Re: Intolerance levels high? No.
Posted by Hair Religion on February 25, 2004 at 20:44:23: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
It's more about the mindset.
Mullets are not very long...or you can say really short and partly long. The mullet wearer has to keep cutting most of his hair short to keep the style and that is where we part ways.
Here we are encouraging guys who want to grow their hair long to actually commit to the idea and grow their hair long getting away from the deep seated idea that they have to keep cutting their hair short.
Hair style is a personal choice and you have yours and we have ours and that is perfectly fine. It's just that this board is about long hair so you of course will see people who want long hair for themselves supporting the ideals of long hair.
So...
Posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 21:13:23: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance levels high? No. posted by Hair Religion on February 25, 2004 at 20:44:23:
Okay, I understand that. You're keeping this board for those who want to grow their hair long all over... but do you include those who might only want to grow their hair to a certain [shorter] length, e.g. shoulder length?
BTW I like your website - nice tongue-in-cheek approach!
Re: So...
Posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 01:07:31: Previous NextIn Reply to: So... posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 21:13:23:
Thanks.
I don't classify long hair as hair that has to match my own length. This has come up before as "what is your definition of long" so that is why I put it in the R.A.Q.
But...
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 26, 2004 at 17:05:10: Previous NextIn Reply to: So... posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 21:13:23:
: Okay, I understand that. You're keeping this board for those who want to grow their hair long all over...
Pegasus,
Hair Religion is a poster here like any other, his idea of what the board is for dictates only what he chooses to respond to. There are a multitude of people here ready to assist those with different views about long hair. I don't want you to come away feeling that Hair Religion's hair ideals are a shared vison of this board or that those opinions dictate who is worth assistance or not.
Elizabeth
Re: clarity
Posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:46:31: Previous NextIn Reply to: But... posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 26, 2004 at 17:05:10:
: Hair Religion is a poster here like any other, his idea of what the board is for dictates only what he chooses to respond to. There are a multitude of people here ready to assist those with different views about long hair. I don't want you to come away feeling that Hair Religion's hair ideals are a shared vison of this board or that those opinions dictate who is worth assistance or not.
Quite right seeing how my hair ideals are rather broad (my ideals for myself cover more length than an ideal about less length), basically stating that everybody's hair choice is the best for them.
I do what I can to assist on the men's longhair board out of my own actual experience with long hair as a man, so if I'm not responding to a guy with questions about dreadlocks then it might be because I don't have an personal experience with that hair style and another board member does or someone else may have already responded or should be allowed to respond first.
I definately don't speak for everyone here, thanks for pointing that out Elizabeth, that would be quite a big burden to shoulder. Although, if there is a shared vision of the board I would have to guess that it did have something to do with longhair as a choice for men (but I could be wrong). And yes, my opinions have truely never dictated who is worth assistance or not...how does that work anyway? I seem to remember somebody in the past criticising me for only responding to certain people but I do believe that he was incorrect in his assumption that I thought that only certain people were "worth" responding to. But thanks for emphasising that to Pegasus, Elizabeth, I am a little concerned that he has an incorrect opinion about this board.
More Clarity
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 07, 2004 at 20:57:49: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: clarity posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:46:31:
Everybody uses the same discretion when deciding when to respond. My point with "Hair Religion is a poster here like any other, his idea of what the board is for dictates only what he chooses to respond to" is to say that you do not make decisions about content here.
As for Pegasus having an incorrect opinion about this board it appears to have happened. His use of "You're keeping this board for those who want to grow their hair long all over" does seem to think you do speak for the tone of the whole board.
Elizabeth
Re: Intolerance levels high?
Posted by Justin on February 25, 2004 at 21:31:38: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
: Hello all,
: I'm new to this board, I've just looked thru the posts and some of the Archives. It's a great idea, this board, but here's what strikes me:
: There seems to be a general plea/ wish/ hope among you for society to show more tolerance/ acceptance of men with long hair.
Do you not wish acceptance and tolerance of others holding a different view than your own? I mean really..........being respectful of others, their life-styles and opinions is simply common courtesy. To "beat-up" on somebody a bit different than the masses only shows bad mannors as well as that individuals ignorance and perhaps his own insecurity.
Re: Intolerance levels high?
Posted by nWoSlapnut on February 26, 2004 at 03:58:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
Surely it is not I to whom you pose such criticism. I may not care for mullets nor undercuts, but that is just my own preference, and I do not impose it upon any one else. If I am permitted to grow my hair out the way I like, why should another not be permitted to grow his hair out the way he prefers to do so? Although I have read some posts that demonstrate the intollerance that you mention, most of the people who post here regularly seem very open-minded and supportive to me.
Re: Intolerance levels high?
Posted by Rokker on February 26, 2004 at 07:04:32: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
My philosophy is that if you're going to have long hair, then have long hair. Not long BUT buzzed on the sides. Not long BUT short on the top and sides.
Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't.
That's my opinion. Then again, I've had long hair since the '70s, and I've seen styles come and go. I've seen fads appear and disappear. The oine universal "style", if you want to call it that, is just natural long hair. It's a timeless look. But that's just my opinion.
Also, many of us have long hair as a cultural symbol. For us, it's not a "style" or a "phase" or whatever else. It's a symbol of our heritage.
If someone wants an undercut, that's his prerogative. I just think it looks really silly, and I think it has a negative impact on all longhairs.
Last but not least...a quote from my buddy Treyn....
Right or wrong, keep it long!
:-)
Why?
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 26, 2004 at 16:53:37: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance levels high? posted by Rokker on February 26, 2004 at 07:04:32:
: My philosophy is that if you're going to have long hair, then have long hair. Not long BUT buzzed on the sides. Not long BUT short on the top and sides.
The neat thing is that there is no need for anyone to meet your expectations. Just as some do not accept that long hair is for men and their opinions are irrelevant to most growers, made up ideas about what qualifies as long hair are similarly unimportant. Mullets, undercuts and mohawks are long hair. Actually, even a guy with a rat tail has long hair.
: Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't.
What is the compelling reason for only one length at a time? What about the people that find mullets to be the most attractive? Long hair all over could be looked at as a mullet needing to happen and that person's hair is a disappointment until that correction to the hair is made to make it reach the most attractive style it can be.
:Also, many of us have long hair as a cultural symbol. For us, it's not a "style" or a "phase" or whatever else. It's a symbol of our heritage.
People have long hair for any number of reasons. No reason is intrinsically better than another.
: If someone wants an undercut, that's his prerogative. I just think it looks really silly, and I think it has a negative impact on all longhairs.
So the essence seems to be that someone with mixed short and long hair makes other people with long hair look bad. No wonder Pegasus has posted about attitudes felt here. Most people are aware that people only are an accurate reflection of themselves; no conclusions can supportably be drawn about others based on one representative. I for one have the self-confidence to know that nobody else makes me look bad by their behavior or style. If someone makes assumptions, they are the ones at fault, never the person they based their conclusion on.
Elizabeth
Oh and Pegasus, your question about why intolerance appears here is answered simply. People with long hair are people first and behave as any others do.
Yeeeess...
Posted by Pegasus on February 26, 2004 at 17:51:37: Previous NextIn Reply to: Why? posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 26, 2004 at 16:53:37:
Thanks, Elizabeth,
That was a very intelligent response; in fact you've summarised my impression better than I did...!!!
It just seemed peculiar to me that a group who are a minority as characterised by their physical appearance (nothing wrong with that) should be so intolerant of others who do the same but in a different way. Human nature, as you say!
Pegasus
Re: Intolerance
Posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:23:27: Previous NextIn Reply to: Yeeeess... posted by Pegasus on February 26, 2004 at 17:51:37:
(maybe you could direct us to the thread where "lots" of us tore a guy to pieces so we could examine the circumstances?)
One needs to be very careful when using this word.
It always seems to be used by those unfamiliar with long hair (some newbies, people who prefer other styles than long, etc.) to disparage the board or some members of the board (although it's never really pointed out who exactly demonstrates intolerance or even how what they said is actually showing intolerance).
Is intolerance encouraging growth as opposed to cutting (cutting being the overall "norm" and growth still a bit on the outside of that). If it is then all of us here are being grossly intolerant. Keep in mind if you stay with us for any length of time or if you are motivated to read in the archives, you will see that we stress the idea here of your personal decision being the best one for you. Over and over we tell people that if you want your hair to be shaved, short, a mullet or long (at any length) then that is fine and dandy with us, just so you know that this is what you really want for yourself. This is a far cry from being intolerant. I think that you (and others) may be mixing the idea of being intolerant to a person with not liking (intolerant if you need to define dislike that way) of an idea (the idea of shaved, short, or mullet hair). Again this is not a valid basis to criticise people over. We don't call people intolerant who don't like to wear their hair long, it's just their choice. They would be acting intolerant if they were to demand that we cut our hair and do what it takes to achieve that goal.Intolerance: the opposite of tolerance.
Tolerance:
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
We don't tell others how to grow, cut or wear their hair (unless they are looking for help, opinions or ideas about it). If you post here you can expect answers (it is a board) and you will get personal opinions, many of which favor long hair...this is a long hair support board. I can't help but to wonder why people come to our little corner of the internet and think that we are so horribly intolerant because have or want long hair for ourselves and talk about it on a topic specific board.
I think that if we were to examine the "standard", we would definately be fine under 2.a. (2.b. and 3 get off the discussion path).I keep getting these flashes of examples in my head.
A guy A who picks on guy B, guy B doesn't like guy A because of this, so guy A accuses guy B of being intolerant of him.
I know that the picking on part doesn't relate to you but as you already stated we are a minority...a variation of the standard (the standard clearly being short styles of hair), and the standard doesn't always like us much. This is how it looks from this side of the fence. Tagging us with the label of intolerant just doesn't make sense, we are merely exercising our opinion(s). This is why using the word "intolerance" can be tricky, even dangerous.
Now if we came off the board and went after somebody for his/her short hair then that would be showing a problem.Again, don't confuse the dislike for an idea with a dislike of a person who has choosen that idea. I can dislike mullets but if someone with a mullet posts here I don't dislike him and would never tell him that he should get rid of his mullet (actually I don't even care).
Re: Intolerance
Posted by Pegasus on February 26, 2004 at 23:09:27: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:23:27:
: (maybe you could direct us to the thread where "lots" of us tore a guy to pieces so we could examine the circumstances?)
I'm not sure how you post links to your Archives, but it's under "Why is the mullet so hated?" posted 13 June 2000 by Ed.
: One needs to be very careful when using this word.
: It always seems to be used by those unfamiliar with long hair (some newbies, people who prefer other styles than long, etc.) to disparage the board or some members of the board (although it's never really pointed out who exactly demonstrates intolerance or even how what they said is actually showing intolerance).I'm not 'disparaging' anybody, and as I say, everyone can look how they want, cool by me. I did point out in general terms what I meant but man, I'm a visitor here, I dont want to throw accusations at people's heads, thats not the point.
: Is intolerance encouraging growth as opposed to cutting (cutting being the overall "norm" and growth still a bit on the outside of that). If it is then all of us here are being grossly intolerant.
Sorry, not sure where that came from?
: I think that you (and others) may be mixing the idea of being intolerant to a person with not liking (intolerant if you need to define dislike that way) of an idea (the idea of shaved, short, or mullet hair). Again this is not a valid basis to criticise people over. We don't call people intolerant who don't like to wear their hair long, it's just their choice. They would be acting intolerant if they were to demand that we cut our hair and do what it takes to achieve that goal.
That's cool. But as Elizabeth pointed out, there are others on the board who would accept perhaps other hair variations as being 'longhair' and I'm intersted in all opinions. I respect yours and I respect those of others too.
: Tolerance:
: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
: 2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
: b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.That's it! 'Permissable deviation' from your/ the board's 'specified value'/ 'standard'=> that's what I'm asking.
:
: I can't help but to wonder why people come to our little corner of the internet and think that we are so horribly intolerant because have or want long hair for ourselves and talk about it on a topic specific board.Um, not sure that's what I said. Not 'you are intolerant because you have long hair' rather 'your tolerance of other (hairstyle) minority groups doesn't seem to me to be very high' (not meaning all of you), and wondering why that is.
: as you already stated we are a minority...a variation of the standard (the standard clearly being short styles of hair), and the standard doesn't always like us much. This is how it looks from this side of the fence. Tagging us with the label of intolerant just doesn't make sense, we are merely exercising our opinion(s).
Again, 'intolerance' in the context of 'toward other hair minorities'.
Hair Religion, I wouldn't have posted this if I just wanted to slag you off. I am trying to understand WHY some of you (again, not all)cannot seem to "live and let live".Anyway, thanks for your long response and peace!
Re: or is it?
Posted by Hair Religion on February 27, 2004 at 01:18:29: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance posted by Pegasus on February 26, 2004 at 23:09:27:
Why is the mullet so hated?" posted 13 June 2000 by Ed.:
Here is a rundown of the thread.
You see a person post to the board with a chip on his shoulder assuming that we all are filled with hate for his hair style.
Then a couple of people voiced their support for him.
Then we heard from someone who is known to have other issues on the board saying that the bad attitude that shorthairs have for the mullet is felt by longhairs because people who don't know what the difference is (or care) think that all long hair is like a mullet (thus causing him to hate that style......I should add that this guy has never had very long hair and recently shaved it off).
Then some guy I don't know was very rude (maybe brought out by the first guy saying that he cries over insults to his hair, emotional fragility often brings out the wolves anywhere, but that is a general human problem).
Then someone voiced a personal opinion not in favor of mullets (not with hatred or intolerance).
Then another in support of the guy with a mullet.
Then someone chastising those who were insulting him (actually one person) claiming that there were many doing this.
Then someone with a story about where they see mullets on a daily basis.
Then a person who I don't know chimes in and says that mullets are ugly (personal opinion but not a personal attack).
The last post considered if there was a difference.That's exactly one insult, three personal opinions preferring to not have mullets, 3 supporters and two discussing the topic.
Hardly a case of being torn to pieces by "us" here. Don't take this wrong but please read carefully and pay attention and make sure that you yourself don't have some pre-conceived idea of what "we longhairs" are like from one thread.: I'm not 'disparaging' anybody, and as I say, everyone can look how they want, cool by me. I did point out in general terms what I meant but man, I'm a visitor here, I dont want to throw accusations at people's heads, thats not the point.
You may not be trying to but other have and their criticisms of this really rather polite board is usually baseless. We too say that everyone can look how they want, that is the point of this board. If are seeing it otherwise then I'm afraid that I cannot share your short term view.
: : Is intolerance encouraging growth as opposed to cutting (cutting being the overall "norm" and growth still a bit on the outside of that). If it is then all of us here are being grossly intolerant.
: Sorry, not sure where that came from?
This is what we do here and what this board is about, that is where that came from. It's hardly an intolerant position.
: That's cool. But as Elizabeth pointed out, there are others on the board who would accept perhaps other hair variations as being 'longhair' and I'm intersted in all opinions. I respect yours and I respect those of others too.
Well, that exactly what I accept and pointed out too. Always have. My opinion actually incompases all these "variations". Stick around and you'll see this.
: That's it! 'Permissable deviation' from your/ the board's 'specified value'/ 'standard'=> that's what I'm asking.
Well of course, that was the point of my posting that. There is no standard here, only people's own hopes and wishes for themselves.
: Um, not sure that's what I said. Not 'you are intolerant because you have long hair' rather 'your tolerance of other (hairstyle) minority groups doesn't seem to me to be very high' (not meaning all of you), and wondering why that is.
I wasn't necessairly referring to you, we do get lots of people coming through here (many one post wonders). There are a plethra of different hairstyles and I don't think one could really refer to each different style as a minority. There are certain general classifications like short, long, odd (usually requiring an amount of effort), etc. and they mostly are just personal choices and do tend to change often.
: Again, 'intolerance' in the context of 'toward other hair minorities'.
: Hair Religion, I wouldn't have posted this if I just wanted to slag you off. I am trying to understand WHY some of you (again, not all)cannot seem to "live and let live".Do you base this just on the afore mentioned thread? One A-hole who isn't hasn't posted since and a couple of personal opinions in response to a post that accused us all of hating his hair style?
We live and let live everyday and "tolerate" others just fine yet you still want to believe that we tend to be intolerant. This becomes unsettling. What you seek is a bigger issue across the spectrum of humans. Different personalities, situations, beliefs, etc. Why do people do what they do and how can we stop them from being that way? We can't, that's life.One thing that would be helpful is to keep in mind is that some things look different when typed than when spoken and this can lead to misunderstandings. There are also A-holes who do pop in on this board now and then (less than many other boards though) and there isn't always much you can do about them since the structure of the board allows for anybody and their uncle to post once or more without registering and never return (kind of like a public park). Don't hold them against the rest of us.
: )
Re: Intolerance
Posted by Barry on February 27, 2004 at 16:53:01: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:23:27:
I'm sure we all have preferences about what styles we actually like or dislike. It's a matter of taste. But people should feel free to have whatever hairstyle they like.
One style which I find a bit strange is men, usually in their 50's, with grey hair just long enough to be tied back in a minute pigtail, usually with a bright red tie. perhaps it's a way of saying 'I used to have a long ponytail but I'm a bit old for that now!" Good luck to men with such hair, I'm just puzzled by the thinking behind the style.Cheers, Barry
The appearance of intolerance
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 28, 2004 at 19:26:42: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Intolerance posted by Hair Religion on February 26, 2004 at 19:23:27:
: It always seems to be used by those unfamiliar with long hair (some newbies, people who prefer other styles than long, etc.) to disparage the board or some members of the board (although it's never really pointed out who exactly demonstrates intolerance or even how what they said is actually showing intolerance).
I'd agree an unsubstantiated complaint is not as effective but consider what it means. It is a person speaking up to say, "I don't feel welcome/comfortable/valued here." The way they express it can be flawed but I do take it as a genuine expression of being disheartened. Untold numbers also leave silently. Let me give a few examples that may influence their perception.
The repetitively asked questions link can be off putting. (http://members.tripod.com/hairreligion/mlh.htm) While a useful document that likely includes answers to other questions that will follow, what message is being sent to the newbie? I'd think many get the feeling that they are wasting board space with their question. It is not welcoming to say that question comes up all the time. As long as the link is being posted it does no harm to cut and paste in the appropriate answer at the same time. The inferred message "we covered that already," then becomes, "here is what you wanted to know and for more information you might want to take a look at this." One can be dismissive and the other friendly.
The mention of "one hit wonders" comes to mind as well. (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/62422.html among other places) I am unsure why the number of posts matters. If a question is asked and answered that may be all a person really needs.
And finally, Hair Religion is bored while at the same time a lot of other people are getting the help they ask for.
(http://the-light.com/mens/messages/62755.html) Just how was that remark meant to be taken by the other board participants?
: Is intolerance encouraging growth as opposed to cutting (cutting being the overall "norm" and growth still a bit on the outside of that). If it is then all of us here are being grossly intolerant. Keep in mind if you stay with us for any length of time or if you are motivated to read in the archives, you will see that we stress the idea here of your personal decision being the best one for you. Over and over we tell people that if you want your hair to be shaved, short, a mullet or long (at any length) then that is fine and dandy with us, just so you know that this is what you really want for yourself. This is a far cry from being intolerant. I think that you (and others) may be mixing the idea of being intolerant to a person with not liking (intolerant if you need to define dislike that way) of an idea (the idea of shaved, short, or mullet hair). Again this is not a valid basis to criticise people over. We don't call people intolerant who don't like to wear their hair long, it's just their choice. They would be acting intolerant if they were to demand that we cut our hair and do what it takes to achieve that goal.: Intolerance: the opposite of tolerance.
: Tolerance:
: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
: 2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
: b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
: 3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.How about this? By definition 2a tolerance is leeway for variation from a standard. The board standard generally is long hair without cut back portions. Those here with mullets and undercuts are probably feeling an intolerant attitude- no leeway for diversity granted when Rokker opines, "Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't. If someone wants an undercut, that's his prerogative. I just think it looks really silly, and I think it has a negative impact on all longhairs." (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/63234.html)
: We don't tell others how to grow, cut or wear their hair (unless they are looking for help, opinions or ideas about it). If you post here you can expect answers (it is a board) and you will get personal opinions, many of which favor long hair...this is a long hair support board. I can't help but to wonder why people come to our little corner of the internet and think that we are so horribly intolerant because have or want long hair for ourselves and talk about it on a topic specific board.When there is traffic in posters feeling unsupported on the topic of long hair, then it is reasonable to consider if the message trying to be sent is the one getting across.
: I think that if we were to examine the "standard", we would definately be fine under 2.a. (2.b. and 3 get off the discussion path).
: I keep getting these flashes of examples in my head.
: A guy A who picks on guy B, guy B doesn't like guy A because of this, so guy A accuses guy B of being intolerant of him.
: I know that the picking on part doesn't relate to you but as you already stated we are a minority...a variation of the standard (the standard clearly being short styles of hair), and the standard doesn't always like us much. This is how it looks from this side of the fence. Tagging us with the label of intolerant just doesn't make sense, we are merely exercising our opinion(s). This is why using the word "intolerance" can be tricky, even dangerous.
: Now if we came off the board and went after somebody for his/her short hair then that would be showing a problem.Intolerance can occur within groups as well as between groups.
: Again, don't confuse the dislike for an idea with a dislike of a person who has choosen that idea. I can dislike mullets but if someone with a mullet posts here I don't dislike him and would never tell him that he should get rid of his mullet (actually I don't even care).
Hair Religion, you have been dependably clear on saying you support people in choosing what is right for them. Where I do see an issue is the implied criticism that comes out when comments are made about wanting long hair like someone else as expressed in your RAQ, "Your hair has a uniqueness to it that you will discover and if you grow it realizing this and not just to look like your favorite celebrity then you will more likely be pleased with the result of your efforts and probably will keep it longer." Questioning their commitment to long term growth is irrelevant. They want long hair at the moment, the future does not bear on their current need. I see no purpose served by judging the choice of another. Dislike of a person or their preference does not matter, neither have any need to be expressed when fostering a positive environment.
Elizabeth
Re: not really
Posted by Hair Religion on February 29, 2004 at 15:58:32: Previous NextIn Reply to: The appearance of intolerance posted by Elizabeth Regina on February 28, 2004 at 19:26:42:
: I'd agree an unsubstantiated complaint is not as effective but consider what it means. It is a person speaking up to say, "I don't feel welcome/comfortable/valued here." The way they express it can be flawed but I do take it as a genuine expression of being disheartened. Untold numbers also leave silently.
How about unwarranted, undeserved, not needed? I have nothing to do with whatever preconceptions people come here with. Obivously Pegasus had some preconceptions/issues as he mentioned that he already thought about it in comparison to his brother's longer hair. Then picking out a 3 1/2 year old post, blowing it out of porportion (see my play by play) and assuming that this is how we are here?
Please don't try to use something like "untold numbers also leave silently" to try and back up your personal criticism of myself and the board. I don't know you that well as you haven't been around here that long but long enough to know better, and your willingness to engage in a lengthy debates shows that you know better than to call on such "invisible" knowledge. How would you know this to be so? Have you personally chatted with all of those whom you whimsically refer to? Do you know for a fact that they "left" (since there is no actual membership here joining or leaving are relative terms) or are they just reading posts and not saying anything? There are believed to be lots of people who only read posts (some of which chime in now and than stating as much) but who could know for sure? Some of our contributers participate now and then or even take long breaks away doing other things that are more important to them. Many have stated that the constant barrage of repetitive questions forces them to take breaks in participation (I'm sure that you couldn't have missed those posts as well).
: The repetitively asked questions link can be off putting. (http://members.tripod.com/hairreligion/mlh.htm) While a useful document that likely includes answers to other questions that will follow, what message is being sent to the newbie? I'd think many get the feeling that they are wasting board space with their question. It is not welcoming to say that question comes up all the time. As long as the link is being posted it does no harm to cut and paste in the appropriate answer at the same time. The inferred message "we covered that already," then becomes, "here is what you wanted to know and for more information you might want to take a look at this." One can be dismissive and the other friendly.In your opinion but also helpful in others's opinions. There is a real reason I put that up and not only was is applauded by members of the board but also to newbies and even some one hit wonders. After I posted it another newer but regular poster thought that it may be "off-putting" as you put it. So I altered it to CLEARLY show that any questions by them are not considered to be stupid, etc. If someone cannot read that and understand that then I have no suggestions for them (and there are people out there like that). It's actually impossible to please everyone completely and a worthless endevor to do so (lessons of life), so I just do what I can. The complainers will complain, that is what they do. If sending more timely information to a newbie is bad then I guess that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. How about just letting the newbies figure out for themselves if they are offended by something or not and then work it out?
Sometimes it is a lesson for the newbie to point out certain aspects of the board such as reading down a little may contain the answer since it was just asked. If they are going to participate on boards on the internet this is something valuable to learn and since it wasn't said in a malicious way then if they take offense to it then their own sensitivity level is something that I have no control over and they will probably travel the net getting offended by everyone. Sucks don't it? I usually do post the link when I answer a post like this (didn't you notice?).: The mention of "one hit wonders" comes to mind as well. (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/62422.html among other places) I am unsure why the number of posts matters. If a question is asked and answered that may be all a person really needs.
Well, this was not offensive as he read it to be and he has been around for a short while but long enough to know better about how I respond to people. Again as I pointed out to him, here you are criticising me for a post that wasn't directed to you. I don't know why some folks have to go around taking offense for other people, especially when the person didn't take offense in the first place (then all of a sudden I'm a bad guy).
The number of posts doesn't matter but the "one hit wonder" is an issue in itself to boards all over the internet. I don't know how well traveled you are on other boards but there are many aspects to this and range from a new computer user stumbling across a board and never finding their way back, to spamers, to malicious posters or even hackers, to trolls, to people who have no idea how to join in a conversation or debate, to experienced users who don't have time to follow up on something they started, to people who are just looking for attention (often in the troll category). It's not me, the big arrogant meanie, who says this about this board.
I already know that they may be looking for one bit of helpful info and that it. This is why I do bother to respond when I can or if someone else hasn't already and this is the MAIN reason I created the RAQ. I stated as much before but selective picking of my posts probably won't show that.: And finally, Hair Religion is bored while at the same time a lot of other people are getting the help they ask for.
: (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/62755.html) Just how was that remark meant to be taken by the other board participants?How nicely taken out of context, Elizabeth! You haven't been here long enough to get to know Rockker if you even knew of him at all. He has been participating on this board for YEARS (even longer than me if I remember correctly). For the past year or so he has taken a break from posting due to having been frustrated with constant repetitive "garbage" issues on the board (ex. I know the way to make hair grow faster but don't want to back it up since I can't, bible issues, you are a meanie because you think you know everything, etc.). Rockker is a very knowledgable longhair and can be very blunt and strong with his opinions and this is often taken the wrong way by newbies (new to hair growth as well as the board). It's just his style. I had missed Rockker's lively participation and this is what I was referring to. Sorry if it doesn't back up your criticism of me, Elizabeth, but maybe you shouldn't look so hard to find something on me.
: : Intolerance: the opposite of tolerance.
: : Tolerance:
: How about this? By definition 2a tolerance is leeway for variation from a standard. The board standard generally is long hair without cut back portions. Those here with mullets and undercuts are probably feeling an intolerant attitude- no leeway for diversity granted when Rokker opines, "Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't. If someone wants an undercut, that's his prerogative. I just think it looks really silly, and I think it has a negative impact on all longhairs." (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/63234.html)Well, I took that from the dictionary so I guess you can say or change it to whatever makes you happy but the definition will stay the same.
Again, there is no board standard, I don't know where people get ideas about this except from the name and from how a few of it contributers look. If you go by the look that most here have then it wouldn't be very long at all. I don't try and push my own look on people other than to suggest that they not limit their length prematurely or to suggest trims, washing, etc. I know that some have taken Rokker to task for his stance on one-length hair but I think that these sort of opinions are valuable here and don't have to match mine. I certainly don't take offense to those sort of personal opinions. I've seen people come on this board and tell us that they prefer buzz cuts and that we should think about shaving our heads too. I say that's fine for you if you like it but this is hardly the place to bring that up.
There are a lot of people that post or read the posts and they all have different hair and different opinions, and different goals...and they all are allowed to post here. We need this. If you come here and see one contributer that has an opinion that you don't like, is that going to not only color your opinion of the board but actually drive you away? If it does then not only do you not understand internet chat boards but your fairytale ideal of how things should be can only be made a reality by having your own private board where anyone that you choose to let in will have to only say what you want them to say. Then there is no exchange of opinions (no real discussion)...and that really does suck.
: When there is traffic in posters feeling unsupported on the topic of long hair, then it is reasonable to consider if the message trying to be sent is the one getting across.Not when you consider the circumstances. Where there is smoke doesn't mean that there is a forest fire. Somebody may just be smoking a cigarette or have a campfire, etc.
I would not say that there is traffic when there is but one new poster complaining. I examined his complaint and found it to be shallow AT BEST. Now you adding to the complaint by trying to point out fault with me is also not what I would call traffic but I have pointed out some of the things that you are implying about me are not exactly what you say they are.
It would be REASONABLE to examine the history of the board and it's members (usually by spending some time here) to get a realistic impression about how things really are or if the "message" (whatever that is) is getting across.
(New York City looks really boring when I fly over it at 600miles an hour...gues it must be that way).
: Hair Religion, you have been dependably clear on saying you support people in choosing what is right for them. Where I do see an issue is the implied criticism that comes out when comments are made about wanting long hair like someone else as expressed in your RAQ, "Your hair has a uniqueness to it that you will discover and if you grow it realizing this and not just to look like your favorite celebrity then you will more likely be pleased with the result of your efforts and probably will keep it longer." Questioning their commitment to long term growth is irrelevant. They want long hair at the moment, the future does not bear on their current need. I see no purpose served by judging the choice of another. Dislike of a person or their preference does not matter, neither have any need to be expressed when fostering a positive environment.Well, dislike of a person never entered in here so lets leave that one in the garbage.
Experience taught me that it is not irrelevant (at least in men). You as a woman have always had the option of long hair. Men in today's society are conditioned not to have long hair. When in the course of their development in to adulthood they run across attractive examples of men who seem to be daring to be their own person, sometimes they understand what they see but have not had the experience yet to relate it to their own life yet. So, following the thought is the longterm action of growing it. This is when the reality of their thought hits them, whether it's their own difficulty with it or other's, and we see many decide not to continue with it. But we see this in many other things other than men's hair growth. Women wanting to look like someone else, children wanting to grow up do something like be a fireman, etc., it goes on and on so it's not just an opinion that I formulated. Questioning them is part of the process. It is part of the discussion of the board and it's probably better to get questions first from someone who understands your goal than the people around him that will be negatively questioning him for years to come. I went through all that before there was an internet to play on and I think that this way is much better to help someone understand what they are doing. As I said before, the internet with boards like this have changed the process for those guys who come here like this.
In life many people are full of talk but what it comes down to is are they ready or able to walk the walk. And if you are someone who actually takes offense to someone asking you to examine your "desire" a little deeper then you may have a serious confidence problem...something that we just might be able to give you some pointers on if you are grown up enough to listen.
Really?
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 07, 2004 at 23:50:02: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: not really posted by Hair Religion on February 29, 2004 at 15:58:32:
: How about unwarranted, undeserved, not needed? I have nothing to do with whatever preconceptions people come here with. Obivously Pegasus had some preconceptions/issues as he mentioned that he already thought about it in comparison to his brother's longer hair. Then picking out a 3 1/2 year old post, blowing it out of porportion (see my play by play) and assuming that this is how we are here?
His example was not a good one but he was trying to work with what he could find.
: Please don't try to use something like "untold numbers also leave silently" to try and back up your personal criticism of myself and the board. I don't know you that well as you haven't been around here that long but long enough to know better,...
I have been here long enough, and read enough to have the same concern at times.
:...and your willingness to engage in a lengthy debates shows that you know better than to call on such "invisible" knowledge. How would you know this to be so? Have you personally chatted with all of those whom you whimsically refer to? Do you know for a fact that they "left" (since there is no actual membership here joining or leaving are relative terms) or are they just reading posts and not saying anything? There are believed to be lots of people who only read posts (some of which chime in now and than stating as much) but who could know for sure? Some of our contributers participate now and then or even take long breaks away doing other things that are more important to them. Many have stated that the constant barrage of repetitive questions forces them to take breaks in participation (I'm sure that you couldn't have missed those posts as well).
I am certainly not arguing that all people who have not posted for some time have been chased away. Given the sensitivity of some teenagers and others hounded in life who straggle in here I find it unreasonable to believe no one has ever left with hurt feelings. "Untold" numbers mean exactly that, we do not know.
: In your opinion but also helpful in others's opinions. There is a real reason I put that [RAQ] up and not only was is applauded by members of the board but also to newbies and even some one hit wonders. After I posted it another newer but regular poster thought that it may be "off-putting" as you put it. So I altered it to CLEARLY show that any questions by them are not considered to be stupid, etc. If someone cannot read that and understand that then I have no suggestions for them (and there are people out there like that). It's actually impossible to please everyone completely and a worthless endevor to do so (lessons of life), so I just do what I can. The complainers will complain, that is what they do. If sending more timely information to a newbie is bad then I guess that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. How about just letting the newbies figure out for themselves if they are offended by something or not and then work it out?
Part of looking out for people means going out of your way to prevent misunderstandings. Considering the audience here there will be people arriving here in need of gently treatment. I do thank you for making use of my suggestion regarding tone in a recent post of yours making mention of the RAQ.
: Sometimes it is a lesson for the newbie to point out certain aspects of the board such as reading down a little may contain the answer since it was just asked. If they are going to participate on boards on the internet this is something valuable to learn and since it wasn't said in a malicious way then if they take offense to it then their own sensitivity level is something that I have no control over and they will probably travel the net getting offended by everyone. Sucks don't it? I usually do post the link when I answer a post like this (didn't you notice?).
It was not the link in doubt but the posting of advice in the text of the message. One is tempted to ask if you noticed- "As long as the link is being posted it does no harm to cut and paste in the appropriate answer at the same time."
: Well, this [one hit wonder] was not offensive as he read it to be and he has been around for a short while but long enough to know better about how I respond to people. Again as I pointed out to him, here you are criticising me for a post that wasn't directed to you. I don't know why some folks have to go around taking offense for other people, especially when the person didn't take offense in the first place (then all of a sudden I'm a bad guy).
You never have been a bad guy, just someone to discuss things with. It is the nature of a discussion board to be free for all replies to content shared publicly.
: The number of posts doesn't matter but the "one hit wonder" is an issue in itself to boards all over the internet. I don't know how well traveled you are on other boards but there are many aspects to this and range from a new computer user stumbling across a board and never finding their way back, to spamers, to malicious posters or even hackers, to trolls, to people who have no idea how to join in a conversation or debate, to experienced users who don't have time to follow up on something they started, to people who are just looking for attention (often in the troll category). It's not me, the big arrogant meanie, who says this about this board.
I am still not understanding why any of those people would not get a kind, gentle welcome.
: I already know that they may be looking for one bit of helpful info and that it. This is why I do bother to respond when I can or if someone else hasn't already and this is the MAIN reason I created the RAQ. I stated as much before but selective picking of my posts probably won't show that.
It is a useful document on the whole, it is the presentation I comment upon.
: How nicely taken out of context, Elizabeth! You haven't been here long enough to get to know Rockker if you even knew of him at all. He has been participating on this board for YEARS (even longer than me if I remember correctly). For the past year or so he has taken a break from posting due to having been frustrated with constant repetitive "garbage" issues on the board (ex. I know the way to make hair grow faster but don't want to back it up since I can't, bible issues, you are a meanie because you think you know everything, etc.). Rockker is a very knowledgable longhair and can be very blunt and strong with his opinions and this is often taken the wrong way by newbies (new to hair growth as well as the board). It's just his style. I had missed Rockker's lively participation and this is what I was referring to. Sorry if it doesn't back up your criticism of me, Elizabeth, but maybe you shouldn't look so hard to find something on me.
Missing a friend calls for welcoming him back but my criticism of professing boredom still stands. One might be bored but to say that in the presence of others leaves something to be desired. I am quite familiar with the tone and style of Rokker from before he took a break. He does make the board more lively and now I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with him.
: Well, I took that from the dictionary so I guess you can say or change it to whatever makes you happy but the definition will stay the same.
We agree on the definition, we are just applying it to different circumstances.
: Again, there is no board standard, I don't know where people get ideas about this except from the name and from how a few of it contributers look. If you go by the look that most here have then it wouldn't be very long at all. I don't try and push my own look on people other than to suggest that they not limit their length prematurely or to suggest trims, washing, etc. I know that some have taken Rokker to task for his stance on one-length hair but I think that these sort of opinions are valuable here and don't have to match mine. I certainly don't take offense to those sort of personal opinions. I've seen people come on this board and tell us that they prefer buzz cuts and that we should think about shaving our heads too. I say that's fine for you if you like it but this is hardly the place to bring that up.
Opinions are one thing but when it is deliberately unsupportive of those present here I do question the usefulness of speaking up.
: There are a lot of people that post or read the posts and they all have different hair and different opinions, and different goals...and they all are allowed to post here. We need this. If you come here and see one contributer that has an opinion that you don't like, is that going to not only color your opinion of the board but actually drive you away? If it does then not only do you not understand internet chat boards but your fairytale ideal of how things should be can only be made a reality by having your own private board where anyone that you choose to let in will have to only say what you want them to say. Then there is no exchange of opinions (no real discussion)...and that really does suck.
I am all for open discussion. The difference bewteen us seems to be that I have faith that people can treat each other with respect.
:
: : When there is traffic in posters feeling unsupported on the topic of long hair, then it is reasonable to consider if the message trying to be sent is the one getting across.: Not when you consider the circumstances. Where there is smoke doesn't mean that there is a forest fire. Somebody may just be smoking a cigarette or have a campfire, etc.
One does at least wonder when the smoke signals repeatedly occur at the same place.
: I would not say that there is traffic when there is but one new poster complaining. I examined his complaint and found it to be shallow AT BEST. Now you adding to the complaint by trying to point out fault with me is also not what I would call traffic but I have pointed out some of the things that you are implying about me are not exactly what you say they are.
I have not been convinced, but I shall not convince you either and that is okay.
: It would be REASONABLE to examine the history of the board and it's members (usually by spending some time here) to get a realistic impression about how things really are or if the "message" (whatever that is) is getting across.
Precicisely why I spoke up in agreement with Pegasus, as a reader for some time I can corroborate some of what he speaks to.
: (New York City looks really boring when I fly over it at 600miles an hour...gues it must be that way).
I have always found places interesting by plane.
: Well, dislike of a person never entered in here so lets leave that one in the garbage.
: Experience taught me that it [questioning commitment to long term growth] is not irrelevant (at least in men). You as a woman have always had the option of long hair. Men in today's society are conditioned not to have long hair. When in the course of their development in to adulthood they run across attractive examples of men who seem to be daring to be their own person, sometimes they understand what they see but have not had the experience yet to relate it to their own life yet. So, following the thought is the longterm action of growing it. This is when the reality of their thought hits them, whether it's their own difficulty with it or other's, and we see many decide not to continue with it. But we see this in many other things other than men's hair growth. Women wanting to look like someone else, children wanting to grow up do something like be a fireman, etc., it goes on and on so it's not just an opinion that I formulated. Questioning them is part of the process. It is part of the discussion of the board and it's probably better to get questions first from someone who understands your goal than the people around him that will be negatively questioning him for years to come. I went through all that before there was an internet to play on and I think that this way is much better to help someone understand what they are doing. As I said before, the internet with boards like this have changed the process for those guys who come here like this.We agree in helping people here but differ in the way to go about it. The questioning can benefit people but I do not see it helping until they have worked up enough positive feeling about themselves and their hair. Men do have just as much of an option to have long hair as women do. Some do their own thing possibly depite obstacles and others have a rougher time of it. I won't go into it here but in many ways women can be more vicious to each other over appearance then the comments and pressure men have.
: In life many people are full of talk but what it comes down to is are they ready or able to walk the walk. And if you are someone who actually takes offense to someone asking you to examine your "desire" a little deeper then you may have a serious confidence problem...something that we just might be able to give you some pointers on if you are grown up enough to listen.
Once again I will mention that being gentle on the new ones is a good thing. Question them later but I think coddling new ones is a surer route to helping.
Elizabeth
Re: Yes, not really.
Posted by Hair Religion on March 09, 2004 at 00:20:57: Previous NextIn Reply to: Really? posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 07, 2004 at 23:50:02:
: His example was not a good one but he was trying to work with what he could find.
Now why would he be trying to find something on us...and by going through the archives to a 3 1/2 year old post. If the board were as "intolerant" as he stated, shouldn't he be able to find clear examples of this sort of abuse anywhere on our open board?
No, his "example" was not a good one. So why defend it?
: I have been here long enough, and read enough to have the same concern at times.And you have not left in disgust of all us "intolerant" longhairs yet?
I hear the accusations from time to time but they mostly come from other sources than the truth of the matter. Youth, over-sensitive personalities, mis-information, pre-conceived ideas, opposing ideas/goals/values, even some folks with very apparent mental disorders (for which they have admitted to using medications for). Spend enough time here and you will not only see all types breeze in here but you will begin to notice the consistency of the regulars too.
I know you like the idea that your "suggestion" has led me to treat someone in a different way but in all fairness, I just keep doing what I always do and the difference is how you and others may read my posts. I don't come here to abuse people and I don't come here to stroke young men. This board also isn't necessairly here to JUST be a how-to resource for beginners so the fact that I do participate in such a manner to advise and attempt to discuss hair related issues with beginners says much more than those who say that I am rude to those who I give advice to and attempt discussion with.
: I am certainly not arguing that all people who have not posted for some time have been chased away. Given the sensitivity of some teenagers and others hounded in life who straggle in here I find it unreasonable to believe no one has ever left with hurt feelings. "Untold" numbers mean exactly that, we do not know.Maybe, if they didn't hear exactly what they wanted...and maybe not. Maybe they were all the same troll posting. Maybe their problems aren't things for this board to deal with and should be left to professionals to deal with and not members of this board (if they are really that bad).
: Part of looking out for people means going out of your way to prevent misunderstandings. Considering the audience here there will be people arriving here in need of gently treatment. I do thank you for making use of my suggestion regarding tone in a recent post of yours making mention of the RAQ.Well, using that sort of reasoning then I should remove the RAQ entirely and not attempt to participate on the board myself because some minute detail may cause a misunderstanding in some teenager who has massive problems that we could only speculate about. You said in a previous post that the idea of the RAQ might suggest that we don't care to bother with questions from newbies and this could be off-putting to some......which would mean that having an RAQ is not "looking out" for people and should be frowned upon regardless of the content...if you use that reasoning. Do you begin to see where this leads?
: It was not the link in doubt but the posting of advice in the text of the message. One is tempted to ask if you noticed- "As long as the link is being posted it does no harm to cut and paste in the appropriate answer at the same time."It's called killing two birds with one stone. It's obiviously a person new to growing his hair so when he makes his presence known and asks a question then it's a quick and easy response (for me who doesn't get paid to participate) to post a link that not only answeres this question (which may have been asked a hundred times before which we are also not paid for our time to answer) but perhapse a number of others that he either has now or will have...at the same time! Well, it's splitting hairs to say how much time cutting and pasting takes but if you read most of the posts (including mine) you will see that almost every time there is a response someone DOES try to do more than just post the link...even if they have to keep re-answering the same question (especially since the RAQ is very new and not actually on this site). The problem that arises out of this is that many regular (and perhapse untold numbers of visitors) posters get burnt out having to read and answer the same stuff over and over leading to breaks in participation or even complete loss of intrest in the board (me included). I don't think that that is a good thing do you? Maybe a type of post on the board or a RAQ isn't so offensive or at least is worth a few "possible" misunderstandings (which may or may not happen with people who may or may not have some serious emotional problems or poor reading skills).
: : Well, this [one hit wonder] was not offensive as he read it to be and he has been around for a short while but long enough to know better about how I respond to people. Again as I pointed out to him, here you are criticising me for a post that wasn't directed to you. I don't know why some folks have to go around taking offense for other people, especially when the person didn't take offense in the first place (then all of a sudden I'm a bad guy).: You never have been a bad guy, just someone to discuss things with. It is the nature of a discussion board to be free for all replies to content shared publicly.
INCORRECT! "Sorted" (I left out his name on purpose) is not a one-hit-wonder (thanks again, Elizabeth, for seeming to try and make me look like a big meanie by editing my quoted text...why?) It was from a thread that you posted the link to. This is what I have said that I have to deal with now and then, criticism which is not correct.
:: Sometimes it is a lesson for the newbie to point out certain aspects of the board such as reading down a little may contain the answer since it was just asked. If they are going to participate on boards on the internet this is something valuable to learn and since it wasn't said in a malicious way then if they take offense to it then their own sensitivity level is something that I have no control over and they will probably travel the net getting offended by everyone. Sucks don't it? I usually do post the link when I answer a post like this (didn't you notice?).: I am still not understanding why any of those people would not get a kind, gentle welcome.
I can see that your grasp of people who do hit and runs on chat boards is strangely incomplete. Why is answering someone's question, presenting a link or asking them with a question in response to a bold or naive statement somehow not kind? You may have certain issues of etiquette that others are not versed or intrested in...or that the internet didn't develop around. I have a female friend who is very etiquette aware, sometimes too much. It can be distracting or not good for her own intrests when dealing with men who can't take a hint. It's just the way she was raised. I was not raised to be rude but I also was not raised at her level of etiquette. I have heard many people talk about how impersonal the internet is but the fact is that it's not person to person since you "talk" by typing through a machine in delayed time (leaving messages on a board is especially troubling if you are into interpersonal contact). It may very well be the definition of impersonal. It's certainly about information though and I think that this is the main focus of the board as most of us do not really know the others beyond our posts.
: It is a useful document on the whole, it is the presentation I comment upon.So what specific issues in the presentation are inappropriate (beyond posting a link to it in response to a question)?
: Missing a friend calls for welcoming him back but my criticism of professing boredom still stands. One might be bored but to say that in the presence of others leaves something to be desired. I am quite familiar with the tone and style of Rokker from before he took a break. He does make the board more lively and now I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with him.Then that is your problem. Yes, your own personal problem with how you read my posts and your familiarity of the board. But since you do agree with my assessment of Rokker then why make in an issue to criticise me about (if it's because others can read it then consider that Rokker doesn't post an email address...and neither do you! So all communication has do be done on the board)? Sounds again like an incorrect criticism.
: : Well, I took that from the dictionary so I guess you can say or change it to whatever makes you happy but the definition will stay the same.: We agree on the definition, we are just applying it to different circumstances.
So you really think that expressing your opinion about a personal appearance choice is really a good demonstration/definition of intolerance...even if you didn't express your opinion but were just part of the board at large (referring to the beginning of the topic which led to the presentation of this definition)?
: Opinions are one thing but when it is deliberately unsupportive of those present here I do question the usefulness of speaking up.So, on the Men's Longhair Hyperboard we shouldn't express our personal opinions about preferring long hair? Do you realize what you are saying? You might want to rethink your thoughts. Anyone can be "present" (read) here. Guys who prefer bald and buzzcuts "hang out" here and sometimes say that they prefer their lack of hair. People come on here now and then to tell us to cut our hair, etc. The funny thing is that I see guys here answer them (including myself) saying that if they like their hair that way then, gee whiz, that's great...for them.
Now if you are talking about someone intentionally being a jerk like the ONE guy who did in the post from 3 1/2 years ago that Pegasus dug up (and who hasn't been seen since) then that's a different matter but doesn't refer to the general board OR myself OR the RAQ.
: I am all for open discussion. The difference bewteen us seems to be that I have faith that people can treat each other with respect.Well, you can have your faith but I have a real record on this board of treating others with respect even when they rip into me with incorrect criticism.
: One does at least wonder when the smoke signals repeatedly occur at the same place.In a universe where energy is present in everything, the energy in a small flame is not an unusual thing.
Or go back to the forestfire example. In a forest there are designated camping/campfire areas, so of course you will have areas where fire and smoke are more common because they are designed to be that way. A discussion board is where you will see text smoke because these areas attract different people to come together to talk and have misunderstandings (for a variety of reasons). A topic board like this about being on the outside of social norm is one of these "uncontroversial" places.
: I have not been convinced, but I shall not convince you either and that is okay.So, you think that one personal attack 3 1/2 years ago by a guy we haven't seen since on a NEW visitor who came to the board crying (by his own admission) that we didn't like his hair...somehow proves that Pegasus was correct that this board is intolerant and your assertion that there is a lot of this "traffic" that goes on here? Please.
: : It would be REASONABLE to examine the history of the board and it's members (usually by spending some time here) to get a realistic impression about how things really are or if the "message" (whatever that is) is getting across.: Precicisely why I spoke up in agreement with Pegasus, as a reader for some time I can corroborate some of what he speaks to.
Well, I haven't see it and I've been here years longer than you. That's what I was talking about.
: : (New York City looks really boring when I fly over it at 600miles an hour...gues it must be that way).: I have always found places interesting by plane.
See a lot of the infractructure and social life of a city at 30,000 feet do ya?
: We agree in helping people here but differ in the way to go about it. The questioning can benefit people but I do not see it helping until they have worked up enough positive feeling about themselves and their hair. Men do have just as much of an option to have long hair as women do. Some do their own thing possibly depite obstacles and others have a rougher time of it. I won't go into it here but in many ways women can be more vicious to each other over appearance then the comments and pressure men have.No, men in general do not have as much of an option in their social context to grow their hair long unless they live in a community that is geared toward male hair growth like in the case of Sikh's. Men in general receive a great amount of resistance to any decision to keep long hair and those who do have it have merely been strong enough in their desire or decision to keep it. Women's issues are for a different forum.
I don't know what your definition of helping guys out here is but mine includes giving sound advice from experience, product references and tips, links to resources, general & specific support, social & philosophical discussion in reference to long hair issues, etc.
: Once again I will mention that being gentle on the new ones is a good thing. Question them later but I think coddling new ones is a surer route to helping.If you have to coddle them then they are probably not old or experienced enough yet to make their own decision about hair length.
One thing about the decision to grow one's hair long and the idea on this board that what you want for your hair is the best for you is that you need to have come with SOME sort of decision in hand. Then it's just about getting the info you want or need and striving to gain a little more insight into what you are undertaking so you have a better longterm experience. What I say shouldn't make someone want to OR not want to grow their hair long.
(Now if you come to the board and say something really stupid then expect to get called on it. That is another universal internet board issue on it's own which begins with the poster.)(I saw a Monster House episode tonight where a guy made a mistake on calculation and cut a skylight hole the wrong size and the project forman (Steve) asked who made the mistake in measuring. The guy who did got all upset at the question. Steve said, "Take it easy, you shouldn't get upset at someone asking you a question like that."
In continuance
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 10, 2004 at 05:05:26: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: Yes, not really. posted by Hair Religion on March 09, 2004 at 00:20:57:
: Now why would he be trying to find something on us...and by going through the archives to a 3 1/2 year old post. If the board were as "intolerant" as he stated, shouldn't he be able to find clear examples of this sort of abuse anywhere on our open board?
Pegasus was not trying to "find something on us"; he was looking for an example of intolerance. He was not dismissing the board as a whole, only a tone felt occasionally. One problem that may have hampered his search is the absence of a post searching feature for the content remaining on the active board. Something he read recently might have prompted his concern but he was unable to find it again.
: No, his "example" was not a good one. So why defend it?
I certainly appreciate that he tried and attempts go a long way with me. He may not have known how to search effectively through the archives for what he sought. Here is an example of what Pegasus was after: http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/41838.html I don't think you will agree though since you did not see the problem then either, although others here were vocal about it. It is also coincidentally the same issue presented in this thread.
: And you have not left in disgust of all us "intolerant" longhairs yet?
Even as the proud wearer in the past of something that would likely be considered worse than an undercut by Rokker's standard I feel completely unthreatened by his illusory guidelines. I am not a typical example of the audience here though. I need no support, camaraderie, or acknowledgement to grow my hair. I have not been told that men should not have long hair or repeatedly put down by friends and family for wanting long hair. In those circumstances, particularly for someone doubting themselves, to arrive here and read that their hoped for style of long hair is not legitimate long hair (and by inference not appropriate for a "long hair" board) then Victor's goal of this being an oasis is frustrated.
I am concerned for others and am comfortable enough to speak up. Even that is not enough should a person lacking confidence in their long hair desire read only one intolerant post here and miss the chorus of people disagreeing vehemently.
: I hear the accusations from time to time but they mostly come from other sources than the truth of the matter. Youth, over-sensitive personalities, mis-information, pre-conceived ideas, opposing ideas/goals/values, even some folks with very apparent mental disorders (for which they have admitted to using medications for). Spend enough time here and you will not only see all types breeze in here but you will begin to notice the consistency of the regulars too.
I see all those people as the purpose of this site, helping any man grow or maintain their long hair. They are just as worthy of open-armed treatment as any here, given their circumstances all the more so. Long hair discussion is a purpose here in addition to, but not above helping others.
: I know you like the idea that your "suggestion" has led me to treat someone in a different way but in all fairness, I just keep doing what I always do and the difference is how you and others may read my posts. I don't come here to abuse people and I don't come here to stroke young men. This board also isn't necessairly here to JUST be a how-to resource for beginners so the fact that I do participate in such a manner to advise and attempt to discuss hair related issues with beginners says much more than those who say that I am rude to those who I give advice to and attempt discussion with.
I based my observation on a comparison of posts before and after my comment. In the former I recall seeing posts where only the link was given and now I recently saw one with the answer and link. At this point I am only going on memory that you were one of the people that did use a link only at times. You are welcome to correct me on this point if it was only others that did this.
Although we have the same goal of helping others here, the difference is in how we carry it out. When someone is up to the questioning and discussion I am all for that interaction with them. It is the hounded newbie given the "trying to look like your favorite pop star of the moment is a futile exercise and does very little towards developing yourself and your own unique look" lecture that is not needed at that specific time. (quote from http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/53754.html) Giving unasked negative commentary in response to a styling question is not helpful and the original poster even took issue with your responses.
: Maybe, if they didn't hear exactly what they wanted...and maybe not. Maybe they were all the same troll posting. Maybe their problems aren't things for this board to deal with and should be left to professionals to deal with and not members of this board (if they are really that bad).
When the person is feeling uncomfortable over a hair issue response then it is a matter for the board. The burden of expressing oneself to be understood by a variety of readers is on the poster if they take their role of being helpful responsibly.
: Well, using that sort of reasoning then I should remove the RAQ entirely and not attempt to participate on the board myself because some minute detail may cause a misunderstanding in some teenager who has massive problems that we could only speculate about. You said in a previous post that the idea of the RAQ might suggest that we don't care to bother with questions from newbies and this could be off-putting to some......which would mean that having an RAQ is not "looking out" for people and should be frowned upon regardless of the content...if you use that reasoning. Do you begin to see where this leads?
It is a question of degree of care, we just draw it differently. Once again I will state it is not the RAQ but the use of the link with no other response that sends the message of boredom.
: It's [the RAQ] called killing two birds with one stone. It's obiviously a person new to growing his hair so when he makes his presence known and asks a question then it's a quick and easy response (for me who doesn't get paid to participate) to post a link that not only answeres this question (which may have been asked a hundred times before which we are also not paid for our time to answer) but perhapse a number of others that he either has now or will have...at the same time! Well, it's splitting hairs to say how much time cutting and pasting takes but if you read most of the posts (including mine) you will see that almost every time there is a response someone DOES try to do more than just post the link...even if they have to keep re-answering the same question (especially since the RAQ is very new and not actually on this site). The problem that arises out of this is that many regular (and perhapse untold numbers of visitors) posters get burnt out having to read and answer the same stuff over and over leading to breaks in participation or even complete loss of intrest in the board (me included). I don't think that that is a good thing do you? Maybe a type of post on the board or a RAQ isn't so offensive or at least is worth a few "possible" misunderstandings (which may or may not happen with people who may or may not have some serious emotional problems or poor reading skills).
Actually, I do think long term people taking breaks when they have their fill for a time is a good thing. Those are the people that have had their hair needs served by the board and it speaks to the success of Victor's purpose. I'd rather see the people that need a refuge have it here.
: : : : The mention of "one hit wonders" comes to mind as well. (http://the-light.com/mens/messages/62422.html among other places) I am unsure why the number of posts matters. If a question is asked and answered that may be all a person really needs.
: : : Well, this [one hit wonder] was not offensive as he read it to be and he has been around for a short while but long enough to know better about how I respond to people. Again as I pointed out to him, here you are criticising me for a post that wasn't directed to you. I don't know why some folks have to go around taking offense for other people, especially when the person didn't take offense in the first place (then all of a sudden I'm a bad guy).
: : You never have been a bad guy, just someone to discuss things with. It is the nature of a discussion board to be free for all replies to content shared publicly.
: INCORRECT! "Sorted" (I left out his name on purpose) is not a one-hit-wonder (thanks again, Elizabeth, for seeming to try and make me look like a big meanie by editing my quoted text...why?) It was from a thread that you posted the link to. This is what I have said that I have to deal with now and then, criticism which is not correct.
I placed my comments that referenced the thread mentioning "one hit wonders" back in here for context. In the interest of brevity I originally removed my words to you in the response. Using the common editing convention of brackets to show my addition within your words I placed the topic of the deleted message back in to clarify what "this" meant. There was no intent to cast your words in any light or imply anything. I appreciate your choice of the word seeming above.
: I can see that your grasp of people who do hit and runs on chat boards is strangely incomplete. Why is answering someone's question, presenting a link or asking them with a question in response to a bold or naive statement somehow not kind? You may have certain issues of etiquette that others are not versed or intrested in...or that the internet didn't develop around. I have a female friend who is very etiquette aware, sometimes too much. It can be distracting or not good for her own intrests when dealing with men who can't take a hint. It's just the way she was raised. I was not raised to be rude but I also was not raised at her level of etiquette. I have heard many people talk about how impersonal the internet is but the fact is that it's not person to person since you "talk" by typing through a machine in delayed time (leaving messages on a board is especially troubling if you are into interpersonal contact). It may very well be the definition of impersonal. It's certainly about information though and I think that this is the main focus of the board as most of us do not really know the others beyond our posts.
The rules of etiquette are not what are important but the intent behind the rules is, treating people well. When using a written medium such as the Internet people do not have anything but the words to go on. Knowing this, the words can be crafted to say what a person means. Literature is based on creating a one-way interpersonal relationship with the author so it certainly can be done in text. I see personality in the interactions here and would jump at the chance to meet some of my favorites found here.
: So what specific issues in the presentation are inappropriate (beyond posting a link to it in response to a question)?Regarding the RAQ, it is still the posting of a link with no text that I disagree with and "one hit wonders" mentioned earlier.
: : Missing a friend calls for welcoming him back but my criticism of professing boredom still stands. One might be bored but to say that in the presence of others leaves something to be desired. I am quite familiar with the tone and style of Rokker from before he took a break. He does make the board more lively and now I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with him.: Then that is your problem. Yes, your own personal problem with how you read my posts and your familiarity of the board. But since you do agree with my assessment of Rokker then why make in an issue to criticise me about (if it's because others can read it then consider that Rokker doesn't post an email address...and neither do you! So all communication has do be done on the board)? Sounds again like an incorrect criticism.
Being unable to express your boredom privately to Rokker has no bearing on the appropriateness of saying it out loud.
: So you really think that expressing your opinion about a personal appearance choice is really a good demonstration/definition of intolerance...even if you didn't express your opinion but were just part of the board at large (referring to the beginning of the topic which led to the presentation of this definition)?
When on a long hair support board and phrased, "Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't," then yes, it is intolerant. Pegasus claiming "a lot" show intolerance here is off though, unless it meant a lot more than he would expect to find.
: : Opinions are one thing but when it is deliberately unsupportive of those present here I do question the usefulness of speaking up.: So, on the Men's Longhair Hyperboard we shouldn't express our personal opinions about preferring long hair? Do you realize what you are saying? You might want to rethink your thoughts. Anyone can be "present" (read) here. Guys who prefer bald and buzzcuts "hang out" here and sometimes say that they prefer their lack of hair. People come on here now and then to tell us to cut our hair, etc. The funny thing is that I see guys here answer them (including myself) saying that if they like their hair that way then, gee whiz, that's great...for them.
Rokker was not limiting the context of his message to a preference for long hair. He was exclusionary toward people with long hair, the very purpose of the board, and that was the basis of my comment.
: Now if you are talking about someone intentionally being a jerk like the ONE guy who did in the post from 3 1/2 years ago that Pegasus dug up (and who hasn't been seen since) then that's a different matter but doesn't refer to the general board OR myself OR the RAQ.
Nope, this is about Rokker.
:
: : I am all for open discussion. The difference bewteen us seems to be that I have faith that people can treat each other with respect.: Well, you can have your faith but I have a real record on this board of treating others with respect even when they rip into me with incorrect criticism.
Respectful? A post linking to your recent site creation which says "These are threads where someone speaks without much intelligence" does not speak of respect to me.
: : One does at least wonder when the smoke signals repeatedly occur at the same place.
: In a universe where energy is present in everything, the energy in a small flame is not an unusual thing.
: Or go back to the forestfire example. In a forest there are designated camping/campfire areas, so of course you will have areas where fire and smoke are more common because they are designed to be that way. A discussion board is where you will see text smoke because these areas attract different people to come together to talk and have misunderstandings (for a variety of reasons). A topic board like this about being on the outside of social norm is one of these "uncontroversial" places.Even by your own admission people do gravitate toward you as one of the sources of controversy. I don't count myself among the kooky misguided that comment without basis.
:
: : I have not been convinced, but I shall not convince you either and that is okay.: So, you think that one personal attack 3 1/2 years ago by a guy we haven't seen since on a NEW visitor who came to the board crying (by his own admission) that we didn't like his hair...somehow proves that Pegasus was correct that this board is intolerant and your assertion that there is a lot of this "traffic" that goes on here? Please.
That was Pegasus' evidence not mine and I did not agree with him on it. I'll continue to use the Rokker thread at http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/41838.html as an example. Again, it is not the board as a whole.
: : : It would be REASONABLE to examine the history of the board and it's members (usually by spending some time here) to get a realistic impression about how things really are or if the "message" (whatever that is) is getting across.
: : Precicisely why I spoke up in agreement with Pegasus, as a reader for some time I can corroborate some of what he speaks to.
: Well, I haven't see it and I've been here years longer than you. That's what I was talking about.
As I mentioned way above, there has been intolerance that you have not recognized.
: See a lot of the infractructure and social life of a city at 30,000 feet do ya?
There is so much more to a city, sometimes a glance can be more revealing.
: No, men in general do not have as much of an option in their social context to grow their hair long unless they live in a community that is geared toward male hair growth like in the case of Sikh's. Men in general receive a great amount of resistance to any decision to keep long hair and those who do have it have merely been strong enough in their desire or decision to keep it. Women's issues are for a different forum.
Men are just like women in that other people have sway over hair choices only as far as they let others make that choice for them.
: I don't know what your definition of helping guys out here is but mine includes giving sound advice from experience, product references and tips, links to resources, general & specific support, social & philosophical discussion in reference to long hair issues, etc.
A lot of these comments seem repeated, the answer already given to this was about saving the questioning process for when they are up to it.
: If you have to coddle them then they are probably not old or experienced enough yet to make their own decision about hair length.
I count coming here to ask for assistance as a decision.
: One thing about the decision to grow one's hair long and the idea on this board that what you want for your hair is the best for you is that you need to have come with SOME sort of decision in hand. Then it's just about getting the info you want or need and striving to gain a little more insight into what you are undertaking so you have a better longterm experience. What I say shouldn't make someone want to OR not want to grow their hair long.A better longterm experience is determined in part by the beginning of the experience. People should feel helped here right from the start.
: (Now if you come to the board and say something really stupid then expect to get called on it. That is another universal internet board issue on it's own which begins with the poster.)
Well, I agree with this considering it is how I became involved.
: (I saw a Monster House episode tonight where a guy made a mistake on calculation and cut a skylight hole the wrong size and the project forman (Steve) asked who made the mistake in measuring. The guy who did got all upset at the question. Steve said, "Take it easy, you shouldn't get upset at someone asking you a question like that."
This proves my point too, if a person is feeling secure the question will not be a problem. I want people to be open to the possible benefit of your guidance, that does not happen when turned off.
Elizabeth
Re: and on...
Posted by Hair Religion on March 11, 2004 at 00:08:59: Previous NextIn Reply to: In continuance posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 10, 2004 at 05:05:26:
: Pegasus was not trying to "find something on us"; he was looking for an example of intolerance. He was not dismissing the board as a whole, only a tone felt occasionally. One problem that may have hampered his search is the absence of a post searching feature for the content remaining on the active board. Something he read recently might have prompted his concern but he was unable to find it again.
Elizabeth you have become his spokesman and are trying to dream up reasons for why he said what he did but he doesn't appear interested in what goes on here anymore past his criticism of us. He said:
"...a lot of you show severe intolerance of those who are outised of your own hair "philosophies. For example undercuts and mullets. In the Archives, someone who has a mullet asked the same question and you tore the poor man to pieces!".
Well, "a lot" was not established just as actual intolerance was not established. By saying "for example" he was referring to more than just mullets but wasn't able to establish that "lots" of "us" (on the board) showed said intolerance. Nor was he correct about "you" (the board in general) tearing anybody to pieces much less the guy in his example that supposed to detail our "intolerance".
He was digging for something and you ARE admitting this while at the same time trying to say that is what is not happening.
You said:
"His example was not a good one but he was trying to work with what he could find."
And:
"Pegasus was not trying to "find something on us"; he was looking for an example of intolerance."
These are contradictory statements to your claim of him not looking for something on us, Elizabeth. He looked and found what he thought was something that would work…but found that it wasn't what the thought it was. And now you want to pick up the torch for him? Why?
When he said that "lots of you" and "you" in his criticism of the board, without any attempt at specifying anyone, he made it very clear what he was trying to say. He said also that he was interested in trying to understand and and also in our responses when in fact he only seemed interested in your response which claimed what he found was indeed correct and now has appeared to have left with no real discussion of his topic. There is only you to defend what he seems to have no interest in defending. My guess is that he was young and impulsive with his comments.
Being new to the board (he stated: "I'm new to this board, I've just looked thru the posts and some of the Archives."), I don't think that he saw what you are trying to guess that he may have seen as the open board stays up for a good while before being archived and I haven't seen anything like he was talking about. But I guess that anyone can suppose anything about something.: I certainly appreciate that he tried and attempts go a long way with me. He may not have known how to search effectively through the archives for what he sought. Here is an example of what Pegasus was after: http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/41838.html I don't think you will agree though since you did not see the problem then either, although others here were vocal about it. It is also coincidentally the same issue presented in this thread.
Again, he stated in his first post that this was not the case. I don't appreciate his attempts because it is undue criticism of the this fine board and it's contributors in general. How can that be appreciated by people who like this board?
The thread you refer to is what is called a "personal opinion". You now know that Rokker (not the board in general) has a passionate posting style but if you read his posts you also know that he makes it known that these are his own personal thoughts on trendy hairstyles and that if people want these then that is fine for them.
If this is all that Pegasus was referring to then he is quite mistaken in his criticism. If it is about direct personal attacks then I already showed that in his example it was one person from years ago who is not contributing to the board (maybe like the untold numbers).
Again we see personal opinion being confused with intolerance.: Even as the proud wearer in the past of something that would likely be considered worse than an undercut by Rokker's standard I feel completely unthreatened by his illusory guidelines. I am not a typical example of the audience here though. I need no support, camaraderie, or acknowledgement to grow my hair. I have not been told that men should not have long hair or repeatedly put down by friends and family for wanting long hair. In those circumstances, particularly for someone doubting themselves, to arrive here and read that their hoped for style of long hair is not legitimate long hair (and by inference not appropriate for a "long hair" board) then Victor's goal of this being an oasis is frustrated.
Well, the point is (and Rokker understands this and contributes here BECAUSE of it) that EVERYONE has sported hair that doesn't seem to meet Rokker's "standard". Although Rokker doesn't push his "standard" on individuals, he just clarifies his personal opinion in relation to the definition of what he sees long hair to be...and states it as this.
Here we DO have a certain stressing on long hair ideals (at least by some) but I assume that you know why (Men's LONGHAIR Hyperboard). I personally am amused sometimes when somebody posts here saying that they don't like long hair and prefers a trendy style...or that we only like long hair for ourselves and that is somehow a bad thing. What do you think (or did they think) would happen? I don't attack them for it but it is a place and maybe even time to put forth one's opinion and discussion about it...if they are interested in following up on their rousing post (most aren't).
Victor's efforts are not futile, most of us feel right at home. Ever hear the phrase, "you can't please everyone all of the time"? Well, this is what you are arguing about. There is more to this "issue" in regards to posting on boards (any internet board) than posting on a longhair board. Not everyone can hear what they want to. There are some styles and some hair lengths that really are just not long hair. It's kind of like the music industry trying to lump very different styles of music under one genre (Michael Jackson=Rock?).
Of course you as a woman won't hear those things in regards to your hair but if a male newbie comes here it's to learn things including different definitions on long hair. He also get to learn that he has to pick his own definition just as everyone else here has. He also may change his definition as he goes through this process that is completely new to him. So, who might have a better idea of what long hair is? A newbie to growing hair or someone who has had it for a couple of decades? Why do newbies come to this board to learn about long hair from guys who already have it?: I am concerned for others and am comfortable enough to speak up. Even that is not enough should a person lacking confidence in their long hair desire read only one intolerant post here and miss the chorus of people disagreeing vehemently.
Sorry, that’s their problem. Maybe they should be allowed on the internet without parental supervision.
: I see all those people as the purpose of this site, helping any man grow or maintain their long hair. They are just as worthy of open-armed treatment as any here, given their circumstances all the more so. Long hair discussion is a purpose here in addition to, but not above helping others.
Your ideas of welcoming people here are different that others on this board. You come from a female, mother-like, coddling, point of view where most men don’t. This is a man’s board for men (I am not saying that women are not welcome here), that is part of the intent of the board. I think that on any internet board the show of acceptance is to engage the person in discussion or answer their questions (not your own personal etiquette of how many times you tell them that they are welcome, etc.). If you don’t like HOW the questions are being answered even though they are getting answered with the right information then that is your problem and I cannot do anything about that. Treatment of guys trying to grow their hair out is very open-minded here.
: I based my observation on a comparison of posts before and after my comment. In the former I recall seeing posts where only the link was given and now I recently saw one with the answer and link. At this point I am only going on memory that you were one of the people that did use a link only at times. You are welcome to correct me on this point if it was only others that did this.
Your powers of observation (memory) are limited then and your attention to the posts on the board (mine in particular) going back any decent amount of time is lacking. I have posted just links at times in the short span that the RAQ has been up and I do consider that to be a completely appropriate exchange of information (question asked and information provided). So, what’s the problem? Do I have to flirt with everybody too?
: Although we have the same goal of helping others here, the difference is in how we carry it out. When someone is up to the questioning and discussion I am all for that interaction with them. It is the hounded newbie given the "trying to look like your favorite pop star of the moment is a futile exercise and does very little towards developing yourself and your own unique look" lecture that is not needed at that specific time. (quote from http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/53754.html) Giving unasked negative commentary in response to a styling question is not helpful and the original poster even took issue with your responses.I’m not sure that we do have the same goal, Elizabeth. I haven’t seen as much help coming from you as I put out on this board (if you are going to compare).
Hounded? Where? Did they say something that sparked a response that needed to be followed up on as in the case of Pegasus? Or telling a kid that their hair growth will be more successful if it’s for them and not to imitate a star? I’ve asked people before how this is a bad thing to tell a kid new to growing hair …especially if we are supposedly trying to help him successfully attain long term hair growth. Maybe you can tell us, Elizabeth.
Again with your source material, must I explain them all to you? In this thread that you refer this time I bluntly told a new guy what his impulsive thought was, then I didn’t stop there but continued on and told him why and how to best view “it” for his long term BENEFIT followed by more information that we deal with this here A LOT which is why I say what I do . Most of the rest of the thread was by a kid (vineswingman) who couldn’t back up one single criticism or lie he made up about me. He is a guy who keeps growing out his hair only a few inches and then shaving it off. Kind of bad attitude for a long hair board (and no, Elizabeth, he doesn’t do it because of me). He is one of the kids who flashes on here (for attention or something) and shows eventually that he isn’t really interested in growing his hair out. Fine but it sucks that I have to take his cheap in the mean time. Maybe you noticed the other post where I tried to engage the original poster about his hair (his original reason for posting) but he didn’t bother to follow up but later did post on the thread saying that he hadn’t been on the forum for awhile but made no mention of it being because he was in any way offended by my post.
You say unasked response. This is a board where any post is an invitation to a response(s). You do understand this don’t you? Now it being a topic specific board (men’s longhair) the posting of a what is actually a short hair pic and the stated desire to have said short hair style, are you REALLY surprised that attention would be called to this? AND for your under-observant information, Elizabeth, the poster did take exception but not to my post as I noted in a follow up post. He mistakenly put it under my post but actually referred to something that vineswingman said. (another incorrect criticism?): When the person is feeling uncomfortable over a hair issue response then it is a matter for the board. The burden of expressing oneself to be understood by a variety of readers is on the poster if they take their role of being helpful responsibly.
If that is the poster’s intent (to speak to everyone), but most times it is to directly communicate with the poster who asks the question or makes the statement. Everyone else is privy to read it but this is because of the nature of the board. It’s also the nature of the whole internet!
: It is a question of degree of care, we just draw it differently. Once again I will state it is not the RAQ but the use of the link with no other response that sends the message of boredom.
But you did state this about the RAQ before.
Many of us give different links at different times to different posters. You seem to be saying that we always should be proper hosts (which we are not here, Victor would be) and engage in small talk and conversation being careful to coddle and stroke all the new posters and telling them the same information over and over in completion before springing our information links on them. A bit exaggerated sounding but not far off the mark according to the things you have said. Why would I do that? Maybe that is how a woman on a woman’s board would do things but here information is the key and posting just a link is just that…posting a link to information that was asked for. It cannot be determined to be a sign of rudeness or boredom, etc. If I am on another board somewhere else and I ask a question then I hope I get information and a link is just fine. I’ve seen people on boards (even here) get huffy if they don’t get piled up with information packed responses. Go tell them that they should be offended by getting the information they want.
(Note that I with the exception of but a few of my posts I usually do not respond with just a link.): Actually, I do think long term people taking breaks when they have their fill for a time is a good thing. Those are the people that have had their hair needs served by the board and it speaks to the success of Victor's purpose. I'd rather see the people that need a refuge have it here.
I and others here already had our “hair needs” served years ago without this board. We are here because we want to discuss hair related topics and even help those who pop in looking for information. This is not a refuge, you cannot live here, you can only post words here and get words in response. One thing that I have noticed is an increase over the past several years of more people finding this board. This also has meant an increase in the question load too, most of which are repetitive in nature as each newbie finds the board and asks the same thing. This is why guys get burnt out, not because they got their needs served but because the board can become a big list of repetitive questions that at least visually seems to interrupt the flow of other longhair discussion (repetition isn’t usually very interesting). This is why I recently created the RAQ and post the link to it every once in a while to help with the barrage of the same questions (again, I don’t get paid to answer the question of “how long does it take to grow hair to my collar” 20 times and neither does anyone else here. Sometimes I do just answer it…but you missed those posts I gather?).
: I placed my comments that referenced the thread mentioning "one hit wonders" back in here for context. In the interest of brevity I originally removed my words to you in the response. Using the common editing convention of brackets to show my addition within your words I placed the topic of the deleted message back in to clarify what "this" meant. There was no intent to cast your words in any light or imply anything. I appreciate your choice of the word seeming above.
Well, it was still incorrect in context. “This” did not mean that. I expect more from you, especially since you like to argue points.
: The rules of etiquette are not what are important but the intent behind the rules is, treating people well. When using a written medium such as the Internet people do not have anything but the words to go on. Knowing this, the words can be crafted to say what a person means. Literature is based on creating a one-way interpersonal relationship with the author so it certainly can be done in text. I see personality in the interactions here and would jump at the chance to meet some of my favorites found here.
But you HAVE been saying that the “etiquette” (to define it) is important and is what I lack (in a few of my posts at least). I find that words are often misunderstood by readers regardless of how they were crafted. I take time to compose many of my posts and as you can see in some of the threads that you referred to the reading skills of others is sometimes quite poor and all sorts of things are dreamed up, misquoted, and go unanswered (the biggest problem with long threads).
: Regarding the RAQ, it is still the posting of a link with no text that I disagree with and "one hit wonders" mentioned earlier.
I can’t agree that posting just a link is somehow inappropriate and a “one-hit-wonder” is simply an internet chat board fact (with different names) so disagreeing with that is futile. I put it in the RAQ to inform new internet users of this fact and as a subtle way to encourage them to continue to participate if they start. People do this all the time. It’s kind of like going on a work site and before starting to work saying, so that everyone can hear you, that you hope you don’t have to hear anyone complaining; this is often enough to actually keep some complainer from going on all day about the work load and driving everyone crazy.
: Being unable to express your boredom privately to Rokker has no bearing on the appropriateness of saying it out loud.What did I just say in my last post, Elizabeth? Did I not say that Rokker does not post his email address nor do you so if I want to privately talk with either of you I actually CANNOT? Also did I not say that this reference to “boredom” was not a literal reference but familiar talk? Come on, drop it already, you have nothing on me in regards to this boredom garbage. The way you keep harping on it leads me to believe that you really are making an effort to dig up and pin crap on me. While you are arguing these points I don’t see you coddling all the newbies that are posting.
: When on a long hair support board and phrased, "Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't," then yes, it is intolerant. Pegasus claiming "a lot" show intolerance here is off though, unless it meant a lot more than he would expect to find.
You missed the “in my opinion” part. Read it again. I know that you must have a better grasp of the difference of personal opinion and “intolerance” than Pegasus, even though you act like you don’t.
Do you really think he may have meant something else? How much do you suppose that he may have meant that he could have expected to find? Why do you keep saying that? That is pointless arguing.: Rokker was not limiting the context of his message to a preference for long hair. He was exclusionary toward people with long hair, the very purpose of the board, and that was the basis of my comment.
He was stating his personal definition of long hair. He also knows that everyone does not have that sort of hair (and has stated that too).
I find it interesting that mullet wearers do classify themselves differently than longhairs as well as shorthair (they imitate both styles at the same time). Do you also find that interesting? Maybe you could see what some of the mullethair website guys think about it.: Nope, this is about Rokker.
Then you think that a personal opinion about a style but having nothing to do with a particular person is a personal attack? How? (and in this referred to thread he wasn’t even responding to someone else’s post)
: Respectful? A post linking to your recent site creation which says "These are threads where someone speaks without much intelligence" does not speak of respect to me.
Well you have again drifted off topic but since you brought it up I guess from your criticism that you think that the moon actually does affect hair growth if you cut it or trim it in the moonlight. And that in the course of a discussion that personal attacks, name calling and derogatory comments are perfectly fine and intelligent. It is in fact not. You’ll notice that nothing been posted NOR is it part of this board (no a link to another site is not part of a board) but it actually IS an accurate description of what it appears to speak of and which may actually show up there at some point.
You are flailing, Elizabeth. I don’t know why you need to press these points but make sure that they are accurate please.: Even by your own admission people do gravitate toward you as one of the sources of controversy. I don't count myself among the kooky misguided that comment without basis.
Gravitate, no but I did wonder if my name was enough to make some react with hostility. Didn’t get enough of a response to support the thought though. I don’t try to generate controversy and I don’t feel the need to unnecessarily create it and I don’t think that I am a source of it. Where did I admit to that?
Never would think of calling you kooky, Elizabeth : )
If people are commenting without basis then is it misguided or smoke?: That was Pegasus' evidence not mine and I did not agree with him on it. I'll continue to use the Rokker thread at http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/41838.html as an example. Again, it is not the board as a whole.
Well, the Pegasus thread is what started it and your support of his accusations is why I am defending the board and now even myself. Rokker is commenting on trendy styles where even those who wore those styles look back and comment on how ridiculous they looked. The fashion scene that creates these styles has much worse to say about these and even some of the people who wore them than Rokker does (he doesn’t attack anyone personally, in fact if you read his post he actually compliments some individuals who do wear these styles, hmmmmm). Maybe Rokker is not as you think he is?
: As I mentioned way above, there has been intolerance that you have not recognized.
And I have repeatedly had to point out the difference to you between personal opinion and actual intolerance (not the same thing).
: There is so much more to a city, sometimes a glance can be more revealing.
You know what is being said here. You just like to argue.
: Men are just like women in that other people have sway over hair choices only as far as they let others make that choice for them.
Again you know what I am talking about (I consider you to be intelligent). Social programming is a powerful force that affects everyone in all things and involves a great many issues across genders. This board is here because of it.
: A lot of these comments seem repeated, the answer already given to this was about saving the questioning process for when they are up to it.
When they are deliberately beginning to grow or considering growing their hair is when these questions need to be asked. It is an integral part of the process.
: I count coming here to ask for assistance as a decision.
Same thing. If they are old enough to make a decision yet.
: A better longterm experience is determined in part by the beginning of the experience. People should feel helped here right from the start.
As I said, questioning your endeavor when it is deliberate is vastly important and starts at the beginning (if it hasn’t then how do they know what they are attempting to do?). I do think that people who come here feel quite helped by the board. If posting a link to information isn’t helping then what is? Before you say talking about it with them is, remember that I do this too (if they even care to discuss it and many don’t really or they would continue to post beyond “what kind of gel should I use?”). If you think that I have attacked guys who want short hair styles then be aware that this is not a personal attack on anyone or their hair but a blunt wakeup call about the fantasy they are shooting for which has little to do with their own hair and which they have made a point about on a longhair board.
: Well, I agree with this considering it is how I became involved.
Are you calling Pegasus’s post stupid? I’d just call it incorrect.
If you are referring to Rokker’s post, if you read it again he clearly says that it’s his own opinion and that if someone wants a particular style then that is their prerogative (that’s not saying something stupid).: : (I saw a Monster House episode tonight where a guy made a mistake on calculation and cut a skylight hole the wrong size and the project forman (Steve) asked who made the mistake in measuring. The guy who did got all upset at the question. Steve said, "Take it easy, you shouldn't get upset at someone asking you a question like that."
: This proves my point too, if a person is feeling secure the question will not be a problem. I want people to be open to the possible benefit of your guidance, that does not happen when turned off.
This means that there are times and places where a person’s personal insecurity is not your problem or your job to predict (you wouldn’t know it anyway). In the world where things need to get done, strange personal traits need to be either overcome by the individual or overlooked by the community or dealt with in some other manner if they are that disruptive. We have not established that these newbies who post once or the newbies who take offense at nothing in particular have any sort of personal problems and I don’t think that we can know unless they tell us or act up in some way. If they just leave then that is either their solution for dealing with the situation or, as I suspect, in most just a passing interest amongst the millions upon millions of other websites on their internet voyage. Many come and many go, you will get used to it.
Re: and on...
Posted by Skidoo on March 11, 2004 at 06:30:55: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: and on... posted by Hair Religion on March 11, 2004 at 00:08:59:
Get a life
Who are you?
Posted by Hair Religion on March 11, 2004 at 18:10:18: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: and on... posted by Skidoo on March 11, 2004 at 06:30:55:
: Get a life
Re: and you?
Posted by Hair Religion on March 11, 2004 at 18:25:36: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: and on... posted by Skidoo on March 11, 2004 at 06:30:55:
: Get a life
If it's a waste of time to post here then why are you posting here?
If you don't like reading posts then why are you reading them?
Can't you come up with something better to post than the cliché "get a life"?
Life is for fun.
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 11, 2004 at 18:50:13: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: and on... posted by Skidoo on March 11, 2004 at 06:30:55:
: Get a life
Hello Skidoo,
Life is for fun, and Hair Religion and I are having it. :-) You are quite welcome to join in the intellectual process of discussion with us.
Elizabeth, who has too much homework at the moment and promises a discussion reply Saturday
Re: Life is for fun.
Posted by Lane on April 12, 2004 at 18:56:42: Previous NextIn Reply to: Life is for fun. posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 11, 2004 at 18:50:13:
Get a life
Hello Skidoo,
Life is for fun, and Hair Religion and I are having it. :-) You are quite welcome to join in the intellectual process of discussion with us.
Elizabeth, who has too much homework at the moment and promises a discussion reply Saturday
More than halfway through....
Posted by Elizabeth Regina on March 14, 2004 at 11:24:20: Previous NextIn Reply to: Re: and on... posted by Hair Religion on March 11, 2004 at 00:08:59:
: Elizabeth you have become his spokesman and are trying to dream up reasons for why he said what he did but he doesn't appear interested in what goes on here anymore past his criticism of us. He said:
: "...a lot of you show severe intolerance of those who are outised of your own hair "philosophies. For example undercuts and mullets. In the Archives, someone who has a mullet asked the same question and you tore the poor man to pieces!"
: Well, "a lot" was not established just as actual intolerance was not established. By saying "for example" he was referring to more than just mullets but wasn't able to establish that "lots" of "us" (on the board) showed said intolerance. Nor was he correct about "you" (the board in general) tearing anybody to pieces much less the guy in his example that supposed to detail our "intolerance".
: He was digging for something and you ARE admitting this while at the same time trying to say that is what is not happening.
: You said:
: "His example was not a good one but he was trying to work with what he could find."
: And:
: "Pegasus was not trying to "find something on us"; he was looking for an example of intolerance."
: These are contradictory statements to your claim of him not looking for something on us, Elizabeth. He looked and found what he thought was something that would work…but found that it wasn't what the thought it was. And now you want to pick up the torch for him? Why?I am responding due to my partial agreement with his feelings of the tone here at times. That is fine that he has chosen not to participate or has left, I am not in this for him. When I write of him not looking for something on us I am thinking of the board as a whole. He was not trying to show this is an intolerant place as a whole, just that there are times when intolerance is shown. He felt it and expressed that to which you reasonably enough asked for examples. That is why he was "digging", looking for a post to illustrate his original point. Pegasus would have done better to find an example to include with his original complaint and had he not stated, "I can see that there are some among you who do not hold this attitude." His use of "some" is a mischaracterization of the board when in fact the majority of messages here are positive.
: When he said that "lots of you" and "you" in his criticism of the board, without any attempt at specifying anyone, he made it very clear what he was trying to say. He said also that he was interested in trying to understand and and also in our responses when in fact he only seemed interested in your response which claimed what he found was indeed correct and now has appeared to have left with no real discussion of his topic. There is only you to defend what he seems to have no interest in defending. My guess is that he was young and impulsive with his comments.Being young and impulsive still does not discount his perception that there are times when there is intolerance displayed here.
: Being new to the board (he stated: "I'm new to this board, I've just looked thru the posts and some of the Archives."), I don't think that he saw what you are trying to guess that he may have seen as the open board stays up for a good while before being archived and I haven't seen anything like he was talking about. But I guess that anyone can suppose anything about something.
I offered it only as a possibility knowing I have read something and not found it again on occasion.
: : I certainly appreciate that he tried and attempts go a long way with me. He may not have known how to search effectively through the archives for what he sought. Here is an example of what Pegasus was after: http://the-light.com/archive/mens/threads/41838.html I don't think you will agree though since you did not see the problem then either, although others here were vocal about it. It is also coincidentally the same issue presented in this thread.
: Again, he stated in his first post that this was not the case. I don't appreciate his attempts because it is undue criticism of the this fine board and it's contributors in general. How can that be appreciated by people who like this board?
Discord is hard to search for, it seems he was reading for information and came upon posts that helped him form his poor opinion of the board. I appreciate that he tried to find an example, it was worth his effort at the time to try to explain to you how he formed his opinion. It is because I like this board I find the idea worth examining.
: The thread you refer to is what is called a "personal opinion". You now know that Rokker (not the board in general) has a passionate posting style but if you read his posts you also know that he makes it known that these are his own personal thoughts on trendy hairstyles and that if people want these then that is fine for them.
: If this is all that Pegasus was referring to then he is quite mistaken in his criticism. If it is about direct personal attacks then I already showed that in his example it was one person from years ago who is not contributing to the board (maybe like the untold numbers).From what I read Rokker does not limit himself to saying everyone can have the hairstyle they want. He makes it pretty clear that men should wear the right kind of long hair to improve the way he is treated, "I'm a longhair who really wants us all to get respect from everyone, long hair, short hair, no hair, whomever. If we all act respectfully toward those whom we deal with and interact with, and if we avoid trendy, goofy styles like the undercut, and if we keep it clean and nice looking...we can go a long way toward being less discriminated against. Nothing tells people to view you negatively more than a fad cut like an undercut or mullet!"
Not only is this insensitive to those with the mentioned styles, Rokker makes some pretty naive assumptions about how to get people with long hair treated well. The fault does not lie with the long haired people but the ones that view them negatively.
: Well, the point is (and Rokker understands this and contributes here BECAUSE of it) that EVERYONE has sported hair that doesn't seem to meet Rokker's "standard". Although Rokker doesn't push his "standard" on individuals, he just clarifies his personal opinion in relation to the definition of what he sees long hair to be...and states it as this.
What is intolerance if not made of personal opinion? Part of that tolerance definition is respect for others, something lacking in Rokker's, "As for the undercut crowd, it's their god awful appearance that's a poor representation of longhairs in general." His repeated use of "real" longhairs by his definition is also disrespectful and exclusionary.
: Here we DO have a certain stressing on long hair ideals (at least by some) but I assume that you know why (Men's LONGHAIR Hyperboard). I personally am amused sometimes when somebody posts here saying that they don't like long hair and prefers a trendy style...or that we only like long hair for ourselves and that is somehow a bad thing. What do you think (or did they think) would happen? I don't attack them for it but it is a place and maybe even time to put forth one's opinion and discussion about it...if they are interested in following up on their rousing post (most aren't).
Ideals that shun those with long hair of the wrong sort should not be stressed. The idea that does occur here more often, and wonderfully so, is each to their own. I am also amused by the posts you describe and the discussion responses are another of the many strengths here as opposed to mindless "scissors are a dirty word to me" sort of responses I have seen on other hair boards.
: Victor's efforts are not futile, most of us feel right at home. Ever hear the phrase, "you can't please everyone all of the time"? Well, this is what you are arguing about. There is more to this "issue" in regards to posting on boards (any internet board) than posting on a longhair board. Not everyone can hear what they want to. There are some styles and some hair lengths that really are just not long hair. It's kind of like the music industry trying to lump very different styles of music under one genre (Michael Jackson=Rock?).
I am not hoping to please everyone, just point out that with reasonable care people are not turned off the site by a disagreement over the very definition of long. I see no harm in using the widest possible definition. Even Yul Brynner had long hair in the Ten Commandments with the prince's lock on his otherwise shaved head. Any long counts as long.
: Of course you as a woman won't hear those things in regards to your hair but if a male newbie comes here it's to learn things including different definitions on long hair. He also get to learn that he has to pick his own definition just as everyone else here has. He also may change his definition as he goes through this process that is completely new to him. So, who might have a better idea of what long hair is? A newbie to growing hair or someone who has had it for a couple of decades? Why do newbies come to this board to learn about long hair from guys who already have it?
I am not sure what you are saying women don't hear about long hair. If it is a definition issue it certainly does appear for women just with a greater length requirement. New people come to learn about care and dealing with other issues, not a length definition. It is because I have long hair that I know length definitions are relative and unimportant. It certainly does not make me more qualified to have a truer sense of what long really is and it costs me nothing to include the person wanting long hair but with only an inch of growth in the same category of long with me.
: : I am concerned for others and am comfortable enough to speak up. Even that is not enough should a person lacking confidence in their long hair desire read only one intolerant post here and miss the chorus of people disagreeing vehemently.
: Sorry, that’s their problem. Maybe they should be allowed on the internet without parental supervision.
And why would these people not be worthy of a safe haven here?
: : I see all those people as the purpose of this site, helping any man grow or maintain their long hair. They are just as worthy of open-armed treatment as any here, given their circumstances all the more so. Long hair discussion is a purpose here in addition to, but not above helping others.
: Your ideas of welcoming people here are different that others on this board. You come from a female, mother-like, coddling, point of view where most men don’t. This is a man’s board for men (I am not saying that women are not welcome here), that is part of the intent of the board. I think that on any internet board the show of acceptance is to engage the person in discussion or answer their questions (not your own personal etiquette of how many times you tell them that they are welcome, etc.). If you don’t like HOW the questions are being answered even though they are getting answered with the right information then that is your problem and I cannot do anything about that. Treatment of guys trying to grow their hair out is very open-minded here.
I come from a perspective of kindness that has no gender boundary. Helping those that come here for help seems the point of this board. To question their reasons right off the bat, along with disheartening comments about those that do not grow for themselves being less likely to keep it are not the way I would go about to be encouraging. We disagree on the style of welcome and I am commenting on it.
: : I based my observation on a comparison of posts before and after my comment. In the former I recall seeing posts where only the link was given and now I recently saw one with the answer and link. At this point I am only going on memory that you were one of the people that did use a link only at times. You are welcome to correct me on this point if it was only others that did this.
: Your powers of observation (memory) are limited then and your attention to the posts on the board (mine in particular) going back any decent amount of time is lacking. I have posted just links at times in the short span that the RAQ has been up and I do consider that to be a completely appropriate exchange of information (question asked and information provided). So, what’s the problem? Do I have to flirt with everybody too?
I have merely commented a link alone is not as helpful as the answer plus the link would be.
: I’m not sure that we do have the same goal, Elizabeth. I haven’t seen as much help coming from you as I put out on this board (if you are going to compare).We help in different ways.
: Hounded? Where? Did they say something that sparked a response that needed to be followed up on as in the case of Pegasus? Or telling a kid that their hair growth will be more successful if it’s for them and not to imitate a star? I’ve asked people before how this is a bad thing to tell a kid new to growing hair …especially if we are supposedly trying to help him successfully attain long term hair growth. Maybe you can tell us, Elizabeth.
Since you asked, I don't think we are trying to assist in growth of long hair for a long term; just long hair while the person is interested in it. If a person comes here, grows for a while and loses interest, they still have been given the help they sought.
: Again with your source material, must I explain them all to you? In this thread that you refer this time I bluntly told a new guy what his impulsive thought was, then I didn’t stop there but continued on and told him why and how to best view “it” for his long term BENEFIT...
I did read it carefully and found Joe objected to your words. He responded to you and not the others. You decided he must have meant to respond to another.
:...followed by more information that we deal with this here A LOT which is why I say what I do . Most of the rest of the thread was by a kid (vineswingman) who couldn’t back up one single criticism or lie he made up about me. He is a guy who keeps growing out his hair only a few inches and then shaving it off. Kind of bad attitude for a long hair board (and no, Elizabeth, he doesn’t do it because of me).
Vineswingman's abusive attack rather than discussion of the points he had did show a bad attitude, but growing and cutting repeatedly do not. Contributions to this board are not measured in hair length. I do not believe you have an accurate idea of how I view you if you feel I would blame you for another person's hair choices. Actually, you support each to their own so Vineswingman's choices are a good thing if he is doing what he wants with his hair.
:He is one of the kids who flashes on here (for attention or something) and shows eventually that he isn’t really interested in growing his hair out. Fine but it sucks that I have to take his cheap in the mean time. Maybe you noticed the other post where I tried to engage the original poster about his hair (his original reason for posting) but he didn’t bother to follow up but later did post on the thread saying that he hadn’t been on the forum for awhile but made no mention of it being because he was in any way offended by my post.
I read the entire thread and took note that Joe did reappear and ignored your "correction" to his message direction. If that was intentional, I am not surprised since by that point you had said of vineswingman "I wasn't real suprised to see in a later post how short your hair is, after the way you slandered me I expected it. It's hard to tell if it's out of pure jealously that you did this or just a certain rage against others who have accomplished what you haven't shown the patience to achieve yet, which "some" newbies who show up here seem to have." Now if Joe disagreed with you I could understand him not wanting to respond to you and get a similar message linking hair length to quality of participation. As it is, we don't know who Joe was really complaining about when he posted off your message.
I see Joe did however respond to mjtoo's questions geared toward creating the hairstyle Joe wanted. It sounds like that was the kind of help Joe appreciated.
: You say unasked response. This is a board where any post is an invitation to a response(s). You do understand this don’t you? Now it being a topic specific board (men’s longhair) the posting of a what is actually a short hair pic and the stated desire to have said short hair style, are you REALLY surprised that attention would be called to this? AND for your under-observant information, Elizabeth, the poster did take exception but not to my post as I noted in a follow up post. He mistakenly put it under my post but actually referred to something that vineswingman said. (another incorrect criticism?)
From Heidi's description of the now lost photo it would take shoulder length hairs to create it, now that is not the typical length for a man and it sounds appropriate for here. He asked how to recreate the style and you challenged his level of personal development, that was the unasked part. He replies, "Hey I Dont think of anyone here on the board as negitive as you point them out to be. There just friendly people with a little extra time to help you out with your hair problems. And is that a way to repay them for their advice and kindness??" and you don't believe it is directed at you. Yet, you did describe vineswingman in negative terms and he was trying to help by confronting you about belittling those who want a star's style.
: : : :I am certainly not arguing that all people who have not posted for some time have been chased away. Given the sensitivity of some teenagers and others hounded in life who straggle in here I find it unreasonable to believe no one has ever left with hurt feelings. "Untold" numbers mean exactly that, we do not know.
: : :Maybe, if they didn't hear exactly what they wanted...and maybe not. Maybe they were all the same troll posting. Maybe their problems aren't things for this board to deal with and should be left to professionals to deal with and not members of this board (if they are really that bad).
: : When the person is feeling uncomfortable over a hair issue response then it is a matter for the board. The burden of expressing oneself to be understood by a variety of readers is on the poster if they take their role of being helpful responsibly.
: If that is the poster’s intent (to speak to everyone), but most times it is to directly communicate with the poster who asks the question or makes the statement. Everyone else is privy to read it but this is because of the nature of the board. It’s also the nature of the whole internet!
I returned the older text for a better sense for you of where I was going with my point. I am speaking of the variety of readers that one person they respond to can be, not the rest of the audience. Maybe they will appreciate the long hair philosophy or maybe they will feel put off by it.
: : It is a question of degree of care, we just draw it differently. Once again I will state it is not the RAQ but the use of the link with no other response that sends the message of boredom.
: But you did state this about the RAQ before.
Nope. From my very first mention of it the issue has always been using the RAQ link as a standalone, "As long as the link is being posted it does no harm to cut and paste in the appropriate answer at the same time. The inferred message "we covered that already," then becomes, "here is what you wanted to know and for more information you might want to take a look at this." One can be dismissive and the other friendly."
: Many of us give different links at different times to different posters. You seem to be saying that we always should be proper hosts (which we are not here, Victor would be) and engage in small talk and conversation being careful to coddle and stroke all the new posters and telling them the same information over and over in completion before springing our information links on them. A bit exaggerated sounding but not far off the mark according to the things you have said. Why would I do that? Maybe that is how a woman on a woman’s board would do things but here information is the key and posting just a link is just that…posting a link to information that was asked for. It cannot be determined to be a sign of rudeness or boredom, etc. If I am on another board somewhere else and I ask a question then I hope I get information and a link is just fine. I’ve seen people on boards (even here) get huffy if they don’t get piled up with information packed responses. Go tell them that they should be offended by getting the information they want.
Victor is the host but we are guests on his board. How we behave is a reflection on him. I think the feeling about questions is made clear to the newbie in the RAQ's wording, "Below a RAQ (repeditively asked questions) to answer all the overly repetitive questions so we can maintain our sanity while helping all the new guys who stop by. This RAQ will not be the same as the official board FAQ. Please browse through it before going to the board as it just might answer the burning question you have that we have answered a hundred times before (it's ok that you have questions but I'm just streamlining things with this)." Thank you for including the line about not being official as this is your perception of the questions, not the participants as a whole.
: (Note that I with the exception of but a few of my posts I usually do not respond with just a link.)
Agreed, I only comment on the times you have not.
: : Actually, I do think long term people taking breaks when they have their fill for a time is a good thing. Those are the people that have had their hair needs served by the board and it speaks to the success of Victor's purpose. I'd rather see the people that need a refuge have it here.
: I and others here already had our “hair needs” served years ago without this board. We are here because we want to discuss hair related topics and even help those who pop in looking for information. This is not a refuge, you cannot live here, you can only post words here and get words in response. One thing that I have noticed is an increase over the past several years of more people finding this board. This also has meant an increase in the question load too, most of which are repetitive in nature as each newbie finds the board and asks the same thing. This is why guys get burnt out, not because they got their needs served but because the board can become a big list of repetitive questions that at least visually seems to interrupt the flow of other longhair discussion (repetition isn’t usually very interesting). This is why I recently created the RAQ and post the link to it every once in a while to help with the barrage of the same questions (again, I don’t get paid to answer the question of “how long does it take to grow hair to my collar” 20 times and neither does anyone else here. Sometimes I do just answer it…but you missed those posts I gather?).
One does not need to live here to feel relieved by a welcoming supportive response to show a poster's hair problems of a social nature are not unique to them. Words can be very powerful. When Victor himself says this place should be an oasis, I will gladly agree with him. And of course I have read those posts of yours as you are a particular favorite of mine here. You even at times have answered neglected posts and offered assistance when no one else took up the task. Your body of work here is not being criticized, only particular elements.
: : I placed my comments that referenced the thread mentioning "one hit wonders" back in here for context. In the interest of brevity I originally removed my words to you in the response. Using the common editing convention of brackets to show my addition within your words I placed the topic of the deleted message back in to clarify what "this" meant. There was no intent to cast your words in any light or imply anything. I appreciate your choice of the word seeming above.
: Well, it was still incorrect in context. “This” did not mean that. I expect more from you, especially since you like to argue points.
Would "one hit wonder mention" work better? Either way it was not for Sorted I was concerned. It is for those readers that are not going to post much yet are derided for it. Why is it a problem if someone only posts once?
: : The rules of etiquette are not what are important but the intent behind the rules is, treating people well. When using a written medium such as the Internet people do not have anything but the words to go on. Knowing this, the words can be crafted to say what a person means. Literature is based on creating a one-way interpersonal relationship with the author so it certainly can be done in text. I see personality in the interactions here and would jump at the chance to meet some of my favorites found here.
: But you HAVE been saying that the “etiquette” (to define it) is important and is what I lack (in a few of my posts at least). I find that words are often misunderstood by readers regardless of how they were crafted. I take time to compose many of my posts and as you can see in some of the threads that you referred to the reading skills of others is sometimes quite poor and all sorts of things are dreamed up, misquoted, and go unanswered (the biggest problem with long threads).
I speak more of tact than any formal code of behavior. If you feel it is not your effort in construction that leads to problems then it is perhaps the message.
: I can’t agree that posting just a link is somehow inappropriate and a “one-hit-wonder” is simply an internet chat board fact (with different names) so disagreeing with that is futile. I put it in the RAQ to inform new internet users of this fact and as a subtle way to encourage them to continue to participate if they start. People do this all the time. It’s kind of like going on a work site and before starting to work saying, so that everyone can hear you, that you hope you don’t have to hear anyone complaining; this is often enough to actually keep some complainer from going on all day about the work load and driving everyone crazy.
The link is not inappropriate, simply not as helpful as possible. I find a disparaging attitude present the use of the phrase "one hit wonders", not disagreeing that they happen. Why urge them to participate more though? People already do that if they want to. Interesting idea about heading off complaints, makes sense about human nature.
: : Being unable to express your boredom privately to Rokker has no bearing on the appropriateness of saying it out loud.: What did I just say in my last post, Elizabeth? Did I not say that Rokker does not post his email address nor do you so if I want to privately talk with either of you I actually CANNOT? Also did I not say that this reference to “boredom” was not a literal reference but familiar talk? Come on, drop it already, you have nothing on me in regards to this boredom garbage. The way you keep harping on it leads me to believe that you really are making an effort to dig up and pin crap on me. While you are arguing these points I don’t see you coddling all the newbies that are posting.
I am reminded of the advice that one should not say anything if one can not say anything nice. You have always had the opportunity to ask Rokker to email you so you can communicate privately. I am not making an effort to dig things up, that boredom comment jumped right out at me when I read it. If I have it wrong then please do explain what you meant by it. When I see someone in need of coddling I shall certainly assist him.
: : When on a long hair support board and phrased, "Mullets and undercuts are basically a poor representation of long hair in my opinion. Either have long hair or don't," then yes, it is intolerant. Pegasus claiming "a lot" show intolerance here is off though, unless it meant a lot more than he would expect to find.
: You missed the “in my opinion” part. Read it again. I know that you must have a better grasp of the difference of personal opinion and “intolerance” than Pegasus, even though you act like you don’t.
This is covered this earlier in this post but I shall reiterate, this is an intolerant opinion. I don't believe people can say anything they want here as long as they say it is an opinion. I'll note though Rokker does claim everything he says is true. I can not say if this means truly an opinion or his opinion is fact.
: Do you really think he may have meant something else? How much do you suppose that he may have meant that he could have expected to find? Why do you keep saying that? That is pointless arguing.I don't know what Pegasus meant, I offer suggestions. Not sure what I keep saying unless it is in reference to using the quote repeatedly as evidence of intolerance. If that is what you refer to then it is not pointless, it is the very point of this thread.
: : Rokker was not limiting the context of his message to a preference for long hair. He was exclusionary toward people with long hair, the very purpose of the board, and that was the basis of my comment.
: He was stating his personal definition of long hair. He also knows that everyone does not have that sort of hair (and has stated that too).
He went on to say quite a few tactless things about those supposedly non-longhairs. Humor did not appear to be the intent.: I find it interesting that mullet wearers do classify themselves differently than longhairs as well as shorthair (they imitate both styles at the same time). Do you also find that interesting? Maybe you could see what some of the mullethair website guys think about it.
I don't see how their opinions bear on Rokker writing off long hair as not long hair.
: : Nope, this is about Rokker.
: Then you think that a personal opinion about a style but having nothing to do with a particular person is a personal attack? How? (and in this referred to thread he wasn’t even responding to someone else’s post)
If the animosity is not individualized it is not a personal attack, though that came later when Rokker started naming names, but it certainly can be taken personally by any that share the characteristic.
: : Respectful? A post linking to your recent site creation which says "These are threads where someone speaks without much intelligence" does not speak of respect to me.
: Well you have again drifted off topic but since you brought it up I guess from your criticism that you think that the moon actually does affect hair growth if you cut it or trim it in the moonlight. And that in the course of a discussion that personal attacks, name calling and derogatory comments are perfectly fine and intelligent. It is in fact not. You’ll notice that nothing been posted NOR is it part of this board (no a link to another site is not part of a board) but it actually IS an accurate description of what it appears to speak of and which may actually show up there at some point.
: You are flailing, Elizabeth. I don’t know why you need to press these points but make sure that they are accurate please.The topic is respect here. You said you have a record of showing others respect and I brought this example forward as a time when that was not shown. My beliefs about moon growth are irrelevant, what I am criticizing is the belief that you saying or implying someone speaks without intelligence still is respectful towards them.
Stopping here for now,
Elizabeth
Re: Intolerance levels high?
Posted by Victor on March 07, 2004 at 23:41:11: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
Perhaps a brief word explaining how this site got started is appropriate here.
I am a long hair lover. Since being a child I've always loved long hair. Most of the girls I found attractive had hair at least down to their waists.
I had long hair compared to my peers but it wasn't long by my standards now. It covered my ears but wasn't long enough to do much with. See http://the-light.com/Victor/victor.html for more pictures of me over the years.
When I went to college, I fell in love with a woman who encouraged me to grow my hair out. I let her style it the way she wanted. You can see the style in the above link (picture of me sitting with bluebonnets). It was a mullet. I don't much care for mullets, but I also don't see what everyone sees is so bad about the style either.
So the internet came along and I discovered the Long Hair Site, http://www.tlhs.org. There was a forum that was associated with it. I participated in the forum and others as well. I soon found out that men with longhair posting on those forums frequently were attacked.
I decided to do something about that and started this forum where we could unite in our love of long hair.
It is not intended as a place to disparage short hair or any style for that matter. It's meant as an oasis from attack. Tolerance of others' preferences is what I expect to see here. On the other hand, this is a long hair site. Those who are intolerant of us are unwelcome here.
But I don't think that's what you're talking about. Rather, I think what you're seeing is people expressing their own opinions, perhaps not tempering them as much as they ought to. We're all human, and when this happens, I think a little chiding is appropriate to bring us back into line.
I hope you enjoy this picture. I got it from an anti-mullet site that I cannot find anymore. If it's still available online somewhere and someone knows where, please let me know so I can give due credit.
Re: Intolerance levels high?
Posted by Sherri on March 14, 2004 at 12:38:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intolerance levels high? posted by Pegasus on February 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
And, as we can all see now, this person had never posted here, and hasn't posted in another topic since.
A "new" type of troll who shows up to get everyone fighting? A psychological experiment on our board?
I do not see gross intolerance on this board. Everyone has, and is entitled to their own opinion. If you cannot handle a person on this board speaking their mind, you live a very sheltered life and should never leave your house.
Everyone in the world speaks their mind at one time or another, and if you are so "thin skinned" that it sends you running and screaming from the room, you will not do very well during job interviews, in the workplace, or any other public setting for that matter.
People post their thoughts, questions and feelings on this board. If you fear having your questions answered, don't ask. If you post a question, don't be surprised/upset by the answers. You can choose to not listen to the advise of any/everyone on this board. Ultimately, it is you you have to please, not the masses.
Throughout life you will come across people who are completely intolerant of anyone who doesn't have the exact thoughts and values as themselves. I feel sorry for these people, because they fear change. They must live very sad, lonely lives. I've also known people who weren't happy with themselves, so chose to tear other people down to make themselves look better; all that does is cause people to not like you, which makes you feel even worse about yourself.
It is important to take each person as an individual, and not stereotype whole groups on one person's actions.
In hyperspace it's important to not assume a person meant something in a hurtful way. It is impossible to see the person's face so that you know if they are saying it jokingly or hurtfully. If there is a post that could go either way, ask for clarification rather than attacking. This would stop many arguments before they start. It is most commonly a misunderstanding that starts most online arguments.