|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 2, 2016 16:17:51 GMT -6
I think the only one being condescending (or rather patronising) is you, Viteu. You may want to recall that this is a person, a fellow Talossan, sitting on the other end of your posts, probably with little intention of antagonising you, yet you go on, and accuse him of just doing that, when he has stated on multiple occasions that he had not intended to do so. Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 16:33:17 GMT -6
I think the only one being condescending (or rather patronising) is you, Viteu. You may want to recall that this is a person, a fellow Talossan, sitting on the other end of your posts, probably with little intention of antagonising you, yet you go on, and accuse him of just doing that, when he has stated on multiple occasions that he had not intended to do so. Get a grip. Cool story, bro.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 2, 2016 16:49:05 GMT -6
To clarify, I did not mean Hool, I meant Aladna la Mha-Coca (you'll excuse the confusion). You will cease your condescension; your little scenario didn't really explain anything, as it does not much differ from the point I'm making. My question remains - of the public votes, on which date were they received and did they explicitly state Grischun? Of the private votes, the EC will need to confirm that they are appropriate. And I'm not apologizing for this, but the fact that you concede that there is a significant difference between private and public votes (i.e., you can vote party in one but not the other), then I'm not putting much stock into your other claims. Emphasis added to original. You can see from the election results page that 4 public ballots were cast in Vuode. Three of them were cast in the Witt voting thread: you can see for yourself the time and date they were cast and that the voters explicitly stated their chosen candidatr's name. M-P already answered your questions with respect to the public ballot (Sir Trotxâ's) not cast on Witt. What are you still looking for with respect to the emphasized question?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 2, 2016 17:09:05 GMT -6
I think the only one being condescending (or rather patronising) is you, Viteu. You may want to recall that this is a person, a fellow Talossan, sitting on the other end of your posts, probably with little intention of antagonising you, yet you go on, and accuse him of just doing that, when he has stated on multiple occasions that he had not intended to do so. Get a grip. Cool story, bro. I do not care about your request to recount votes in Vuode. Votes will be confirmed by the EC, anyway, and scrutiny is always welcome when it comes to matters of State. However, I do not appreciate your passive-aggressive tone, and I will call you to order, S:reu Marcianüs. You may also want to stop being so patronising and condescending, generally. You know, if you wish to prevail in Talossa. History and experience has shown that bullies generally find themselves isolated from the community, because -- as much as we may fight and argue with one another -- we always remember that the person on the other side is a human being with feelings. And if you cannot respect this fact, then I am afraid you will find that Talossa may not be the right fit for you.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 17:20:34 GMT -6
Emphasis added to original. You can see from the election results page that 4 public ballots were cast in Vuode. Three of them were cast in the Witt voting thread: you can see for yourself the time and date they were cast and that the voters explicitly stated their chosen candidatr's name. M-P already answered your questions with respect to the public ballot (Sir Trotxâ's) not cast on Witt. What are you still looking for with respect to the emphasized question? *sigh* The re-post with emphasis was a direct response to the assertions made in the the post that immediately preceded it. See below. When a person doesn't answer properly to your questions, you have two choices: Consider they didn't understand them properly and repeat them. Or... consider they attacked you, are being condescending and put them on the defensive. You chose the second option, so instead of rereading your questions you kept pointing me to my own answers.You put the focus on my answers and my behavior instead of on your own questions. Y ou never thought it possible that I might have misunderstood your questions.To explain - MPF asserted that I failed to consider that he misunderstood the question (see above-italicized text); he then asserted that I did no focus on my questions, but on his answer (see above-bold text). However, my initial response demonstrates the following: (1) I told him to cease the condescension; (2) the questions in my original post presumed the scenario he gave, hence my response that the "(s)cenario didn't really explain anything" followed shortly after by "[m]y question remains - of the public votes..." indicates that I did, in fact, consider he misunderstood the question, and that I acknowledged it; and (3) I did, in fact, ask for the exact information I sought (i.e., or as he put it - I was "rereading [my] questions" and was not merely putting the "focus on [his] answers"). I want to be clear about the post you now reference - that was not done to illicit answers to the questions, but to demonstrate that I did, in fact, consider that he misunderstood the question and did, in fact, repose my questions. The post merely disproves his assertions. Now, to your other question - yes, he answered them ages ago. I acknowledged that and stated that I would wait for the EC to confirm. The debate, however, shifted to two issues, with the latter issue dominating: (1) whether there is a problem that one method allows a certain type of vote but another method does not [to which we both agreed early on, but he felt it necessary to keep bringing up]; and (2) whether his initial response was condescending. Hence, the debate stopped being substantive hours ago as its focus really became whether his initial response was condescending. Does this answer your question(s)?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 17:39:12 GMT -6
I do not care about your request to recount votes in Vuode. Votes will be confirmed by the EC, anyway, and scrutiny is always welcome when it comes to matters of State. However, I do not appreciate your passive-aggressive tone, and I will call you to order, S:reu Marcianüs. You may also want to stop being so patronising and condescending, generally. You know, if you wish to prevail in Talossa. History and experience has shown that bullies generally find themselves isolated from the community, because -- as much as we may fight and argue with one another -- we always remember that the person on the other side is a human being with feelings. And if you cannot respect this fact, then I am afraid you will find that Talossa may not be the right fit for you. Eh, you'll call me to nothing. I do, however, chuckle at your premise, that if an individual does not adhere to your arbitrary standards of civic engagement, then Talossa may not be the right fit for them. Nothing in my posts indicates that I don't think MFP and you are, in fact, people on the other side of a computer. On the contrary, this entire disagreement can be reduced to the fact that those who engaged in the debate are human. Your response, however, does not consider that I am, in fact, also human, or if it does, it implies that my feelings are less than your or MFP's feelings (i.e., he can be insulted that I called him condescending, but I can't be insulted for his condescension). But eh, who cares honestly? I'm certainly not concerned with adhering to your concepts of appropriate civic engagement. And you certainly aren't concerned with mine.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Dec 2, 2016 20:02:22 GMT -6
I'm certainly not concerned with adhering to your concepts of appropriate civic engagement. Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun may be right about one thing. Perhaps you aren't a great fit here. It's not that you don't have a valid perspective... but when it's delivered with shameless antagonism—is anyone going to accept it?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 20:09:10 GMT -6
I'm certainly not concerned with adhering to your concepts of appropriate civic engagement. Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun may be right about one thing. Perhaps you aren't a great fit here. It's not that you don't have a valid perspective... but when it's delivered with shameless antagonism—is anyone going to accept it? You're both acting like the manner in which I have responded is something abnormal from my reputation. Go back and look at some of the fiery rhetoric Miestra and I used to throw at each other. Get back to me on how I'm not a fit. But yeah, next you'll be telling me that if an American burns the US flag, they should be jailed or have their citizenship revoked.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Dec 3, 2016 4:38:26 GMT -6
You're both acting like the manner in which I have responded is something abnormal from my reputation. Go back and look at some of the fiery rhetoric Miestra and I used to throw at each other. Get back to me on how I'm not a fit. I hoped you might have something new to offer for your sequel. If you're just going to phone in a remake, well, we already know how it ended last time. I won't trouble you again.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 3, 2016 11:32:40 GMT -6
Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun may be right about one thing. Perhaps you aren't a great fit here. It's not that you don't have a valid perspective... but when it's delivered with shameless antagonism—is anyone going to accept it? You're both acting like the manner in which I have responded is something abnormal from my reputation. Go back and look at some of the fiery rhetoric Miestra and I used to throw at each other. Get back to me on how I'm not a fit. But yeah, next you'll be telling me that if an American burns the US flag, they should be jailed or have their citizenship revoked. Are you... I am sorry, are you saying the reason for your vile behaviour is your concern about personal reputation? How is being a mean, and dislikable Talossan a worthwhile reputation to keep? I would love working together on legislation with you, whether you be a member of the Ziu, or a member of the public, because I think that you have a lot of good ideas. But I dread to think of having to put up with your personality, and I would much rather run away screaming, or let it all go to hell. That may be very selfish, and I may be petty for not being able to swallow my pride, or whatever the hell you are going to come up with, but I would be much obliged if you could take a hard look at yourself, and reassess how you want to play it here.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 12:06:59 GMT -6
In no way did I say I was concerned with my personal reputation. What I am saying is that the manner in which I engaged is not unfamiliar in Talossa.
As to the rest of your comments. That's nice. I'm uninterested in your gaslighting. I will work with you on shared ideas, or you won't work with me, but I'm not going to be lectured by some victorian on propriety. You can choose to favor intent over impact, but that's a position I view as misguided. I'm not going to sit here and reevaluate the posts, but I do make note that you're laughably one-sided in your analysis.
I will not take a hard look at myself, or reassess how I want to play here, as I don't think you're way is "more correct" or "more proper."
Anyway, this back and forth isn't going anywhere. I'm done debating this issue. If you choose to not work with me - fine.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 3, 2016 13:53:09 GMT -6
Free Democrats of Talossa motto: "No-one likes us, we don't care"
|
|