I'm baaaaaack . . .


I’m baaaaaack.

I make this announcement NOT because I arrogantly believe that my participation on this board is “essential” (in fact, I’m sure there will be those here that think, “So what, Jamieson? Big deal, we did just fine without you”) but rather because I had announced with some finality that I was withdrawing, and I gave a reason for that. Now I want to give the reason for returning.

To reiterate my reason for leaving, I was developing a negative attitude from participating . . . basically because I felt compelled to offer counter-opinions AND some of those threads where I had done so got extremely abrasive. And so did I sometimes. THAT was what was bothering me. And most importantly, the negative attitude I was developing was counter to my need to care for my Alzheimer ridden wife . . . where there is a need to remain positive in approach.

Don’t misunderstand . . . I’m not saying it was “RO’s fault”. The reaction was ENTIRELY mine.

However, while I withdrew from participation, I continued to lurk. And I continued to view a lot of abrasive threads. (Which, BTW, I EXPECT on a political/religious board, where emotions run high and some perceive benign challenges as personal attacks . . . plus I have the requisite thick skin to function on the Internet. Turning negative is just not my style, though, and I WAS getting that way.)

As I viewed these negative threads/posts, I started thinking to myself, “THAT’S one that if I WERE participating, the “new me” would have stayed away from.” And the old Jamieson 1.0 would likely have jumped into the fray anyway.

While there’s sometimes a fine line between lively civil debate and hostile antagonism going under the guise of “civil debate” (I do have a particular thread in mind there . . . not being coy, but I’d rather not expand), the new Jamieson 2.0, because of the valuable “That’s one that if I WERE participating . . .” lesson learned during lurking, is likely better equipped to identify those threads earlier and stay away from them.

That’s not to say I won’t from time to time get down in the mud and tumble with the fools that are only here to deliver negative posts. However, if I find myself getting too negative again, I’ll withdraw in self-defense again. I HAVE noticed that the board now seems to be taking a “kinder and gentler” approach. Don’t misunderstand . . . I enjoy a rough and tumble debate just as much as the next guy/gal, but it MUST be civil.

I think the mods have been instrumental in giving the board this more positive flavor lately . . . by perhaps discouraging participation by our less than civil members. My compliments, Mods.

In any case, I’m going to try to be less knee-jerk this time around, and more discriminating.

And one more thing. I’ve been reluctant to reverse my position on participation. BUT, Jack H. has been after me, in PM’s, to return. His persistence in that effort has been a heavy influence in my decision to give it another try. So, if there are those that are moaning and groaning because of my return . . . blame Jack!!!


Please PM me about your experiences anytime. Glad you’re back.


Glad you reconsidered! I was a regular firebrand when I first joined. I’ve mellowed a fair amount, although some issues still push my buttons. I say that as encouragement by noting that (sometimes at least) even I can be “in the world, but not of it!” Anyway, you struck me as mature and thoughtful from the getgo. I think you do have something to offer us in terms of your example at the very least.


Welcome Back,
Welcome Back,
Welcome Back!



Same here.

Welcome back.


Being a former teacher, I thought that he would appreciate the reference.


I used to love that show, but now I don’t remember why. Same with the Jeffersons, Good times, and a few others. I watched a bit of them as a kid. Perhaps it’s because it’s what was on tv, and back then we only had 4 channels.


I loved Welcome Back Kotter, too. Lot’s of us did. I guess it’s because we identified with it. At least to a degree.
We all knew a “cool” teach, and hoped we’d get him as our teacher.
We all had a classmate who did the classic Horshack, “Oooh, ooh, ooh! I know!” lol
The handsome, swaggering guy, while good drool material, wish somebody would put in his place.

And as kids, I suppose we all wished our school rules could be so relaxed.
Besides, they were underdogs, and Americans love the underdog while despising the nasty man who is bent on seeing him fail.

Getting a little yakkity for a simple matter, but want to add that the Sweathogs were a slight reminder, (lighter version?), of West Side Story and/or The Outsiders - two extraordinary classics.



First, thanks EVERYBODY for the “welcome back’s”.

Gabe Kaplan, the comedian that played Kotter, is now (or at least last year when I saw him several times on TV’s “World Series of Poker”) a commentator for professional poker. Apparently, he made a transition from stand up comedy to playing professional poker (seemed to me like an unlikely change in careers), and then on to commentating on the games.

When I first saw him as a poker commentator, I did a double take, and wondered, “Is that who I think it is?” Of course, once he opened his mouth, all doubt was gone. Then I thought maybe he’s just a guest host, 'till I saw him in the same role on several poker shows. Clearly this is his regular gig now.

That full bushy head of hair he had when he played Kotter was gone, replaced by a bald pate. He still was recognizable, though barely (pun intended), but the distinctive Bronx speech impediment is what gives him away.

Though the “hogs” were funny characters, my favorite character in that show was the school principal guy. Fantastic straight man to Kaplan’s funny man.


[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:3, topic:39639”]
Glad you reconsidered . . .
[/quote]Thanks very much for the kind words.


WELCOME BACK! And I’ll be sure to give JH full blame/credit. Giving threads a pass is something I’ve had to give up. Likewise the Ignore List.