posted
Who was it that said something to the effect of 'behaving in a way that emphasizes taking the high road essentially defeats the purpose'? Was it a comedian? Someone who posts here? Both? I've seen less angst than this close discussions previously. Can we get some of this, please?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I tell you about my new reading glasses? I can do a great "strict librarian" thing now...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And it's not like he's coming forward with it now to say "Hey, you know, Squicky's got a point."
I have supported you against kat in other arguments before. So have other members of sake. I believe you have a blind spot about this. I haven't in this one, because I was honestly hoping the two of you might be able to work it out. And because I think you're both partly at fault for the situation as it stands, so I don't particularly have a reason to "support" either of you.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
This is bullshit.
What you always seem unwilling to realize/acknowledge is that what the people you are referring to as a clique have in common is that they are personally emotionally invested in the community. We are the people who talk about our lives, in detail, repeatedly. We are the people who go to gatherings whenever we can, to get together in person. When people put more of themselves out there, it is natural that they will bond more than people who choose not to. The reason we "step in" when you and kat are going at it is that we don't like this sort of strife, and if we think we can relieve it, with a joke, like Noemon tried to do in this thread, or some other way, we will try to.
You've said you don't want to interact with Hatrack that way, and that's fine. But I really wish you'd get over the notion that those of us who do all vote in a block or something. We don't all always agree or get along with each other. We're not all out to get you. Most of us like you. The roots of whatever it is between you and kat started before I joined the forum, and I've long viewed it as some kind of weird anomaly that I'll never understand. kat and I do not always see eye-to-eye, and we've tangled before, here and elsewhere, although we've always seemed to work it out and stay friendly. Since I fit all of the criteria you seem to list for being part of kat's clique, I find it exceedingly irritating when you keep throwing around accusations about what that group of people does.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like you, too, even though you irritate me sometimes, and you can't stop me. And yes, I realize the irony of the attcking quote and my response, if that's what you're facepalming about.
On rereading my post, though, it comes across as harsher than I meant it. Squick, if youcould please keep in mind what you said recently in, I think it was a religion thread, about trying to be as non-offensive as you could be while still saying what you wanted to say, I would appreciate it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Edit: The reason that I was facepalming is because the thread was almost dead. A whole page with just fluff.
On second thought, I don't know why I care. Who am I to ask you not to engage in fruitless discussion?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: have supported you against kat in other arguments before. So have other members of sake. I believe you have a blind spot about this. I haven't in this one, because I was honestly hoping the two of you might be able to work it out. And because I think you're both partly at fault for the situation as it stands, so I don't particularly have a reason to "support" either of you.
Yes, you have. Where have I said otherwise? I'm sorry I brought sakeriver into this. I really don't know who all the members are, but I should have known that you were one.
---
Right now, I'm seeing a mass of people coming at me. There are also a few who are taking my part in some ways, and I do appreciate it. However, I don't believe I'm being treated fairly on the whole.
I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it:
quote:Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have done it, and I apologize.
I also don't like that people basically seem to be telling me (from my perspective), it's your fault because you won't back down.
I am not the one keeping this going. I've only been responding to people for pages now. I've been very clear what resolution I'm fine with:
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Do you think I'm not being honest about this? Do you think I am incapable of doing so? Do I come off as not honorable enough that what I'm saying in this wouldn't be a very bad thing for me?
I was and am still perfectly willing to leave it there.
---
quote:The reason we "step in" when you and kat are going at it is that we don't like this sort of strife, and if we think we can relieve it, with a joke, like Noemon tried to do in this thread, or some other way, we will try to.
I'll ask, in your opinion, was kat's characterization of boots's statement acceptible? Was her statement to me, coupled with her not acknowledging it? Do you think I would act differently for other people doing the same thing?
I don't get what I did wrong here, other than not just let these things go.
I do think my fault, whatever it is, is being focued on me while no one is even mentioning, to me, the more obvious faults that kat has displayed here and elsewhere*.
This doesn't feel fair to me and it seems to typify the common reaction (to which there are some exceptions) to these indications. I feel like, besides just going back through this thread, I'm going to need to go back through a bunch of other threads in order to get people to take what I am sayign seriously. I don't want to do that; I don't think anyone else wants to do that; but I don't know that I'll be treated fairly otherwise.
---
* edit: Which is not to say that if I did wrong it is justified by what kat did wrong. It's more like, I think I'm being treated as being completely unreasonable when I think there is justification for my behavior that is not being considered.
Also, I am being called on from many sides to justify my behavior. kat, well, from none. And this is long after I've given what I felt was my reasonable response that I reposted above and was willing to let this drop.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
My apologies if my opinion doesn't fit your schedule. I was in meetings from 2 to 4:30 CST, so I wasn't able to respond before now. Since I feel, as I said, that Squicky was specifically condeming me, I don't feel like I'm out of line in wanting to respond to it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I never intended to condemn you. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you with my negative statements. As I said above, I made a mistake of including a reference to sakeriver in my posting. I was specifically thinking of you when I said that very few people call kat on anything.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thread has gone from being about Conservapedia to being about you and kat. So, yes, it did do so here.
This thread was kinda dead prior to the current round of the kat/me thing. Before that, while there was the kat/me thing, there was also an on-going conversation that I was participating in. That died out and I considered it basically over.
---
I'd reverse the damage thing. I think Cedrios did damage to the jatraquero clique. I never really cared about him and don't think he had all that much of an effect outside of you lot. On the other hand, Leto was directly responsible for driving off at least 5 promising posters as well as demonstrating a standard of behavior as acceptible on this forum that other peopel adopted in various degrees.
I'm not sure if this is a difference in perspective or one of how we define the forum.
---
I'm not sure, but is what you want me to do to just let things slide? If you want to go back through our interactions (which, yes, I know no one will do) you'll see that the only time I initiate things with kat is when she is acting poorly towards some else other than myself. And most of the time, it is her attacking me, which I only entertain when it is a part of the conversation, as opposed to, for example, calling me a loser from out of nowhere maybe a month ago.
I just get the feeling like I'm getting the "You're in trouble because you stood up to the bully." treatment. It's not that I'm wrong. It's that I'm making a fuss. Maybe that's just my perspective right now, which is probably not the clearest, but that's what I'm getting from what you said coupled with my experiences.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it:
quote:Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what was so terrible about that post. I thought it was sort of condescending and snide, but not nearly objectionable enough for anyone to, well, object.
In your opinion, what was so bad about it?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was condescending and rude as part of her reconciliation attempt. It also ignored (I'm pretty sure deliberately) why I brought the issue up in favor of harping on something that kat thinks would make me look bad.
I thought it seriously indicated, at that point, that kat was not being genuine in her reconciliation attempt.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And she is pretty sure you are not being genuine in yours. And I am pretty sure that if you would both assume the best intentions from each other, just this once it would go a long way toward ending this nonsense.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, Do you think that that was an appropriate post or one conducive to reconciliation?
I've been trying to be quite clear about my approach here. I'll quote it again.
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
kat has been very dishonest and has used artifice in the past. I think she is doing so again. But it doesn't matter to what my behavior is going to be. I'll hold to what I said there in either case. As far as I can tell, the kat and me part of this conversation is over, at least for now. I'm on the me versus a mess of other people now.
I think that was clearly an inappropriate statement and I would have felt better if someone had noted this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure, but is what you want me to do to just let things slide?
Yes.
quote:It's that I'm making a fuss.
It's that you make a fuss about this on a regular basis, invariably with kat, and that whenever you do it accomplishes nothing other than other than derailing perfectly good threads. It should be obvious that continuing to call kat on what you perceive to be poor behaviour, accurately so or otherwise, has no positive effect.
Similarly, people calling Leto on his behaviour in the past has had absolutely no effect. If it accomplishes nothing other than derailing threads and irritating other people, why bother doing it more than once or twice? Hell, once a year?
quote:If you want to go back through our interactions...
If you're seriously keen on me doing it, I will, but to be honest, this conversation is starting to piss me off. I imagine it shows. Let me explain why:
How do you think I feel about Lisa's posts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I can assure you that I feel much more strongly about it than you feel about kat's alleged viciousness, especially given that you also claim to be emotionally detached from the same. I take posts on that issue personally, sometimes deeply so -- consider that, on this forum, the claim has been made that an ethnic group of which I am a part does not exist. And yet, somehow, with one single exception since I decided to bow out, which is one instance in just about three years, I manage to refrain from getting involved, because the net result when I do tends to be negative, especially for me. If you're so damn uninvested, why do you feel compelled to continue harping on what is, quite frankly, an issue that by comparison is utterly devoid of significance?
I'm upset, and I'm sorry; I don't generally like to post when I'm upset, but I'm hoping that you'll see what I'm trying to say. And, as I've already said, this thread is the last (and, I think, first) time I'll address this issue.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yes, you have. Where have I said otherwise? I'm sorry I brought sakeriver into this. I really don't know who all the members are, but I should have known that you were one.
It's not even that I'm a member of sake, although I am. You said people who consider themselves jatraqueras. That's me. Heck, I'm the one who had the t-shirts made. You've said people who are members of kat's "clique," and then listed a whole bunch of people whom I consider friends. Everytime you make a statement like "Boy I wish I was popular, so people would defend me" (paraphrased) it feels like it's aimed at me. I'm popular here. People defend me. Perhaps not as much as I used to be, but I'm certainly a member of the group of people you're talking about. So are a WHOLE lot of other people who have not been supporting kat over you, who you are undoubtedly alienating without even realizing it with the continued "clique" jabs. They are inaccurate.
quote: Right now, I'm seeing a mass of people coming at me. There are also a few who are taking my part in some ways, and I do appreciate it. However, I don't believe I'm being treated fairly on the whole.
I think Rakeesh's responses to you have been non-productive. I also notice he's been called on it. I think Storm has tried to divert the thread to fluff, because he likes kittens more than protracted arguments. Most other people I think are trying to find some resolution to this issue. Unfortunately, with so many people trying in so many different ways, I'm sure it comes across to you as a cacophony that is generally against you. I don't think that's what people intend. I think people are so fed up with the way you two interact that they're willing to try anything to it to stop.
quote:I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it: (long quote snipped)
...
I also don't like that people basically seem to be telling me (from my perspective), it's your fault because you won't back down.
I think a big part of the problem is that you and kat speak different languages, and you really, really don't understand each other. What I think twinky was trying to say wasn't that it's your fault because you won't just ignore kat. What I think he was saying is that you should ignore kat because due to the weight of your history she will never, ever accept this kind of criticsm from you. At least, that's what I'm saying. You think you should keep doing it anyway, because otherwise observers will think her behavior is okay. I think that that is less harmful than observers thinking it's okay to hold personal vendettas against fellow forum members for years. And regardless of your statements to the contrary, that's what it looks like to the casual observer every time this catfight re-erupts.
I don't believe that you have an unhealthy personal obsession with kat. I don't think you're stalking her, and I bet that you would be flabbergasted that anyone would seriously consider that possibility based on your actions. But that's part of the emotionally invested/not emotionally invested in the forum divide I talked about in my last post. From one vantage point, it looks like a real concern. It's a vantage point I can see, but not one I hold. But you need to know that the vantage point exists, and that if you continue call kat on her actions every time you think she's out of line, you will be feeding it.
quote: I am not the one keeping this going. I've only been responding to people for pages now. I've been very clear what resolution I'm fine with:
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Do you think I'm not being honest about this? Do you think I am incapable of doing so? Do I come off as not honorable enough that what I'm saying in this wouldn't be a very bad thing for me?
I think you're being honest about it, and I think that that statement is an agreement with kat's proposal of truce. Remember what I said about you two speaking different languages? I don't think* kat reads this the way you intend it. I think in her view, she's doing everything she can to offer an olive branch, and you're throwing it back in her face.
I also think her suggestions of rules, conditions, judges and exile are unnecessary and kind of silly. But she's throwing them in there because she thinks you're rejecting her olive branch, and she's trying desperately to get you to accept it, because she's taken to heart the increasingly vocal disapproval that's been surfacing lately of the two of your's feud. So she's getting a little wild, trying to find a way to get you to agree to try to end it, when in fact you already have.
quote:I'll ask, in your opinion, was kat's characterization of boots's statement acceptible?
Nope. But boots was still an active participant in the thread, and didn't need a knight errent. I'm sure you've noticed, she's not shy about standing up for herself when she feels she's been mischaracterized. If you hadn't gotten involved, the next time she came into the thread she would have corrected kat, kat probably would have apologized, (she did to me in a similar situation where she misunderstood me a couple of weeks ago,) and everything would have been fine.
As soon as you got involved, it became part of your ongoing spat, and kat was not going to apologize, period, because it was you asking for it.
quote:Was her statement to me, coupled with her not acknowledging it? Do you think I would act differently for other people doing the same thing?
No, and no. But, as I said, I believe the not acknowledging part was because of the fact you got involved. And, in this case, I think you got involved too soon. People misinterpret each other around here pretty frequently. For the most part, when someone comes back and sees how their post was taken, they clarify, the other person says "Oh, I see," and there's no problem. That is always the preferable route. Whenever a third party gets involved, things get more tense. For this reason, I try to never get involved unless/until the original two parties have had a chance to try to straighten things out, and are obviously having problems understanding each other.
quote:I don't get what I did wrong here, other than not just let these things go.
See above. Because you think kat never gets called on these things, you jump in too soon, making it look like you have a personal vendetta. If you gave people a chance to work it out on their own first, I think most of the problems would be solved without interferance. Plus, it would reduce your complaint about no one else calling kat on stuff. We don't because you almost always beat us to it. Most of us are waiting to see if interferance is really needed before getting involved**. You don't wait, so you're always first, and there's an unspoken rule about not dogpiling, so as soon as one person's said something most other people stay out of it until they see if the first person is going to be effective.
I've typed way more than I really had time for tonight, so I'm going to gloss over the rest of your post, sorry. Plus I started responding to this right after you posted it, and I'm sure there have been many other posts since then, although I hope ( ) that many people are waiting to see if my intervention is successful before they give it a try.
I don't think you need to go back through any threads in order to be taken seriously. I think most people are taking you a lot more seriously than you think they are, they just have different ideas than you about what sort of resolution to all this is both acceptable and possible. I'm sure you're right, though, that no one wants to go post hunting to prove any points. It takes a long time, it's not fun, and it rarely proves anything, anyway, because it just makes other people go post hunting themselves to prove you wrong.
--------
quote:I never intended to condemn you. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you with my negative statements.
That's nice to know. I hope you take my above point to heart and realize that there's probably a lot of other people out there who you didn't intend to condemn who also feel very condemned by your posts.
*I'm doing some guessing and projecting throughout this post about kat's feelings and motivations. I could be wildly off-base. But even if I am, I think that it would help for you to try looking at the situation as if I am 100% dead-on. You need to see a different perspective here than your own.
**Also, you can read "most people" to mean "me." Or possibly "me and all other right-minded people, because that's the way it flippin' should be."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I agree completely with every word of ElJay's post, and hers is worded vastly better. If you haven't already, you don't need to bother reading my earlier post on the subject.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QB] Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
Bullshit.
MrSquicky, there are a lot of things that people DO get called on, all the time. For kat, for you, for me....we have all gone past civility on occasion when we are upset or feel persecuted.
The difference between you and kat at this point is that she has at least admitted that there have been times where she acted improperly and not treated you well.
You have been demeaning, insulting, patronizing, and self-righteous on more than one occasion.....Yet you fail to see ANYTHING at ALL that you have done wrong in continuing this feud with kat in the past 4 years?
I like you. I like reading most of your posts even when I disagree with you because they are well thought out and make some good points. Depending on the subject, I even at times seek your posts out, because you see things differently at times, and different is good, particularly when you are trying to broaden your own knowledge base on a given subject.
But there is no possible way a person as smart as you can not understand why anyone would be offended if they were spoken to in the the tone you use with kat.
You wouldn't put up with it from anyone speaking to you, regardless of if you were actually in the wrong or not. It isn't civil, or intelligent, or reasoned discourse. It comes across as nasty and vindictive, and does as much harm to this forum as anything kat has done, even if you refuse to recognize it.
Also, yes...I post at sakeriver. But before you use that to attack me, or this post, do yourself a favor.
Find quotes to back up, from either sakeriver or here at Hatrack, that proves that I have a particular friendship with kat. I don't. Not because I don't like her, but because we don't cross paths often in threads. I asked her about the BSA a few times, IIRC, and I do speak to her here and there, but I really don't know her at all other than a few random things.
Which is the same amount I know about you.
I honestly think I have posted more in response to your posts than to hers in the past 6 years. I like her, but don't know her well, so it isn't like I am out to defend a friends honor or anything.
Which is pretty much the way I feel about you.....so perhaps, rather than this being an attack on you because of sakeriver, people are commenting about your behavior because it is out of bounds, and you are currently acting poorly.
Mistakes have been made on BOTH sides of this grudge, or whatever you want to call it....but only one of you has admitted it so far.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Who was it that said something to the effect of 'behaving in a way that emphasizes taking the high road essentially defeats the purpose'? Was it a comedian? Someone who posts here? Both? I've seen less angst than this close discussions previously. Can we get some of this, please?
That would be Icarus.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky...I missed where you backed off of the whole "sake is against me" thing, and I am sorry. That pissed me off, because I couldn't remember ever taking up a fight against you at all, on this subject or any other.
Also, I respect a lot of people who have spoken up during this thread, and I felt the attack on them as "being against you"only because of their membership at another web site was disrespectful and misleading.
I will leave my post up, with minor editing, because I hate deleting posts, but I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your clarification.
posted
I haven't forgotten you, Tresopax. I am, however, at an extreme level of what I believe to be background hormonal witchiness. (I think I'm perimenopausal.) This is probably why I was on edge with you, and it should pass in the next few days.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) that many people are waiting to see if my intervention is successful before they give it a try. 
