|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:17:57 GMT -6
Way to gaslight.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 3, 2016 11:37:41 GMT -6
Fine. Let's descend to that level again. Whatever this angry shit is that your dragging all around the place, don't take it out on me. Fuck civility if you don't care for it and fuck you, mate. Come back when you've got over whatever's stuck yer craw. Dick.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 12:17:38 GMT -6
Heh. There's actually no "angry shit [I'm] dragging all around the place." I'm also unsure where I've been "uncivil" with you. Is it because I said I think you'll make a lousy senator (which you said about me)? Is it because I said I'm not accepting your retelling of events?
Just so I know where we stand - if I state, "well this is how I feel," then this is an attack and lacks civility? That's the standard?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 3, 2016 16:04:43 GMT -6
I'll take your word for it. Doesn't seem like it, but, I'll believe you.
The clue to where I think you crossed the line sits in your accusation that I am actively attempting to mentally manipulate you in some way to make you question your own sanity. Gaslighting was the term you used. I had to Google it, as it's not a word I've ever heard (geographic?), but your implication is that I'm mentally bullying you in the same way an abusive partner would.
Contrary to that, similarly to you, V, I don't make attacks under the surface in a manipulatory way. If I have an issue with you, you'll hear so in no uncertain terms.
Nope. I'm not shooting for a 100% approval rating.
Nearly there. If you don't agree with my version of events then that's fine. You should have said so, but you didn't really say so. Instead you accused me of behaving in a mentally abusive and manipulating manner towards you. Which illicited a bad tempered response in return.
I think you and I stand exactly where we always have: On eggshells with a couple of loud New York and Glasgow bad tempers. I don't care if you want to be civil or not, and I have a fairly high bar compared to others as to how noisy and 'uncivil' I think Talossa should be allowed to get before we all need to reign it in, but I think you crossed the line from hard-ball, down in the mud style politics to a knife-stabby, personal attack all in the space of three words.
You didn't say "this is how I feel". "Way to gaslight" it was. Verbatim.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 17:06:55 GMT -6
Okay, I can see why/how you found the comment offensive. The intent behind the use of gaslight was not to equate you to an abusive partner, but it is entirely reasonable for you to interpret it as such. I should have better considered the impact of term. You found offense to it, and that offense, being reasonable in nature, should not be questioned. For that, I offer you an unqualified apologize. I will be more mindful in the future to better describe my feeling, or what the impact of my actions/words are.
To your other points – I’m not dragging around angry shit. I truly am quite neutral on many individuals here, including you. It is reasonable to question this as I do have a history here and did not leave on particularly good terms. But I meant what I said when I came back that there is a clean slate. Nevertheless, your actions and their impact suggests that you still have unresolved issues with me. I needn’t restate the events that make me view this as we’ve discussed it already. You have stated your position, and I feel that it is a bit revisionist and convenient on your part. (That is what I meant by gaslighting – your description of events I perceived as you saying “no, you’re remembering it all wrong, this is what really happen, and now you’re attacking me,” so I was disagreeing with your retelling of events and that I was not remembering things as they existed; the disagreement was implicit behind the use of the term.) We won’t agree on how the events should be interpreted. But our issue is current with overtures of shared historical events, but from my perspective, based entirely on recent events. (Also, my challenge about the votes was never about you, personally, as a Senator, but truly concerns a desire for accuracy.)
(This paragraph has nothing really to do with you, but I thought it might be fair to explain why the events are generally unrelated, and it does address the allegation that I’m dragging “angry shit” around.). In regards to MFP, my previous encounters with him, pre-departure, were generally positive. There are some things post-return that I raised an eyebrow to, but nothing that makes me particularly angry at him. My initial issue concerned the Secretary of State, not the individual. The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, and then his choice to mock me because I felt his answer was condescending. I responded-in-kind. My current issue with the other two boils down to their one-sided analysis and their rather Victorian notions of civility. It includes their premise that their standards should be imputed on others and those who do not adhere are unwelcomed in Talossa. Considering the lack of history between them and me, there current disagreement with them is based entirely on current events, at least from my perspective. Also, particularly with those two, the way I responded to them was related to how they initiated discourse and then subsequently responded to me.
As to the concept of civility. I think people misuse the word, or use it any time someone challenges them. Civility can mean “I respectfully disagree with your premise” but it can also mean “no, you’re wrong here;” it can mean “you’re being condescending;” and it can also mean “oh come on, you’re entirely engaging in revisionism here.” Further, I don’t think conflict is inherently bad, and I think at times it is good (hey, look how much shit we just got out on the table?). So yes, I think your comment about a couple of loud New York and Glasgow bad tempers may be apt to a degree, but I am loath say calling a trough a trough, instead of calling a trough a shared urinal, somehow crosses the line of civility. I'm also very uncomfortable with premise that actions are excusable merely because of the absence of malicious intent - I think this leads to the breakdown of democracy (I point to Trump as an example).
To conclude – I do not hate you, but I don’t particularly like you either. I think this is shared. You will be my Senator, and you must deal with me as a constituent. And that will be that. I will work with you when appropriate and criticize you when appropriate - and yes, I will use fiery rhetoric. I will also apologize if I go too far. That is my style. But to prevent another public flame-war, I am willing to say that next time there is an issue, I will PM you. That doesn’t mean I won’t call you a douchebag if you’re acting like it; it just means that I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a douchebag. Fair?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 3, 2016 18:07:17 GMT -6
I'm certainly interested in learning more about this impact vs intent concept to the level you seem to have grasped. At first glance it seems like an excellent personal development tool. I don't have the same level of understanding of these concepts as you do, so can't offer an unqualified or qualified apology, or any sub-type or sub-category thereof, but I accept your apology and can equally apologise for not keeping my side of the street clean. In that, I mean, I'm sorry it's come to this and I apologise for the part I played.
Again, I never had a problem with you asking for a recount and I would probably have asked similar questions. These questions are the correct questions to ask in a democracy and, indeed, I would have agreed with the legal position that endorsed votes for Sir T cast prior to the dropping out date remained votes for Sir T after dropping out. Our disagreement came after that though, somewhere between revisionist and gaslighting is where I've somehow taken offence. I accept your intent was not how I perceived it. My bad. Perhaps the unresolved issues does lie with me. I will take inventory on this. I humbly thank you for directly pointing that out.
As to revisionist, I make no apology. I disagree with the label. I don't think I backtracked on anything. I didn't shower you with praise during the campaign, but it doesn't mean I didn't like you or wasn't happy you came back. I said I think you'd make a lousy Senator and I still do. I was bored with Talossa and didn't want to commit to a three term stint. The boards picked up and I changed my mind. I'm not revising anything. Unless I've misunderstood your definition and context. You somehow think its a negative personal thing. I categorically disagree. I don't know how the impact vs intent plays into it, but it is how it is.
Civility. I think I agree with you. I went through a stage of demanding everyone adhere to the strictest of Wittiquette rules, but we're all adults. The other guys calling for civility, yeah, I get it. But, you also say the thing about being human people on the other end of the line. Do we really all go about our day talking to each other in the strictest of civility without the odd expletive slipping out or sarcasm creeping in or, dare I say, snidey snipe or eyerolling? There is, of course, a line and a limit. I've certainly crossed it. I believe you may have crossed it. I'm rambling here. Yeah, feiry tenor and rhetoric and ultra-heated debate do not make us uncivilised. Quite the opposite.
(Not to mention that Talossa seems to do 'better' when the heat is turned up a little).
Finally, I respect you and do not hate you either. As you say, we probably don't like each other, which I do regret, but we can work together. I will do my best to represent you as a constituent. Unfortunately, there will be times I will disappoint you. My mandate is with the majority of Vuode, with whom, you are in current disagreement on some major issues. However, I stand by my word. I will do the best I can as Senator, it's all I can do, and will not stand in the way of your campaign to bring about your referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 18:59:08 GMT -6
We don't have to agree on every point, but I am willing to consider this resolved. As to the impact v. intent and the meaning behind unqualified apology - it's a straightforward concept that even I mess up from time to time. Here is a good link that explains it: everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/ If you have roughly eight minutes, this is a good video that explains it. There's a lot of extra in there (although possibly informative in its own right), but the concept is explained very easily understood - certain things we do that injures another person deserve an apology that has no strings attached. What that means is that the actor's intent does not really matter, because its the impact that counts (the video uses the example of accidentally stepping on someones foot and breaking their toe - did that person intend to break the other's toe? No. Is there toe still broken? Yes. The impact of that person's action is the broken toe). If I'm going to apologize for something, the apology should be sincere and acknowledge I did something wrong and that my intent doesn't matter. You were harmed by something I did and I don't get to qualify the apology with "but you did..." and "i'm sorry if..." If I mean my apology, it's an unqualified "I fucked up; I'm sorry. I'll be mindful in the future to not do that." (In our context, I accused you of gaslighting; the impact of that was that I equated you with abusive partners, which is rightfully considered an insult; and you were offended. "I'm sorry; that was wrong of me. I will make a point to be more mindful of my words in the future" is the proper apology. "I'm sorry that you were offended, if you were offended" both suck. "I'm sorry but that wasn't my intent" seeks to excuse my behavior.) Of course you can explain your intent but only insofar as it's done to acknowledge your own shortcoming; it doesn't absolve you of what you did. And that's ultimately the point. One caveat - this is obviously not for every instance when you wrong somebody. This is not a justification to say to someone, "I don't like how you're acting and your intent doesn't matter" simply because someone is challenging you. "That's wrong" does not mean one gets to accuse someone of calling another stupid. As I apply this concept, it's when my actions/words are actually offensive. Example - if I call you an asshole, okay, I called you an asshole. My intent was to call you an asshole. But that's different when I accused of you gaslighting (as discussed above). Anyway, I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 3, 2016 20:27:43 GMT -6
The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, Between the moment the election ended and the moment I gave you my answer which you call condescending, here is what I had to deal with IN Talossa: 1 ) Start the review of the ballots to fix any issues ASAP. You managed to spot one error before I did (congrats on your) and then, fix it 2 ) Fix the stupid PSC problem 3 ) Exchange private messages with the leaders of several parties and with members of several parties 4 ) Handle the I EXPLICITLY VOTE... party registration 5 ) Read a trial against the Chancery 6 ) Contact 5 different people in the bar to find an attorney 7 ) Exchange messages about the Fiova Senate election 8 ) Answer why 2 people who claimed to have voted are not in the list of voters (basically, I didn't get their votes) 9 ) Scan my spam box to find one additional missed vote (Garth) 10 ) Discuss with the King on the Electoral commission and the trial 11 ) Chat with a few citizens who had questions on the election in private 12 ) Congratulate a few of the party leaders (sorry those I missed) 13 ) Explain to Mximo why his party didn't get another seat 14 ) Answer your message. So sorry, my Talossan workload was a LITTLE busy and I misread your message. Actually, that's not even what happened, I read it, answered a private chat, and then replied to it, so I ended up not replying to your actual message but to what my brain memorised. That's only in my official capacity as SoS. You've decided to bring the office holder in the subject. Because as it turns out, I operate a company and have employees. One of them was sick this week, leaving me over-busy. My daugther had TWO appointments Friday, putting me out of the office during the day. I also didn't sleep well between Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, English is my second language, when I am tired, it's a little harder for me. But hey, you've decided I was condescending, and apparently, It's me that needs to apologize because I was called out. Hum. Interesting. Interesting way to see it. Sorry,, I still don't see how the FUCK I was I condesending. I answered the wrong question. Grow up. Get over it. I answer very politely and professionally to the WRONG QUESTION. I was not NOT being FUCKING condecending. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR HEAD ONCE AND FOR ALL???? If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say. You responded to a PERCEIVED condescending toward you. I get it, Intent doesn't matter to you. Good for you! Well, YOU intended to strike back at me. I am NOT a politician, I am a civil servant. I am apolitical. I am not in the ring to play politics.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 3, 2016 20:43:31 GMT -6
Furthermore,
I am supposed to apologize gracefully because you accused me of being condesceding, fine, fair enough, I can understand that part.
But when I said you were being an asshole toward me, did you apologize?
According to your values, when you are called out, you apologize, and you seem to hold over ALL OF US our lack of apologies.
But where are YOURS???
If you had apoligized quickly and said that you might have done too far in your accusations, it's what is called DE-ESCALATION.
It's what I did when I took your message and answered line by line. What was YOUR response? "Was that so hard?"
In short, in ALMOST EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, you CHOSE to escalate.
I took time to do what you asked, and you didn'T thank me, instead, you pushed HARDER with a... wait for it... CONDESCENDING question!
Because yes, your tone has been VERY Condesending, EVEN having the nerve to post a 8 minute video explaining to ALL of US (and I hope it was you, if not, sorry), how to apoligize when you FAIL to do so!!
Had you replied "Thanks, this is what I wanted", I would have said something like "Sorry I didn't answer properly".
Instead, you chase for an apology for my first explanation.
Guess what? YOU WILL NEVER GET IT.
I WILL apologize for anything afterwards once we de-escalate. But your crusade against me is ridiculous, it's pathetic. It's childish.
Have you considered that perhaps, you are projecting your own condescending tone on others?
If I read your messages properly, you are basically almost calling all of us for being mean toward you.
Have you considered that perhaps, the problem is you?
Why is it what NO ONE had EVER called me condescending in my ENTIRE LIFE and I exchange ONE message with you and suddenly, that's all I am?
Why is it that people all over Talossa are telling me to ignore you, that you ARE an asshole?
Why are members for your party coming forward to tell me that you DO NOT represent the FreeDem in this?
I will admit my wrongs. I always do. But you crossed a serious line. You should look yourself in the mirror and think about what you are doing.
I will work with you in the future. I don't hold grudges. But seriously dude, you have problems.
I do too. And like I said, I am ready to apologize for most of what I said once you agree to de-escalate.
You just have to admit that my first reply was an honest mistake, and that I wasn't being condending, just that I was not answering the right answer, and we can put all of this behind us.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 20:55:54 GMT -6
The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, Between the moment the election ended and the moment I gave you my answer which you call condescending, here is what I had to deal with IN Talossa: 1 ) Start the review of the ballots to fix any issues ASAP. You managed to spot one error before I did (congrats on your) and then, fix it 2 ) Fix the stupid PSC problem 3 ) Exchange private messages with the leaders of several parties and with members of several parties 4 ) Handle the I EXPLICITLY VOTE... party registration 5 ) Read a trial against the Chancery 6 ) Contact 5 different people in the bar to find an attorney 7 ) Exchange messages about the Fiova Senate election 8 ) Answer why 2 people who claimed to have voted are not in the list of voters (basically, I didn't get their votes) 9 ) Scan my spam box to find one additional missed vote (Garth) 10 ) Discuss with the King on the Electoral commission and the trial 11 ) Chat with a few citizens who had questions on the election in private 12 ) Congratulate a few of the party leaders (sorry those I missed) 13 ) Explain to Mximo why his party didn't get another seat 14 ) Answer your message. So sorry, my Talossan workload was a LITTLE busy and I misread your message. Actually, that's not even what happened, I read it, answered a private chat, and then replied to it, so I ended up not replying to your actual message but to what my brain memorised. That's only in my official capacity as SoS. You've decided to bring the office holder in the subject. Because as it turns out, I operate a company and have employees. One of them was sick this week, leaving me over-busy. My daugther had TWO appointments Friday, putting me out of the office during the day. I also didn't sleep well between Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, English is my second language, when I am tired, it's a little harder for me. But hey, you've decided I was condescending, and apparently, It's me that needs to apologize because I was called out. Hum. Interesting. Interesting way to see it. Sorry,, I still don't see how the FUCK I was I condesending. I answered the wrong question. Grow up. Get over it. I answer very politely and professionally to the WRONG QUESTION. I was not NOT being FUCKING condecending. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR HEAD ONCE AND FOR ALL? If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say. You responded to a PERCEIVED condescending toward you. I get it, Intent doesn't matter to you. Good for you! Well, YOU intended to strike back at me. I am NOT a politician, I am a civil servant. I am apolitical. I am not in the ring to play politics. Lol. Silly MPF. So arrogant and defensive. Meh. I'm over this. It's okay, you've made it clear that you're beyond reproach and that you can do no wrong. You don't have time for inquiries from the public you serve. It's cool, man. I get it. You're perfection. Enjoy the rest of your night. (So... Civility crowd... Where are you?)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 3, 2016 22:11:51 GMT -6
(So... Civility crowd... Where are you?) Probably not two pages into a regional thread #justsayin' (sorry if I just missed some sarcasm).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 3, 2016 22:35:02 GMT -6
I chuckled.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 4, 2016 4:36:34 GMT -6
Lol. Silly MPF. So arrogant and defensive. Meh. I'm over this. It's okay, you've made it clear that you're beyond reproach and that you can do no wrong. You don't have time for inquiries from the public you serve. It's cool, man. I get it. You're perfection. Enjoy the rest of your night. (So... Civility crowd... Where are you?) I am hereby blocking you from my life. I am initiating a non-contact policy with you. It is obvious to me what we will not get along until you seriously change. I will begin recruiting a new more responsive Deputy SoS, you will deal with him or her for official businesses. Until then, I will try to do my official business in as neutral and bureaucratic manner as possible. Please do not try to contact me in a personal matter, or I might have to consider this harrassment. I will not contact you, unless I have to do it before I have a deputy SoS. Enjoy a good life, I hope you get help, know that if at some point, you realize what you have done, I am open to receive an apology and work toward healing whatever this is between us. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in public, and I will not refer to you.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 4, 2016 4:53:32 GMT -6
Lol. Silly MPF. So arrogant and defensive. Meh. I'm over this. It's okay, you've made it clear that you're beyond reproach and that you can do no wrong. You don't have time for inquiries from the public you serve. It's cool, man. I get it. You're perfection. Enjoy the rest of your night. (So... Civility crowd... Where are you?) I am hereby blocking you from my life. I am initiating a non-contact policy with you. It is obvious to me what we will not get along until you seriously change. I will begin recruiting a new more responsive Deputy SoS, you will deal with him or her for official businesses. Until then, I will try to do my official business in as neutral and bureaucratic manner as possible. Please do not try to contact me in a personal matter, or I might have to consider this harrassment. I will not contact you, unless I have to do it before I have a deputy SoS. Enjoy a good life, I hope you get help, know that if at some point, you realize what you have done, I am open to receive an apology and work toward healing whatever this is between us. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in public, and I will not refer to you. Seriously dude, get help. The only time we spoke in private had to do with the citizenship and party endorsement. As Secretary of State, you must deal with all of your constituents; you don't get to assign some to a dSoS. You will deal with me in a public manner. I will refer to you as I see fit. The sheer fact that you think your behavior is even remotely appropriate speaks volumes about your character flaws. As I said earlier, get some help. Your irrational and aggressive response to being challenged is concerning. If you feel I am harassing you if I contact you for official duties, then you can report me to the proper authorities. But now you're just playing the victim and it's absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. When you are ready to apologize I will entertain the notion. And let's be clear here - you owe me an apology for your condescension, your aggression, your insults, and your meritless character attacks. You owe me an apology for trying to paint yourself as the victim. And at this point, I will say, you owe me an apology for gaslighting (all implications intended).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 4, 2016 17:05:23 GMT -6
Furthermore, I am supposed to apologize gracefully because you accused me of being condesceding, fine, fair enough, I can understand that part. But when I said you were being an asshole toward me, did you apologize? According to your values, when you are called out, you apologize, and you seem to hold over ALL OF US our lack of apologies. But where are YOURS??? If you had apoligized quickly and said that you might have done too far in your accusations, it's what is called DE-ESCALATION. It's what I did when I took your message and answered line by line. What was YOUR response? "Was that so hard?" In short, in ALMOST EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, you CHOSE to escalate. I took time to do what you asked, and you didn'T thank me, instead, you pushed HARDER with a... wait for it... CONDESCENDING question! Because yes, your tone has been VERY Condesending, EVEN having the nerve to post a 8 minute video explaining to ALL of US (and I hope it was you, if not, sorry), how to apoligize when you FAIL to do so!! Had you replied "Thanks, this is what I wanted", I would have said something like "Sorry I didn't answer properly". Instead, you chase for an apology for my first explanation. Guess what? YOU WILL NEVER GET IT. I WILL apologize for anything afterwards once we de-escalate. But your crusade against me is ridiculous, it's pathetic. It's childish. Have you considered that perhaps, you are projecting your own condescending tone on others? If I read your messages properly, you are basically almost calling all of us for being mean toward you. Have you considered that perhaps, the problem is you? Why is it what NO ONE had EVER called me condescending in my ENTIRE LIFE and I exchange ONE message with you and suddenly, that's all I am? Why is it that people all over Talossa are telling me to ignore you, that you ARE an asshole? Why are members for your party coming forward to tell me that you DO NOT represent the FreeDem in this? I will admit my wrongs. I always do. But you crossed a serious line. You should look yourself in the mirror and think about what you are doing. I will work with you in the future. I don't hold grudges. But seriously dude, you have problems. I do too. And like I said, I am ready to apologize for most of what I said once you agree to de-escalate. You just have to admit that my first reply was an honest mistake, and that I wasn't being condending, just that I was not answering the right answer, and we can put all of this behind us. Alright, I actually didn't see this post last night. I will respond now. Perhaps it will resolve something. (1) Let's put aside the condescending comment for now. (2) I said your apology was assholish. I didn't say you are one. (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/148848) The reason I view your apology the way I do can be found in the above post (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/148961). I did not apologize because I felt I was responding to the type of aggression you were sending my way. I doubt we'll agree on this. (3) What accusations do I need to apologize for? To the best of my knowledge, it is because I said your post was condescending. I have to apologize because you think I went to far in that? Now, if it is because of my snarky subsequent comments, yes, I can apologize for them, providing you do as well. But let's be clear, after this post, talossa.proboards.com/post/148848, things began to quiet. (4) After your answer, I posted my "was that so hard." You then responded by making two assertions. talossa.proboards.com/post/148848. I responded by posting my second response to you to demonstrate that your assertions were incorrect. You responded that this may be a good place to stop and you'd look again in the morning. talossa.proboards.com/post/148881. That post came in on Dec. 2, 2016 at 4:48. (On another note, Cresti asked why I posted that and I provided an explanation. talossa.proboards.com/post/148892)(5) At this point, the discussion between you and me essentially ceased. In fact, you did not comment on either of those threads for most of the day (dare I say 24 hours?). During this lull, Grishun and I engaged in a separate debate. Grischun raised the issue of intersectionality between the multiple disagreements. In my response to him, in a paragraph I noted really had nothing to do with anything concerning him, but only was for the purpose to show that the issues were actually separate, I described my issue with you as, "In regards to MFP, my previous encounters with him, pre-departure, were generally positive. There are some things post-return that I raised an eyebrow to, but nothing that makes me particularly angry at him. My initial issue concerned the Secretary of State, not the individual. The issue then became about the individual based on the actions of the Secretary of State, specifically his condescending, nonresponsive answer, and then his choice to mock me because I felt his answer was condescending. I responded-in-kind." talossa.proboards.com/post/148954 Please note, my description of events was entirely how I described them elsewhere. Nothing new happened. (6) Grischun and I came to a resolution, but brought up the impact v. intent thing. Out of nowhere, you interjected and went on a rampage. talossa.proboards.com/post/148962. I responded here talossa.proboards.com/post/148962 (What I am now telling you is that I did not see your second post.) Do you think I posted that video for you or anyone else? No. Actually, Grischun said this, "I'm certainly interested in learning more about this impact vs intent concept to the level you seem to have grasped. At first glance it seems like an excellent personal development tool. I don't have the same level of understanding of these concepts as you do," talossa.proboards.com/post/148958. I responded DIRECTLY to him, never referencing you in the entire post. What I said was "here is a good link" and a "good video that explains it." He said he didn't fully understand the concepts, and I offered him what I thought were pretty good explanations of the concepts. (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/148958) This was not about you. It was entirely because I used the wrong word in my dispute with him, he was hurt by it, and I apologized. He stated he didn't fully understand why I apologized the way I did, and I provided an explanation with two links explaining it. The video was not posted to all of you; it was posted because someone asked me about it. (7) Okay, so you think because I said your post was condescending that I was an asshole to you? No. You think my "was that so hard" comment was rude? It was snarky, I'll concede that. But what else are you pointing to? You think I chose to escalate, but that's not what reading through the posts show. As I point out, things actually quieted down, but you then decided to jump back on the issue of condescension. The issue then again died out for a good 24 hours, and you decided to jump in on the Vuode thread. (8) There is no crusade against you. I don't think you get that. I have not followed you around seeking an apology. When it has come up, I said you owe me one. The issue dropped and I did not address you. You decided to jump back in. I don't hate you. But for some reason, you seem to think I owe you an apology because I called you condescending. (10) I never said you were always condescending. I said in that instance, that particular answer was. You seem to think I made some personal attack on you. I didn't. But you've been coming after me hard. Further, I have not made any comments about your mental health, and only commented on your character flaws after you decided to throw some accusations at me. You chose to escalate the personal attacks. (11) I'm unconcerned with members of my party contacting you saying I don't speak for them. But if they are, great! Also, unless they want to message me directly, or you want to share who they are, I'm uninterested in this claim. (12) You think I crossed a line and you think you're the victim here. That is what remains. Above I took a moment to give you links to the posts to try to possibly explain to you why I don't understand your position. I'm also trying to acknowledge that there is a miscommunication here, and that perhaps you're reading a bit too much into other posts that had nothing to do with you. (13) So after this last post, you then made your "Demand for Dep. SOS" post. As I stated earlier, I did not see the post I'm now responding to. It's quite obvious that neither of us will agree on this. You think you're a victim and I went on a crusade against you; I think you were condescending and instead of owning it, you doubled down and went on the attack. Fine. Whatever. We're not going to convince the other. On that note, I think all that needs to be said has been said.
|
|