not logged in
| re: The whole 'Susan' thing | |
Posted by:  |
Klasien 08:16 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole 'Susan' thing - pidunk 08:04 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Susan When I put your name in brackets and referred to a thing it was not meant to insult you but to refer to more than just your posts and being. The thing I was referring to is more the whole atmosphere of bullshitting and lying and namecalling that has grown here. I did not mean to imply you were a thing... I merely referred to the thing/atmosphere that has been created around you. Also, when I use we in that post, I kind of mean everyone but you, since you seem to be the only one who believes what you post. In that way, I expected the we vs. you thing to be more insulting than the thing thing. ah well... so I did read your post... big deal... at least I stopped yelling at you. Klasien. > > 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 - Venom 10:40 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Next: | Whistle US Tour Cast announced - The_Jackster 04:31 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Thread: | |