Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Yo Mod (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Yo Mod
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Well, that just goes to show that faleshoods that are close to truth hurt more for both of us.
Heh. Nice try at the psychoanalysis, but no.
Rather, I think a "tantrum" is just a lack of self-control; viciousness implies not only cruelty but intent.

How do you have cruelty without intent? How can you be unintentionally cruel?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If you say I'm having a tantrum, you're saying I've lost control and am being childish. If you say I'm being vicious, you're saying that I am intentionally cruel and hurtful.

Sure. But if I say that a person's ATTACK is "vicious" (as I did with OM above), that does not necessarily refer to speaker's intent; such a statement more typically means that Speaker lost control in a fit of rage.

Context, Tom. Obvious difference between saying someone is "being vicious" versus saying that they made a "vicious personal attack." The latter simply means that someone lashed out.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious why you considered that attack "vicious," actually.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:
quote:
please stop the public baiting and take it to email
I'm not publicly baiting. I'm responding to your complaints about the way the mod is treating you here, in the thread where you are publicly making those complaints.

You want to discuss something by email, then email me the topic you would like to discuss off-board. You want me to stop talking about my perceptions of how you are being treated by the mod, and why, then stop bringing it up here.

You keep claiming that the Mod is treating you unfairly. My comments are responsive to the topic you continue to introduce for consideration and discussion.
quote:
OM's emailed me to tell me he's per-approved a perma-ban with Kristine Card.
So? Letting you know that the option is on the table is an indication of how much your behavior is disrupting the forum. It's an attempt to jar you into acknowledging the firm request that you engage socially with a more-accurate level of emotional reciprocity. I'm not certain Mod entirely understands how difficult this is for you, but it is worth noting that you're failing miserably so far, and you're still around.

She's saying: "You need to stop reacting on an emotionally inappropriate level to every obstacle in social interaction. If you can't figure out a way to do this, you'll be perma-banned."

And your response is: "Disproportionate emotional outburst!!! Mod is attacking me! And there is nothing I can do to stop Mod from attacking and eventually banning me!"
quote:
Unless you know something that I don't and public baiting & taunts, are not a known form of therapy for Asberger's.
I'm really not baiting you here, Pete. You have a long-term dysfunctional mode of relating to the board. I didn't invent this, this is the reason for the problem with the mod that you keep bringing up, and it isn't a predatory attack on your well-known weakness to call things what they are when you bring the issue up. This dysfunctional mode of relating appears to have spanned multiple moderators, and appears to be on the brink of getting you perma-banned.

I'm one of the guys who would be most upset if such a thing should happen, so I'm trying to step in and help. Maybe what I'm doing is completely unhelpful. *shrug* Doesn't mean that I'm not going to do something to try to prevent your perma-banishment from happening.

To my mind, the best way to do this is two-fold: 1) to help the people with whom you keep relating dysfunctionally better understand why you act like you do, and 2) to help you see the components of other people's perceptions that you apparently have a hard time seeing.

Your repeated complaints about your "well-know weakness" mean (to my mind) that you want and expect others to understand that you have special needs that should be considered when people choose to engage you. I think that this is fair, but if it's so, then it isn't a predatory personal attack to discuss those special needs openly when you keep bringing the issue up.

Or did you think that everyone here has "special weaknesses" that everyone else must consider and work around?

(Because everyone else doesn't have special, well-known weaknesses that everyone else has to tiptoe around. There's just a few of us kooks, like you with your disproportionate emotional responses, or me with my diarrhetorical stutter,* and while I certainly don't think we should be discriminated against or banned for our quirks, we do have to understand that we are operating outside of the boundaries of normal, expected behavior, when we engage in such ways, and we do have to recognize that it's gonna upset others, and that we have a special responsibility for the conflict our abnormal behaviors may engender.)

(*Tourettorical Syndrome?)

[ September 24, 2012, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whatever I say, you could call it a tantrum.

You could call this statement a tantrum. Read the beginning of the thread.

You could call silence a tantrum.

I bet you that if you and I swapped accounts and passwords, that OM's special treatment would still result in a suspension of my account.

I am not the whole problem here.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an experiment, try proceeding from the assumption that you are indeed the whole problem and see what happens.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As an experiment, try proceeding from the assumption that you are indeed the whole problem and see what happens. "

I did that before, Tom. Stopped using the phrase "Cultural Nihilism," and you continued to complain about me using the term for three years in which I never used it.


--------
Thread summary:

Act I.
SP: Hey Mod! This bump rule sucks!

Pete: On reflection, I think it's an OK rule.

SP: Pete, you suck. You do x, y, and z

Pete: Actually, I haven't done x, y or z for the 3 weeks since I came back from suspension.

SP: Stop making this thread about yourself.

Act II:

SP: Hey Mod, what's with banning the word "ass"?

Pete: I agree, that's a foolish rule.

Mod: that rule only applies to Pete.

SP: Well that's OK then.

Pete: I don't think that's OK.

Mod: then stop being a [personal attack]

Pete: that was rude.

SP: Quit throwing tantrums.

Pete: Saying something was rude is not throwing a tantrum.

SP and Tom, in unison: just understand that you are the problem.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, everyone applies a persona to the words written by a particular poster. Once they have that persona firmly in their mind they tend to read anything written by that person in a way that supports that persona. If a “tantrum” in the past was particularly memorable then any strongly worded rebuke now is colored by the pervious “tantrum”.

You do let them push your buttons a lot Pete. So in part you are the problem. I at least come here to have my buttons pushed and to occasionally push some back. My own sense of self worth is not really impacted by how some semi-anonymous person on the internet thinks of me. I am interested in what they think of me based upon what I said. It tells me a lot about how I express myself. I often learn contrary information I would not be exposed to otherwise. It also can shed some much needed light on my presumptions. It may not change my opinion but you should never take your beliefs or opinions for granted.

If you see any forum as a score board you will just frustrate yourself. That said, your summary here is pretty much what I’m seeing. I got to say even a well justified, “they’re all out to get me” rant is far from sympathetic. I think we all become addicted in part to being in a verbal confrontation like this. It’s an odd rush in a way even when (or because) it gets you pissed off at people who really have no affect directly in your life. The novelty is something else.

Ego stroking, self development, vindication, embarrassment, anger, exasperation, the list goes on. All from the safety of your keyboard. A few deep breaths and a walk away and back to your every day routine. I can tell just by your posting you find this as addictive as most of us. Don’t indulge yourself too far and get banned for it. You’d be missed. Particularly by your rivals.

[ September 25, 2012, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That said, your summary here is pretty much what I’m seeing. I got to say even a well justified,"

Thank you.

"“they’re all out to get me” rant is far from sympathetic. "

That's part of the persona; it's not what I actually said.

I understand that given your current beliefs regarding religions, and Tom's, that if you found yourself involved in a conversation with an intelligent believer, that it would be very convenient for your theological stability to find that person mentally ill. To the extend that my own quirks have contributed to your cop-out, I apologize. [Razz]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stopped using the phrase "Cultural Nihilism," and you continued to complain about me using the term for three years in which I never used it.
Well, sure. Because you didn't exactly say, "Gee, I'm sorry I'm using an offensive, stupid term. I won't use it anymore."

If I call you an idiot today, and then don't call you an idiot tomorrow, it is not unreasonable for you to complain the day after tomorrow about how rude I am. The last you heard, I thought you were an idiot; it's not like I've retracted it. (Note: the "I" and "you" here are placeholder pronouns.)

[ September 25, 2012, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Stopped using the phrase "Cultural Nihilism," and you continued to complain about me using the term for three years in which I never used it.
Well, sure. Because you didn't exactly say, "Gee, I'm sorry I'm using an offensive, stupid term. I won't use it anymore."

So if someone changes their vocabulary, not because they agree with you, but simply to appease you, that justifies you nagging them for three years to demand an apology?

So it's not enough for me to change what I say and how I say it, but you demand that I change what I think. Because the problem is me. Cool, Tom.

[ September 25, 2012, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So if someone changes their vocabulary, not because they agree with you, but simply to appease you, that justifies you nagging them for three years to demand an apology?
No. It justifies, however, pointing out how stupid that point of view is when appropriate. If the point of view has not changed, it remains just as stupid.

If you had said, "Hey, I understand why the term 'cultural nihilism' is ridiculous and inappropriate," then that's one thing. But you didn't, so I assume you haven't figured it out yet. And consequently the criticism still applies.

On the plus side, using the term less means you have to suffer through fewer digressions causes by your use of the term, so there's still a benefit to your conscious decision to avoid offense.

[ September 25, 2012, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So if someone changes their vocabulary, not because they agree with you, but simply to appease you, that justifies you nagging them for three years to demand an apology?
No. It justifies, however, pointing out how stupid that point of view is when appropriate.
Does "when appropriate" include whenever one is in a bad mood and feels like kicking someone, or when one is feeling angry for having lost another argument and wants to change the subject? [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW:
quote:
That said, your summary here is pretty much what I’m seeing.
Really? You feel comfortable supporting the idea that his summary is "pretty much" what there is to be seen here--you want to be on record agreeing that it's an objectively valid summary of what has occurred in this thread?

If Pete wants to put up his perception of what's happening, that's his right. A subjective perception has intrinsic value. But allow me to suggest--to you--that there are ways to empathize with a person's perception without objectively validating all of the subjective distortion of objective reality that it contains.

Because Pete's feelings here are very real, and valid, and should be considered. And you can and should validate and empathize with those feelings, IMO. But you shouldn't be stepping in to validate his absurdly limited misrepresentation of what other people are doing, unless you do really feel that it is an accurate and objective representation of what those others are doing.

You haven't been chased around Ornery for years like TD has, getting randomly called a vicious, vindictive persecutor with a personal sadistic fascination with Pete. You haven't been repeatedly denounced as a corrupt authority figure, willfully and despicably violating your responsibilities to attack and prosecute an innocent victim out of a personal grudge, like Mod has. You haven't been directly and consistently painted as a treacherous predator who randomly manipulates other people's vulnerabilities, like I have.

You probably aren't even aware of how much a single, terribly paranoid but highly intelligent and voluble poster can manipulate the discursive space and perception-matrix surrounding other posters who choose to engage him--just by making such accusations repeatedly out of a warped subjective conviction, without regard to objective context.

And you probably haven't given any thought worth speaking of regarding how one can productively respond to such a pattern of abuse without simply retreating from the attacks, or careening over the edge into the gravity well of childish screaming toward which this specific type of social dysfunction relentlessly pulls.

And you don't have to follow the nuances of such things, if you don't care to. But--and I have asked you this before--please stop haplessly interjecting yourself as a referee of objectivity when it's clear that your analysis hasn't actually adequately concerned itself with any such thing.

You want to validate Pete's feelings, go for it. You want to validate his one-sided representation of what other people--like myself--are objectively seen as doing, then do me a favor and at least address me with your own perception of what I'm objectively doing.

Some of us here *will* take into account the way that others are seeing our behavior, and *do* modify our actions in consideration of the additional information that outside perspectives can supply.

The problem is that *some* of us have a very limited ability to do exactly this.

[ September 25, 2012, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You going to ggo after DW now, SP? Seems perilous to disagree with you on this thread.

That is what happened on this thread. Anything else you see is baggage from previous discussions. Preconceptions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sp, regardless of how fascinating I am, you really should get yourself another hobby. I can't be the only person that is bored of my personality flaws as a topic of your unending analysis. This is the point ot the conversation where I used to say "get off my leg" -- and appropriately, given your unwarranted intrusiveness.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I have any friends lef speak for me, otherwise I know who my friends aren't.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seems perilous to disagree with you on this thread.
I seem particularly perilous in this thread, to your mind?
quote:
That is what happened on this thread.
No. It's a reflective representation of your emotional reactions in this thread. It isolates the context that seems so mean and unfair to the poor victimized bugger in here, that it's all that he can see as having happened.

An objective summary would have mentioned the many other things that happened in this discussion. It would have mentioned the vain attempts of others to talk about moderation issues in terms of ***not you***.

It would have had some reflection of the multiple hours I spent crafting text considering, empathizing with, and validating your perceptions and feelings.

It would have had some indication of the accusations you've been firing off in here.

It would have had some examination of how this thread actually got to be entirely about you, instead of absurdly making it seem like the latent persecutory malice of your evil detractors and enemies had suddenly randomly vented itself in this thread in response to your pure and innocent attempts to contribute to the unrelated topicality of the thread.

An insightful summary might have even acknowledged some of the obvious meta-level implications in the thread, like the fact that one of the big reasons Mod doesn't kick your ass out of here for good in spite of your disruptive inability to accurately socially reciprocate, is because some of the folks whom you petulantly and completely unfairly lash out at are firmly standing up for your right to spew your delusional paranoid vitriol in spite of its consistent negative impact on themselves and the forum.

Your failure to absorb what is happening doesn't change what is actually happening, objectively speaking.

[ September 25, 2012, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bump:

quote:
You're the one asking for help, how do you propose that the community helps you with your problem you keep creating?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Bump:

quote:
You're the one asking for help, how do you propose that the community helps you with your problem you keep creating?

Stop hitting me with your baggage from past discussions when I'm not committing those offenses. Stop cataloging offenses that I committed weeks or months ago as a pretext for dismissing substantive arguments right now.

Give me a chance to be a better person rather than trying to force perfectly innocent remarks into the persona that I foolishly built for myself here.

I even asked OM if I could take on a different name and persona for a few months while I get used to new habits. OM of course rejected the request.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete's got a point, SP. If you're interested in bringing about a change in behavior, your insistence on pattern-matching to old behavior could be counter productive.

It's also kind of painful to watch, and as much I like to nag Pete from time to time, this seems like way too much for a public forum.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I understand that given your current beliefs regarding religions, and Tom's, that if you found yourself involved in a conversation with an intelligent believer, that it would be very convenient for your theological stability to find that person mentally ill. To the extend that my own quirks have contributed to your cop-out, I apologize. [Razz]

I don't even consider myself a non believer. I just find many aspects of the way I was taught religion to be less than literal. I don't consider you mentally ill. I consider you a tad of an attention whore on occasion. (And related to your other thread I do not mean to imply you are unscrupulous or have sex for money. Just a figure of speech.)

I don't come here for convenience. [Wink] And of course my conclusions are colored by reading more into your messages than the words. Where do you think I get my theories on us wacky people if not by looking at myself? [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
DW:
[QUOTE]But you shouldn't be stepping in to validate his absurdly limited misrepresentation of what other people are doing, unless you do really feel that it is an accurate and objective representation of what those others are doing.

I do feel that way. Other things were discussed but his summary of THIS thread as it relates to him is accurate. I probably say that specifically because I don’t' have a longer history with any of you. My earlier post pointing out a flaw I see in “pretty much” every person I've met. Do you want me to accuse you of intentionally pushing Pete's buttons in this thread? Done.

I have not suggested Pete doesn't earn those pokes. He does and I think he goes out of his way to provoke them. Also I'm glad to see Pete isn't the only one who likes to wear the victim mantle. Or is it ok as long as it was evils perpetrated at the hand of someone hypocritically crying foul?

As for the mod being denounced... A large part of a mod's job is to act as a lightning rod for the frustrations of people. I mean just look at this thread. The mod hasn't gone out of their way to clamp down on this conversation or defend themselves. The whole point of this thread is to blow off steam. If any of you think it's to resolve anything you are just being silly. (not that there's any harm in that)

While at it's best a forum community can be a calm place of intelligent discussion it can also be a SM club where everyone is a willing participant. No harm happens here that you don't invite. If you cannot deal with the harsh or hurtful words of others that's your problem not theirs and not the mods. The only caveat is the host sets the ground rules and it's up to them how to enforce them.

Sorry I cannot oblige your request to stop helplessly interjecting. It's part of why I'm here. Until this becomes a private invitation only forum feel free to continue asking. I will likely continue ignore that request.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry for confusing you with another poster above, DW. That stuff about believers was aimed at SP, not you.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I consider you a tad of an attention whore on occasion.

Guilty as charged, I'm afraid. [Frown] I am familiar with that usage of the word as well, even though it wasn't one of the three I cited earlier, it is a known usage. [Smile]

That's another reason why hosting a public debate over me, is probably not good for me or for this forum.

I actually appreciate your remarks. The fact that I took them differently when I thought you were SPs underscores more of the problems with Personas.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi:
quote:
If you're interested in bringing about a change in behavior, your insistence on pattern-matching to old behavior could be counter productive.
The pattern-matching is unavoidable. There is no "memory wipe" button that will erase everyone's perceptions of what has happened. I don't get a restart button on how I wanted to present myself to the community before I started engaging with Pete, TD doesn't get to change everyone's perceptions of who he is and what his disposition toward others is as if everybody else hasn't read a caricature of him as an insidiously invidious hater for years and years.

Mod is demanding that Pete change something or get booted. I'm not on board with the ultimatum--so it's ultimately not *me* who is interested in a change in behavior--but I do get where Mod is coming from, and recognize it as a reflection of a sentiment that runs pretty deep throughout parts of the community.
quote:
It's also kind of painful to watch, and as much I like to nag Pete from time to time, this seems like way too much for a public forum.
It's painful to be a part of, believe it or not. But I do believe I'm responding to what Pete is bringing to the table here, and I am the one who set the table to which Pete has contributed this portion of the meal.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, DW and SciFi. I do think SP meant well, at least in Act II, but I stick by my analysis of Act I. [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW:
quote:
Other things were discussed but his summary of THIS thread as it relates to him is accurate.
I'd agree that it's an accurate reflection of what he sees, I disagree that it's an accurate summary of what there objectively is to see here.

There is a lot more that didn't get summarized that relates to him, and (more importantly) to the things he selectively summarized. If I run over and kill your dog, then cut my hand scaling a barb-wire fence around your shed to steal your shovel to bury your dog before you get home, and you get home while I'm digging a hole in your yard and you forcibly take the shovel from me and call the cops, then it might be understandable if my story to the cops was simply: "I was trying to help bury his dog, and my hand got hurt in a trap he set for me, then he wrenched the shovel out of my hand." But it would be pretty silly if your neighbor piped up at that point: "Yup. I saw it, that's pretty much what happened."

Don't you think?

Oh, and btw: not "helplessly," "haplessly." Interject at will, by all means--stop missing major parts of the points at which you aim.

[ September 25, 2012, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do I concede that 4 pages of posts skipped a few things in his several dozen word summary? Let me keep thinking about that for a bit.

My communications here may not seem helpful. That's because they aren't intended to be. My participation here is a fairly selfish thing. It just presents itself a bit differently than some others. You don't always get to pick your neighbors. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He does and I think he goes out of his way to provoke them. Also I'm glad to see Pete isn't the only one who likes to wear the victim mantle
I think it's quite clear that we're all victims here.

[Big Grin]

Why else would we be shaking our fists in vain at Mod? Also sprache Zarathustra: Mott ist tot? [Wink]

[ September 26, 2012, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also sprache Zarathustra: Mott ist tot?
Google translate isn't very helpful on this one. Not familiar with the significance of the quote.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP is being SP and substituting words. Try a search for 'Gott ist tot'--I'd suggest a google search instead of a straight translation, as it may be more enlightening. [Smile]

[ September 26, 2012, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As you can see by my post count, I haven't posted a whole lot, and the very first post I ever made on Ornery was to tell Pete he was acting like a jerk. So I believe that I can be pretty objective here, and I think Pete has more facts on his side than SP does.

I even went back and re-read the entire thread to refresh my memory.


My own personal semi-objective timeline


Thread start: Mod locks 'bump'ed threads
SP - yo mod, don't be a douche!
PaH - yeah, that was kind of over the top
SP - I only look at the top 20 threads, so don't mess with them, please.
PaH - OK, I think I see where mod is coming from, and I guess I agree with the reasoning.
SP - Then you're a douche, too.
mod - I will unlock them when they reach the 2nd page. I almost didn't lock them because of who the poster was, but I decided that I should treat everyone equally. ** reference 1 **
PaH - I moved them to the 2nd page. Please unlock them now.
SP - PaH, you are SUCH a douche! You messed up all of the threads; I depend on placement to tell how active a thread is.

----Brian inserts: I use the fact that new posts are highlighted. -------

SP - { pulls Pete's history out, gets called on it and apologizes }
SP - But ignoring history is a 2-way street, and Pete is trying to make the thread all about him.
PaH - I am not a martyr. Martyrs have suffering thrust upon them. I usually call it down upon my own head. [Frown]
SP - I was having fun bashing the mod until you had to defend mod in order to suck up to her.
SP - { mentions again that moving the threads will confuse those who only drop in irregularly }

---Brian again: Seriously. Am I the only one who has a browser that shows which threads have been active since the last time I visited? ---

SP - Why is Pete throwing a tantrum over this?
PaH - I'm not. I have not once lost my cool in this thread. However, I am slightly paranoid that mod has it in for me, and once Gx is gone, I will be next. SP had better look out, too, because he is almost as annoying.

-- long hiatus, broken by mod modding a thread title of PaH's ---

SP - mod, you are still a douche. We are adults and know what the word 'ass' means.
mod - Yeah, but Pete is a spoiled child so I singled him out. I wouldn't have done it to any other poster. ** remember reference 1 above? About principle vs personal bias? **
SP - oh OK. That's cool then.
PaH - wait, what? That is rude. And a personal attack. I even belive it is more vicious than anything I have been slapped for by this mod.
SP - You totally deserved it, dude.
PaH - Two wrongs don't make a right.
SP - In this case they do. Just man up and take your lumps without throwing a tantrum.
PaH - Again with the 'tantrum' bit?
SP - { more of PaH's history to equate protesting blatant bias with throwing a tantrum }
TD - Vicious is worse than tantrum, by the way.
SP - conflates a tantrum in the other thread with PaH's protest in this thread.
PaH - { short summary of the thread }
DW - That is about how I saw it, too.
SP - No way. You have to take PaH's history into context in order to tell what the thread is really about.
Scifi - Leave the history out of it.
SP - I can't just ignore everything I know about PaH's persona when I read what he writes. How will I be able to tell what he really means?


Pete has been claiming to be persecuted for several years now, and this is the first time I've seen it happen pretty much the way he describes it. He has always gotten into scraps with Ev and Tom which have several possible viewpoints as to intent and collusion and whatnot which he always took the worst way.

But in this case, I can't see it any other way.

SP and mod are basically saying 'yes I know it seems to you that it is unfair, but you just need to grin and bear it.'


I had been tempted to post earlier about the 'which threads are new' thing, but Pete's open call for objective observers combined with SP's arrogant dismissal of the first observer to take Pete's side (barely) finally pulled me out.

Now I am going back to lurker-land. [Smile]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Chael. My lack of collage reading was showing I guess. [Wink]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"collage reading" in the context of SP's cobbled wordplay is a pretty clever construction (or funny typo).
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh how I wish I could claim the first. [Frown]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brian:
quote:
the very first post I ever made on Ornery was to tell Pete he was acting like a jerk. So I believe that I can be pretty objective here
The bona fides you provide for your objectivity here is that your first post ever was to call one of the participants here a "jerk?"

Or, rather, as you seem to have it, this makes it more credible when you make out the other participant as the jerk...?

[Roll Eyes]

In any case, Pete was pretty clear that he wanted the discussion of this subject matter to end, and I was pretty clear that I would stop talking about it as soon as he did, and considering the fact that it's a pretty personal matter to the specific poster who very much isn't talking about it anymore, I'm inclined to toss your latest two cents on the matter back into the lurker-well from which they shouldn't have left. (Though I'll admit to being a bit lurker-irked right now, given that I'm not able to redirect, even though it's my perception that what I've said here has now been thrice-misrepresented...)

[ September 27, 2012, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW:
quote:
I wish I could claim the first
No worries, I'm in the habit of awarding points for latent meaning, intentional or not. After all, perhaps your subconscious supplied the delightfully adroit reply.

And while I'm not usually given to translating the runes etched upon my tower of babble (lest Mod should see what I'm doing, and smite my tongue to smithereens [Wink] ), in this case, I'm pleased enough with "collage reading" that I'll plaster together some pictures of what I thought germane in my (not-quite) German. The idea was to juggle Mod and God, and claim the blame for all our victimhood belongs with Her. I hoped that "shaking our fists in vain at Mod" would evoke the cliche image of impotent anger at an unresponsive God--at least enough to drive the mind to find my mingling of M and G in the next set of text, since "Mott" certainly isn't German for "Mod," as I tongue-twistingly told it.

Now, I certainly intended to circle back from blaming Mod/God for our mortal misfortunes with the allusion to a post-Nietchze understanding where we're actually responsible for our own lots all on our own nowadays, but I was also chucking some chuckles at Mod's steadfast silence on some of this stuff (ie: Mod? You still alive up there?).

See, in spite of running my mouth along a one-way street in here, in a fuller context of reality, as usual, I'm actually of more than one mind on the matters mentioned herewithin (this is almost always the case, it's half of why my tongue can rarely help but tangle doubled-meanings). I do think that if an Ornery mortal is really burdened with a threat of Anathema etched by the finger of the one true Mod, and the poor wretch can't figure out what he needs to do to atone, it is a bit strange that Mod won't answer his prayers for clarity.

But que sera, sera, I suppose. Mod works in mysterious ways.

And, of course, "runes" is too close to "ruins" to be purely coincidental here, as is the fact that Zoroastrianism flourished in the land of Babel--and none of this should be seriously taken to mean that I think Mod will censor me for wordplay, though I do like to play with words that make it seem I fear it's so...

But I'll leave the fact that "Mott" doesn't actually mean anything, Frankly-speaking, yet it does come close to the word for "word" Frenchly-speaking, as a blank silhouette within this collage-color-in. Because I've got to leave something to the imagination.

[ September 27, 2012, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP
The last thing Pete posted on the subject was a general plea for support, at 7pm on the 25th.

You were still arguing with DW about it at 10pm, and waxing poetic about it at 4am on the 26th.

I spent most of the morning on the 26th crafting my post, since I am at work and can't spend large chunks of time posting. (Which is why I usually lurk.)

There was exactly one post in the interim, and one reply to it squeaked in as I was posting my screed.

Not everyone checks for updates every three minutes and thinks a break which is measured in hours means the death of the thread.

Posting my "bona fides" was a reminder that I am not a rabid fan of Pete's posting style. I pretty much only de-lurk when I see something egregiously wrong which no-one else has replied to yet.

If several people, from wide ranges of Ornery have 'thrice misrepresented' you, maybe you should drop some of the overly-clever word play and actually say what you mean...

[ September 27, 2012, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I pretty much only de-lurk when I see something egregiously wrong which no-one else has replied to yet.
Mott is dead, long live Mott?

quote:
If several people, from wide ranges of Ornery have 'thrice misrepresented' you, maybe you should drop some of the overly-clever word play and actually say what you mean...
Don’t listen to him SP. Even if I only catch half of them I still find this style of humor to be a bit refreshing. It’s so rarely well executed that even a mediocre attempt can get a chuckle. [Razz]

Also I find conversations where people misrepresent each other to be some of the more useful. When two sides are forced to refine their views more and more concisely over time you tend to get not only the core of what they mean but a lot of context. That and when we are frustrated I think we become more honest while at the same time being more likely to frustrate others. It can turn out ugly at times but how interesting is reading two views on anything where by the third post both sides agree to disagree or concede they will never understand each other so why try? As a lurker I would expect this to be a sad outcome indeed.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brian:

I pricked your lurking pride a bit with my arrogant flip, huh? Maybe I've got it wrong here, but you do seem somewhat scalded by my hot gas, at least for somebody I don't even know.

And my bombast isn't actually generally aimed at humble mutes, like yourself--though I'll admit to blowing some steam at the cat-caught-tongue crowd on occasion, especially when they may manage to half-articulately pipe a squeak they aim at me. In any case, I can cop to huffing some hoity haughty now and again, so how it may chafe a chap is me spilling hot toity in my own lap, I suppose. That's just how it goes.

But I must admit--it does much amuse me when would-be brawl-busters bitch of bruises breaking out in the thin-skins they themselves inserted into a boisterous bang-about.
quote:
maybe you should drop some of the overly-clever word play and actually say what you mean...
Now where would the fun be in that? (And never mind the fact that you can't seem to see that I usually mean more than one simple thing.)

To my mind, when I get misrepresented, it's usually just preferable to hack back with my own repackaging craft.

As I mentioned, I'm mostly just miffed at your meddling here because you did it in a case where I can't chew it up and spit it back. And not because you made an irrefutable point, but rather because you yelled it out from behind the guy who was walking away.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure I'll like you much better if you figure out how to disagree from you own position in your own arguments, instead of taking anonymous potshots, then ducking back into the shadows.

[Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don’t listen to him SP.
[LOL]

Why not?

How often does one have the opportunity to twist a quivering lip that pluckily (if unluckily) juts up from the muck?

Just because I yell holy hell down on perky lurkies when they step in and f*ck up silent spacing I've been carefully placing around my points, doesn't really mean that it bothers me all that very much.

Sometimes it just means I get to git all ornery at someone new...

[Big Grin]
quote:
Also I find conversations where people misrepresent each other to be some of the more useful.
I wouldn't disagree.

I think it's fine for folks to paint their own picture of another poster. I probably wouldn't have replied with more than an appreciative chuckle at Pete's portrayal of me, if it wasn't for the "Yup, that's what SP did," assent squawked by impertinent, uninvolved beaks.

And even the cheap-seat galley-gabs are welcome to their own say--but if they want to jump in and pop off mouth, then they can't complain when they get roughly handled in the fray...

(Which is one of the reasons I like you as a neighbor, in spite of my occasional grumbling, Deedub. Never mind that I sometimes don't actually disagree with you as much as I make out--truth be told, I simply can't help but appreciate the sound of a thoroughly thick skin...)

[Wink]

[ September 28, 2012, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1