Morning at the desk with RantWoman

(RantWoman is again messing with history in this post and is completely unsure what datestamp will appear to other readers. This post is also a thematic potpourri)

The scripture of the day off Our Daily Bread


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations%203:22-33&version=NLT

RantWoman suspects she should click through the link to see what topical Quakerly messages motivated her to put the link here. That would require more intent and focus that RantWoman wants to offer in hindsight, but she will think about how to address the point of underscoring how her thinking relates to reading for future posts.

RantWoman was messing with the combo box to select Bible versions and found not only a whole bunch of versions in English but also multiple versions in Spanish and the option at least for the New Testament of Russian.

(RantWoman is unclear what deficiencies in page technical characteristics failed to send Mr. JAWS into Spanish for the Spanish; she wishes that anyone even expected Mr. JAWS to autodetect the language for Russian. RantWoman further wishes she did not have to keep demoing a different screen reader over this language change detection issue on her to-do list. RantWoman realizes she is supposed to shut up and be glad she has such technology to have such problems in the first place, but that is way too much to expect of RantWoman without a LOT of help.
RantWoman is cleaning up old posts deciding whether to post. In the interim since starting this post, RantWoman has learned that a new version of Mr. JAWS just MAY solve the problem she is grumbling about.)



RantWoman is TRYING not to spend every free second on her Compost matter, but again this is RantWoman we are talking about here.

RantWoman has two emails from Dear Friend she is still seasoning response / further response to.

Both say what RantWoman already knew and TRIED to tell Dear Friend in April: DearFriend's messages were/are not getting through to RantWoman. Perhaps RantWoman is simply supposed to be grateful that exact thought has now also penetrated Dear Friend's head. RantWoman however is a demanding bitch: she would also like Dear Friend, or failing that, others in the conversation to get her other points about what needs conversation bigger than Dear Friend and RantWoman and to help figure out how to do it.
(Again, from a perspective months out, RantWoman is fussing with old stuff exactly BECAUSE other threads of this conversation have wound their way further into community discussion. To say RantWoman has mixed feelings at this point would be a total understatement.)

One of the messages refers to a topic RantWoman did in fact pointedly refer to in private conversation. RantWoman has plenty of experience of the Divine involving love and flowers and birds and mountains and fresh air and music and...; RantWoman experiences the Divine also in context of dealing with, um, abusive jerks. In the general shared email case, RantWoman feels perfectly fine saying "I'm just reporting data; others get to apply labels (including any equation with a certain Friend.)"


Dear Friend was predictably offended by that entire line of thinking and wants RantWoman to apologize. RantWoman perfectly well understands the difference between intentional and unintended effects; RantWoman can AT LEAST reserve judgment. RantWoman also expects at some point to need to listen more than she can right now and to set aside anger. Mainly RantWoman does not have time to stay angry.



To be honest, RantWoman would also really, really like it if Dear Friend could figure out that there might be something he could apologize for and even apologize for without doing any harm to his whole line of thinking about a leading and speaking for God. Even if one is certain one is speaking for God, RantWoman would like evidence of care not to mangle the message RantWoman has no expectation that will happen in anything but Quaker time.

Before any of that can happen though, RantWoman and Dear Friend need HELP from our community:

Bad process is unsafe.


This morning's particular Light: given that Dear Friend has been walking on RantWoman's emotional landmines, given that RantWoman suspects that the reverse may be a factor in more of the dynamics than Dear Friend can acknowledge, RantWoman in fact thinks it was REALLY STUPID of others involved to send us off to a clearness committee between ourselves WITHOUT ALSO BEING READY TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS ISSUES. Dear Friend, the very person clanging on RantWoman's landmines, is the LAST person anyone should expect to be able to solve RantWoman's landmine issues, and it is totally, totally unfair and ridiculous for anyone to expect that. Okay, so we made a game effort, well after detecting that here too, we would have to write our own script more than one might expect.

Dear Friend has a lot of perfectly understandable legitimate questions about what our Meeting expects of elders. RantWoman completely unites with Dear Friend about the questions; RantWoman is just completely clear that seasoning the question is a matter for more of the community than herself and Dear Friend.

RantWoman still means to read her own Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice on this score. Recently RantWoman was reading the NWYM Handbook for elders. RantWoman was struck by the accountability that book recommends for elders and also by how the whole process provides support for people in different roles. RantWoman is going to continue reading but on account of something else not on account of Dear Friend.