not logged in
| re: The whole 'Susan' thing | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 08:04 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| In reply to: | The whole 'Susan' thing - Klasien 06:09 am UTC 08/24/07 |
Oh well I meant to be lurking, or going to sleep, but I really want to answer this post....if read, or not.... > Guys and gals, can't we just let this go? In 1991, a very unfortunate man was on the wrong side of several very angry police officers, when someone else was on the other side of a camera, who photographed in motion video, said police officers beating up on the unfortunate man. The man became famous, his name is Rodney King. He had his beating, the policemen had their two trials, in between which Los Angeles had their riots, during which another unfortunate man got on the wrong side of several angry reactionaries and news cameramen were on the other sides of helicopter television cameras, photographing the man being beaten up by the angry revolutionaries while police retreated in droves, and he, named Reginald Denny, an innocent working man driving his working truck on what could otherwise have been an ordinary working day, was in critical condition when someone actually managed to pull him to safety, fires burned in the streets and Military occupation, took hold of the city, during which Mr. King, at a rally for peace in the city, went to the microphone and said only one thing. "Can't we all just get along?" Indeed. Can't we all just get along? > > We have established that we do not believe what Susan > holds to be true. Good for us. Now can we just move on? "We" have not established anything other than the fact that a campaign to dissuade others' thinking of the possibilities has been taking place with a great deal of passion, derision, malice, threats, and death wishes. Moving on from this would be like moving on from the Los Angeles Riots of 1991, but moving on is possible, and should be done, for nothing else but for healing, and taking the time to reconnect with one's humanity. Considering the fact that so many claim that it is Jim's humanity that makes them come here, this is an irony that there is such a challenge to participate in humanity themselves between each other, and towards myself and towards Jim, and I mean both of them. > The more we pay tribute to her posts, the more we focus > our attention on her, the bigger her role will become. How > much more likely is it for newcomers to read her posts > first because she gets so many reactions? The campaign IS the attention, because the agenda is to mark my posts with so much derision that others seeing it at any time would have the permanent impression of why they should not pay attention, as if the marks themselves are the credible influences. So, if they don't give the attention, which is anything but tribute, to my posts, they fear that they will lose some measure of control, and have to discuss things that involve areas that make them feel more vulnerable. The attention IS the thing that makes those detractors feel secure that the world, their world, is safe from such ideas. There are campaigns, where information is disseminated with bias and that is called propaganda, and there are campaigns where information is suppressed, and that is called dictatorship. If those who do not leave my posts alone, actually leave my posts alone, they will have nothing left but to watch themselves lose their war. But, they haven't actually explained what it is that they are fighting for. >And how easy > will it be for them to decide they don't want any part in > this shit? They would not see it as shit without the labels of shit. If the labels of shit were removed, there would be cause for thought, and there would be areas prone for discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussions. Somewhere someone forgot about the values of discussions. These are those who fear too much to lose what they don't claim to fight to keep, who deter discussions. There is no problem with discussions, and people may like to discuss things, and by the way, it is not as though I am hiding from those intimitely and directly concerned, in the shadows, saying to you, shhh don't tell him I'm saying this, because it is, for Jim and for Jim, and all concerned, in clear view. I'm not spreading gossip, I'm not disparaging a reputation, I am giving insights and I believe that discussions are worthy to give insights. > > Besides, who cares? Of course, people care. Nobody is here who does not care about something that has a thing to do with either or both Jims. >Even if Susan was right and there > would be a stand in, SO WHAT? Would it change the songs? > Would it change what they mean to you? Would it stop you > from enjoying them? Would they mean less to you than they > do now? Not just a stand-in, and I must correct you on this according to Jim Cypherd's descriptions. The themes of the songs, the "obsessions" topically which have been given focus, and some of the production elements, were discussed between both Jims and Jim Steinman, whom is not the composer did make important contributions to what you have found to love so much. I would not call that standing in, but at times when Jim Cypherd did not make appearances, Jim Steinman did. Jim Steinman has been privy to just about all of the works that Jim Cypherd has done and has spoken with very detailed knowledge of those works, because he was there. Indeed, however, it is Jim Cypherd who is the composer and who has been seen onstage with Meat in 1978. But much of those compositions would not have been the same without Jim Steinman's participations. > > I cannot answer for all of you, but I for myself can say > No it would not. I honestly wouldn't care to find out that > Jim Steinman was not who I thought he was. He was a > mystery to me before and will remain a mystery to me until > such time that he chooses to reveal all his inner most > secrets to me. And though that happens frequently in the > middle of the night in that beautiful place called my > dreams, I have no doubt that will never happen in real > life and I like it that way. The only thing I love more > about Jim than his music is the fact that I can't have > him. I know... nothing safer than an impossibility. It does not change the music, it does not change the ability to relate to a song, and clearly even if he was "who (you) thought he was", you would not know who he is at all anyway. Songs do not define one, performances do not define one, interviews do not define one, and the only thing you know about either Jim is that he/they had their works to do in making these things, and neither of them, do you know, at all. You couldn't know who you might want not to have, or have, you couldn't know what is the man, what are the men, and you have no way to know. Not even if I told you so much, would you ever know Jim Cypherd, and even if I were able to tell you all about Jim Steinman, you could not ever know him either. Impossibility, well, I'd call this a kind of projection that you put on something that you find close to your inner workings, much like transference in the setting of therapy between a patient and a therapist. Fans go through this alot. When I was a teenager I had discussions with other girls about their objects of admirations, and they said the same things about those. When someone touches us we of course feel a closeness, but that does not mean it has anything to do with the person. The synchronicity of the world's woes are such that two people could have completely differing issues, and yet in the words made by one, the other finds solace in. And that is one of the works of God. > > I am a damaged person and I have issues. I have showed > that in my reactions here before, especially towards > Susan, and if there was ever any damage or hurt done by my > reactions, to her or anyone else, I appologize. There are so many people who are damaged. When my nieces were babies my brother and I used to comment about what effects little things have on them, and in our mindfulness of how early experiences shape us, we made whimsy, and numbered the possible traumas as they may have arose...hoping that they didn't, but sensitive to the way that impressions are made. It was one of the times when I got along philosophically well with my brother, from whom I am estranged, but of course you are not referring to being a baby, or having childhood scars.....you have your "damages" and what I noticed about Jim Cypherd, just so you know, when I began to get to know him, was that he was damaged too. But we are not all damaged the same way, and as we've discussed, I am also damaged. Damage comes, and what matters is not in the pain we look back to, but the healing we achieve. The fact that you put my name in quotation marks, calling me (once again someone did as like in 2005) a "Susan Thing", is definitely part of the damage that I sustain in my life. When you actually decide to correct that behavior, I may accept the apology. > > I don't believe what Susan tells us because I choose not > to believe. I need all these songs to come from one > person. A person as intelligent, complex and damaged by > life as I am. The songs do come from one person, and every songwriter has their influences, their muses, and Jim Cypherd has his. How they have lived their life should have no bearing on the healing that they give to you for your own. The fact that you get what you get, gives you what you are given, is the intelligence, the complexity, and the damage that you seek. Do you think I am describing to you that Jim Cypherd has had an easy life? Far from it. Why do you need someone to suffer, though, for you to feel healed? Do you go to your family physician and say, now doctor, say ahhh!? > And would any of it ever turn out to be true... it > wouldn't change my feelings towards the songs. Thank you. I didn't think so. > > Now can we just move on?? Is it possible to leave this > episode behind us? As far as I am concerned, Susan can > stay. Thank you. >I don't care whether she stays or goes, I just don't > read her posts anymore. Then don't. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: The whole 'Susan' thing - Bright_Eyes 08:35 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Next: | re: The whole 'Susan' thing - Venom 10:39 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Thread: |
|