... and to all, a good night.
Christmas topics
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
Happy boxing day.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Here's something that I don't think will sit well with you.
Okay, you're right. Good. Now you can move on. Does that give you satisfaction?
Insincerity never sits well with me. But if this means you'll stop posting, I'm okay with it.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
MY POINT is for you to ask yourself WHY NOT and why it didn't 25 posts ago.
You are openly accusing me and 97tbird of trolling. And then you blame US for keeping this discussion alive and out in the open instead of in the back channels.
On top of that, you keep insisting that our motives are not what WE say they are... and then accusing US of insisting on proving a point for dubious motives.
These are open and hypocritical personal attacks. As long as you keep doing that in the open, I'm going to keep responding in the open. If you REALLY want to take this to the back channels, send us PMs.
Here's something that I don't think will sit well with you.
Okay, you're right. Good. Now you can move on. Does that give you satisfaction?
Insincerity never sits well with me. But if this means you'll stop posting, I'm okay with it.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
MY POINT is for you to ask yourself WHY NOT and why it didn't 25 posts ago.
You are openly accusing me and 97tbird of trolling. And then you blame US for keeping this discussion alive and out in the open instead of in the back channels.
On top of that, you keep insisting that our motives are not what WE say they are... and then accusing US of insisting on proving a point for dubious motives.
These are open and hypocritical personal attacks. As long as you keep doing that in the open, I'm going to keep responding in the open. If you REALLY want to take this to the back channels, send us PMs.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Doodfood, this was a (would be) psychodrama and I was the antagonist.
The whole point of my participation ..at all, was to give you the view from the other end. Someone making a spectacle and not stopping until they were satisfied that they got what they deemed was their due. I have no need for anything, except for you to feel satisfied. You're not. Have you asked yourself "WHY NOT"??'
I've never said that your motives are false. Not at all. I say that you require some level of (for lack of a better term) "winning" ..while never assessing the cost to the community.
There's a whole overbearing "mist" of mild narcissism here that's getting more pervasive and loud. I'M NOT EXEMPTING MYSELF FROM BEING PART OF IT. It's perseverating until everyone else stops so that you can feel that satisfaction. That "winning".
I've merely given you opportunity after opportunity to seek the last word, and you've accepted every time ..and still you can't see what I'm talking about.
Naturally, this is MY fault ..100% ..but do you see my point? I don't think you do.
I really think that there's way too much displaced anxiety being evidenced in this type of event ..and I think it's infectious and a progressive disease in group dynamics.
Again, this has merely been a demonstration of how far someone will disrupt the harmony of a given environment for that "need".
..and that was all I wanted to do... I think I've proven my point and, again, it was nothing personal. I'll apologize for any distress or anger this has caused you.
The whole point of my participation ..at all, was to give you the view from the other end. Someone making a spectacle and not stopping until they were satisfied that they got what they deemed was their due. I have no need for anything, except for you to feel satisfied. You're not. Have you asked yourself "WHY NOT"??'
I've never said that your motives are false. Not at all. I say that you require some level of (for lack of a better term) "winning" ..while never assessing the cost to the community.
There's a whole overbearing "mist" of mild narcissism here that's getting more pervasive and loud. I'M NOT EXEMPTING MYSELF FROM BEING PART OF IT. It's perseverating until everyone else stops so that you can feel that satisfaction. That "winning".
I've merely given you opportunity after opportunity to seek the last word, and you've accepted every time ..and still you can't see what I'm talking about.
Naturally, this is MY fault ..100% ..but do you see my point? I don't think you do.
I really think that there's way too much displaced anxiety being evidenced in this type of event ..and I think it's infectious and a progressive disease in group dynamics.
Again, this has merely been a demonstration of how far someone will disrupt the harmony of a given environment for that "need".
..and that was all I wanted to do... I think I've proven my point and, again, it was nothing personal. I'll apologize for any distress or anger this has caused you.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Regardless of what you wanted ..has this not turned into a fiasco that you are still continuing to demand vindication and validation for your original proclamation?
Yes ..or no?
Yes. Thanks to you. You're the only one who keeps digging it up. You're the only one still trying to make a point, let alone making some rather offensive remarks as to the motives of the people you are badgering. Cut it out.
+1
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Regardless of what you wanted ..has this not turned into a fiasco that you are still continuing to demand vindication and validation for your original proclamation?
Yes ..or no?
Yes. Thanks to you. You're the only one who keeps digging it up. You're the only one still trying to make a point, let alone making some rather offensive remarks as to the motives of the people you are badgering. Cut it out.
+1
+2
It seems his plan is/has been:
step 1. say something insulting to d00df00d and me which is clearly aggressive enough so that it's hard not to respond.
step 2. immediately accuse d00df00d and me of "keeping the thread alive" and all kinds of stuff, as soon as we respond.
step 3. start from step 1.
This has made him clearly the main contribution to the "disruption".
I wonder why, really
...
although Gary keeps repeating "it's nothing personal" (which I initially believed and stated so), if you look at his last few posts, it's becoming increasingly hard to believe.
It seems his plan is/has been:
step 1. say something insulting to d00df00d and me which is clearly aggressive enough so that it's hard not to respond.
step 2. immediately accuse d00df00d and me of "keeping the thread alive" and all kinds of stuff, as soon as we respond.
step 3. start from step 1.
This has made him clearly the main contribution to the "disruption".
I wonder why, really
although Gary keeps repeating "it's nothing personal" (which I initially believed and stated so), if you look at his last few posts, it's becoming increasingly hard to believe.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Again, you both need "vindication". You decided to throw an indignant temper tantrum on CHRISTMAS DAY remarking about how you were offended that some deities were excluded and others were not.
You didn't care who cared or if they would be OFFENDED at you bringing that up at that time. You didn't care and even when advised to discretely take it up elsewhere ..continued ..seeking validity.
You, of all people should understand sensible social decorum. I personally violated my own sensibility to show you how it is when you HAVE TO WIN ..in a competition that should not even be.
I don't think I ever challenged your opinion. I merely questioned the appropriateness of bringing it up and (forgive me) ranting like you just found a fly in your soup and you DEMANDED!!!!! satisfaction from the proprietor. Meanwhile everyone stops eating and watches.
Then the challenge was in the form of "How dare you question my RIGHT to throw a tantrum about this!!" ..and I responded "How DARE YOU DENY MY RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF YOUR TANTRUM!!" ...and on and on it went.
Really, it was an experiment that you fully and willingly participated in. You withdrew at one point, but are now seeing a window of support to still seek "the win" ..and on we go.
..and again, I think you're a fine person ..as I do Doodfood. I was your co-enabler ..and I made you mine. As you look in the mirror, you see only a perfectly rational man who, like when Mary Poppins pulled out her measuring tape and measured herself ..was practically perfect in every way. It's the same self image most of us have.
I still don't think you can see what I'm saying. It surely isn't for lack of intelligence. You're a bright man. I sincerely mean that. I have absolutely no ill will toward you at all. REALLY.
You didn't care who cared or if they would be OFFENDED at you bringing that up at that time. You didn't care and even when advised to discretely take it up elsewhere ..continued ..seeking validity.
You, of all people should understand sensible social decorum. I personally violated my own sensibility to show you how it is when you HAVE TO WIN ..in a competition that should not even be.
I don't think I ever challenged your opinion. I merely questioned the appropriateness of bringing it up and (forgive me) ranting like you just found a fly in your soup and you DEMANDED!!!!! satisfaction from the proprietor. Meanwhile everyone stops eating and watches.
Then the challenge was in the form of "How dare you question my RIGHT to throw a tantrum about this!!" ..and I responded "How DARE YOU DENY MY RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF YOUR TANTRUM!!" ...and on and on it went.
Really, it was an experiment that you fully and willingly participated in. You withdrew at one point, but are now seeing a window of support to still seek "the win" ..and on we go.
..and again, I think you're a fine person ..as I do Doodfood. I was your co-enabler ..and I made you mine. As you look in the mirror, you see only a perfectly rational man who, like when Mary Poppins pulled out her measuring tape and measured herself ..was practically perfect in every way. It's the same self image most of us have.
I still don't think you can see what I'm saying. It surely isn't for lack of intelligence. You're a bright man. I sincerely mean that. I have absolutely no ill will toward you at all. REALLY.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I say that you require some level of (for lack of a better term) "winning" ..while never assessing the cost to the community.
There's a whole overbearing "mist" of mild narcissism here that's getting more pervasive and loud. I'M NOT EXEMPTING MYSELF FROM BEING PART OF IT. It's perseverating until everyone else stops so that you can feel that satisfaction. That "winning".
I've merely given you opportunity after opportunity to seek the last word, and you've accepted every time ..and still you can't see what I'm talking about.
Naturally, this is MY fault ..100% ..but do you see my point? I don't think you do.
Gary
I think you are the one that is missing the point. The point is that the rules are in place for the good of the community. One of the most clear cut and important rules was violated. Apparently members of the community were predictably offended, and complaints were made through back channels. Those complaints were overriden, although the existence of the issue was at least acknowledged openly.
However, as far as I can tell, the explanation for the override did not really get to the heart of the matter, which was that one member had apparently gone out of his way to offend other members of the board. People in authority then compounded the matter by saying this didn't meet their personal thresholds for offense, so therefore it was a non issue. All in spite of this being a clearcut violation of a clearcut, primary rule, with the (later admitted) intention of causing conflict.
It was bad enough that the original poster essentially, with premeditation, flipped his middle finger at parts of the community, but much worse that the mods came down not on the side of the offended, but, by default, for the offender, therefore making several parties making a mockery of the rules, and re-flipping the finger at those who thought this was a "moderated for the good of the community" board.
When it comes to economics and politics you are good at seeing how the dominant class maintains it's position at the expense of all others. But apparently on other issues, when your personal ox is not the one being gored, you feel confident in accusing the offended of having displaced anxiety. While I agree that there is odd psychology going on on this board, I don't think expecting the moderators to enforce clearcut violations of the primary rules falls in that category.
While you will obviously disagree, I believe that 97Tbird had a valid complaint. While complaining that he shouldn't have ruined your holiday, you deliberately escalated the issue far beyond the original scope, and you still insist it is all his fault. Who is the bigger narcissist?
I say that you require some level of (for lack of a better term) "winning" ..while never assessing the cost to the community.
There's a whole overbearing "mist" of mild narcissism here that's getting more pervasive and loud. I'M NOT EXEMPTING MYSELF FROM BEING PART OF IT. It's perseverating until everyone else stops so that you can feel that satisfaction. That "winning".
I've merely given you opportunity after opportunity to seek the last word, and you've accepted every time ..and still you can't see what I'm talking about.
Naturally, this is MY fault ..100% ..but do you see my point? I don't think you do.
Gary
I think you are the one that is missing the point. The point is that the rules are in place for the good of the community. One of the most clear cut and important rules was violated. Apparently members of the community were predictably offended, and complaints were made through back channels. Those complaints were overriden, although the existence of the issue was at least acknowledged openly.
However, as far as I can tell, the explanation for the override did not really get to the heart of the matter, which was that one member had apparently gone out of his way to offend other members of the board. People in authority then compounded the matter by saying this didn't meet their personal thresholds for offense, so therefore it was a non issue. All in spite of this being a clearcut violation of a clearcut, primary rule, with the (later admitted) intention of causing conflict.
It was bad enough that the original poster essentially, with premeditation, flipped his middle finger at parts of the community, but much worse that the mods came down not on the side of the offended, but, by default, for the offender, therefore making several parties making a mockery of the rules, and re-flipping the finger at those who thought this was a "moderated for the good of the community" board.
When it comes to economics and politics you are good at seeing how the dominant class maintains it's position at the expense of all others. But apparently on other issues, when your personal ox is not the one being gored, you feel confident in accusing the offended of having displaced anxiety. While I agree that there is odd psychology going on on this board, I don't think expecting the moderators to enforce clearcut violations of the primary rules falls in that category.
While you will obviously disagree, I believe that 97Tbird had a valid complaint. While complaining that he shouldn't have ruined your holiday, you deliberately escalated the issue far beyond the original scope, and you still insist it is all his fault. Who is the bigger narcissist?
JHZR2
Staff member
Ok, we will try to address in the new year. Sorry this has created an argument, let's let it rest for a bit, eh?
- Status
Similar threads
