Re: Quaker-L and Quaker-P -- this one you can open

In article <0eihj5dn28k0mcd28f6ndi4g6ar6un4irm@xxxxxxx>,
<qspirit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Working through my blog-- onequakertake.blogspot.com --and the blogs
of other Friends I find more of the edifying dialogue about Quaker
issues and concerns I sought than I can find here. OK, another
shameles plug.)


Thanks for the blog link. I hadn't known of it, and am a little sad
that only now do I find out that you might these years have been
edifying me there through you words as for years you edified me here
through your words. Could you share other quaker blog links with me.
Christine Greenwood kindly gave me some new ones, and I think it
might be useful to post a list here when I've enough to make it
some sort of reasonable length.

Several have said that blogs these days are more edifying than SRQ
and I'd have to concur as demonstrated by my own inclination to
post material from Quaker blogs here.

In your time Timothy you contributed enormously to this forum. I never
believed the conflicts you got into here of your own making. I too
have learned much here. What I have never quite resolved is why
a forum in which the only contact is through words, is such a poor
one for being able to rise above the base line, even when many such
as youself contributed to it. SRQ so often seems like the grey town
in the great divorce where all imagine that the sun is about to
rise if only a point could be got across, while all the time the sun
is setting on every life that contributes to SRQ.

SRQ often proved an exercise in how to mispend talents. I myself
left/did cold turkey a couple of years. It was in human terms the
height of folly to return, but I had a strong sense that I might
perhaps in returning do some good here, even at risk to my own
sanity. All those days I was absent, the same message appeared
each time I idly thought to review what was being said -- that
very effective reminder to myself was "Look to your sanity Ian".

Miss you enormously friend, in much the same way that I miss Marshall,
and Christine and Elizabeth, and .. and .. . Strangely if their
be guilt for where SRQ now is I bear more than most. When Engineer
insisted that we all shun David, I opposed his position on the
grounds that we should be open to that of God in all. Rather
annoyed him at the time on the issue of labelling Trolls Trolls.
And when David returned I was probably alone in expressing the concern
I'd felt for his well being in his absence, and pleasure as consequence
at his return. I'm now left rather thinking that Engineers pragmatism
aught to have trumped my own idealism all those years ago. Perhaps I
put the pride in my own idealism ahead of that most uncommon of things:
common sense.

How in life does one reconcile right principles with the fact that
they sometimes do not lead to what seem right futures?

You're welcome to take that subject off line, because I am very
sensitive to the notion that if it be madness for me to have
returned, I should not be inflicting similar madness on others
such as yourself. "Many fall down and few return to the sunlit
lands" -- has long been one of my mantra's here.

Email address is textserver dot com at gmail dot com.


Ian.
.

Relevant Pages