Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
This also is my take except I would think the forum is the right place to hash this out. We all have a background in the LRC, we all have some knowledge of the people and events that may be causing confusion, and we are all here to exercise our faith, patience, love, etc. in helping one another. The shortcomings are not so much a shortcoming in the "forum" but in us.
|
In a way you are probably right. But it needs control — either voluntary or forced. And I am not talking about controlling Harold, but the rest of us. If it is simply "in the forum," it is open to everyone. That is seriously counterproductive to any kind of healing process. You need an environment that is safe. That won't have a flippant comeback when you (him or any of us) says something. We have quite a collection of people here on the forum. I'm not sure that half of them act in a manner that would be helpful for this. But they are fine for regular forum issues.
It needs more of a "by invitation only" to both participate and view. If it is just in the general forum, even if separated to a more appropriate thread or subforum, it is subject to the snips from everyone without filter.
And it would seem that would place us squarely where we are right now. Having to argue about how so-and-so shouldn't be talking "that way" in the "recovery from the recovery" subforum. And we would be "hashing it out."
Harold doesn't need any more hashing. He needs friends. And I've been no better than anyone else. I and others have correctly stated that what has been happening on the forum is not right. But that doesn't make Harold simply bad. Or require him to go away. But I don't see a good way to have the kind of personal and open communication that he really needs now inside of this forum. There are too many "unfriendlies." Not saying that there is anyone who is intentionally mean to Harold, but that their participation would be "mean" to the kind of dialog that needs to be happening. And even opening up the wounds in their presence is probably undesirable, therefore I would suspect an unwillingness to open up in that environment.
The last time we had someone open up in a significant way was a pretty ugly sight. The guy was encouraged to give all of these "details" and in the end it was all about his feelings and his acting out in a public way but too little of his "facts" panned out as true. There were some among us who were almost giddy with delight about what we were getting out of it.
Were we ashamed enough? Probably not. Would we be kinder to Harold? For certain individuals, I would say I am relatively certain they would. For some others, I'm not so sure.
In short (too late) open discussion does not properly apply to everything. Some things require one-on-one or a controlled small group. I hope that Harold finds that group. And it may be that he does not feel that those he knows personally in his vicinity are truly "safe." But neither is the open forum here. Yet we do understand where he is coming from better than most others. So we might be his best choice. But not all together and in the open. It's just not productive.