Not Even a Nice Place to Visit...

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 12:30:41 AM7/16/03
to
Every once in a while, I get the urge to drop in here to check if the
"regulars" are still hanging out together.

They always are - with much of the same material as well..

So a big hello and wave of the Willow to Jenice, Laura, Jennifer, Diane,
Amanda, Loon and all the others. Know that you are in my thoughts as much
as I am in yours...

You will all be pleased to know that the summer is wonderfully nice up here
in Vancouver and that Willow is indeed thriving and well. Muliebrity
continues to support a marvelous group of women and AG Support is up to 100
members or so. On the home front, Sonia and her cats and Little Boots, my
dog, are all fine and well, the choir has ended for the summer season (we
shall be back touring in the fall), and the circle of TS women in our
community are happy and well.

Hugs,
Willow

NOTE: The opinions above are those of the writer and are not directed at
anyone nor aimed at convincing you of the right or wrong of anything. The
writer is bias, opinionated and stubborn. This expression of the writer's
opinion is admittedly possibly wrong or possibly right, or a combination of
the two,. Unless clearly referenced, there is no scientific basis for
anything stated herein. You may differ and convince me that I am wrong.
Please feel free to do so . In the event some of the above is in response
to an opinion expressed by you, if the writer differs from your opinion that
is not an attack on you as a person nor does the writer claim that you are
wrong. It is simply that the writer's opinion differs from yours and
differences are neither good nor bad, merely different. That being said,
nothing should be inferred as a personal attack unless such is clearly noted
as such - and the writer assures you that if she intends to get personal,
you will know it...


Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 12:48:35 AM7/16/03
to
Being "Willow Arune" <twofru...@shaw.ca> on or about Wed, 16 Jul
2003 04:30:41 GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<Rx4Ra.441848$ro6.10...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>:

Tsk, tsk. *Some* newsgroups are like that, but of course not this
one, at least not nowadays (as much). All the habitual posters simply
*dote* on one another. Alt.support.srs seems to be a veritable
*hotbed* of amity, seething with good will and almost bubbling over at
times with the purest and tenderest of feelings. Sometimes I cry.
But, hey: that's what tears are for, apparently.

-
Rachelle

Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:59:49 AM7/16/03
to
Dear Rachelle,

Now, dear. I would hate to think that alt.support.srs had actually stooped
to that level. Imagine! "Alt.support.srs seems to be a veritable *hotbed*


of amity, seething with good will and almost bubbling over at times with the

purest and tenderest of feelings." Well, I never!!!!

Still, times and people change. I shall no doubt look out my window and see
Laura, Jenice, and Diane joined in a cheerful round of some happy song,
smiling and kocking up their heels. Such a charming thought...

Hugs,
Willow


Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 2:49:40 AM7/16/03
to
Being "Willow Arune" <twofru...@shaw.ca> on or about Wed, 16 Jul
2003 05:59:49 GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<pR5Ra.468347$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>:

Gracefully braiding a maypole, tra-la, tra-la: correct. It is a
complex harmony that they weave, difficult to distinguish from the
gentle hoots and screams of the other creatures of nature, but such
are the charms of nymphs. Do watch your back. :)

-
Rachelle

Amanda Angelika

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 4:25:39 AM7/16/03
to
Behold Willow Arune at <twofru...@shaw.ca> Spake unto us in news scroll
news:Rx4Ra.441848$ro6.10...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca
and didst say:

| Every once in a while, I get the urge to drop in here to check if the
| "regulars" are still hanging out together.
|
| They always are - with much of the same material as well..
|
| So a big hello and wave of the Willow to Jenice, Laura, Jennifer,
| Diane, Amanda, Loon and all the others. Know that you are in my
| thoughts as much as I am in yours...

Oh dear sounds like I'm becoming a fixture ;)

| You will all be pleased to know that the summer is wonderfully nice
| up here in Vancouver and that Willow is indeed thriving and well.
| Muliebrity continues to support a marvelous group of women and AG
| Support is up to 100 members or so. On the home front, Sonia and her
| cats and Little Boots, my dog, are all fine and well, the choir has
| ended for the summer season (we shall be back touring in the fall),
| and the circle of TS women in our community are happy and well.

Pleased to hear things are going well. The Summer seems to be nice here in the UK to,
well it's over 90 F, it's nice to have a summer for a change, though I'm looking
forward to the dramatic thunder storm :)

BTW liked the disclaimer sig ;) I thought my signatures were a bit long but they pale
compared to that one :)

--
Amanda
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AMaÑda AÑge1iKa ßerry
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
the default reply address is now set up to bounce all e-mail from
addresses not on my contact list. Great it's 100% Spam free, but as a
means of contacting me is almost as useful as an empty can of Pork
Luncheon meat tied to a peice of wet string. So if you would like to
contact me personally please use my new address
amanda_angelikaI...@hotmail.com removing
"IONLYEATKOSHERSPAM"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 4/7/03


Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 8:45:36 AM7/16/03
to
Ah yes, Amanda. Rather like a tick bird - not really one of the monsters
but always around...

Willow


Diane

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 9:48:01 AM7/16/03
to
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:41 GMT, "Willow Arune"
<twofru...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>They always are - with much of the same material as well..

One of the reasons it's not a nice place to visit is the preponderance
of people with nothing better to contribute then to just stir the pot.
The vast majority of such people are kooks themselves .... and a
(very) few live somewhat "normal" lives, they're just people with
nothing of import in their lives to contribute then the occasional
snide remark or a superior looking smirk.


Lady Hopenhiemer

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 10:41:22 AM7/16/03
to

"Diane" <diane...@noneofyour.biz> wrote in message
news:vhalsr7...@news.supernews.com...


Right on Diane, I couldn't have said better of you myself! :)

Amanda Angelika

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 11:30:21 AM7/16/03
to
"Willow Arune" <twofru...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:QNbRa.444283$ro6.10...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...

| Ah yes, Amanda. Rather like a tick bird - not really one of the monsters
| but always around...

You know how to flatter a girl LOL
BTW I thought you and Laura were friends, what happened, has she been promoted to
monster now?

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 12:59:15 PM7/16/03
to
Being "Willow Arune" <twofru...@shaw.ca> on or about Wed, 16 Jul
2003 12:45:36 GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<QNbRa.444283$ro6.10...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>:

>Ah yes, Amanda. Rather like a tick bird - not really one of the monsters
>but always around...
>
>Willow

Speaking of young ones -how are the hedgies? I seem to believe I read
some researcher had juxtaposed hedgehog and koala dna to study cell
development, for some bizarre and yet utterly plausible reason. Can
the "superpet" be far away...

-
Rachelle

Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 10:11:29 AM7/17/03
to
Amanda:

I do not think of Laura as a monster, but certainly she is a regular here.
I have never met her but hope to do so in the future - she has a lot to add
on the TG side of things. Why she would remain here, I have no idea. No,
the monsters tend to display themselves in all their plumage are regular
intervals, with the same old refrains and ritual movements. For a time,
they are funny, but after too long (a few days) they become rather boring,
to me in any event. Conversely, Laura raises some interesting points, I
find.

The main trait of the list monsters is that they specialize in insults and
worse.

Willow


Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 10:18:21 AM7/17/03
to
Rachelle,

How kind of you to ask! I fear the three remaining hedgies, including my
very special Valentine, died of a mysterious plague early this year after I
got out of hospital. Ms. Prickles went first and I thought it was
controlled, but the bug stayed. Valentine had been my little friend for
almost five years and was a very sweet little hog. Her favourite game was
to climb on my shoulder, lick my hair and stick her nose into my ear!

But all things change. I now have a totally adorable little dog, Little
Boots (10 points for the classical reference). He is small, all black save
for four white paws, a white tail tip, and white nose and chest. Very
friendly, Boots is also the outstanding ball of energy in our local park.

Willow


Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 10:25:30 AM7/17/03
to
Diane wrote:

"One of the reasons it's not a nice place to visit is the preponderance
of people with nothing better to contribute then to just stir the pot.
The vast majority of such people are kooks themselves .... and a
(very) few live somewhat "normal" lives, they're just people with
nothing of import in their lives to contribute then the occasional
snide remark or a superior looking smirk"

Probably true. In fact, I feel almost obliged to develop a different
persona when on this list. But "occasional"??? Those who I refer to as
monsters rarely add a civil word and tear down anyone open a constant basis.
In that regard, they seem rather consistent.

Now, one would hesitate to claim the title "normal" for any TS or TG. Not
even sure I would want it, looking around at what passes for normal these
days. Still, Sonia and I have a wonderful life and with joy I realized that
one cause is rather simple - I do not worry any more. Having a strong
relationship is the best cure for constant worry and strife. We simply
enjoy life, daily, in a home full of humour.

Willow


Diane

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 11:53:03 AM7/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:11:29 GMT, "Willow Arune"
<twofru...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Conversely, Laura raises some interesting points, I
>find.

Points such as these?

Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=350110E2.176362A4%40mindspring.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
> 1) If you _HELP_ transsexuals they will hate you for it.
> 2) If you _QUESTION_ transsexuals they will hate you for it.
> 3) If you _AREN'T_ a transsexual they will hate you for it.
> 4) If you _SUPPORT_ a transsexual they will hate you for it.
> 5) If you _CARE_ about a transsexual they will hate you for it.
> 6) If you make life _EASIER_ for transsexuals they will hate you for it.

Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=33CA9D82.6ABE%40earthlink.net&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>5) Transsexuals are completely delusional.

> 6) Credible debate and effective communication are impossible, when
> transsexuals are involved.

> 8) By and large there is no possibility of effective communication on any T*
> newsgroup, on any topic other than hormones, sex-change or electrolysis.
> Everytime someone tries to begin a new topic, some dumber than fucking a
> donkey transsexual will find a way to shoot it down


Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=33fff4e1.57432258%40news.cruzio.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>As one human rights officer reported to his director: "Laura came to
us and
>obtained our promise of legal equality for her peers, which she handed to
>them on a silver platter. The transsexuals then threw out the promise and
>beat her about the head with the platter."

>The main trait of the list monsters is that they specialize in insults and
>worse.

Really ?

Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=gGsz7.3178%24Yk6.849038449%40newssvr13.news.prodigy.com&output=gplain
>You ARE deluded... If you think for one second that hacking up your crotch
>makes you anything but a mutilated male you are plainly and obviously not
>dealing in objective reality. That this is not obvious to you is a source
>of constant amazement to me.

>...Isn't it time you got yer head outa yer fake cunt and faced up to the
>reality of your situation? You are a surgically modified male human being
>who just happens to be a woman. That's what a transsexual is, Karen... a
>male human being...


Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38d0462b.20590781%40news.newsfeeds.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>I wouldn't even be talking about cunt mongering if your band of
>mutilated assholes hadn't come here to take a run at me.
>As it is all you do is reinforce the way I feel: that ALL
>transsexuals are insecure, confused, assholes who have nothing better
>to do than cause trouble.

( from www.trannytrolls.us )

Diane

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 12:34:58 PM7/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:10:33 -0400, L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Because I care.

Care about disrupting the newsgroups and people's lives perhaps....


When Laura attempted to interfere in the life of Ms. Karen Patrick, a
TG newspaper reporter. Ms. Patrick has discovered that Laura had zero
credentials as a TG activist. Laura then contacting her Editor and
threatened a lawsuit if Karen revealed this information.
Karen's Editor was nice enough to post a message to Usenet regarding
the situation:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=4l6dep%2436l%40freenet-news.carleton.ca
>The information contained in the second paragraph of this posting is
a
>gross misrepresentation of the conversation that took place between Laura
>Masters and myself, the editor of Capital Xtra, shortly before 11am, on
>Mon, Apr 15--to the point of mistruth.
>There were no decisions or agreements made during that conversation, as a
>result of information put forward by Laura Masters.
>Nor was there any discussion of or agreement that unsolicited articles
>submitted by Karen Patrick would be treated as a 'conflict of interest.'
>A suitable observation at this point is that while discussion groups such
>as this one are an optimum medium for discussion and debate, those who are
>in the habit of flaming and attributing ficticious statements to third
>parties (in this case the 'editor' of Capital Xtra, and while unnamed is
>unquestionably identifiable as there is only one editor) in their
>published works, would be wise to familiarize themselve with libel law and
>the possible consequences of statements that may defame a person's
>professional standings (in this case Karen Patrick)... before it's too late....
>Brandon Matheson
>Editor & Publisher
>Capital Xtra
>303-177 Nepean St
>Ottawa ON

Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3gvdbu4agejfepmrqedun5srd48pb65p4h%404ax.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>Leave me the hell alone... or...
>I will distribute, privately, a full disclosure of your Real name, home
>address, birth certificate, criminal record (including the arrests for
>homosexual prostitution), medical history, credit history and employment
>history. I know who you are and I know most everything about you. If you
>don't leave me alone your friends, boss, neighbours, family and creditors
>all learn exactly who and what Richard Elliot Lask is all about, *including
>the botched sex-change*. Moreover, all the whistle blower lines in my area
>have been allerted to you and will report you to the police the minute you
>call. You don't want to end up in a *men's* prison do you Dick?
>Screw with me again and I'll fuck you over so bad you'll wish I hadn't been
>stopped at the border last fall!
>AND... in case you think I can't or won't do it... go talk to your fuckwit
>buddy Lacey Lee ....


>Lacey Leigh, author of the book, "The Emancipated Crossdresser" , said to Laura Blake:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D24A583.722295A%40LaceyLeigh.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>YOU OUTED ME, by
>crossposting my HOME ADDRESS, personal, and business telephone numbers
>to multiple newsgroups, including those populated by associates within
>one of my professional specialties in an attempt to smear, defame, and
>harm me among my contemporaries, peers, and colleagues EVEN THOUGH YOU
>HAVE ALSO POSTED THAT EMOTIONAL OR PHYSICAL HARM COULD RESULT. And
>that's the TRUTH.

Stephe said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4kv9o%24128oo%242%40ID-52908.news.dfncis.de&OE=UTF-&output=gplain
>We mean without your X-no archive=yes header added. This was done so people
>in the future can do a google search and see who they are dealing with,
>someone who will post personal home addresses and phone numbers (for
>harassment purposes) of people that don't agree with her.
In Laura 's own words :
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3476858d.921202%40news.ican.net&OE=UTF8&output=gplain
>I have been extremely unpopular with
>almost every transgender activist around. Transsexuals are the worst, they
>have almost universally treated me like fresh shit on a hot sidewalk.


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fgs5at4b2apkmb0hniitmj9k9k4busvgov%404ax.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>...in 1991 and 1992 I sent an announcement (with copies of
> supporting documents) to each of the transgender
>groups in Canada telling them what had been done and what needed to be done next.
>By and large I was told to fuck off.


Diane

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 3:08:59 PM7/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:10:33 -0400, L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>I can only imagine
>how much I scare them...

You must have a wonderful imagination <g>

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 6:45:14 PM7/17/03
to
Being L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca> on or about Thu, 17 Jul 2003
12:10:33 -0400 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<u4idhv8fr8eol21oo...@news1.sympatico.ca>:

>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:11:29 GMT, "Willow Arune" <twofru...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>

>>Why she would remain here, I have no idea.
>

>Because I care.

It occurs to me, inasmuch as "I care" might be offered as
justification for something, it could be offered as justification for
*anything.* So it would occur to me to want to know: "why is the
simple, bald fact that 'someone cares' supposed to matter? How is
that relevent to a larger constellation of everything that's going
on?" And I won't bore anyone with the details of my little logical
exercise, but ultimately (for me) open-ended assertions like this
always seem to resolve to trust: "trust me," they seem to imply. "I
can help, and I desire to help."

The problem here (and I can only speak from my own experience) is that
mtf people (at least) *have* to be dependent upon others in a way they
weren't before, or at least not in a way they were conscious or aware
of being dependent. And so they come face to face with the modern
problem of women in general imo: how to live within a role that
enforces a "traditional" dependency in a material sense, but at the
same time how to strive to be as independent, materially and
emotionally, to the unique extent that everyone needs to be.

So perhaps the sort of "care" you're proffering seems smothering. I
do know that, some time ago, you offered to me the advice of
"transgender immersion" (never having met me), and that in retrospect
the most useful and positive thing for me has been embracing
association with women born women. So I have a sense the fact that
the "care" you're feeling isn't as relevent to others as you might
believe.

That's not to say, LD, that your experience in the Canadian community
hasn't had a positive impact on others. I don't know either way; I
tend to assume the best.

>>Conversely, Laura raises some interesting points, I find.
>

>Which is exactly what the fuckwits are trying to silence...

I've thought about writing an autobiography (not because anything
about me is particularly interesting, but simply and solely because I
seem to be able to write interestingly sometimes). And I've thought
about a title: "Memoirs of a Newsgroup Fuckwit." But somehow (I don't
know why) that title doesn't seem to work. Oh. Wait. I think it's
because it contains the word "fuck," which shorthands the consumerist
fixation many people have with penile intromission. And, really, what
I would care to write wouldn't be congruent with the expectations
people might have of a "fuckwit." So such a book would disappoint.

On the other hand, I would...gently urge you to *not use the f-word*
so promiscuously, primarily because it devalues its emotional clout.
It's a "big gun," not an itty-bitty cap-pistol. :) And suggesting
that you refrain from this, for whatever reason, puts me in the
category of "fuckwit," because I would like to silence the use of that
word in this group...

>These are people who are voluntarily living by social standards created half a
>century ago, in highly homophobic and transphobic times... The rule book they
>obey was written in the aftermath of the Jorgensen outing by people who wanted
>nothing more than to cover their asses by rendering transgendered people
>invisible and powerless in society. Like anyone living in the past, change is
>scary, the idea that their rules no longer apply is outright terrifying... so
>instead of adapting to the times, they scream bloody murder about the voices
>of change.

We're all bound by social standards that are continuously created and
recreated, and always have been. There is no "rule book." And the
"they" you're writing about *seem* to be just a few people that you
know quite distantly and only electronically.

>Yeah, I have some rather different ideas about things. I see the value in
>coming out and standing up for oneself. I've done it and won some battles,
>lost others, but never have I retreated back into silence. I can only imagine
>how much I scare them... (and make no mistake, the reaction you see to me and
>the reaction you got last time you were here is *fear*)

It seems to be "the fear of fear itself" you're writing about here.
One shouldn't fear fear, though most people probably tend to. And
certainly to face fear and challenge it is the lot of those who live
in awareness of gender stereotyping.

But maybe -just maybe- it would be useful to respect the fear of
others? Acknowledge it as a fact, care for it as you can, and
otherwise leave it alone? Because (again, speaking only from my own
experience) the fear I sometimes seem to see in others translates to
my own fear, and usually fear of my own fear.

>
>>The main trait of the list monsters is that they specialize in insults and
>>worse.
>

>Because their position is indefensible by any other means.

"Support" isn't about an intellectual "assertion and defense," imho.
We're supposed to be presenting so as to find ways to help each other
and to be helped. I feel, at least, no one should be need to "defend"
themselves or their ideas.

But after all, LD, what else would one expect of a "fuckwit" like me,
except to come into a newsgroup and loftily pontificate about what
we're "supposed" to be about.

-
Rachelle

Diane

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 7:02:55 PM7/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:45:14 GMT, Rachelle Moore
<moo...@teleport.com> wrote:

>That's not to say, LD, that your experience in the Canadian community
>hasn't had a positive impact on others. I don't know either way; I
>tend to assume the best.

Without putting it nearly as eloquently nor as tactfully as yourself
;) ... let's see what other Canadian activists have had to say about
their experience with Lyle Blake...

Michelle Renee, a leader in the Canadian Gender self-help group,
Gender Mosaic says:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=34796ED4.95AD03D2%40storm.ca
>I will have to because you aren't capable of understanding a simple
>statement like "personal dialogue". It is very obvious to me that you
>haven't the knowledge that you assert to have. I know that you may
>think that you are the "Manifest Destiny" of Transgender Rights in
>Ontario, but you aren't

Tawni Dawn Sheriden, a Canadian transgender activist has this to say
about Laura :
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=E2D9FE.6tJ%40freenet.victoria.bc.ca&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
> I have been bombarded with lengthy email from one L.D.Blake, who I
>believe to be in reality Laura Masters. The person refuses to indicate if
>he or she is or is not Ms.Masters. In any case, when communicating with
>this person I urge the utmost caution. I have *NEVER* encountered someone
>so pushy, unyielding, inaccurate, presumptuous, absolutely audacious, and
>downright ignorant in my life. Talk about someone who is high on
>themselves. They claim to know what is best for all of us, without having
>any sort of credentials to back such a claim up. I suppose since I barely
>look in on the ngs, perhaps I am the last to know about this individual,
>but if *you* know what is best for you, DO NOT enter into dialogue in any
>form with this person, and if it is absolutely necessary to do so, say as
>little as possible, give no details, let her do her rant, and then hope
>she goes away. I am currently in this hoping stage, having made the
>mistake of talking to her in the first place.

Laura attempted to interfere in the life of Ms. Karen Patrick, a TG

newspaper reporter in Ottawa. Ms. Patrick has discovered that Laura

Diane

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 9:40:46 PM7/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:45:14 GMT, Rachelle Moore
<moo...@teleport.com> wrote:

> I feel, at least, no one should be need to "defend"
>themselves or their ideas.

Many PhDs would disagree I suspect..... <g>


Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 10:36:37 PM7/17/03
to
Being Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz> on or about Fri, 18 Jul 2003
01:40:46 +0000 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<vhek19q...@news.supernews.com>:

Yes. And initiation as "doctor" into an academic discipline by
defending ones work is as far away from "support" as I can imagine.

Are we to be initiated somehow by our posts here? If so, what would
be our "title"? What "work" would we be defending? On what basis
would a "defense" be deemed to be successful (or otherwise)? And with
what group would we henceforth be "affiliated" -willy-nilly, whether
we would individually choose to or not?

No, challenge-response isn't congruent with support, imo.

-
Rachelle


Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 12:29:55 AM7/18/03
to
Well. Interesting.

Some time ago, I read a book by Colin Simpson on the "Lusitania". Very
convincing, down to the cargo manifests. He certainly had me convinced that
nasty Winnie had done the ship in to bring the United States into WW1 - on
the British side.

Then a year or so later, another book, by two writers. They did a page by
page analysis of Simpson's earlier book and tore it apart. Like Simpson,
their book was extensivily annotated.

The only way I could, if I thought it important enough, determine which was
right was to spend several years buried in teh achives at eth British War
Museum and other such hollows.

It was not worth the effort, much as I would indeed like to know the truth.

Also part of my maritime hsitory is the story of the "Morrow Castle" - set
by the radio operator or??

My point? I have never met any of you on this list, with possibley one
exception. The only way I have of forming an opiinon is what you write.
Laura has never directed any insutl in my direction. She has provided some
useful information privately and thus I have no reason to doubt her - nor
really any interest in finding out more.

The opinion I have of others here is likewise drawn form what is written. I
have no intention fo visiting - say - San Diego to meet Jenice Bay. I haved
what she has written and what she sees fit to have on her web page. That is
all. As to Jennifer Usher and others, I look at what they write, what
others write about them (discounted by about 90%) and draw what conclusions
I have. I think often play a little game. Of the participants, who would I
like to meet, if I could. Who do I think would be compatible as a friend,
someone I woudl liek to have over for an evening? Happily, I know that such
will never happen.

On that basis - and with no further research planned or possible - I draw
tentative conclusions. Note - "tentative". Sometimes a person is far
different in person whan on a list such as this. I also accept the
possibility - indeed, probablity - that I might be wrong.

My monsters? Self evident, I should think.

Willow


Willow Arune

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 2:27:40 AM7/18/03
to
Ah yes...

"Indeed. I simply can't imagine that the average person here,
face-to-face, is actually as nasty as their average post. Most people
are nice, in person. Many people are asses, on usenet."

Unhappily, all too true. Hiding behind false colours and such tends to
bring out the worst in many. To a degree this can be fun, I should think.
Carried to excess, it is like any other excess.

Hugs,
Willow


Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 2:33:06 AM7/18/03
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:33:53 -0400, L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Well... I wasn't counting you, personally, on the FUCKwit list... But if you
>like, I can always add you.


Population of Lyleworld

Lyle Blake :1
Fuckwits :5,999,999,999

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 2:57:22 AM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:36:37 GMT, Rachelle Moore
<moo...@teleport.com> wrote:
>No, challenge-response isn't congruent with support, imo.

I think it's interesting that you should write this today as I had an
experience this afternoon that is relevant to your comments and has
been weighing on my mind....

I went out to a restaurant for a bit of lunch and ended up chatting up
the waitress about the weather and the horrid heat we have been having
over my way. The waitress then told me her idea about the weather
where she thought that we we were headed for a period where the
seasons of summer and winter were going to reverse themselves. I
nicely explained to her that, even though the weather could change
substantially for a number of reasons, it was pretty much impossible
for seasons to actually reverse since they were dependent on the
Earth's axial tilt and such tilt has never substantially changed in
billions of years.

She listened to this and then pouted a bit and said that I had just
blown her whole idea away and that I wasn't being *supportive* of her.
She said that, instead of me stating the facts, I was supported to
have listened to her and been supportive of her idea rather then
pointing out, even gently, the rather glaring fault of it.

And this exchange troubled me because the concept of desiring a
comfortable falsehood rather then knowing the actual truth, be it
comforting or not - is entirely alien to me. And of course I am not
naive and do realize that this is, in fact, the way that *most* people
think - I am still somewhat taken back when I, from time to time,
encounter it directly.

Which brings me to your own comment Rachelle. Unlike yourself, I do
not believe that "support" entails lieing to someone about reality and
I *do* believe that "challenging" one's beliefs or ideas is necessary
if we are to discover what is real as opposed to what we **would
like** to be real.

Mark Jeannette claims to be a transsexual, a woman and a lawyer. I
believe that such statements are certainly worthy of a challenge.
Lyle Blake claims to be a "caring" transgendered advocate...yet his
behavior over the past many years shows this asseveration to be
clearly false. Statistics show that only 1 out of ten who claim
transsexuality as an initial problem to a psychologist ever in fact
change their sex. Clearly some anonymous person coming in to a Usenet
claiming to be a transsexual stands only a 1 in ten chance of being
factual. Well... more or less... but (perhaps) you see my point.

I would like to live in a world where people never lie and never
misrepresent themselves, whether by intention or by delusion. I would
love to live in that world but I thinks that you and I know that is
not how people are and that is not the kind of world in which we live.

Critical thinking and challenging asserted and all edged "facts" are
two necessary skills to employ if we are to discern truth from
delusion.

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:44:28 AM7/18/03
to
Being Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz> on or about Fri, 18 Jul 2003
06:57:22 +0000 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<vhf6iuc...@news.supernews.com>:

The motivation and tactics of preserving and nurturing the trembling,
precious flame of "truth" aren't noticably different between
ideological groups. And embracing the illusion of the irrelevence of
ones own moral judgement against (if necessary) some or other "truth"
isn't how individuals find it for themselves, if at all.

The average IQ is 100. This is the world we live in. If one simply
looked at the pretty moving pictures at
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/hm/projects/phase/ORIENTATIONOFTHEMOON.htm
one might indeed gain the impression that such a reversal of axial
tilt is possible as your interlocutor apparently described.
But the earth does wobble on its axis, a few degrees, over tens of
thousands of years, in a recurring pattern. And it seems likely that
this, with or without tidal locking of terrestrial perihelion with
"winter," is probably is a factor in long-term climate change. Too,
the only reason the earth's axis doesn't precess more is apparently
because of a stabilizing effect due to the interaction of earth and
moon, which is continually getting farther from the earth due to a
tidal gravitational effect. What does the latest astronomical
observation and computational approximations indicate? Scary findings
seem to have a lag time between being described and penetrating into
general awareness. (One word: hypernovas.)

So I have to ask myself: what was she actually trying to describe?
Something about climate change, or something about a presumable
factor? And what "truth" intervened -and why- to "correct" what she
was saying? Certainly a customer has no obligation to be supportive
of a retail slave. :)

>Which brings me to your own comment Rachelle. Unlike yourself, I do
>not believe that "support" entails lieing to someone about reality and
>I *do* believe that "challenging" one's beliefs or ideas is necessary
>if we are to discover what is real as opposed to what we **would
>like** to be real.

Well. For me "the truth is 'out there'" is a Big Lie (one which, if
accepted, justifies all manner of falsehood and self-deceit). On the
other hand, the "philosophical" incongruency between these two points
of view is recognizable to me as a conflict between a basic function
of personality, "introversion" and "extraversion." And historically
it's the lot of introverts to "lose" this particular "battle." So I
won't even start to dispute what you're writing. (Except to say
"'reality': what a concept." :)

>Mark Jeannette claims to be a transsexual, a woman and a lawyer. I
>believe that such statements are certainly worthy of a challenge.
>Lyle Blake claims to be a "caring" transgendered advocate...yet his
>behavior over the past many years shows this asseveration to be
>clearly false. Statistics show that only 1 out of ten who claim
>transsexuality as an initial problem to a psychologist ever in fact
>change their sex. Clearly some anonymous person coming in to a Usenet
>claiming to be a transsexual stands only a 1 in ten chance of being
>factual. Well... more or less... but (perhaps) you see my point.

I'd like to know what study that statistic comes from. What I'd be
more interested in, however, is the source of the "one in three"
number that anecdotally is supposed to be the suicide rate of
transgender people.

> I would like to live in a world where people never lie and never
>misrepresent themselves, whether by intention or by delusion. I would
>love to live in that world but I thinks that you and I know that is
>not how people are and that is not the kind of world in which we live.
>
>Critical thinking and challenging asserted and all edged "facts" are
>two necessary skills to employ if we are to discern truth from
>delusion.

Well. If you meant to write "critical thinking and challenging
'facts' are two necessary skills to employ if we are to discern truth
from delusion," I tend to agree, but point out that "challenge" or the
impetus to challenge doesn't seem to be a skill so much as a tendency
or habit of response. But I'm really not sure what you actually
wrote actually means, precisely. :)

-
Rachelle

sbrsct

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 10:42:09 AM7/18/03
to
Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz> wrote in message news:<vhf6iuc...@news.supernews.com>...


Hello Diane,

May I please say something that does relate and is entirely supportive
of (you) and of what (you) just said.

My beliefs, factual or construed by me or otherwise, are exclusively
my own. I've countered many people's own reasons, whether motivated
by the truth, hearsay or their own contrived ideas. I have found over
the years, that the more I have pushed my beliefs on them the less
they care to believe me or continue to be interested in what I have to
say. If I created a statistical average, that would be 99 out of 100
(of course, entirely approximated).

What I learned as I've gotten older is that, if I were to try to sway
people's minds into agreeing I was right and they were wrong, it would
take more than my own persistence to prove it. But the fact of the
matter is: For all that I feel is right and just, and for all that I
believe in myself, there is always a slight chance that (I) may be
wrong.

If you absorb what I just said ;) and go back and read your own words,


"Clearly some anonymous person coming in to a Usenet
claiming to be a transsexual stands only a 1 in ten chance of being

factual", then you *may* see that you could also be included in that
same 90%, at least in the minds of others. If you put everyone into a
category that has been derived from a scale (you) created then you
would also have to be included like everyone else. My point is; We
all don't have to live together, but when we do, it becomes a much
easier task when we are not individually attacked for believing in
ourselves. Over time, the people we learn to like, to dislike or to
avoid become part of our own exclusive circle of choices and no-one
else's.

Pushing our choices on other people does not mean that they have to
agree.


Take care, and enjoy the weekend. I hope a few cool breezes pass your
way. :)

jaf

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 11:56:16 AM7/18/03
to

"L D Blake" <ldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kgmehvs8d2pfngpu7...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:45:14 GMT, Rachelle Moore <moo...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>

> >But after all, LD, what else would one expect of a "fuckwit" like me,
>
>
> Well... I wasn't counting you, personally, on the FUCKwit list... But if
you
> like, I can always add you.

Rachelle, you should insist on it. It is one of the higher honors one can
recieve.

Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 11:58:56 AM7/18/03
to

"L D Blake" <ldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vu3ghvk3n7boj1o7q...@news1.sympatico.ca...

> Well... except that Diane is a real world stalker... do you have any idea
how
> many different ways she's tried to mess up my life.

Well, not with a Glock and a Greyhound ticket I would imagine.

> I recently moved, changed my phone number *and my name* to get away from
the
> offline harassment. I also have her kill filed to avoid her online...

That's nice. So, what are you now, Lyle Block?

> And, no, I'm not telling anyone any of the new information (sorry).

Thanks. Not take that a step forward, and stop telling us anything and
everyone will be happy.

Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 12:02:18 PM7/18/03
to

"L D Blake" <ldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:n83ghvcv2v612r3n9...@news1.sympatico.ca...

> What you are pointing to here is "appeal to authority", the attempt to
prove
> one's point by citing "authoritive" 3rd parties. It may work, sort of, in
a
> courtroom but in the rest of the world it's nothing but proof the author
is
> full of hot air.

Put another way, Lyle is right, and people who actually have training and
experience in a field are wrong. Says a lot, doesn't it.

Jennifer Usher


Deb Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 12:02:35 PM7/18/03
to
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4PURa.517$XR1...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

> Thanks. Not take that a step forward, and stop telling us anything and
> everyone will be happy.

There ya go with those presumptuous plurals again. Who elected you Queen of
the May then?


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 12:15:08 PM7/18/03
to

"Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vSURa.61087$0v4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

I don't know, but you can be queen of my kill file.

Goodbye.

Jennifer Usher


Deb Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 1:08:02 PM7/18/03
to
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g2VRa.8$Jg2.1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

> I don't know, but you can be queen of my kill file.

Thanks. Now I see how its done, "we" refers to those falling within your
blinkered visual perspective.

Never fret though sweetie, I can still see you and, truth be told, it is
important that I can because it is always useful to be able to see how the
other half thinks 8-)


sbrsct

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 1:34:02 PM7/18/03
to
>From: "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.srs
>Subject: Re: Not Even a Nice Place to Visit...
>Message-ID: <SPVRa.61714$3o3.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:08:02 GMT
>Organization: AT&T Worldnet


>Never fret though sweetie, I can still see you and, truth be told, it
is
>important that I can because it is always useful to be able to see
how the
>other half thinks 8-)


;) As of 11:35 pm eastern 7-18-03 the other half is comprised of
about 6,351,682,728 + people. It would get a little confusing trying
to understand what they are all thinking or, in fact, doing at this
very moment. ;c

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop/

I have to get back to my spackling job...see ya later. ;)

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:15:45 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:21:11 -0400, L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Well... except that Diane is a real world stalker... do you have any idea how
>many different ways she's tried to mess up my life.

Projecting again Lyle? ......

Laura Blake said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ui3d73qolpabfe%40news.supernews.com&OE=UTF-8&output=gplain
>Oh that... well that was a year for *attempted murder*...
>You see I tried to kill someone who was hounding me just like you do."


Julie said (to Laura Blake):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl724168306d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&OE=UTF-8&selm=353364EB.593A%40ibm.net
> Oh, I can prove that you've threatened =my= life. I don't know if
> Kari can prove that you threatened hers.
> There are other things that I can't prove, but which are equally
> reprehenisble. ... Your desire to wage hate campaigns,
>psychological warfare and a host of other sociopathic
>behaviors are pretty well documented.

When Laura attempted to interfere in the life of Ms. Karen Patrick, a
TG newspaper reporter. Ms. Patrick has discovered that Laura had zero

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:26:33 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:58:56 GMT, "Jennifer Usher"
<jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> offline harassment. I also have her kill filed to avoid her online...
>
>That's nice. So, what are you now, Lyle Block?

hehehehe...


Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:30:29 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:44:28 GMT, Rachelle Moore
<moo...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Well. For me "the truth is 'out there'" is a Big Lie (one which, if
>accepted, justifies all manner of falsehood and self-deceit).

Phenomenology....what a concept! One that I don buy into ( on the
macro level anyway)

>... So Iwon't even start to dispute what you're writing. (Except to say


>"'reality': what a concept." :)

>....I'd like to know what study that statistic comes from.

But why should you care? If the truth is just a "Big Lie" as you
claim then aren't *my* facts just as good as anyone elves??

Plus, asking that isn't being very supportive you know :(

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:51:21 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 07:42:09 -0700, sbr...@yahoo.ca (sbrsct) wrote:

>If you absorb what I just said ;) and go back and read your own words,
>"Clearly some anonymous person coming in to a Usenet
>claiming to be a transsexual stands only a 1 in ten chance of being
>factual", then you *may* see that you could also be included in that
>same 90%, at least in the minds of others.

Yes! Exactly - I would expect any critically thinking person who
stepped into this group to grant me no more credibility the that
nitwit Mark Jeannette or the psych case Lyle Blake. In a medium such
as this one we only have a person's writing to judge them by - or in
the case of Lyle - their extensive past history. SO when someone
who's veracity we are unaware of writes something ...ANYTHING ... in
a forum such as this one I think we are obligated to question it .
Things we can look at are:

1. What has this person written in the past?

2. Does this person support his ideas or just ramble them out and
expect them to be accepted?

3. Who does this person generally agree with. Who do they disagree
with? (ever notice how kooks generally agree with other kooks?)

4. How does this person respond to a challenge of their statements?
Do they fly off the handle (bad sign) or do they try to support their
assertions calmly? Do they quickly resort to as hominem arguments as
an attempt to support their opinions?

> If you put everyone into a
>category that has been derived from a scale (you) created then you
>would also have to be included like everyone else. My point is; We
>all don't have to live together, but when we do, it becomes a much
>easier task when we are not individually attacked for believing in
>ourselves. Over time, the people we learn to like, to dislike or to
>avoid become part of our own exclusive circle of choices and no-one
>else's.

In a normal social setting I entirely agree with you. A medium such
as this one I believe is somewhat different. In the real world, The
Lyles and the Marks et ilk are largely ignored by the generally sane
population and end up socially confined to others of same "character".
We can generally safely and nicely ignore them in our lives.

On Usenet however, one kook, apparently can disrupt an entire group
of otherwise sanely acting people. I'm not completely certain why
this is....why most people don't simple kill file the person
immediately and be done with it... instead the group dynamic seems to
center around making the kook the center of attention for a seemingly
endless period.

I'm not sure why this is but I have a few theories:

1. People are, in general non-critical thinkers and it is in their
nature to defer to a presumed authority. When a kook appears they
inevitably do so as an authority figure with some "magical knowledge".
It may be in people's basic natures to defer to a person presenting
himself as such. There are *far* more Beta males then alpha-males
among primates.

2. There may be an unusually large percentage of mentally or
emotionally unstable people who tend to post in Usenet ...thus they
tend to feed off themselves.

3. It is in people's natures to give others the benefit of the doubt -
to assume that someone else is not lying to them (this is by far my
"nicest" theory). So that when some idiot claims, for instance, to be
a post-op transsexual or perhaps a full time transgender activist,
people would not want to believe that in actuality the "post-op" is
some 55 year old guy who gets his rocks off by wearing a dress and the
"activist" is some former mental patient on welfare with no place to
go save Usenet.


Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 4:56:38 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:21:11 -0400, L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I recently moved, changed my phone number *and my name* .........

TRANSLATION: I lost my apartment and have finally been put in a group
home. They list me by my legal name "Lyle" rather then my internet
alias "Laura"

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:04:05 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:15:08 GMT, "Jennifer Usher"
<jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I don't know, but you can be queen of my kill file.

Queen ??
Merely a sexless drone....as you can tell from the endlessly droning
on and on and on and .... of hir voice.

Ahhh the sweet sounding drone of the Classic Narcissist >g>...

So how are you Jennifer anyway? Things going well in SF? Anything
interesting going on?

If you have a phone number now drop it to diane...@yahoo.com and I'd
be happy to give you a chat.

Diane

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:05:53 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 07:42:09 -0700, sbr...@yahoo.ca (sbrsct) wrote:

>Take care, and enjoy the weekend. I hope a few cool breezes pass your
>way. :)
>
>jaf


By the way ... you seem to know (of?) me but I am afraid I am at a
loss as to who you are. I am curious as I enjoy your outlook on
things...we may not agree with everything but I like the way in which
you phrase your ideas.

Diane

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:15:05 PM7/18/03
to

Ohhhh... just that there is far more then the average amount of BS
floating about on Usenet and it is only (imho) common sense to apply
critical thinking skills to *any* information one sees in this medium.

As to your other question of where did my stat of only 1 in ten who
present to a psychologist as a transsexual ever going on to SRS....the
actual answer is that I had asked two psychologists engaged in
treating gender dysphoria about that and they both gave the same
answer. Other post-ops on this forum have claimed to have had their
psychologists give the same result as well (Google search). Granted
this is 2nd and third hand word of mouth info so it should be looked
into of course. My own personal past experience with group therapy
for gender dysphoria led by a psychologist over a period of several
years tends to bear this stat out as well.

As for the 1 in 3 who commit suicide - this is clearly rubbish as your
own personal experience and the combined personal experience of actual
pre and post-ops who have posted here would indicate.

Of all the dozens of TSs and hundreds of TGs I have been acquainted
with over the years I have heard of only perhaps 3 or 4 suicides.

sbrsct

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 6:22:50 PM7/18/03
to
>From: Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.srs
>Subject: Re: Not Even a Nice Place to Visit...
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:51:21 +0000
>Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Message-ID: <vhgju5n...@news.supernews.com>


>Yes! Exactly - I would expect any critically thinking person who
>stepped into this group to grant me no more credibility the that

>nitwit XXXXXXX or the psych case XXXXXXX. In a medium such


>as this one we only have a person's writing to judge them by - or in

>the case of XXXX - their extensive past history. SO when someone


>who's veracity we are unaware of writes something ...ANYTHING ... in
>a forum such as this one I think we are obligated to question it.

As in real life, there are always certain people who can make our
lives miserable. :( We can take it very personally, especially when
they point their "pistols" in our direction. However, we have choices
and here is where you and I will differ.

I will seldom return to a spot or back into a situation where I know
someone
is there who is either deranged, crazed or highly volatile. If I know
someone to be out of sorts I will avoid them at all cost. If someone
has an altered opinion or judgment they wish to expound on...let them
get it off of their chest. If I don't want to hear it I go elsewhere.
If it is directed at me or at someone I am particularly fond of I
will speak up. If I know of someone who is lost I try to reach out to
them to lend them a hand or give them a piece of
advice that I feel is supportive.

Now...back to you and I: ;)

I am talking to you in this forum not because I admire you personally
or have found the overall value of what you do distinctively
pleasurable. I am talking to you because I can "support" you also.
Don't ever think you or anyone else is infallible or that everything
you do has an inherent just cause. When you speak your heart Diane,
everyone can hear it beating, but when your emotions get the best of
you, you can be the harshest critic and one of the meanest spirits
I've ever witnessed. :( When you reach that stage there is nothing
anyone can do to counter it and all they can do is wait and hope you
will cool your heels.

I don't believe in antagonizing those people. It does more harm than
good. It also does immeasurable harm to us when we exceed our senses
and begin to make judgments without limit that are hurting other
people. It can grow on you and only embitter you and everyone else.


>Things we can look at are:

>1. What has this person written in the past?

>2. Does this person support his ideas or just ramble them out and
>expect them to be accepted?

>3. Who does this person generally agree with. Who do they disagree
>with? (ever notice how kooks generally agree with other kooks?)

>4. How does this person respond to a challenge of their statements?
>Do they fly off the handle (bad sign) or do they try to support their
>assertions calmly? Do they quickly resort to as hominem arguments as
>an attempt to support their opinions?

I agree with all of these things, but they also apply to us both.


>In a normal social setting I entirely agree with you. A medium such
>as this one I believe is somewhat different. In the real world, The

>XXXX and the XXXX et ilk are largely ignored by the generally sane


>population and end up socially confined to others of same
"character".
>We can generally safely and nicely ignore them in our lives.

Yes, but planet Usenet does extend into the real world. The tangible
difference is what's tangible and life can be felt rather than
imagined.

>On Usenet however, one kook, apparently can disrupt an entire group
>of otherwise sanely acting people. I'm not completely certain why
>this is....why most people don't simple kill file the person
>immediately and be done with it... instead the group dynamic seems to
>center around making the kook the center of attention for a seemingly
>endless period.

How could anyone not agree with that.

>I'm not sure why this is but I have a few theories:

>1. People are, in general non-critical thinkers and it is in their
>nature to defer to a presumed authority. When a kook appears they
>inevitably do so as an authority figure with some "magical
knowledge".
>It may be in people's basic natures to defer to a person presenting
>himself as such. There are *far* more Beta males then alpha-males
>among primates.

There is no magic. There is no-one who can be ourselves or feel for
us. If we can't make our own decisions or recognize the difference
between a charlatan and a savior then it is "our" own fault when
things go wrong.

>2. There may be an unusually large percentage of mentally or
>emotionally unstable people who tend to post in Usenet ...thus they
>tend to feed off themselves.

It is probably true, but it is an assumption. In real life however,
they become apparent or they just don't.

>3. It is in people's natures to give others the benefit of the doubt
-
>to assume that someone else is not lying to them (this is by far my
>"nicest" theory). So that when some idiot claims, for instance, to be
>a post-op transsexual or perhaps a full time transgender activist,
>people would not want to believe that in actuality the "post-op" is
>some 55 year old guy who gets his rocks off by wearing a dress and
the
>"activist" is some former mental patient on welfare with no place to
>go save Usenet.

Again, we differ. You are making judgments of people, some that are
not what you picture at all. You are sorting through your own lack of
trust of people and classifying them as approved, unapproved or
totally unexceptable*. *You did that to me. :(

And again, here I'm talking to you.

You and I have gotten along quite well within our imagined
characterizations of one another. Don't assume. Please don't assume.
You may find a friend you can trust in, if you only give them a
chance and hold out your own hand in friendship instead of knowingly
or unknowingly pointing a pistol in their faces and giving them no
other choice but to retaliate.


Again, may the cool breezes be with you. Have a nice weekend. ;)


jaf

sbrsct

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 6:39:20 PM7/18/03
to
....approved, unapproved or totally >>>unexceptable*<<<

Sorry...that was "unacceptable", of course. ;) (a glitch in my program)

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 6:50:22 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 15:22:50 -0700, sbr...@yahoo.ca (sbrsct) wrote:

>Again, we differ. You are making judgments of people, some that are
>not what you picture at all. You are sorting through your own lack of
>trust of people and classifying them as approved, unapproved or
>totally unexceptable*. *You did that to me. :(

Whereas i do perceive the grains of truth behind what you are saying,
on some things we will have to agree to disagree.

Whereas my own behavior at certain times is by no means without fault
and I do tend to be reactionary, responding in kind to those who have
responded to me, I still believe that more often then not I have been
dead on about the kinds of people who have past through here.

I understand that you do not agree with this but these are the choices
both of us have made.

I do believe, for instance that Lyle Blake is mentally unsound and his
behaviors over the past years (documented you know where) I believe
prove this out. I do believe that Jenice Bay is of like character for
similar reasons. I could go into what I believe about Theoni and Debs
but you undoubtedly have heard this endlessly before and certainly do
not need to hear it again I imagine.

We do appear to differ in that I appear to believe that there are, as
you have implied, certain people who are unredeemable. I did not use
to believe such but my own personal experiences with such people over
the years has led me to such a belief.

With regards to yourself.... we are getting along fine now but you
say that we did not do so in the past. I do not know who you are
(though I suspect June Hingle) . If you tell me who you used to post
under I will look at what I said and why I said it. If I think I was
wrong in the way I acted I would be happy to graciously offer you an
apology.

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 7:38:23 PM7/18/03
to

"Diane" <diane...@noneofyour.biz> wrote in message
news:vhgnoja...@news.supernews.com...

Seem's likely...

Jennifer Usher


Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 7:49:14 PM7/18/03
to
Being Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz> on or about Fri, 18 Jul 2003
21:15:05 +0000 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<vhgor5i...@news.supernews.com>:


[in <vhf6iuc...@news.supernews.com> Diane wrote:
Critical thinking and challenging asserted and all edged "facts" are
two necessary skills to employ if we are to discern truth from

delusion.]

[Then]


>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:44:28 GMT, Rachelle Moore

><moo...@teleport.com> replied [in part]:


>
>> But I'm really not sure what you actually
>>wrote actually means, precisely. :)

[to which Diane replied:]


>Ohhhh... just that there is far more then the average amount of BS
>floating about on Usenet and it is only (imho) common sense to apply
>critical thinking skills to *any* information one sees in this medium.

Hmm. I would argue that in comparison with "real life" (as I assume
you mean) the amount is approximately the same, but that it's (a) much
more visible, (b) much more susceptible to being responded to, and (c)
utterly necessary to differentiate from "that which isn't BS" if
another model of social relations is to be significant ("peer support"
vs "parent-child" alpha-domination).

I suppose I would have to give a *lot* of thought to the logical
consequences of posing "challenge" as a skill in the same way critical
thinking seems to be: something to some extent that can be learned (by
those who *desire* to -and if not, phht: killfile, ignore, or
whatever). A proclivity for "challenge" and initiation in general on
the other hand, really seems to be gender-related, and I'm not
questioning the utility of the skill: only the means by which facility
in it is increased, because frankly criticality can be blunted or
suppressed by challenge.

So one has to wonder which one is more important. Which one is
preferred? Which one is discarded when a choice has to be made
between the two? (I know my own answer to this question.)

>As to your other question of where did my stat of only 1 in ten who
>present to a psychologist as a transsexual ever going on to SRS....the
>actual answer is that I had asked two psychologists engaged in
>treating gender dysphoria about that and they both gave the same
>answer. Other post-ops on this forum have claimed to have had their
>psychologists give the same result as well (Google search). Granted
>this is 2nd and third hand word of mouth info so it should be looked
>into of course. My own personal past experience with group therapy
>for gender dysphoria led by a psychologist over a period of several
>years tends to bear this stat out as well.

Substantive numbers are hard to come by, primarily (I gather) because
the population is so relatively tiny that relatively few studies of
*any* sort are done.

>As for the 1 in 3 who commit suicide - this is clearly rubbish as your
>own personal experience and the combined personal experience of actual
>pre and post-ops who have posted here would indicate.
>
>Of all the dozens of TSs and hundreds of TGs I have been acquainted
>with over the years I have heard of only perhaps 3 or 4 suicides.

Hmm. It seems to me that one number is as questionable as the other,
then. (Since neither one seems to be based on an actual study.)

-
Rachelle

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 7:54:14 PM7/18/03
to
Being "Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@earthlink.net> on or about Fri, 18
Jul 2003 15:56:16 GMT did post or cause to be posted in
alt.support.srs <AMURa.515$CP1...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>:

well. As with all such honors, probably a recipient never truly feels
deserving. So I suppose I must pass -and simply wait to see if it's
awarded of its own accordance. Then it would be doubly satisfying! :)

-
Rachelle

sbrsct

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:24:29 PM7/18/03
to
Dear Diane,

You owe me no apology. I would expect that I owe you none either. We
have gotten along and that is all that need be understood. If ever we
cross paths you will know who I am and you will be glad to meet me,
because I will have it no other way. Until then it would be best to
leave things the way they are, however...I will ask you for a favor:

Try to smile more. Try to listen to your heart more. Try to present
the same Diane that so many have mentioned exists. Do it for "you".
Please do it for "you". :)


jaf

Diane

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:16:11 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 17:24:29 -0700, sbr...@yahoo.ca (sbrsct) wrote:

>
>Try to smile more. Try to listen to your heart more. Try to present
>the same Diane that so many have mentioned exists. Do it for "you".
>Please do it for "you". :)

I think that you take me far more seriously here than I do myself :)

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 11:46:48 PM7/18/03
to

"Rachelle Moore" <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:UogYP2x1H3K+Rl...@4ax.com...

> well. As with all such honors, probably a recipient never truly feels
> deserving. So I suppose I must pass -and simply wait to see if it's
> awarded of its own accordance. Then it would be doubly satisfying! :)

I do have faith that you will quickly meet Lyle's exacting standards and be
awarded said title.

Jennifer Usher


Karen A.

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 11:54:30 PM7/18/03
to
L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Honey, she's insane... you can't reason with her.

Of course... all the sane people left here years ago.

- Karen

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 12:22:27 AM7/19/03
to

"Karen A." <kaa-...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1fybh0y.ugru6gypu81gN%kaa-...@comcast.net...

> L D Blake <ldb...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Honey, she's insane... you can't reason with her.
>
> Of course... all the sane people left here years ago.

And that means that you are not sane?

Jennifer Usher


Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:02:25 PM7/19/03
to

"Julie" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:M9gSa.86458$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...

> The statistics, according to at least one person I've spoken to
> (who was happy to give this information as swon testimony ...)
> is that 1 in 20 people who start therapy believing they are
> "transsexual" eventually transition. Of those, only 1 in 5 will go
> on to change sex.
>
> The problem I have with your approach, Diane, is that for the 1
> person in 100 who says "I will change sex", and then does, the odds
> that they are transsexual is 100%. In other words, you don't know
> who is or isn't.

Poppycock! While things like the Standards of Care keep the numbers low,
there are still some who slip through the cracks and have surgery when they
shouldn't have. Of course there is the old saw, "If you are not a
transsexual before SRS you will br afterwards," but I doubt that is what you
meant.

Jennifer Usher


Diane

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:21:59 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:02:25 GMT, "Jennifer Usher"
<jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>Poppycock! While things like the Standards of Care keep the numbers low,
>there are still some who slip through the cracks and have surgery when they
>shouldn't have. Of course there is the old saw, "If you are not a
>transsexual before SRS you will br afterwards," but I doubt that is what you
>meant.

Got Miss "J" twitted so I only saw (fortunately) the two paragraphs
that you quoted. She seems to be just restating the "Gambler's
Paradox" (statistics) but using it incorrectly to make an argument
against statistical probabilities as a reasonable predictor of
outcomes.

Deb Marsh

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:51:19 PM7/19/03
to
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lthSa.172$x67...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

> Poppycock! While things like the Standards of Care keep the numbers low,
> there are still some who slip through the cracks and have surgery when
> they shouldn't have. Of course there is the old saw, "If you are not a
> transsexual before SRS you will br afterwards," but I doubt that is what
> you meant.

Quite humbling to witness your continuing respect for the authority of
others really.

Slip through which cracks then? Who's cracks? There is only one way to know
whether the surgery one has had shouldn't have happened - have it first and
then draw your conclusion afterwards. By which standards are we able to know
whether what we have done might have been better not done at all?

Don't say *the* Standards of Care" though cos those are merely rules for
progress formulated according to the preconceptions of others - indeed, are
so designed as to be both self-fulfilling and self-supporting. Predetermined
boundaries of being? Surely these are the source of the problem to begin
with?

We can only know how it is for ourselves. We can compare and juxtapose this
to our imaginings of how it is for another - but we can never know with any
real certainty just how close we might have arrived to some notion of the
truth.

Guesswork, all of it, guesswork and leaps of faith.

Leaping before you look is sometimes the only method for understanding the
force of this particular gravity. The wisdom of spectators is often a source
of entertainment until, that is, we begin to mistake it for anything rooted
in first-hand experience.

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:56:29 PM7/19/03
to
Being Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz> on or about Sat, 19 Jul 2003
20:21:59 +0000 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<vhja3le...@news.supernews.com>:

Why are you replying to a post you didn't read in its entirety? I
mean, obviously you can. But why are you *specifically emphasizing*
you didn't *bother* to read the whole post?

It's not really important; it just goes to the heart of what "support"
means, that's all.

FWIW, Julie's point seems to be that descriptive statistics sums
together individual experience, which is unique for everyone, and thus
is only a part of a larger context. "Infinite series" and "paradoxes"
aren't apparently connected to it at all. It would be interesting to
know the connection you saw, though.

-
Rachelle

Diane

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 5:18:41 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:56:29 GMT, Rachelle Moore
<moo...@teleport.com> wrote:

>
>Why are you replying to a post you didn't read in its entirety? I
>mean, obviously you can. But why are you *specifically emphasizing*
>you didn't *bother* to read the whole post?
>
>It's not really important; it just goes to the heart of what "support"
>means, that's all.

I see.
So it IS supportive when YOU criticize someone else's post but is NOT
supportive when someone else does that?

Thanks Rachelle, I just wanted to clear up what you meant by "support"

(And FWIW.... your statement saying "FWIW, Julie's point seems to be


that descriptive statistics sums together individual experience, which
is unique for everyone, and thus is only a part of a larger context.
"Infinite series" and "paradoxes" aren't apparently connected to it at

all." proves, once again that the number of syllables per word is not
necessarily a reasonable indication of someone actually saying
something.


Diane

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 5:28:56 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:18:41 +0000, Diane <diane...@noneofyour.biz>
wrote:

>>Why are you replying to a post you didn't read in its entirety? I
>>mean, obviously you can. But why are you *specifically emphasizing*
>>you didn't *bother* to read the whole post?

I'm sorry, I just thought of a better question.

What is a man, a self described "male lesbian", who dresses
occasionally and has no interest in SRS, doing in a newsgroup designed
to discuss Surgical Sex Reassignment?

Jennifer Usher

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 5:59:41 PM7/19/03
to

"Diane" <diane...@noneofyour.biz> wrote in message
news:vhja3le...@news.supernews.com...

> Got Miss "J" twitted so I only saw (fortunately) the two paragraphs
> that you quoted. She seems to be just restating the "Gambler's
> Paradox" (statistics) but using it incorrectly to make an argument
> against statistical probabilities as a reasonable predictor of
> outcomes.

Her statement came down to saying anyone who had surgery was a bonafide TS.

Jennifer Usher


Diane

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 5:59:23 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:59:41 GMT, "Jennifer Usher"
<jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>Her statement came down to saying anyone who had surgery was a bonafide TS.

If indeed that is what she was saying then I think we *both* know that
is wrong. Too many fetishists, gay men in denial etc. slip through
the system with disastrous results afterwards.... I've seen three of
them myself and we've both heard one or two of them complain about
their mistake here.

Rachelle Moore

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 6:23:52 PM7/19/03