e·vis·cer·ate v., e·vis·cer·at·ed, e·vis·cer·at·ing, e·vis·cer·ates
v., tr.
1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of:
a compromise that eviscerated the proposed bill.
3. Medicine:
a. To remove the contents of (an organ).
b. To remove an organ, such as an eye, from (a patient).
v. intr. Medicine:
To protrude through a wound or surgical incision.
(from Dictionary.com)
A long while ago, on a webpage far away, I had some problems processing through some personal issues. I put up a series of conversations between me and others (all others kept strictly anonymous), that were raw, brutal, and occasionally quite horrifying. Over the year I kept the original Eviscerations pages running, I was able to access my webpage, read through the entries stored there, and chip away a little bit every time on the vast trove of bitterness, resentment, hurt and anger I'd stored in the backbrain.
While this is still a personal issue, most of it happened in the most public places and forums. But I find I'm still very bitter and angry about the whole thing. So these will be my new, revised Eviscerations--in the hopes that it worked once, and it'll work again. Time wounds all heels, after all...and these were some pretty big heels I was facing.
From the first entry, unnamed public journal, 22 July 2002:
"I'm so tired. I've got Matchbox 20's 'Mad Season' on repeat behind me, and it seems like I've been sitting in front of this computer screen forever, with only occasional breaks for hallucination. It's not actual sleep when one has insomnia, you see; it's more a break from being tired here, so one can go somewhere else and be tired there."
Still so true.
From an entry written on the same day:
BIG ASS PAGAN RANT
This is a long one, for the one or two who might be reading this. In actuality, I'm more posting this for me, so I can begin to process some of the massive anger, rage, hurt, betrayal and resentment I'm holding. This is going to present snippets from the list discussion of the dissolution of a certain local org, and it's going to be one-sided, angry, vent-ridden, bitter, and vengeful as hell. If you like that kind of thing...feel free to hang out and read.
The discussion, on a pagan list to which I no longer belong, started on Thursday, March 21, 2002, when a council member for this particular org posted something he had absolutely no right or responsibility to post, about the possible dissolution of said local org. After a few of us had gotten over being stunned at that--and at the moderator's abandonment of his previous policy of 'no politics' on his list--the questions, frustrations and attacks started pouring in.
"E" said on Friday, Mar 22:
"okay... maybe i should ask... what exactly is going on, what exactly is the problem, why exactly do some people want the [local org] to dissolve, why exactly do others want it to say? what what what?"
I answered her on Saturday, March 23:
"The problem, in a nutshell, is multipart:
"1) The membership is by and large invisible. Though they are willing to come to events and help out *at* those events, they don't want to come to meetings. The council keeps scheduling meetings, and occasionally calling things off, because of lack of meeting attendance. Which the members in general don't attend.
"2) The council doesn't apparently understand the term 'scaling back'. When the concept was first proposed, several were for, several were against, and we walked out of the meeting with seven new committees. There may be more that I'm forgetting. But it was a staggering number of new committees and meetings scheduled. When it was proposed again, it was proposed in the spirit of alternative to dissolution, and I'm sure, had that person had the option, more meetings would have been scheduled to deal with the concept of 'scaling back'."
I also proposed that everyone get involved at the meeting and bring their ideas there. Apparently they thought that gave them free rein to say things like this:
"A" said on Saturday:
"you know, i find it very amusing, that in all the things that have been said, and this has been going on for how long? this is the first ive heard anyone voice a complaint?"
This is the problem with people who don't read list archives. Several people complained about several different things in days past. But suddenly, according to "A" and a few others, everything was just peachy until I started making trouble.
"A" went on to state:
"as it stands, i knew nothing of the problems, and yes, i have not made it to many council meetings, mainly due to lack of transport or conflicting work schedules, as many of you know, i don't have a car, but what happened to the council reporting what happened here? perhaps that would have gained more interest?"
Well, the answer's in the question, innit? You knew nothing of the problems because you never came to meetings; you rarely came to events; you didn't hang out with local pagans; you didn't attend any pagan classes; and, as far as the council reporting what happens in council on-list, the list was supposed to be GENERAL PAGAN DISCUSSION ONLY, by rule of the moderator!
"M" said the same day:
"As for meetings, I never know when or where they are. I have heard from various people that meetings are canceled or changed at the last minute. Meetings that simply never happen. But where is the notification of meetings and the changes. Where is the information about what goes on in these meetings. We the people never see it."
Well, if y'all would read your newsletter...I know you're a member, I was membership director when you wrote this, so you were getting the newsletter...and all the information was in there...
My reply to "M", btw, was posted on Tuesday March 26th:
" 'M', that's happening now. The meetings *are* posted in the newsletter, they *are* listed online, they *are* advertised ahead of time, and they *are* open to the membership."
In my post, I quoted "M" saying:
"I am not that active, but then again I haven't seen a lot of requests for assistance, just committee meetings, this committee meeting is held at `X' time and place, I think to myself, 'well, I'm not on that committee, so it doesn't involve me.' "
And I replied:
"And that's the heart of the problem, right there. I also work on the newsletter committee, and nearly every time the [org] has issued a newsletter, along with the listings of meeting times were direct pleas for help with this group or that group. [Children's group], please come out and help. The prison ministry needs more people, please volunteer. The Ambassadors have been advertising. There've been several requests for Beltane assistance. IN EVERY ISSUE, nearly, have been requests for assistance. And we're hearing very little back."
"O" said the afternoon of the 23rd:
"If you are feeling burned out then maybe you're not really a Pagan after all, for the Goddess renews her children with love and strength every day. More than enough to overcome even the most unbalanced of odds."
Phhhbbbllltt. Maybe YOUR gods do this. MINE tell me to get off my ass and deal. If I really need it--I mean really, deep emotional collapse, broken limb, gut wound--they feed me support and reassurance. Maybe that's the difference between worshipping godforms that value independence and vaporous, amorphous, FluffyGods that have no substance, no weight, and no real personalities to speak of.
And the blows kept coming. "O" goes on:
"The Wiccan Rede, which has a parallel in virtually every religion, so I don't want to hear any of this "but that's not my path" garbage, says "An harm Ye NONE, do as Ye please". I ask you how many are being harmed just by the very existence of this discussion?"
Okay, everybody gather 'round, one more time for the newbies: NOT EVERY RELIGION IS WICCAN, DAMN IT. MINE isn't. It's YOUR damn law, stop shoving it in MY face already. And another thing--if people can be harmed by--what was at this point--a reasonably calm discussion online, then they're waaay too fragile to be out alone on the net. They need to be wrapped in cotton and put somewhere where the walls are safely padded.
And on:
"I view those who want to obliterate the [local org] in the same light as I view the terrorists of 9-11-01, as people who think they can force everyone to believe their way if they bring down a big enough target. Put down your box cutters and lets get this plane to where we can land it safely and all survive."
I was just stunned to read this. Because I had an opinion, I'm a fucking terrorist now who blows up buildings? What the hell? That was so far out of line. "O" didn't even seem to notice, just blithely went on spouting about love and trust and preserving this org.
"E" continued the insanity:
"well, i have a few questions about this here. what are "meetings?"
*sound of head hitting computer desk* Oh, my gods. Okay, same timeline, I'm still membership director for this org at this time, so I know you're a member too. You gotta be hearing about this stuph.
"So, are there meetings I am not aware of? Because that could easially[sic] be a problem. Treat the membership like they are dense, tell us in many places, by many ways, many times that there will be an event going on. Print it in the newsletter, post it on the [local org] news list, TWICE... whatever else."
What the hell do you do with the newsletter, then, feed it to your pets? This shit is in there! The meeting times! The meeting places! AND these meetings ARE and HAD BEEN posted on the local list! What the hell is your problem?
"And for volunteers, if you don't have enough, ask again for more."
WE HAVE. It's done zip for good. Thing is, none of you fuckers actually want to be pagan, I think. You just want to come to your outdoor equivalent of 'church', and do fuck-all for the org that puts the 'show' on for you. GET OFF YOUR ASSES, man, get IN there and work for a change! But, nooo...you'd much rather all band together to preserve something that's steadily dissolving under its obesely yeasty weight, and attack me, rather than actually looking at the situation rationally and GETTING THE FUCK INVOLVED!!
"E" went on:
"What I see is, either you work on getting the [org] to be what you want it to be, or you just give up entirely. The restarting confuses me."
Yeah, but cereal might confuse you. I mean, you have no concept of what "meetings" are, do you?
"And then, like this boggles my mind... your meeting to discuss this dissolution is going to be on SUNDAY at 10 in the morning... me, i am still asleep then, and so are quite a few people... and it's on EASTER, and although we are not all christians, some of us have friends who are, or relatives who are, and this is the 2nd of their two BIGGEST holidays of the year, and you want to have a meeting during CHURCH?"
Well, it's NOT OUR RELIGION, IS IT??? Not the first time we've seen strong, sturdy evidence of overwhelming Christian bias in this community. And people in this community say they don't see it.
"BG" said on Sunday the 24th:
"[Em], I would say that there has been a huge outpouring of love and support energy sent out on this list. And it also seems that you are determined to retain a negative attitude here and continue to point out what is wrong and whine about the lack of support. people are unable to assist if they are unaware of the problem."
[Editrix' insert--considering I changed my online name for this webpage, I'll keep up the fiction. Ain't like anyone in the know isn't going to figure it out. But that's why that little insert is in the beginning of that statement--and any other statement that uses my 'real' online name.]
No, people are unwilling to assist even if I and several other council members have publically BEGGED for support and volunteers for various events. But that aside...I developed a real negative attitude later; at this point, how'ver, I was still striving to get people to understand that we either fix the broken thing or walk away from it, and people were telling me publically and privately that the thing wasn't broken. Generally the private missives were more hostile. Any "negative attitude" I had at this point was because my head was starting to hurt from banging it against the solid brick walls around me.
"U" quoted me on the 25th:
"The ones who want to hold everything in place and make no changes ARE the group that want the [org] to continue. The rest of us--nearly everyone on the strategic planning committee, the Ambassadors--which "P", by the way, is trying to tar and feather by insinuation, and I'm pretty upset about that still--several others--want the freedom to fix what's wrong, or dissolve and reform. And we're getting endless static for it. Just leave if you don't like it. Right, and what happens when we do? And what options does that leave the community a year from now, or less, when the [org] falters to a stop *again*?
Her reply:
"Ah, I see. A group where only the elite have a say in anything and the peons have to take it. All power in the hands of a few. Hitler would be proud."
AAIIIGGHH! Is it just me? Am I this clueless? Or do I actually have some reasoned points that these idiots are ignoring?
On Tuesday the 26th, I replied to "BG":
"Part of this, at this point, is deliberate. I'm being painted as the voice of the resistance, even though I did not start this ball rolling, so I'm playing the part. You're going to hate me, then I will damn well give you reason.
"Beyond that, though, I'm upset. I'm angry. I resent the hell out of the fact that we had to come to this point, with people planning to leave right and left, to actually get the membership speaking. That's infuriating. More to the point, it's frustrating to hear, over and over again, I don't know when the meetings are, I didn't volunteer because I thought it would be hard, oh, you need to advertise more, I'd come but it might be boring...It's absolute crap. The meetings *are* advertised, *anyone* can volunteer, and if people are really concerned that they might be bored at council meetings, then great, they can stay away in droves like they always have. Bureaucracy gets boring, I'm sorry, but it does. That won't change.
"And if I'm `whining' about the lack of support, then so is everyone on council. And most of the newsletters have `whined' about the lack of volunteers in print. It's not just me."
"K" said (who, by the way, wasn't an original member of this org, no matter how much she deludes herself into thinking she is) said on the 25th:
"The original intent was to hold public rituals and to spread fairy dust around. Simplistic as it sounds, that's about it--and it worked!"
Oh, well then. *pause for utter bafflement* That's another stunning statement. The problem with it is, those who were actually there from the first days tend to remember things a tad differently. They remember hard, grinding, unending effort to get organized, to get things moving, to get accepted by the larger community around them, while a few members who joined later saw it as their responsibility to be as fluffy and giggly as possible. They'd bring 'fairy dust' and chant during meetings, and all but wore sparkly wings.
"Just because some council members are egocentric enough to believe that it's 'all about them', let's try to remember our original mission--Love and Magick...An aside, I have to be out of town on Sunday for Easter duties with my squeeze's family but I am sending a proxy in my place."
Great. "Oh, why can't we all just get along and go back to sprinkling fairy dust on each other and running through raindrops...just as long as you understand I can't be at the meeting."
*shakes head* That about says it all. Plus, the idiot 'proxy' she planned to send wasn't even a fucking member at the time...FUCK!
There were two days of 'yeah, me too, don't kill the org' posts now and again, with a few '[Em], stop being so negative' mails tossed in for color, and then we came to "P" 's post, responding to my post the day previous.
"P" quoted me on the 28th:
"[Em] said:
'...the Ambassadors--which "P", by the way, is trying to tar and feather by insinuation...'
"I'm afraid that no insinuation on my part is needed, [Em], you are doing a good job of tarring and feathering yourselves on your own. But now that you've attacked me online in this manner, let's just get it all out in the open. Please be aware that I am simply stating facts."
Sure. 'Stating facts' all the way down and then saying at the end, she might be wrong in this, but it's just how she feels. 'Feels'. 'Feel' is not 'fact'. Plus, in nearly every respect, she was wrong in what she believed to be the 'facts'.
"As far back as last Spring, according to [Em]'s own words on numerous occasion, the Ambassadors have been fed up with the [org's] Council second guessing their committee and wanted to break off on their own and begin their own group."
This at least is absolutely true. The problem is her presentation of it. First, we discussed forming an independent group with "P" on at least one occasion. Secondly, we questioned her assertion that we had to keep minutes, and have an officer dedicated to that purpose, when no other sub-committtee of the org in question had this restriction leveled against them. She said we had to do it anyway. Third, "P" constantly accused us of working behind the org's back, when we advertised our meetings, worked our butts off for pagan advocacy, and put in a freakish amount of personal time preparing for the tasks we had voluntarily set ourselves, and NO ONE helped us out. Even "P" quit when we gave her an assignment, because it was too hard! (Oh. Yeah. No, you just didn't want to do it. You didn't want to stretch yourself past your comfortable little boundaries and actually fucking grow a little.)
"Before numerous people and on more than one occasion, [Em] has personally claimed that the [other pagan org in town] was birthed because of the Ambassadors [sic] desire to create a new pagan group separate from the [org in question]."
It's true. I did. I claimed that because it's true--the Ambassadors set into motion plans to start their own group, should the trends we saw as markedly evident in the local org every come to pass. As is evident by all this drek, they did. The org went downhill just as much as we had thought it would--maybe more.
So when that opportunity came up, after some particularly vicious moments of 'witch warring' in the summer of 2001, some of us decided to leap for the new chance, keeping in mind those plans we had for a new org and how it would work.
Didn't matter. The new org fucked up just as much in the beginning, and faster, and started moving in an entirely ridiculous direction, and I left. No more orgs, no longer...
She went on:
"The members of the strategic planning committee [Editrix' insert--I wasn't on this committee, btw] who have been trying to remove phrases such as "life affirming" from the [local org's] mission statement are members of the Ambassador committee who have bluntly stated on more than one occasion that they do not follow life-affirming paths. I personally have serious concerns about how pagans who are following a non life-affirming path are going to represent the [local org] as ambassadors. I know that I am not alone in my concerns."
And the whole "you're not life-affirming" cascade began. Now, having spoken with those members of the strategic planning committee who were in the Ambassadors group, I know that they were trying to restructure the mission statement so it would be inclusive of all pagan religions, not just fluffy-bunny 'what dark side? I don't have a dark side' Wiccans. By removing that one, highly charged phrase, and simplifying the language, we could have had a mission statement that actually meant something. But that was too much for some people. "P" in particular.
"P" went on to say:
"The [org] surveys that were supposedly conducted were handled by the ambassadors. When offers of help were made by non-ambassadors, they were firmly rejected. To this date, other than council members, no one I have spoken to about the surveys has seen or heard of them, or if they were mailed they have not been filled out and turned in. I have asked dozens of current members and former members and NOT ONE has completed a survey. Needless to say, it makes me wonder who has been surveyed and how many surveys have been turned in that they are basing their "kill the [org]" viewpoint on."
My reply to her the same day went thusly:
Her original reply:
"The members of the strategic planning committee who have been trying to remove phrases such as 'life affirming from the [org's mission statement are members of the Ambassador committee who have bluntly stated on more than one occasion that they do not follow life-affirming paths."
I said:
"What is your problem with this, exactly? Wiccans, by the nature of the Rede, are on life-affirming and earth-centered pagan paths. None of the Ambassadors happen to be Wiccan. Just because we object to being forced into the Rede's little box for behavior doesn't mean we're mass murderers."
But she went on:
"The Tuesday prior to the February [org] Council meeting, a member of the ambassador committee invited [her husband] and I to her home to discuss matters of vital importance regarding the [local pagan festival] contract. To our surprise, all of the members of the Ambassador committee were at her home when we arrived."
I replied:
"One wonders why you would be surprised. We're friends with the people upstairs; we are upstairs possibly more frequently than we were downstairs. I had been given no idea that it was just a meeting between you, that member of the ambassador committee, and [your husband]. If you had actually *said anything* about it, we would have gone downstairs."
This is true. I and my partner were upstairs with the Ambassador in question, because we live downstairs and we're friends with them. The fourth--get that, all this hysteria over four people!--Ambassador had come over a little bit earlier for coffee and chatter. It wasn't staged. It wasn't us against "P" and her husband. It was them coming over for what we thought was friendly discussion. Apparently she saw it as a war, with the four of us Ambassadors as the war council.
She said:
"Also at this gathering, two persons sitting together talked excitedly about another person and getting that other person involved on council and the activities they were planning in lieu of Festival."
And I replied:
"And here's where you go off into the outer deeps of weirdness. First of all, this person *is* a close friend of the ambassador we're talking about, and she was very excited about joining the [org] and contributing her energies to the cause. She cannot, and knew she could not, *and the ambassador in question knew she could not*, join council because at that point she had just joined, she had not been a member for one year nor on any committees nor had attended three council meetings, and "P", everyone knows these qualifications.
"In addition, the point is completely moot now because she has asked for a return of her funds due to the amount of infighting and politicking and bad behavior. So we've lost another one."
She said:
"The [org] surveys that were supposedly conducted were handled by the ambassadors."
I replied:
"Well, as one of the ambassadors is the Membership director, and another ambassador is the Outreach director, and another ambassador is the Secretary and married to the Membership director, and *we all live in the same house*, yeah, where else am I going to look for free local help??"
She continued:
"When offers of help were made by non-ambassadors, they were firmly rejected."
"Completely untrue. We've asked for help. With very few exceptions, no one has been willing to help. AND, we gave several surveys to [your husband], because he did volunteer, and to date, we've received none of them back."
"P" went on:
"To this date, other than council members, no one I have spoken to about the surveys has seen or heard of them, or if they were mailed they have not been filled out and turned in. I have asked dozens of current members and former members and NOT ONE has completed a survey."
I said:
"We sent out surveys to two-thirds of the former member list and have currently surveyed at least 20, if not more, current members. We stopped because of the upsetting things that were coming back on the former member surveys, and also, because of this whole thing blowing up."
Then "C" chimed in, also on Tuesday the 26th:
"OK.....Now I'm PISSED!!!!
She quotes "P":
"Before numerous people and on more than one occasion, [Em] has personally claimed that the [other local pagan org in town] was birthed because of the Ambassadors desire to create a new pagan group separate from the [org in question]."
then says:
"--This is complete and utter bullshit. I was involved with EVERY meeting leading up to the formation of the [other pagan org], and the Ambassadors were NEVER mentioned."
Well, that's hard to believe, because it was the idea that the Ambassadors had discussed that allowed me to make the leapfrog leap from the org we're discussing here to the new one, and said so at the first meeting.
"During this gathering [Em] accused the [other local org and [members of a local Wiccan coven] of badmouthing the [local org in question] about the [local festival] [--]"
[Editrix's note: Aside from why the hell I'm protecting them, they all need to be severely beaten anyway, this is starting to get ridiculous. I mean, seriously. Read that shit. There's only eleven original words left in that statement, a statement which originally contained twenty-six words! Man...]
"[--] and, this just in from [Em] - 'Well, they did. No accusation needed.' "
" [Em]'s definition of badmouthing and ours are two far different things. Concerns were raised about the [org's] perceived lack of involvement in last years [local pagan festival], as any organization would we discussed how funds were to be divided among the particpating groups. There was no 'hot debate', there was no 'badmouthing', there was no 'slamming' of the [local org]."
My definition of bad-mouthing and yours is different, I guess. My bringing up the fact that you and others were badmouthing the org resulted in one council member growling at me, another hitting the table so hard near the laptop I was using that the laptop jumped three inches off the table, you being so cutting, harsh and evil whenever I opened my mouth (and then smiling sweetly at me and saying it was my fault for 'bringing it up')...oh, and the Treasurer not only arguing with me over the publically posted rules of another org and telling me I was 'slamming Wicca' simply by quoting them ACCURATELY to her, but telling me I had to "choose sides" because I couldn't be on more than one org council, I couldn't represent more than one org at the festival, so I had to "make a choice"...gee, no, then, I guess then there wasn't any 'hot debate', any 'badmouthing'. No, maybe you just all fucking hated me. How's that for paranoia?
So yeah, around this time I think we had all temporarily lost our minds. But it kept spiraling down. "R" had this to say that same day:
"No one is saying you're a mass murderer, but Wiccan's [sic] aren't the only Life Affirming Pagans. If Life Affirming is defined as having respect for the sanctity of life just because it exists, I have to come down on the side of keeping life affirming in the mission statement. You knew, as did the other non life-affirming members of the council, when you signed on that you were working with an organization with a life-affirming viewpoint. If you cannot keep your own lack of respect for life just because it exists out of [the local org's] business, than maybe you shouldn't be part of the organization. I have no problem with the fact that you don't think life deserves to exist simply because it does, but I do believe that MOST of the pagan community we are trying to serve (Wiccans and non-Wiccans alike) do share that basic belief.
Life-affirming...it's such a tricky phrase. Her definition makes it trickier, btw. If one values all life, that pretty much makes that one a Jain, doesn't it? Afraid to move for fear of crushing some small living organism; afraid to eat anything but the most simple, basic foods for fear of killing something that could have had a valued and valuable life; afraid eventually to breathe for fear of inhaling small living things. Most Jains don't live that long. Look it up.
Moreover, it seemed such a nice, pat way to slam someone else--simply because I had a problem with that phrase, with the vagueness of it, with the slippery definitions that could be applied to it, I was tagged as unrespectful of life. In private emails I was branded a Satanist, a child molester, a baby-eating mutant (no, I'm not kidding. This from 'life-affirming' pagans, no less).
She quoted my reply to "P" on the survey issue:
"Well, as one of the ambassadors is the Membership director, and another ambassador is the Outreach director, and another ambassador is the Secretary and married to the Membership director, and *we all live in the same house*, yeah, where else am I going to look for free local help??"
Her reply to this:
"Not to mention it's a convenient way to make sure only the surveys you WANT to see get administered and recorded."
Not the case. Avoiding the much more colorful 'fuck off and die', much as I want to call you up right now and say that. Ever have one of those people you really, badly, want to kick repeatedly in the head every time you see them? "R" is one of those. Compulsive liar, basic inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, went from 'oh, I'm just a newbie' to 'respect me, I'm a pagan priestess and have a really lame name to prove it' in six months. SIX MONTHS. Man, I've had cheese older than that in my fridge; at least it never had the gall to stand up and claim it could invoke the gods at will.
The survey thing was such a complete and utter mess, anyway. We were handed the survey idea, started taking them by phone, realized that a lot of the people we were contacting were pagan shut-ins or something, because it was taking us upwards of half an hour each to survey people! The month we were given spiraled into three, and on the way two things happened. First, we started getting back some severely disturbing surveys:
- One woman said that she hadn't been sent a newsletter, any membership information, or been told where and when to come for rituals. When I checked this out, I found out her check had been processed the year before, but that somehow, her information had never made it into the membership database when the last Membership director, the 'you're not a life affirming person' person--or maybe even the one before that, which was "P"--had control of the database.
- Four people had never received their membership packets. Worse, they'd gone to events and had no one come over and say hi, or tell them they were glad to see them, or even ask, hey, you're new, who the hell are you? This in an org that supposedly has official greeters, or 'Graces', as they call it.
- One woman said she was psychically assaulted by someone who said he was on the council of the org. We still can't figure out, from her description, who the hell it was.
- "P", when she gave us back her survey, gave us back a densely written, two-page document pointing out in detail why she was STEPPING DOWN FROM THE COUNCIL, and why the org was going nowhere very very fast.
- Twelve people told us never call us again, we hate you guys, you suck, you're evil, lose our fucking numbers. Some exactly in those words.
And those are just the highlights.
Anyway, we were in the middle of "R" 's letter to the list. Again she quoted from my reply to "P":
"We sent out surveys to two-thirds of the former member list and have currently surveyed at least 20, if not more, current members. We stopped because of the upsetting things that were coming back on the former member surveys, and also, because of this whole thing blowing up."
Her response:
"I know I didn't get a survey until I requested one at a meeting I had with the ambassadors. I wonder if the only surveys that were administered were to people you believed would share your viewpoint and bolster your argument? (except obviously for those you had to administer because someone asked about it) I know my survey had some suggestions for ways the [org] could improve, but it certaintly [sic] didn't advocate dissolving the [org]."
We didn't send you out a survey because you were HOME. LESS. (I address this later on in this extended rant.) We didn't know where the hell you were! When you turned up for the ambassador meeting at the house, we gave you a survey because you were THERE! Shit!
She continues:
"And I will say again to everyone in that camp - you are welcome to leave if you don't feel you can work with the organization, but they're not your marbles, and you can't take them home with you. I myself found that I could not work in an environment of intrigue and with people who could not leave their personal business at the door of a council meeting - I did the sensible thing and stepped down from my position on the Council. I did not then, nor do I now, see any reason to take the whole organization down just because I was dissilusioned [sic] and exhausted. Those of the Pagan community who are willing and have the energy to put forth will step forward to keep the [org] going without you - and if they don't, then it will fail of it's [sic] own apathy - it doesn't need you to tear it apart. If the Ambassadors want to form their own non life affirming pagan group, I wish you all the best in your endeavor. Due to my own life-affirming beliefs, I am afraid I wouldn't be able to help you much, but I would certainly be happy to send any non-life affirming Pagans I meet your direction."
Oh, for crap's sake. Honestly. First, you did leave--then you got involved in the other council--and now you're back on council for the first damn org! So much for being burned out! Second, I love the fact that a woman who's been pagan for all of one whole year--and Wiccan, to boot--is calling me non-life-affirming. What does she know of me and my beliefs? Apparently, jack and squat. Fucking child, I mean it.
"I started this reply intending to blast [Em] and her cohorts right off the map, but I don't think that's really necessary. As "P" said, they are doing a fine job of tarring and feathering themselves."
Oh, no, you're helping a great deal, by calling me non-life affirming, by going around town telling stories about me--under the pretext that I'm doing the same about you--and, for all I know, encouraging the idiots who wrote me to slam me privately. Man. Lovely statement.
"E" spoke up again on Thursday, March 28:
"what is life affirming?"
And this woman can legally marry people, thanks to the Universal Life Church. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
"JS" pointed out that same evening:
"I have seen the enemy. They is us.
"It's time to put the ego aside. Is the [org] worth saving? Why has it developed into such a bureaucratic machine, so filled with by-laws? Isn't being pagan about honoring the old gods, the earth, and a celebration of life? When did being pagan become so political and so "established". I know the need to have a board of directors to fulfill all the annoying clauses included in Non-profit filings, but whoa... the things I am seeing have nothing to do with the celebration of the earth and its seasons... I've seen it before. I'm saddened watching this."
Unfort, no one seemed to read her post. Save for me. And I was feeling rather burned and publically insulted, so ignored it, sadly.
My response to "U" on Friday the 29th"
She said:
"In fact there were motions to remove her from the [other pagan org council] at the last meeting, due to several different reports of her willingness to disband a fellow Pagan organization, when the [other pagan org's] mission is (in part) to support other pagan organizations in the community. However, she resigned before the motion could be discussed."
I replied:
"This is all terribly amusing. I wasn't *AT* the last meeting. I resigned *before* the last meeting. You give the impression here that I was present. I wasn't."
"C" also responded to the infamous 'tarring and feathering' letter:
She quoted "P":
"Before numerous people and on more than one occasion, [Em] has personally claimed that the [other local pagan org] was birthed because of the Ambassadors desire to create a new pagan group separate from the [pagan org in question]."
And added:
"--This is complete and utter bullshit."
My response to her on this was:
"Okay, now, separating fact from fiction now. *AS I'VE STATED BEFORE*, the ambassador committee came up with the idea for an alternate group. It was not named. It was not codified to the extent that the [other local pagan org] was structured. It was a *discussion* of a possible alternate form a local group could take, if the four individuals in question felt the need to split off from the parent body and restructure as a separate group.
"So in that sense, yes, I claim responsibility for the *idea* of a separate group. Which is--is everyone listening?--all I've ever said.
"I never claimed I was the original founder of the [other pagan org]. That's stupidly unrealistic, "C"."
"C" went on:
"It makes me question whether the results of the survey have been tainted to serve the purposes of those who wish to dissolve the [local org in question]."
I responded:
"Hmm. My, I might have to paraphrase "U" here...That's dangerously close to an accusation that I'm skewing the results. Are you accusing me of skewing the results of the survey?
"How about this, guys? Any council member who wants the survey job is more than welcome to take it over. I can just bring along the blank forms and the latest membership roster and hand it over. That way there won't be any accusation of...what was it...taint?"
My response that same night to "U":
She had said:
"Note of clarification for those who may not be aware of it. [Em] has voluntarily withdrawn from the [other pagan org] as of about 2 weeks ago. Apparently due to the fact that the [other pagan org] isn't going in the direction that she wanted it to go."
I said:
"Nooo....I resigned from the [other pagan org] because of the amount of stress it was putting me under, and the amount of conflict between me and certain other members. I saw no hope of continuing in that organization with the level of resentment aimed at me. Put plainly."
Which was true. I was staggering under the workload of volunteering for two different local pagan orgs, breaking my back trying to be an Ambassador, a Librarian, and a Membership Director for one and a Secretary for the other without losing my mind, and I was doing my damndest, due to my stress level, to become an alcoholic along the way. I did not need the bullshit. Which I got from both fucking directions. And gee, look what happened--I left the org, left both orgs, and voila no more alcohol poisoning. I guess I WAS RIGHT TO LEAVE. Fuckheads.
She continued:
"Another member of the [org in question's] Ambassadors was also on the [other pagan org council] for a short time and also withdrew for apparently the same reasons."
And I said:
"Again, noooo. That individual resigned from the [other pagan org] due to financial distribution questions."
Namely, the fact that the numbers in the leetle columns weren't adding up and she didn't trust that particular org's treasurer not to be skimming from the till, which is very bad to do if you're running a not-for-profit community org.
My response that same night to "R" 's post:
She had said:
"I can't believe that you're doing anything less than waiting with baited breath for the next email to come through that you can use to stir the pot a little more."
I responded:
"You know, regardless of what you and others may believe, I am just as hurt, just as confused, just as depressed over all this as the rest of you. I want formative *change* for the [local org], and I'm the only one of the 'kill the [org] faction' (NOT my favorite term, but you all seem to love it so) who is on this list, or not in the middle of a move. It's additionally upsetting that you feel I'm just perched on my side of the screen, cackling at the next opportunity.
"The only reason I'm responding to *these* posts is a feeling of personal betrayal. I *stopped* responding to the last few days of posts because I didn't want to cause further conflict."
She said:
"If you cannot keep your own lack of respect for life just because it exists out of [the org's] business, than maybe you shouldn't be part of the organization."
I responded:
"*stunned look*
" [R]...where is this coming from? This is an extremely damaging statement. I can't even begin to lay out the number of problems I have with it. Simply the fact that you said this, to me, is extremely hurtful."
It was, too. It still is. Despite the fact that she's a hallucinating crystal weenie and a pathological liar, it hurts when people you think you know turn on you to this extent. And there are those in the local community who wonder why I don't hang out with these clueless wonders anymore. Man, I hate people sometimes.
She went on:
"Not to mention it's a convenient way to make sure only the surveys you WANT to see get administered and recorded."
And I said:
"[R], I think I can say with complete assurance, whatever friendship I was holding for you as a truthful individual has now completely evaporated."
It had, too. At that point I was stunned, hurt, angry, near tears, completely baffled by how this turned so fucking personal so very fast...and hanging on by a single thread to what little civility I had left. That was it. I snapped.
I said:
"I have not been changing *any* of the surveys. They're all in the same folder they've always been in, which is the folder I'll be bringing them to the council in. Surveys that have not yet been completed are not due to any personal bias, just to time constraints and this issue blowing up in our faces. If this had been taken care of a month ago, we'd have more surveys than we do, but I put the process on hold until this resolved, and it hasn't yet."
Part of me would really love to know if the stupid survey ever was completed. On the other hand...I really don't care.
She said:
"I know I didn't get a survey until I requested one at a meeting I had with the ambassadors."
I replied:
"You didn't get one because we weren't sure if you were still at your address. As far as that goes, "A" hasn't been given one either because we aren't sure if he's at his address. We in general have not been mailing them out to people, we've tried to take them over the phone or in person for the most part."
She said:
"I wonder if the only surveys that were administered were to people you believed would share your viewpoint and bolster your argument?"
And I said:
"You're approaching clueless, here."
Right. Like I'm the type of person that would have picked people out--the bulk of which I did not know--and sort them for an anti-local-org bias that would reflect a desire I did not have when the project started, and start taking them from that highly specialized list of people I was just sure, in my evil non-life-affirming heart of hearts, would go along with me like mindless little drones with my plan to destroy the local pagan community.
Please. Get fucking real. I a) don't have that kind of power, b) don't want that kind of power, c), really have better things to do, and d) AM NOT THAT BLEEDIN' ORGANIZED. Holy fucking gods.
She said:
"Those of the Pagan community who are willing and have the energy to put forth will step forward to keep the [org] going without you - and if they don't, then it will fail of it's own apathy - it doesn't need you to tear it apart."
And I, losing what cogs I still had left, said:
"I DON'T WANT TO... Okay. I have been foursquare, all along, for formative change in the [local org]. What part of this don't you get? I don't want the [local org] to fail if it can manage to change. Otherwise, it will fail on its own, you're absolutely right."
She finished with:
"I started this reply intending to blast [Em] and her cohorts right off the map, but I don't think that's really necessary."
And I said:
"I have cohorts now??? Wau. Amazing amount of power you've just invested in me. Especially since it's a power I absolutely don't have."
"C" went on to post on Saturday:
"I have stayed out of this whole mess for exactly those reasons but temporarily lost my temper yesterday. I appologize [sic] for anything I said that may have hurt anyone's feelings. Including [Em]'s. What occured [sic] to me in dream form last night was the amount of negative energy being sent out into our community. Sad. So sad. I'm giving all my negative energy back to the Mother who I know can handle it far better than I. This negative energy has to be bouncing off someone and I pray it is not those who are already overwhelmed. Who knows what kind of damage it could do."
Thank you, you crystal-crunching neoweenie. Which just kills me--I mean, how Catholic of her, right? She lambasts me in private, kicks me in public, and then expects a simple fucking APOLOGY is going to make it all better??
FUCK YOU!
*Ahem*.
The classic that ends this long and winded rant is from "K", and was posted on the 29th:
"Hey all,
Because I will be out of town, "ER" is going to come to the meeting and speak in my place. He is there as my official proxy and knows what I want said--repeat, he is speaking for me. He is not a member, I am. Therefore, what he says is representational of my views and are not his own. I really do wish I could be there though..."
"ER" never showed. Gee, how surprising. Whether through lack of car or lack of notice or lack of caring, he never got to the meeting. Which was held about 30 feet from the Spokane River in the German Pavilion, one of the Pavilions left over from the '74 World's Fair that was held in Spokane, WA. So we were getting wind gusts that you would not believe through the open walls of the structure, we were elevated to boot, and it was a cold, overcast, lightly rainy morning. We all froze our asses off, everyone glared at me and the friend who'd gone with me, and it was a thoroughly miserable, frigid, bitterly cold and bitterly emotional three hours. I was attacked, ignored, rebuked, insulted, and all because I had originally voiced an opinion that the org had the potential to be a really cool thing, if we got our collective heads out of our asses.
Apparently the bulk of the local community likes them there. Well, let them. I turned in my resignation, and--outside of watching the kids' area at Beltane, which was held April 28th, as I recall--was out of the org for good.
Never want to be on another pagan council again, frankly. It's just not worth the pain.
Go on to the next one, if you like. Or go back to the main page.
Background provided by:
