| |
|
Hector - that issue was addressed further up the thread. Have a look:
Meludreen: You failed the dare.
Rather predictably, this seems to be less a discussion of what was said, but is instead a succession of 'lithers proclaiming themselves, directly or indirectly, to be more/less gushing fanboy than the other.
You may have decided that this is what is going on, but I would rather say that somebody was upset by something they read, and somebody else was upset by their response. Then other people got involved. It's neat, simple and doesn't require telepathy.
And Haus, obviously I expect you to conduct your buisness in your own manner, but in my opinion, regardless of the false accusation flinging, it's common courtesy to respect sombody's wishes if they clearly don't like the names of their loved ones mentioned in that sort of context.
This refers, as I mentioned above, to a comment that does not exist. It's interesting that you are more than happy to disregard the "false accusation flinging" - that is, what is actually written in the post - in favour of what you have decided, using telepathy, is actually "clearly" going on in his head. If GM had said, for example, "I'm not sure whether this is a joke or something, but I'd rather that my wife and I didn't get pulled into it like that", say, then maybe so. He didn't. I'm happy to concede that he misunderstood, but I am not so arrogant as to assume I can read his mind. Possibly you know him better.
Even if the joke isn't about them but is at the expense of somebody else. That's the sensitive crux of the issue. It's the reason for hot-headed response and point-missing and it's the fastest route to resolution.
I believe that I said above:
If you have evidence to support your accusation, then please present it, either on the board or by private message, and I will be happy to discuss it, as the maintenance of Barbelith as a safe space for its readers is, of course, important to me.
And:
Apparent slight to partner, hot blood, protective impulse - all very creditable.
Plenty of opportunities for low-intensity resolution there. If actual evidence, opportunity to discuss seriously. If not, opportunity to recognise hot-blooded situation and part amicably. You appear not to have noticed this, because you have made up an exchange in your head, and in that exchange I have to be pusillanimous and pedantic to shore up yoour self-image as the plain speaker of truth. And here you are.
Nitpicking over symantic details of phrasing and etiquette is not. You could be the bigger man.
How, exactly. See above. I have been happy to deal with the issue. I have been happy to put the issue aside as a spurt of misplaced but entirely creditable affection. What would the bigger man do? I suspect you believe he would roll over like a dog, because in your head this is a straight fight between an imagined noble and reasonable motive over here and an imagine "nitpicking" over here.
Incidentally, nitpicking? Semantics? These words describe not the discussion but you. Their use demonstrates only that you are unable to respond to any level of complexity in a discussion outside your ability to comprehend it without pathologising it and attempting to turn it in to a personal fault of the people who are cheating by using words and knowing what they mean rather than relying on yout sturdy, honest telepathy. I have already talked with kovacs on the role of etiquette, as opposed to, the role of basic manners, although probably not in your imaginary conversation. Try reading the thread, as I recommended and you refused to do.
For the record, you seem to be ascribing intent behind the post that isn't really there. Did anybody anywhere say they were "relying on apologists to spring fully-armoured from the ground" or claim that they were "too much of a genius"?
You use this as evidence of having read the thread. I will say nothing of the fact that they both appear to come from the last paragraph of the last post I made before yours. The ascription of intention on the dragon's teeth is fair enough - there is no evidence that GM intended defendants to rise from the soil, although they have, and therefore I happily retract the suggestion that he intended this to happen. As for "too much of a genius" - a slightly hyperbolic reference to:
If he hasn't read your recent posts, and misunderstood the one above, I think he has the fair excuse that he was redeveloping the DC Universe.
And other such points.
Now, I know exaclty how this will progress, because I have already done it with you once, and you have not at any point in the interim thought that reading what people write is anything other than "nitpicking" and "semantics". I asked you to display some interest in what is actually written down, you have chosen to rely on your telepathy. That's fine, but it means that there's no point trying to get any sense out of you on this less exalted plane. |
|
|
Morrison's ASS.
