I think Phil is the voice of reason here.
Those whom Steve's alter ego criticized were justifiably criticized in my opinion. Steve himself had tried over the course of some months past to essentially say the same things his created self did. Did that make what he did, the creation of this alter ego, the right way to go about it? A resounding and echoing NO (so don't come after me for excusing what Steve did by recreating himself). It wasn't right at all.
I just saw Christopher Plummer in The Tempest, and so a couple of Shakespeare's lines in two other of his plays spring to memory. I think my quotes are exact. The first is,
Juliet: "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Steve has cried aloud and very loudly for civility for months in this forum, and came to my aid when I was under the most vile and personal attacks. He felt himself also under attack for admitting a spiritual life, which admission in this forum is a red flag to the bulls in the arena to marshal their snorts, bellowings, and hot air, lower their horned heads, and come a'charging. I have been called names, accused of all sorts of stuff, and Steve for himself and for me became very frustrated, I think. I think it's clear. The guy has a heart of gold, and it weighs pounds more on the moral scale when it comes to accepting others' beliefs in a fair manner than the mere ounces that barely tip the scale of equanimity when others' hearts are placed on it. Just to throw something out, and it is a mere drop, the posting in this thread of the picture of the Special Olympics is beyond the pale. But it is typical. And the moderators let that picture and its vile and cruel accompanying comment stand. There is no shame. What utter cruelty to post that picture and that comment with it.
I think Steve was pushed to the limit here, and this thread alternately asks for his head and then tries to psychoanalyze him and encourage him to go to counseling with false tears of sympathy. Are you kidding? No, you are not. If counseling is needed, I can think of some who take their own past experiences, ones they admit themselves have affected them, and taken that out on others. Steve is a very broadminded and expansive man, and he's got plenty of "balls" and "stones."
I'm not sure of the exact sequence, but I remember one of the last threads the actual Steve posted in, and I WILL darn well bring it up in this thread. He linked to an article about Roger Penrose and the Big Bang and someone immediately attacked him and attacked his spiritual beliefs gratuitously and without reason. It ruined that thread and made a mockery of it.
Shakespeare, that venerable bard, springs to mind again, and my quote is the real one:
Queen Gertrude, mother of Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I can't believe, and yes, this is my opinion, how some here cannot see their own role in this, and again, I DO NOT agree with Steve's solution. I think it was impulsive and ill advised, but in terms of the provocation it can be understood in ways that require, however, some introspection on the part of some, those who are, in my opinion, disciples of that old and apt saying,
"Every cock crows on his own dunghill."
I, for one, will never create an alter ego. I don't need it, and ironically neither did Steve. He was handling himself very laudably, and yes, he made a mistake for which some here, as is typical, are mercilessly attacking him, with glee no less (isn't that clear, the glee?) and putting him in a pillory. And look that word up, it is apt.
Yes, the irony here is that Steve did not need to do what he did. Those who attack when disagreed with, those who are used to sycophancy, have been handed a "victory" on which they can clamber, rise to their utmost heights, stretch their beaks to the sky, flap their wings, and crow loud and long and gleefully. But they do not take to the sky like eagles, they remain stuck where the last quote above has them mired. Kim
Just my opinion. Kim
(my alter ego)
