tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post4375687324057847154..comments2023-10-03T20:58:22.216-05:00Comments on Peni Griffin - Idea Garage Sale: GatekeepersPeni R. Griffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01781761011389542245noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-2391753240437736162013-03-15T16:31:56.292-05:002013-03-15T16:31:56.292-05:00To be on the safe side and avoid legal problems fo...To be on the safe side and avoid legal problems for myself, I have done a quick check on anonymous posting here: http://www.jaburgwilk.com/articles/how-to-discover-the-identity-of-an-anonymous-internet-author.aspx<br /><br />It appears that I have the right to post anonymously as long as my posts are not false or defamatory in any way. First of all, I have said nothing false about the author. I am not trying to disparage the author in any way, shape, or form. Second of all, I have said nothing defamatory to the author's personal reputation. I'm only commenting on the post, not attacking the author who made the post. <br /><br />In Post #3 of this blog post, I have made an attempt to understand Peni R. Griffin's position. I assumed that Peni Griffin and I was on talking on different levels, focusing on different subjects, so we didn't understand each other. To make matters worse, I accidentally used the wrong words to describe the situation. The word is not "reading without context". The correct word that best defines my intentions is "not being on the same page". Sorry for the confusion. I think that's what led Peni to think that I have insulted her and return that she did read in context. Oops. I am going to trust her and believe that she did, even though I misspoke and gave a different wording. I meant to say "not being on the same page". I try to think highly of her and try to understand the motivations for writing her first response in this blog post, but my intentions are misunderstood as criticisms. Again, I think it's because I am posting anonymously. Like the website said, anonymous posters are often taken suspiciously as if they are up to no good. <br /><br />I hope that this post clears any misunderstandings of this exchange.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-73808962530266977282013-03-15T15:51:47.823-05:002013-03-15T15:51:47.823-05:00Anonymous has decided to stop posting on this blog...Anonymous has decided to stop posting on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-11586977154546754642013-03-15T15:51:13.563-05:002013-03-15T15:51:13.563-05:00Niffirg R. Inep has decided to stop posting on thi...Niffirg R. Inep has decided to stop posting on this blog.Niffirg R. Inepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-71890820491329745792013-03-15T14:58:17.137-05:002013-03-15T14:58:17.137-05:00I am just writing this, because Peni R. Griffin th...I am just writing this, because Peni R. Griffin thinks I have some ulterior motivation for commenting on this blog, and when I say something contrary to her opinions, she immediately assumes that I have ulterior motive. WTF? As if my own post is not good enough for her or she expects something from ME! Returning to the story, I think Peni R. Griffin was paying attention to the donkey, while I was paying attention to the implications of the story. It's no wonder that we weren't on the same page at the same time. <br /><br />Lighten up, Peni. Otherwise, do whatever you want. Sheesh.Niffirg R. Inepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-33795674304093392802013-03-15T14:46:52.148-05:002013-03-15T14:46:52.148-05:00OK. I am going to ask myself some questions?
Am I...OK. I am going to ask myself some questions?<br /><br />Am I in the same conversation as Peni R. Griffin?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />What do I want from Peni R. Griffin?<br /><br />Nothing.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to expect Peni R. Griffin to provide whatever I expect from her?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />How to best go about eliciting it?<br /><br />I don't know, and I don't care.<br /><br />Is it time to stop hiding and start being honest with yourself and others?<br /><br />No. Apparently, Peni R. Griffin doesn't like anonymity.<br /><br />That's OK. I don't need your help. Goodbye, Peni R. Griffin. I seek nothing from you, and I would care less of what you say from now on. Niffirg R. Inepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-12073383374097683862013-03-15T07:28:34.663-05:002013-03-15T07:28:34.663-05:00Yes, you did. I think I know who you are now; and ...Yes, you did. I think I know who you are now; and I'm positive that, whether you are who I think or not, you need to ask yourself if you're in the same conversation as me, what you want from me, whether it is reasonable to expect me to provide it, and if so, how to best go about eliciting it. Also, whether it isn't time to stop hiding and start being honest with yourself and others.<br /><br />As for the context - you supplied it. The story as I know it ends with the protagonist trying to carry the loaded donkey across the bridge, losing his balance and everything else. If that doesn't look straightforward to you, I can't help it.Peni R. Griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01781761011389542245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-88374458461874727902013-03-14T15:31:03.321-05:002013-03-14T15:31:03.321-05:00I think I shall call myself "Niffirg R. Inep&...I think I shall call myself "Niffirg R. Inep". Call me Inep, for short. <br /><br />You know, understanding a story depends greatly on context. Even understanding one interpretation of a story depends greatly on context. When you told me "if you try to please everybody you're going to fall off the bridge and lose the donkey", I was completely clueless on what you were trying to say. Fools think that all they need are the words of wisdom and they can get away with the wise words without their proper context. I think that's a mistake, because without understanding the context of a situation or the experience of a person has gone through, it is incredibly difficult to feel empathy and/or truly understand the meaning of someone's intended words. We can make best guesses, but sometimes even our best guesses are not good enough.<br /><br />It's a lot like talking to your grandpa or grandma. Sometimes, your grandpa or grandma may tell you stories. These stories are not just entertaining stories. Well, yeah, they can be entertaining, but they hold some wisdom about life that is so precious that it can only be experienced and perceived, and the words they say can always be with the person, shaping the person's identity and worldview. <br /><br />This is why I am thinking sometimes it's not so easy to describe a person's deeply held beliefs, and sometimes the best way to share one's beliefs about the world is by storytelling. The real danger comes into play when people think that stories are only one thing or the other, that stories always contain morals, or that stories can only be entertaining, or that stories must be classified as SOMETHING. The big beef I have classifications is that sometimes it's hard to classify things. I'm not saying that people shouldn't classify things. I'm just saying that classification may depend on the person's perceptions of the story, but this is perfectly normal and, heck, even encouraged. Just keep in mind that there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into classification, and subjectivity is as powerful and valuable as objectivity.<br /><br />Phew! Way to go, Niffirg R. Inep. I just made whopping rant.Niffirg R. Inepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-20059207682947240802013-03-14T11:09:33.208-05:002013-03-14T11:09:33.208-05:00You know, just because you have to post anonymousl...You know, just because you have to post anonymously due to not being signed into some identifying tool Blogspot recognizes doesn't mean you can't sign your comments.<br /><br />Personally I always read the story of the guys with the donkey as illustrating the truth that if you try to please everybody you're going to fall off the bridge and lose the donkey. Peni R. Griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01781761011389542245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-79439808064706025792013-03-13T19:11:54.420-05:002013-03-13T19:11:54.420-05:00In addition to what I said, there is a well-known ...In addition to what I said, there is a well-known fable called "The Miller, His Son, and The Donkey". Though, when I first read it in a children's storybook on Aesop's fables, the donkey was known as "ass". I interpret the moral lesson of the fable is to show that sometimes it's so easy to change opinions to please other people that it's hard to be sincere for one's personal thoughts and actions. The miller and his son could have stayed with their own way of doing things, or might have taken what they perceived to be the best suggestion or the best and most efficient way to travel. Both ways are perfectly viable in my opinion. But trying to please people for the sake of pleasing people is presumptuous. That reminds me of a video I saw a long, long time ago concerning evangelism. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDo6xDb6NJc&feature=player_embedded#!<br /><br />The narrator has a vision that all American Christians evangelize, because he believes that what he is called to do. He compares evangelism to helping people altruistically. In other words, instead of helping people for the sake of helping people, the point is to help people, because the person in imminent danger is in need of help. The 10000-year part can be quite confusing, but having talked to this guy in person, he actually comes from a young-earth creationist background like his father Tom Short. So, he believes that the universe is about 10,000 years old, and God created it. While it is understandable to disagree with Tim's position on evangelism for a non-Christian (even though many Christians do identify themselves as "evangelical" or about the gospel) or Tom's position on God or his interpretation of scripture, I think the more important thing is what altruism is. The idea is to do good works, not for personal ambitions or desires, but for the sake of trying to be more godly even though one knows that one is going to miserably fail. It's not a bad idea really, when it might give someone something to live for. For some people, they literally and passionately live for God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9052050523351394.post-77918169261902870042013-03-13T17:31:02.796-05:002013-03-13T17:31:02.796-05:00Ha-ha. Philistines. However, I am certain that thi...Ha-ha. Philistines. However, I am certain that this post is referring to the modern definition of a philistine as someone who lacks aesthetic taste or knowledge of the liberal arts much like a hyper-conformist, not the biblical definition of philistine. Though, even the biblical authors of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible portrays the Philistines as the enemies of Canaan and not in a very good light. Even today, people portray anybody who disagree with them as "evil" or cast a negative light on those people without a second thought that the antagonists might be human as well. The idea that God's grace, mercy, forgiveness, and unconditional love (agape) for humanity must have been counter-intuitive in the eyes of humankind which innately has a selfish (sinful) nature. What does this rant about God have to do with this post? Well, the bottom line is, people will always have opinions contrary to others. Some people listen to the opinions of others and cannot find their own voice. Some people only shun outside voices, thinking their own voice is superior. It would be best to just have a balance of the two extremes. I recently watched Pocahontas II: Journey to the New World, and what I got from the movie was "So many voices ringing in my ear / Which is the voice that I was meant to hear?" Chew on that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com