Satyrodes continued

[Ron Gatrelle]

John (and to everyone else in the therapy room),
    Good we are cool again. Yes, I got John's personal email and as soon as
I sent my response to his response of my initial  post - I noted it was
waiting in the in box for me. He bit at me some (which is expected) but
offered an olive branch  too. I hope listers are following this drama - as
it is now a good one. Beats the snot out of the Paul- Neil show. Why?
because we not only see conflict here in the John and Ron show ( note how I
give John first billing) - we see conflict resolution!
    How is the resolution accomplished? (Females observe a mystery of the
male gender.)
    First, by a willingness to find a resolution. Just because someone
(especially men) get into personal conflict does not mean they like it. Men
(descent men) will remain bristled and snarley but wanting just a little
bit of "submission" from the other corner so things can get back to normal.
When this happens BOOM it is over. The men give a good shot, frequently
below the belt, then shake hands and it is over.

(Women (wives) hate this. The female typically says "You're sorry, and
that's it? You destroyed me and one 'I'm sorry' and that is supposed to
just wipe everything (women like broad general hard for men to understand
terms) fine?" To which the man says "Yah, lets make love."  It gets worse
from here...)

    While it is true that no one totally forgets where they burry the
hatchet - men sure have a much worse memory than women - and dig faster.
(By the way can you tell yet that I am in a good mood? Why? Because - as a
mouthy person with lots of low self-esteem and a bad self image - I need
all the friends I can get. Thus, I need John. Actually, I want John ..UGH..
John's friendship (we are both heteros).
    There is no second - with men. (Men, there is a second through infinity
with women  as they are much more complex than we.) Ladies, you can't have
it both ways. You can't accurately tell us that our testosterone washed
brains are inferior and then criticize us for "not getting it" when we say
"Yah, that's it, lets kiss."  There is also some advantages to us men in
"just don't get it."  I am glad you ladies do understand so well and
discuss so thoroughly and repeatedly - That however, is a burden we men do
not have to bear. Our baseness definitely frustrates the superior gender,
but it keeps us fat, dumb, and happy - pro wrestling is real.

Summation and final points.
Attitude and intent are easily miss-assessed in this type of printed
format. The problem with communication is that people think it occurred.
This is a good format for the left brained not the right - OK for Einstein
not Picasso.

If any lister wants to continue to listen to this program move to John's
post where I will inject. This post does not have anything to do with
leps - however, leps don't read these posts lepidopterists do.
Lepidopterists who, in far to many cases, need to get our heads out of the
sand and find a way to get along, so we can get on  with the factual
environmental and  technically accurate understanding of lepidoptera.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Calhoun" <bretcal at gte.net>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Satyrodes continued


> OK, I suppose I may have overreacted to Ron's comments.  I was defensive
> about
> an attitude I perceived as offensive.  I greatly appreciate Ron's
> response.  I agree that such conversations should take place behind the
> scenes, but his initial comments did not.  By responding the way I did,
> I effectively produced the very things I hate most about listserver
> postings--politics and hurt feelings.  Although I value Ron's
> clarification, I can't agree with two aspects of his response.
>
> First, I was not trying to build myself up by cutting Ron down.   I
> certainly did not
> want Ron to become the "black backdrop upon which I would paint my own
> nobility and martyrdom." I'm not even sure what that means.  I was
> simply responding to
> comments I found inappropriate.  As Ron mentioned, he and I have been
> down this
> difficult road before.  I was reacting to the past as much as the
> present.
>
You are correct John. You were not "trying" (making a conscious effort) to
make me the black backdrop onto which you would look good -- However, as a
person with some training in professional counseling and human behavior - I
get paid to work with people and their problems - crazy people ( Hey, it
takes one to know one sometimes.) -- this is absolutely one of the most
basically instinctive things people do in verbal conflict i.e. look good by
making them look bad, and the Freudian slip.
My overly dramatic verbage was just a mechanism to bring the discussion
back to a more rational format -by of all things- my own put me up by you
down verbiage. I wish I could say a lot more on this and its purpose and
function in debate. It is not tit-for-tat. It is neutralization.

> Second, I have never, nor would I ever, become hostile to any research
> out of envy.  Ron concluded that I had responded harshly to his paper on
> Megathymus cofaqui
> because I intended to publish on the subject.  In fact, I personally
> find Megathymus
> of little interest.

OK, I stand corrected. I just took your statement in your letter to me
about you and Roever's research and possible plans to be relative to
Floridian cofaqui. I'll go back an reread that area of your letter with
this enlightenment.

 After the publication of this paper, I wrote to Ron
> about some elements of his paper that I believed to be misconceptions
> and inaccuracies as they applied to Florida.  Subsequently, we further
> discussed the issue.  Disagreement is OK and usually leads to healthy
> dialog and continuing research.  As Ron mentioned, I found his paper on
> P. troilus to be right on target.  I also believe his observations can
> be quite intuitive.
>
Intuitiveness, intelectual ability etc are great - when they are correct.
But when wrong they are very wrong. Yah, I have made some pretty amazing
moves in my life -bet on the right number.  I have also really screwed up.
It's a miricle my wife is still with me (all the ladies say - well, DAH).
I'd say John and I have a normal agree most of the time disagree
occasionaly professional relationship. John is not one of these ego guys
who basically demands that everyone agrees with him.

> Finally, although Ron did not mention this in his response, I sent him a
> personal email message immediately after my post.  I wanted to tell him
> why I responded the way I
> had.  Ron, I note that you now sign your postings "UNSUBCRIBED."  I hope
> that is not a permanent decision.
>

That was my "Don't stop me Smeed. Don't stop me... stop me Smeed, You
better stop me Smeed." (Scene from movie "Hook".) The operative word was
currently - which could last five years or five seconds depending on how
long the tantrum lasted and how much attention (positive or negative) I
got. While several atheists (and Episcopals) probably prayed, "Yes, please
let him unsubscribe." Only a real jerk would actually post - "Yah baby, Ron
is out-a-here!"  Seriously, I really did consider just getting the H
(Heaven) out a here. I was truely taken back by the turn of events. I
really don't do well in this format. I have decided to "try" a just lay
low.

> Leroy certainly put it best when he observed that "lepidopterists are a
> temperamental bunch!"  Amen.

Actually he said it best when he said he "just considered the source!"  I
have no idea in what spirit he may have actually said that about Mr.
Gatrelle - but it is a very profound thing as a life lesson. All of us are
VERY different - just like humanity's best friend, dogs. Some dogs (big and
little) bark like crazy but wouldn't hurt a flea - well maybe a flea.
Others are killers (big or small) and never make a sound. I am one of those
dogs whose bark is MUCH worse than his bite. Yes, KNOWING the source is
very important. You can't really "know" anyone through a bulletin board.
Knowing that there really is a Hell out there - I don't take this life
nearly as seriously as some think I do.

CONDITIONALLY subscribed
(Good thing this is not the Survivor show - or is it?)
Ron
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl