"Just because a person converses on Usenet doesn't mean that they're
wanting to go public with everything they say."

What? Just because a person goes public doesn't mean they want to go
public? In the history of mankind there has been no more extreme and
effective means of "going public" than posting on the Internet, where,
hypothetically, ever single person on Earth could see what you've
said. All but a few rights can be waived, and posting on the Internet
is a clear and intentional waiver of whatever right of privacy an
individual may have had because there can be absolutely no rational
expectation of confidentiality. People, if you don't want someone to
read what you post, by all means - don't post!

Bill Denton
RP 2/12/02, JD 5/85
PSA 1.6
Memphis

Why?  Because of YOUR actions, lady!  And, because after the blistering he
got from his family and friends and you.

I thought he might like to know that there is at least one person in his
world, even if a virtual world, that understands what he is going through.
Someone who is terminal.  Someone with experience with incorrigibility.
Someone who has first-hand experience of one's youngest child going gay --  
not that the particular causative factor in the schism is important.
Someone who actually has shed a tear over these things.  Not some pompous
woman that thinks her views on familial relationships ought to be foisted on
a dying man 15,000 miles away.

But, as I try to answer all questions asked of me, I like "not manageable"
the best.  Probably "unalterable" and "inveterate".  Maybe, "Unruly" and
"delinquent."  Personally, I think "depraved," that's not an issue for me in
this case.  My dictionary says "that cannot be corrected or reformed."  I
like that one, too.

If you did not get from his words these same emotions, then either I am
missing the mark by a long way or you need to wonder for a few more days.

If I am wrong, I invite Hugh to tell me so, either publicly or privately.
To HIM I will apologize.  As for you, you're just butting your nose in where
it doesn't belong.....   again!

===========================================================

Dear Jerry and All,

Well, because there's such a thing as privacy.  It's a basic human
right.

Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
even more generous. They're usually a few steps ahead of us.  We are
also entitled to *personal privacy*, and Hughie is no exception.  And
this doesn't need to be enshrined in a statute.

Just because a person converses on Usenet doesn't mean that they're
wanting to go public with everything they say. In fact, I think it's
just the opposite.  *And this is most emphatically true when you're
dicussing a subject as personal as prostate cancer*.   So I think
outsiders should knowo instinctively to "Keep Out", even if there's no
sign on the door.

Then, as a practical matter, there are so many PC forums around, you'd
have to go on a fishing expedition just to know where a person posts.
I'd say I belong to about 10 PC forums.  And then of course I use a
nickname, so nobody is ever going to know what I say here.  Thank God.

I've only been in these groups about 6 mos, but I realize that the
real pleasure in this type of exchange is the ability to be
anonymous.  It is totally liberating.  (I even read a study by some
shrinks which said there is a growing problem with people becoming
"disinhibited", i.e., uncivilized or rude, when they talk online.)
Believe me, I would not say a word here if I thought *anybody* I knew
was reading it.

Also, I told my husband from the get-go that I'm using a new email
address here which I want to be kept private, *and* that this "club"
is *off-limits* to him.  And I'm sure he respects that.

So unless they're given an engraved invitation, I think one's family
should know to stay the hevk out of a venue where a person commonly
shares his most intimate thoughts. Everybody should have the luxury of
being completely free online to say whatever they want.  I don't
believe in censorship.

Hughie, like a lot of people, has talked about his life, his work, his
love interests, his hobbies, his faith and his children, among other
things.  And obviously I can only speak for myself, but I assure you I
would not even *want* to poke my nose into my father's personal
conversations.  It reminds me of the time when my Dad was in the
hospital and I had to look at his medical charts, and it said that he
had "a very enlarged prostate".  Frankly, that was a lot more than I
wanted to know.  No thank you!

Also, this type of group is similar to a confessional.  People
routinely unburden themselves here, and they should be free to do so
without fear of anybody looking over their shoulder.

My guess is that Hughie's family and army buddies would have never
have heard of this site if Hughie hadn't told them about it.  So he
made that choice, and now he has to take the consequences of it.
Which are not dire, by the way, because most everything can be fixed.
And Dear Hughie, you are not a PRICK or a Dickhead at all.  The only
person saying this is you. So be gentle.

I think you're a sweet, nurturing guy who has given this group a
"homey" atmosphere just by even bringing up the subject of cooking.
To me, cooking and love are really intertwined.  And I have no doubt
that you get a lot of pleasure from feeding other people.  You also
keep us laughing, which in this setting is just a blessing.  There's
more, but I have to move on.

I do hope your nosy family reads this, Hughie, so they'll know all
this, too.  Which they probably do already.

Hughie has written some incredibly beautiful prose about his grandson,
Chris, and I'm sure it was nothing but a loving gesture to want to
show it to him. If the boy rejected it, it was because he was just
behaving like a teenager.  And as far as H's youngest son, Alan, is
concerned, I can tell that H. loves him plenty as well -- and he has
said so explicitly.  Sometimes people grouse about their loved ones in
a sort of affectionate way, and I think this is what Hughie was
doing.  He meant no harm.  I recognize this because my mother used to
talk that way about my father.  She would say, "Oh my husband, God
Bless Him,  , , , and then a whole litany of complaints would follow.
But underneath it all I knew that she loved him.  She just expressed
it in a peculiar way.

To get to the point:  I am very fond of Hughie, and I think it comes
through crystal-clear in my writings.  So if it sounded like I'm
admonishing H. in some way, I can tell you it's just tough love.  But
if I have said anything wrong, I'm sorry.

At this point, all I'm interested in is seeing how we can help H. use
this group to his (and our) advantage.  Hughie has become a part of
this "family", and I for one would be disappointed if he kept his
conversation to cooking.  I would miss the all the laughs and the
stories.

Indeed, my husband *insists* that Hughie would make a good subject for
a movie, and I am just wondering how many actors out there are 6' 4".
Only person I could think of is John Cleese. So Hughie might have to
play himself.

I also need to say that this whole issue is very personal to me,
because I had had similar "issues" with my father.  So in effect, I'm
going to hijack this discussion and talk about myself now.  I'm going
to tell my story, but I think it may also be someone else's story.

Let's just say that I chose to live my life in a way that was totally
antagonistic to everything I'd been taught at home.  So I felt -- and
still do feel -- like the black sheep of the family. And I can tell
you that that's not a pleasant feeling at all.  In fact, it's
extremely painful, and the hurt never goes away.

But my father, much as I may have done things he disapproved of, just
gritted his teeth and said nothing.  If he felt disappointed in me,
which I know he did in some ways, he was able to look past it.  People
always asked me if my parents had rejected me because I was different
from them, and I said, "No way, I'm still their child".   And I knew
that I could do the most wicked, vile thing, and nothing would change
that.  I can't even imagine how horrible it would feel to be rejected
by one's own parents.

I have to say, that by modern standards, my Dad was a poor father.  He
was from the old school, and he believed parenting meant providing
food and shelter for your children.  And a good education for his
*sons*.  He never really inquired much about my personal aspirations,
and didn't attend any PTA meetings or school events.  Plus, he was
always working.

So I really only got to know my father well after he retired.  And my
best memories are of him making me feel loved.  It could be the
simplest thing.  Once he was at my house, and I was walking around,
singing to myself, and he said to me, "Can you make a tape of this for
me?"   And I said to him, "You really don't want to hear this.  I
can't sing to save my life!"  Well, he said he wanted it anyway.  So I
guess I can say that I actuall "sang for my father".

Also, I remember the way my Dad used to "glow" when he introduced me
to people.  He really thought I was Miss America.  Which I was not.

My father had a severe stroke on his 80th birthday.  After that he was
hospitalized, kept on a respirator, and was unable to speak or move.
This was because the stroke had affected him on both sides, which is
unusual.

Anyway, all of us took turns staying with him.  We didn't trust the
hospital to take care of him, so we tried to arrange to have somebody
with him 24 hours.  I often spent weekends sleeping in his room.  But,
strangely, I didn't resent it, and I even felt like it was a sort of
privilege to help my father out.  And I think that was when I really
"bonded" with him. When he had a fever I would put a cold washcloth on
his head.  Those are the details I remember.

The truth is that tending a sick person isn't only bad.  In fact, when
you are caring for somebody who is completely helpless and dependent
on you for everything, you develop a sort of "communion" with the
patient.  That is, if you have good feelings about the person to begin
with.

On rare occasions when he was sick, my father was taken off the
respirator, and then he was able to say a few words.  So one time I
said to him, "I love you", thinking he was "out of it".  But he
responded, "I love you too".  I can't describe the pleasure I got out
of that, and how I often I have replayed that scene in my mind.

I also felt privileged to be there with my father when he died.  I had
not come around all that week, and I hadn't been in the mood to make
the trip.  But I forced myself.  By the time I arrived at the
hospital, he was in a very bad condition, in a coma, the doctors
said.  But I got real close to him and whispered in his ear, "If you
want to go, it's okay.  Know that we will all be alright.  And then I
said, "You will always live in my heart".  Amazingly, he started to
cry.

Well, about a half hour later, he expired.  And of course I just knew
that he had waited to say goodbye to me.

Death is supposed to be a bad thing, but it isn't really so.  After a
while, you feel like the person you lost is almost a part of you, a
companion, in some way.  I saw this best expressed in a letter by
Abraham Lincoln, which he wrote to a young girl whose father had been
killed in the Civil War.  I felt it was so accurate that I could have
written it myself.

"It is with great grief that I learn of the death of your kind and
brave father; and especially that it is affecting your young heart
beyond what is common in such cases.  In this sad world of ours,
sorrow comes to all, and, to the young, it comes with the bitterest
agony, because it takes them unwawares.  The older have learned to
expect it.  I am anxious to afford some alleviation of your present
distress.  Perfect relief is not possible, except with time.  You can
not now realize that you will feel better: Is it not so?  And yet it
is a mistake.  You are sure to be happy again.  To know this, which is
certainly true, will make you feel less miserable now.  I have had
enough experience to know what I say; and you need only to believe it,
to feel better at once.

*The memory of your dear father, instead of an agony, will yet be a
sad, sweet feeling in your heart, of a purer and holier sort than you
have known before"*

A sad, sweet feeling.  That's exactly the way it is.  And by the way,
it makes me feel close to my husband (who is away now) to quote
Abraham Lincoln, who is his personal hero.

I guess maybe I've been selfish to go on about myself.  I do have a
problem with brevity.  But family relationships are a universal issue,
and I hope reading my story will help someone.

Best to you all and especially to you, Hughie.

Leah

Dear Steve,

First of all, I am OUTRAGED by the things you said -- and inferred --
about me, about my mother, about Hughie, about Hughie's son, etc.,
etc. In fact, I think I am more outraged than the God of the Old
Testament ever got.  I wouldn't mind emitting smoke from my nostrils
and burning up some of the irresponsible information that is put forth
here.  And I *resent*, am disgusted, that I have no choice but to
violate my own privacy, which I have closely guarded here, and have to
write this altogether.  But what you did was a provocation.

.. >> something doesn't sound right there.

Maybe it's new for you.  There's nothing new about it at all.  To
"honor" means to respect and, in the religion I was raised in,
Judaism, we are instructed to respect all creatures because they were
created in the image of God.  Even homosexuals were "created" in God's
image, and I emphasize the word *created*.  What I mean is that I
believe "sexual orientation" is something a person is born with.

And parents are most certainly required to respect their children and
to treat them well.  Since you have really way overstepped your bounds
in bringing up my purported religious beliefs as well as *my
mother's,* I have no choice but to set the record straight.  Your msg
is full of "inferences" and you say things for which you have no
evidence.

So, since you asked me, I will answer you with specifics from Jewish
teachings, not from Dr. Spock.  So, I will inform you that religious
Jews believe the Hebrew Bible, or the Torah, to be the word of God,
**as informed and interpreted, by subsequent rabbis and scholars**.
So, one of the first things  a child is taught, is that the written
scripture and the "oral law", i.e, the explications, teachings and
laws that have come after it, are *equally sacred*.  Jewish law, like
secular, law, is not static.  The written Torah is but a tiny fraction
of "Jewish Law".  There is,  for example, the Talmud, a huge
compilation of laws written almost 2 thousand years ago, the Mishnah,
which explicates the above, and countless other works.  This is what
informs Jewish religious practice today, not the literal word of the
Bible.  So I am going to quote you some text from the "Code of Jewish
Law, about how to honor one's own children.  It was written in the
16th century by a Spanish rabbi.

Volume 4, Chapter 143

*Honoring Mother and Father*

17.  "A MAN IS FORBIDDEN TO PLACE A BURDENSOME YOKE UPON HIS CHILDREN;
HE MUST NOT BE TOO EXACTING IN DEMANDING HONOR FROM THEM. . . HE
SHOULD RATHER OVERLOOK THEIR SHORTCOMINGS AND FORGIVE THEM . . .

18.  ONE IS FORBIDDEN TO BEAT HIS GROWNUP SON.  IN THIS REGARD "GROWN-
UP REFERS TO MATURITY, NOT AGE.  IF THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
THE SON WILL REBEL, AND EXPRESS THAT RESENTMENT BY WORD OR DEED, IT IS
FORBIDDEN TO BEAT HIM.  INSTEAD, HE SHOULD REASON WITH HIM.  ANYONE
WHO BEATS HIS GROWNUP SON IS TO EXCOMMUNICATED

Volume 4, Chapter 165

*The Training of Children*

1.  "IF WORDS ARE OF NO AVAIL, [A PARENT] MAY CHASTISE HIM WITH A ROD.
BUT HE SHOULD NOT STRIKE HIM MERCILESSLY, AS SOME FOOLS DO."

7." A PARENT SHOULD NOT THREATEN A CHILD WITH FUTURE PUNISHMENT.  IF
HE SEES HIM MISBEHAVE, HE SHOULD EITHER PUNISH HIM AT ONCE, OR IGNORE
IT. SAID THE RABBIS, OF BLESSED MEMORY: 'IN DEALING WITH A CHILD, THE
LEFT HAND SHOULD REPEL AND THE RIGHT HAND SHOULD CARESS."

15.  IT IS FORBIDDEN TO TAKE AWAY FROM A MINOR ANYTHING HE HAD FOUND,
ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS GIVEN AS A GIFT.

And there is plenty more.   As to my own "atheism", I often consult
this wonderful book because I cherish the wisdom of my forefathers.
Many times have I read the chapter on honoring one's parents.  You
see, I don't like my mother-in-law, for example,  and I was wondering
whether I was obliged to "honor" her.  The answer was, "Yes, while her
husband is alive.  And a pious person will continue to respect her
afterwards".  I also have looked at the chapters on: Vol. 1, Chapter
4: Rules of Decency, Chapter 29:  Moral Laws, Vol. 4, 193:  Visiting
the sick, etc.  It makes for extremely interesting reading, aside from
everything else.

Many people don't understand that the Jewish religion is liberal in
many ways.  It does not consider a fetus to be a person legally.  It
permits contraception.  It allows decisions to be made about "end of
life" issues -- i.e, it does not require a person to accept any
treatment.  There would be no Terry Schiavo case.

Now, about you presuming to tell me what the Torah said.  I think I
know my religion better than you do.  I don't presume to instruct
*you* on religion.

As far as the information you quoted:  When was the last time you
heard of any Jewish authority ordering that anybody's "eyes be gouged
out, stoned, or even anybody put to death for any reason."  How
ridiculous.  To quote that, without understanding how Jews have chosen
to practice their own religion, and have interpreted their own faith
since the very beginning, is really improper.  The most stringent
orthodox Jews do not take the written Torah literally; it is
inseparable from the interpretation and explication of it by later
generations of scholars.  In the schools that I went to, the Torah was
*never* studied even by young children, without commentary, from the
moment they were capable of understanding it.   At least in my case,
after the 3rd grade.

People have also said Jewish law approves of the death penalty.  So
here's the truth: When the Jews had a sovereign state with theological
law prevailing, it was said, famously, in the Talmud, that "Any court
which inflicted the death penalty more than once in 70 years was
considered "cruel".  The death penalty, in fact, existed only on
Paper.

PART 2

If Hughie has left this group, and I sincerely hope his absence is
temporary,  it has nothing to do with me.  There's no reason to
believe it is.  Plus, I seem to recall that "Maui Mike" once said he
would be leaving the group because he felt criticized (or something
like that.).  And your response was something like "don't leave
because of one a.shole", and I believe you were referring to
yourself.

You know nothing about H's religious beliefs.  I'm sure his beliefs
are nuanced, like those of most people.  Many religious people are
able to see things other than in Black or White.  And H. never once
mentioned religion in the context of discussing his son.  NEVER.  And
many Protestant denominations have liberal views of homosexuality.

How utterly cruel you are.  Hughie is nothing like that.  He's a
loving father with a conflict, or a "cognitive dissonance" as you put
it.  And H. never referred to his son's friend as a "source of
aggravation".  You're putting words in his mouth.  I believe there's a
commandment that says, "Do not bear false witness", and that is
interpreted to mean not only lying, but *distorting* to any extent,
what other people say.  And it saddens me to read how dismissive you
are of people that *you*, not H., consider inferior.

And I know for a fact that the son did ask his father's permission.  I
don't know whether he wrote it here.  I have "spoken" to H. privately.

Yes, Hughie was celebrating his life and the "fruit of his loins",
which includes all of his progeny.  H. was joyful to have his son
there with him, even though the son's sexual orientation may have
caused him feelings of confusion, fear, repulsion, or whatever.  And,
in my mind, when you are denigrating the son, you are denigrating the
father.  They're pretty closely related.

I really can't believe that.   Never heard of it.  I spent 12 years in
Hebrew school, studying religion 5 hours a day, and I somehow I just
missed that.

In Judaism we don't have any catechisms or anything remotely like
that.  As a matter of fact, I had to look up the meaning of the word
"catechism".

Our tradition discourages learning by rote.  To the contrary, it
encourages inquiry.  More than inquiry: challenge.  There was a rabbi
who famousely "put God on Trial", and of course, God lost.  And this
is a celebrated story in Jewish lore.

I don't need you to lecture me on the ten commandments.  For one
thing, I can read the text in the original, which is an advantage,
because the Hebrew Bible  loses an enormous amount in translation.
For example:  People often refer to a certain commandment as "Do not
kill", when it actually says, "Do not murder".  That makes a big
difference.  For example, if you are in battle, you are permitted to
kill.

You don't know a damn thing about anything my mother believes or
disbelieves.  How dare you presume anything.

So I will tell you what my mother does believe.  Yes, she believes the
Torah to be divinely inspired, *as interpreted by later
authorities*.   So she would not believe, for example, that it is
permitted, and she knows that in fact it would be sinful, to poke out
anyone's eye, chop off anyones fingers, etc.  And it has been this way
for millenia.

This business of "an eye for an eye" has been used over centuries by
ignorant and ill-intentioned people to show how barbaric the Torah
supposedly is.  The above passage was explicated by the foremost
famous commentator on the Torah, Rashi, who lived in France in the
middle ages.  He said the above phrase was meant to convey that one
should compensate another person, financially, for an injury".

And even if the above phrase was meant literally:  More than 3
thousand years ago, when those words were written, the tribal "code of
honor" required  person to exact revenge from a person who had
*injured* them, i.e. gouged out an eye, by *"killing* them.  So, this
injunction was more liberal than the existing "code".

My religious beliefs are none of your business.  And if you looked at
things that I have written, you wouldn't conclude what you did.  I
have written about prayer recently, and I remember some time back
defending *you*, when people were disparaging your religion.  And, I
have quoted many passages from the Bible, to inspire and to give hope,
NEVER for the purpose of PREACHING TO ANOTHER PERSON, as you are doing
now.

And as far as my mother calling me "the Atheist", this goes back
almost 30 years, to the time when I was a teenager or a young adult. A
lot of teenagers say silly things of all sort.  And my husband found
this funny for many reasons; but for one thing, it has nothing to do
with the substance of what mother called me.  My husband considers my
mother to have been a poor parent.  He thinks it is disrespectful,
silly and completely unproductive to call a child by *any* pejorative
name, whether it's "Atheist", Fatso, Dummy or whatever.  Yes, a parent
is bound to respect a child.  It is a 2-way street.

There is no "Hell" referred to in all of the Hebrew scriptures.  Sorry
to disappoint you.  There is not a single mention of hell nor a
mention of heaven, in the sense that you are thinking.   As a matter
of fact, I recently quoted from a letter written by a young soldier in
Vietnam, and he had it pretty close.  He said the Jewish idea of hell
was "the thoughts people had about you after you died."  Over time,
the tradition has been influenced by other cultures, so there may be a
"hell" now.  The purpose of the Torah is to guide a person toward
having a good life -- in this world.  That's why, when I read the
Gospels, what struck me right away was the many references to the
"Kingdom of Heaven".  That is absent in Judaism.

And, I think you are aggrandizing yourself if you think you know who
is *"surely"* going to hell.

First of all, you are presumably sticking up for my mother, and I
could tell you she would not appreciate you disparaging me in any way,
for her sake.  *She's a mother first, not a preacher*.  Yes, she would
-- and has -- tried very hard to keep me from "sin", or improper
behavior, in her mind.  But if had brought home the Pope, the Dalai
Lama, Attila the Hun, or whoever, she would never thrown me out of her
house, and neither would my father have.  Yes, I am more liberal in my
religious views than my parents and my relatives.  But never has a
single one made a disparaging remark to me.  And I do attend family
functions.  The kind of things they might have done, for example, is
what my oldest brother did.  He gave me a beautiful prayer book -- a
hint, I guess -- and I cherish it because he wrote a beautiful
inscription in it.

If I said I felt like a "black sheep" or that I felt pain because of
my differences with my parents, it was entirely SELF-INFLICTED.  I
have to say my religious upbringing did imblue me with a healthy sense
of guilt.

So as you put it, what should a parent do to save their son (or
themselves) from Hell?  Talk to them, reason with them, or try to
influence them otherwise.  Should they disown a child?  Absolutely
not.  I believe my father would rather have chosen to go to Hell than
to have disowned me.

And as for this young "boyfriend" dragging somebody the son to hell
with him-- I think you must have heard the phrase, "Judge not lest ye
be judged".  You, or anyone's parent, should concern themselves with
their own sins.  Besides, if you read the paper, you would know that
many Protestant denominations have come to accept homosexuality.  In
fact, the Episcopal church has appointed a homosexual bishop.  So you
don't speak for all Christians, either.

Well, since we're discussing my religion, it might interest you to
know that in the middle ages, a certain rabbi decreed that "Anybody
who read anybody else's letters without permission, was subject to
excommunication."  How is that for a right to privacy.

Please don't do this to anyone else.  I already have pain because of
my husband's condition.  So, you might have had some compassion for
me, too.  By the way, the most important attribute for a Jew,
according to the teaching, is *compassion*.

Leah

I'm reading a pretty good book right now called "A Long Way Down" by
Nick Hornsby. It's about 4 strangers of differing backgrounds deciding
on the same evening (New Years Eve) to jump off a tall building in
London. The narrative changes from the mind and words of one character
to another with differing view points about the same moments.
Naturally, they conflict and console one another. Exactly like we do
here with these threads. And just like the book our words are tearful
and funny. Informative and a load of crap. And absolutely wonderful.
Who are all of you that I now know on a first name basis, even if its
not your real name? I was lulled into this group with the invaluable
information I've gleened. Now I'm hooked by your personalities.

WSF