Posted by lc bob on May 01, 1999 at 15:48:43:
In Reply to: Anony posted by Michelle on May 01, 1999 at 11:36:16:
Michelle, DJ, and friends,
i am heartened by Michelle's signed post. it would've been easy to let us go on fuming at a nameless form.
a very interesting thing happened to me last night. i was preparing a response to your post that would've made Margi's sound like a mother goose tale ... then my stable, never-crashes-for-no-reason, reliable-as-CH 'pooter took an unsolicited machine check (pardon the jargon) ... and re-booted. i was beside myself ... the castigation i had planned for anony made me salivate ... i believed i had captured the essence of stinging rebuke - i was enraged at my misfortune.
!!
last night it struck me that i may have been host to providence. my artfully designed razor-edged verbal assault had no value to anyone. it made me feel better to write it. it would've given me such pleasure to post it. it would've added nothing to the pursuit of a cure for CH, nor would it have provided any solice for someone looking for help here. it would've been wrong. (this, kids, is the BarbD philosophy of strife ... write it but don't send it ... a very wise recommendation that i was quite prepared to ignore. so Barb ... you didn't somehow make my machine shit, now did you?? *g*)
Michelle, ask yourself what motivations you felt when you wrote your anony post. As much as i'm sure you console yourself with the belief that you wrote it out of selfless altruism for Carl, more introspection might reveal another, possibly subliminal, objective. you were undeniably correct that noone had posted an invitation to provide Carl shelter. think about that. if you could assist Carl, would you respond on a public board with a phone number and address or would your preference be to write Carl privately via email? this is a rhetorical question. of course you wouldn't do it publically. concluding that nobody had offerred Carl a place to stay based on a lack of public invitations was at best ill-conceived. it's presumtuous to assume he received no offer of help. i don't want to yell at you. i'm certainly no model of morality and i'm not qualified to preach. but i think if you take a hard look at why you posted what you did you may find there were other motivations ... perhaps a fear that you are but a few paychecks from the street (as are many of us these days) and you sought comfort in knowing someone would help such an individual ... perhaps a desire to point out what you thought was disingenuous support for Carl. it occurs to me that your decision to post anonymously may be an indication of your intention. i would think you would have no problem signing a purely humanitarian request in Carl's behalf. more than 'nuff said. i'm willing to put it all aside. ok, Mich?
as to the general debate about anonymous postings, i agree with all who promoted the 1st amendment in one form or another. we cannot restrict speech. one man's food is another man's poison. i might suggest that we simply rename the "submit" button to "think-about-what-you-wrote-and-what-it-contributes-to-the-CHead-who's-having-a-10-right-now" ... although i guess it's have to be a pretty big button than ... maybe that'd be good ... it should be a big responsibility to post your thoughts to the world.
finally, as to Carl D himself. his muteness through all this screams at me. is he unplugged in his car? is he on his way to a fellow CHead's house? is he ok? is he embarrassed to death by all of this? and let's not forget: would i give him shelter? only Carl can answer those first questions. Michelle asked a pointed question that, after reflection, i,for one, admit is hard to confront. it is as much financial and theological as it is CHead-o-logical. CH is expensive. meds cost lots of bucks. with an already tight budget stressed my your own medical expenses lots of folks here have expressed their own financial crises. those folks could hardly afford another CHead in the household. even if you're making it through with rare insurance support or happen to be independently wealthy (!!) how does that work? you sit there taking your meds while Carl watches unable to buy his own? of course not ... so we're talking about a larger committment here than just shelter. finally, if i would give Carl shelter, why haven't i done the same for one of the non-CHeads on the street? would Carl be more deserving than another because he has CH? this question is much larger than CH, it goes to the very definition of charity ... and that, while a valid and controversial subject worthy of thoughtful debate, is probably beyond the intent of DJ's site. let me just say there is no shame in not offerring Carl a place to stay, the question was provocative and perhaps needed some work; somewhere between rewording and application of the BD philosophy), and probably should have been signed were it intended to help Carl only. let's all hope Carl is ok and we'll hear from him soon.
so, DJ - rename that submit button ... and let's move along.
we have a lot to do.
pain freedom is a human right!
-lcb