Visible said...
Second, what has violence got to do with me. I was at their chateau in France and the only violence I saw was Laura's daughter saying she could kick my ass over and over while I was demonstrating some martial arts techniques in slow motion on someone.
Might that be because Les presented himself as something he wasn't, i.e. someone who knew something about martial arts?
Secondly, when I was there they had an impressive liquor collection of which most imbibed liberally so that by the end of the evening nearly everyone was drunk. I take it that alcohol is okay but the use of other mind altering substances used less than ten times a year is not okay. This despite the fact that alcohol kills more people in one year than all drugs have over a century
Here, let me just relate a little story: Years ago when I was at uni and substantially more naive, there was a guy on my floor in the dorm who was pretty nice to me. He also had a girlfriend who was generally kind to me. Then one night she got drunk. It was then that I heard what she really thought of me. Of course, my friend - her boyfriend - excused her saying that, "people don't really mean what they say when they're drunk - it's the alcohol talking." Right... Then later, HE got drunk, and let me just say that he was downright CREEPY when he was drunk. He was gonna kill people, he was death incarnate... All sorts of nice, cheerful things.
I think you get the point. Suffice it to say that alcohol can either be abused, or used as a tool. Either way, it reveals something about the people that consume it. On the night in question, Les had more than enough to drink (along with some other substances apparently) that it seems his "real self" emerged.
It's true that everyone used to drink. That would be past tense, because we later discovered that alcohol is really something you don't ever want to put into your body. Alcohol + sugar is the absolute worst. There are plenty of other threads and posts on those topics around here! In any case, aside from negative dietary effects, there is NOT anything wrong with having a drink or two and singing some karaoke to unwind a bit every now and then. Nobody is superman, and no one was expecting Les to be superman either.
What we were NOT prepared for was the effects of the alcohol + whatever the heck else he had taken. He started dancing around and singing playing music, singing about penises and erections (using much more colorful language). Before this "activity" began, he left the room where he thought we all were. One person was returning from the kitchen, and spotted him finishing up some sort of "product". Shortly thereafter, the above-mentioned fireworks began.
Well, I dunno. We were drinking. He was drinking. He was also doing something else it seems. Is it all just relative? Are we just being harsh and judgmental?
The thing is, I would never go to someone else's house and allow myself to get drunk. I would also CERTAINLY never take my own substances with which to party, because I'm a guest in someone else's house... especially if this was the first time I was meeting them!
Maybe that's old-fashioned, but it's also logical, courteous, and safe. In the world we live in, it's common sense, for god's sake!
Meanwhile most of them smoke as well. I'd like this double standard explained and also an explanation for why my posts, the vast majority of which never mention drugs (and please don't mention this post as it is an obvious parody. I only wish I had something like that)were made verboten.
Well, he couldn't pass up the smoking jab, could he? If that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does.
Gee... someone disapproves of my exercising my freedom of choice which they trumpet as their anthem and yet fail to practice in actuality; all while encouraging me to embrace their causes at Facebook as if we were friends.
Personally, I respect Les' choice to get loopy and sing about erections if that's what he likes to do, but I really don't want him doing it around me. As for Facebook, I'm only going to say this once, people:
FACEBOOK IS NOT REAL LIFE!!
There, I said it. I feel better. Besides that, why should we be forbidden from informing anyone about our interests? Les has a choice here as well: he can unfriend every single person that has anything to do with SOTT and Cassiopaea and FOTCM. But he doesn't. It's a 2-way street, folks.
The worst of it is that people will criticize what they don't experience and judge anothers experiences which they aren't present for as if they had some sort of divine prescience.
It's called common sense.
I bear them no ill will, I just think they're immature as far as understanding certain basic principles of existence. one of these is to consider the message independent of the individual choices of the writer which don't find their way into print. If I started listing exceptional people who changed the world while imbibing in their personal activities I would still be listing them at dawn. it's childish is what it is.
If maturity = singing about erections amidst people I've just met, I think I'll pass.
So the end result is that I am slandered (par for the course) while nothing is said about them by me except for these general observations a long time coming.
It's not slander if one is accurately reporting what happened, and there were far more of "us" than of him. His problem is really that he has nothing to say about us. Nothing truthful, anyway. What he wants is to "keep our secrets" in exchange for keeping his. Problem is, he has nothing to keep secret. But it sure does make him look better in many peoples' eyes, eh? How can I trust someone like that to watch my back?
I suppose it irks me a little when I have never been anything but welcoming and supportive of those folks and never got high around them and only mention my drug experiences when being truthful requires it and I never counsel people to follow my example in this regard. I don't promote such activity but I will not allow anyone to tell me what to do except the divine. Period. I'm firm on that (must be those chicks outside my door last night -grin-)
Um, see above.
My apologies for insulting you. For what it is worth, I accept that certain members of the SOTT group are childish and condemnative as well as grandiose and with many personal flaws. I guess that will be part of their "lessons" (wry smile)
I have lots of flaws. Childish? Sometimes! Condemnative? Sure! Grandiose? Entirely possible! Heck, I put Twitter's programmers to shame in my spare time!!
There's nothing wrong with having flaws. It's true that Les has written some really good stuff, IMO. I also think he's written some total crap. Well, can't win 'em all, right? That isn't really the question. The question is: What is our aim? And also: Does a certain person's participation in that aim add to or subtract from achieving that goal? In his case, I think there was simply too much instability. You can access truths the right way, and then you can force it on yourself in other ways, which DOES seem to work. It also destroys you (and possibly those around you) in the end, time and time again. And that doesn't do
anybody any good.
If it wasn't chemical-induced, than SOMETHING was doing it, and it didn't look good.
Anyway, I don't have a negative opinion of Les the human being. He just isn't someone who I would want standing next to me when the poo hits the fan. That is most definitely a decision that I will make for myself. When everyone comes to the same conclusion, we part ways and that's that.
Personally, I will risk being wrong rather than being burdened with having been right and then having to deal with the repercussions.