learn to copy bad spelling from the blackboard... If you don't devour books at home, like I did, then what are the chances you'd learn to spell correctly? That said, I, unlike many waldorf kids, had a waldorf teacher who *could* spell.) Anyway, despite the occasional spelling mistake, nobody on WC ever said such a thing to me. (You did patronize me over language, however.) 'because I hate to criticize people in public' You figure you can post claims like these now that all your posts on WC have gone from the archives? 'The legal departments at ... Word Press agreed with me.' No, they didn't. They simply shut me off because you reported my blog. That's standard. In the initial phase, they don't investigate if the accusation is true. They don't do this until the concerned party, i e, me, contacts them. If they bother then; perhaps they don't. We never got to that stage because you chose to retract the accusations, and contacted WP about it. Liz wrote: 'Both Alicia and ThetisMercurio contacted me via Twitter Saturday morning' I'm just going to say, because things tend to return to bite me in the ass for no reason at all, that it must have been not me but Thetis, whom I thank for all she did during those days. I was pretty much only making the odd desperate exclamation on twitter, while trying to solve the situation (copying & moving posts...). I don't even remember if I contacted anyone (except Thetis). I'm grateful for all who contacted me though, when reading about this on twitter or facebook. /alicia
I'd like to thank Liz for her well-written response to Jenn who, it seems, still is rather unwilling to see her own part in this. Yes, I do say provocative things occasionally. Sometimes it's deliberate, sometimes if just happens. (I don't go threatening to sue people if they find my statements disturbing, though.) The child comment happened in a context (unsurprisingly). I'm often told I should have no opinions about schools or children if I don't want to enter this world myself. I think this is wrong. I think I'm very much entitled to an opinion; and I am, in fact, quite interested in the issue of children's rights, in particular in the context of religious, spiritual or (sometimes) political beliefs. I also have things to say about waldorf, based on my own experience and based on what I've learnt since. I'm frequently told that if I criticize, I should stop doing this and go out and work with children. I should go change public schools, because they're awful hell-holes, e g. This is not my task. But I can tell people about waldorf. It's true that I don't like children. Hate is a provocative word, that's true. I don't enjoy being around children. Whether you call this hate or not -- and I sometimes do, in particular when I get irritated -- my attitude usually makes people upset. (Also in Swedish ;-)) You're not supposed to say you don't like children. Even if it is the truth. I'm not particularly interested in children or schools, actually. Only some aspects of these issues. You could say, too, that while I'm interested in some theoretical aspects of these issues, I'm not the least interested in the practical side. I've chosen not to be around children; children are not my thing. I understand that this miffs some parents, but sometimes, I think, it's because they fail to see that not everybody finds meaning in that wonderful thing they have found. And, self-evidently, people like me should not work with children. I would be very unsuited, in real life, to making schools better places. (I know my limitations.) The deception comment also happened in a context, of course. And, no, I don't think there are any healthy children who never deceive their parent(s). The mere thought is preposterous -- not to say frightening. Isn't it a normal part of chilren's development to have feelings and thoughts they keep to themselves? My hunch is that this need to keep things from parents increases in an environment with (stricter) moral codes and with expectations from parents on the children to adapt to a certain culture. Waldorf children love junk food. They just don't tell their parents, because children usually don't like being frowned upon, and waldorf parents are frowning upon many things enjoyed by people in the rest of our modern society, things highly desired by waldorf kids... partly because they're not allowed access to them. /alicia Ps. For some reason (not looking at the options) I managed to sign in with my twitter-id when I sent the first comment (above), so as not to cause confusion, I did the same now.
Thank you so very much for posting about this, Liz. I'm a bit exhausted after the last couple of days' events, I have the good news that Jenn indeed did write to wordpress some time this evening (CET) and they did give me back my rights to post. The two posts which caused the controversy are still turned to 'private', which means they can't be read. I'm going to take care of it tomorrow. The posts will be there -- and I'll take care of the quotes issue. It won't be a problem. Given the list rules, it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. But I don't think copyright was the real issue here -- it was lost anonymity and reputation. Thanks again, I'm incredibly grateful for all the support I've had, from you and from others. That has been amazing (while the reason for it all was a lot less thrilling). -alicia
Zzzooey is now following The Typepad Team
May 22, 2011