|
On July 24 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 07:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 07:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 07:01 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 06:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 06:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
and then he comes to website feedback to complain that he got baited? Please fuck off with that nonsense. If you think this post has anything to do with defending JimmiC you're sorely mistaken. Ban them both for talking past each other. The fuck is this answer? I'm pretty sure pointing out that GH has been doing what you're advising is relevant to your post. Do I really need to link GreenHorizons and JimmiC talking past each other in the main thread, his blog, the Venaluza blog? I can go dig up the posts if you don't remember, but I don't think I need to do that. The previous website feedback posts were the easiest to find of them talking past each other because I don't post a lot and I responded. On July 24 2019 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 06:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 06:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Seeker not banning you because he didn't ban JimmiC isn't a very strong argument in my opinion. At the end of the day it takes two people to talk past each other so stop being a victim in the feedback thread and just stop responding to him.
You're not this dense. You didn't need Drone to explain to you to stop posting responses to him. I was pointing out I made my argument then (which you didn't address then or now) and that Seeker acknowledged he responded poorly, contradicting your point. You don't know how Drone's interpretation matches up to the instructions I received so I don't think you're in a position to make that assessment. If the conclusion is I can return to ignoring JimmiC's badgering I'm fine with that, but that it hasn't been said gives me the impression that's not the case. On July 24 2018 12:27 Seeker wrote:
JimmiC, GH, you two need to take it to PMs. The constant bickering is mucking up this thread. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then just don't discuss them. I will admit that I didn't followup on that conversation properly and was unaware of you being unbanned, but doesn't detract from my viewpoint at all. I'll start by saying that I think both of you should be banned for talking past eachother for however many pages On July 24 2018 12:27 Seeker wrote:
JimmiC, GH, you two need to take it to PMs. The constant bickering is mucking up this thread. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then just don't discuss them. I don't see myself getting access to those PMs so consider the obvious that my opinion is based on not seeing them. I'm an open book, perhaps it's the people who refuse to let you see this kinda stuff that aren't being entirely forthcoming, leaving you with a distorted perspective (not saying it's unreasonable, just distorted because relevant information isn't available to you)? I don't think there is any evidence you could provide that would make me think it is reasonable for you to talk past another poster and shit up the thread for ten pages, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I am. Perhaps, but I wasn't arguing that? I thought you meant that my distorted view of the situation would result in a different outcome if I had a clear view. If that wasn't the case then there's nothing more to add. I've lost your point? I was saying that perhaps your perception of what's transpiring is distorted because you have limited information, as exemplified by your realization about Seeker's error and the confirmation that I'm being required to respond to his direct questions to me even if I seemingly can't communicate with him (despite practically the whole thread seeing the issue isn't a lack of effort or clarity on my part), and not doing it for fun. This is the fifth or sixth time now and you could barely even consider it different topics. Do you see yourself as a victim or having the moral high ground here like this isn't your fault? This question is the heart of me saying there's no evidence you can provide. There's no moral high ground in two people talking past each other. Either of you could grow up and discard the conversation at any time. My point was that now you know I can't. I won't defend previous examples, just the most recent stuff for which I was told to engage.
I'm wasn't aware that the mods stole your free will. Seeing as you've apparently been unbanned every single time there has been a disagreement I would have prefered you just take the perm. If you had half the support you think you do there would be a chorus of #FreeGH in the ABL and it would be more active than it has been in awhile.
|
On July 24 2019 07:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 07:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 07:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 07:01 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 06:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 06:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
and then he comes to website feedback to complain that he got baited? Please fuck off with that nonsense. If you think this post has anything to do with defending JimmiC you're sorely mistaken. Ban them both for talking past each other. The fuck is this answer? I'm pretty sure pointing out that GH has been doing what you're advising is relevant to your post. Do I really need to link GreenHorizons and JimmiC talking past each other in the main thread, his blog, the Venaluza blog? I can go dig up the posts if you don't remember, but I don't think I need to do that. The previous website feedback posts were the easiest to find of them talking past each other because I don't post a lot and I responded. On July 24 2019 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 06:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 24 2019 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I was pointing out I made my argument then (which you didn't address then or now) and that Seeker acknowledged he responded poorly, contradicting your point.
You don't know how Drone's interpretation matches up to the instructions I received so I don't think you're in a position to make that assessment.
If the conclusion is I can return to ignoring JimmiC's badgering I'm fine with that, but that it hasn't been said gives me the impression that's not the case. On July 24 2018 12:27 Seeker wrote:
JimmiC, GH, you two need to take it to PMs. The constant bickering is mucking up this thread. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then just don't discuss them. I will admit that I didn't followup on that conversation properly and was unaware of you being unbanned, but doesn't detract from my viewpoint at all. I'll start by saying that I think both of you should be banned for talking past eachother for however many pages On July 24 2018 12:27 Seeker wrote:
JimmiC, GH, you two need to take it to PMs. The constant bickering is mucking up this thread. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then just don't discuss them. I don't see myself getting access to those PMs so consider the obvious that my opinion is based on not seeing them. I'm an open book, perhaps it's the people who refuse to let you see this kinda stuff that aren't being entirely forthcoming, leaving you with a distorted perspective (not saying it's unreasonable, just distorted because relevant information isn't available to you)? I don't think there is any evidence you could provide that would make me think it is reasonable for you to talk past another poster and shit up the thread for ten pages, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I am. Perhaps, but I wasn't arguing that? I thought you meant that my distorted view of the situation would result in a different outcome if I had a clear view. If that wasn't the case then there's nothing more to add. I've lost your point? I was saying that perhaps your perception of what's transpiring is distorted because you have limited information, as exemplified by your realization about Seeker's error and the confirmation that I'm being required to respond to his direct questions to me even if I seemingly can't communicate with him (despite practically the whole thread seeing the issue isn't a lack of effort or clarity on my part), and not doing it for fun. This is the fifth or sixth time now and you could barely even consider it different topics. Do you see yourself as a victim or having the moral high ground here like this isn't your fault? This question is the heart of me saying there's no evidence you can provide. There's no moral high ground in two people talking past each other. Either of you could grow up and discard the conversation at any time. My point was that now you know I can't. I won't defend previous examples, just the most recent stuff for which I was told to engage. I'm wasn't aware that the mods stole your free will. Seeing as you've apparently been unbanned every single time there has been a disagreement I would have prefered you just take the perm.
If your point is literally that I should get myself banned, I think it's best we end this.
|
Norway28906 Posts
Blitzkrieg at this point you're also able to do what you've been instructing GH to do - drop the back and forth when it's obvious conversation isn't progressing. 
|
From [redacted]
Message: + Show Spoiler +
So would I and I would like to do it in public because we seem to be having similar communication issues as JimmiC and I. Working it out publicly allows other people to help either of us see what the other feels isn't being clearly expressed.
EDIT: Why are you so opposed to this form of conflict mediation?
|
On July 24 2019 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Blitzkrieg at this point you're also able to do what you've been instructing GH to do - drop the back and forth when it's obvious conversation isn't progressing.
Time well wasted indeed. I'd like to end with this callout isn't a unique problem of GH although most of the worst offenders are banned or haven't been posting so we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
There's a lot going on there most of which I disagree with and would happily provide receipts for but I'm also very content to accept that as JimmiC's interpretation and move on provided the requirement to engage directly with JimmiC is lifted and we can engage at our own discretion whether he asks me direct questions or not.
I don't have an issue with being required to respond to anyone else's direct questions, whether it's mutual requirement of other posters or not at this point.
|
I think everyone should take a deep breath and try to back out of the rabbit hole. Yeah good luck with that right?
There's many, many resentments and misunderstandings and who knows what else piled on top of and twisted around each other going on here and that kind of knot probably doesn't get untied
This whole GH is confused/uncertain about what he should do, Blitzkrieg0 well umm blitzkrieging GH, JimmiC's recounting of feuding that surely has to go back some time, this, thing... obviously I'm speaking nonsense but there has to be a better way for everyone to get by. And obviously it's nonsense because if I'd stuck around for the years that I didn't stick around, if I were still not banned I'd be too deep in it myself to see the outside
|
|
|
Listen to Liquid`Drone and emulate him he's got his head on straight in this area
|
Damn, I feel bad for the mods who are your wranglers.
|
I think people are just tired of GH's non-answers, wrapped in a condescending shell. At the same time the umbrella of politics he goes under has the sympathy of lots of posters, so he waits till somebody else answers for him, and then claims that the other poster' was his answer, even if it makes no real logical connection. Pointing this out, leads to everyone being disappointed. GH, because he's been rebuffed, the questioner, for being rebuffed, and the answer surrogate, for being rebuffed.
|
On July 25 2019 19:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I think people are just tired of GH's non-answers, wrapped in a condescending shell. At the same time the umbrella of politics he goes under has the sympathy of lots of posters, so he waits till somebody else answers for him, and then claims that the other poster' was his answer, even if it makes no real logical connection. Pointing this out, leads to everyone being disappointed. GH, because he's been rebuffed, the questioner, for being rebuffed, and the answer surrogate, for being rebuffed.
The people that are "answering for me" are taking their presumptions from my previous posts on the topic (sometimes extrapolating a bit).
The people that are frustrated, are doing the same thing poorly, as has been pointed out to them by people other than me.
|
yea, as usual, disagree. this was full on JimmiC mischaracterizing GH for a full page without once providing what was asked for.
and i stopped paying attention after i called it out, but to my knowledge, still hasn’t provided one quote. what a ridiculous thing to do. honestly baffling.
that dmcd doesn’t see any answers in all those posts doesn’t surprise me. for all his love of grammar, he reads as well as JC.
|
On July 25 2019 19:50 brian wrote:
yea, as usual, disagree. this was full on JimmiC mischaracterizing GH for a full page without once providing what was asked for.
and i stopped paying attention after i called it out, but to my knowledge, still hasn’t provided one quote. what a ridiculous thing to do.
To his credit, he eventually did provide 1, and then never responded to the clarification afaik (not that I want that now).
|
On July[ 25 2019 19:50 brian wrote:
yea, as usual, disagree. this was full on JimmiC mischaracterizing GH for a full page without once providing what was asked for.
and i stopped paying attention after i called it out, but to my knowledge, still hasn’t provided one quote. what a ridiculous thing to do. honestly baffling.
that dmcd doesn’t see any answers in all those posts doesn’t surprise me. for all his love of grammar, he reads as well as JC.
It must be fustrating right brian? Not answering a question? Now imagine being someone who had bothered to converse with GH. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but fustration begets fustration, leading down to everyone with a feeling of dissatisfaction.
|
On July 25 2019 22:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July[ 25 2019 19:50 brian wrote:
yea, as usual, disagree. this was full on JimmiC mischaracterizing GH for a full page without once providing what was asked for.
and i stopped paying attention after i called it out, but to my knowledge, still hasn’t provided one quote. what a ridiculous thing to do. honestly baffling.
that dmcd doesn’t see any answers in all those posts doesn’t surprise me. for all his love of grammar, he reads as well as JC. It must be fustrating right brian? Not answering a question? Now imagine being someone who had bothered to converse with GH. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but fustration begets fustration, leading down to everyone with a feeling of dissatisfaction.
We've established that the impression that I wasn't answering was largely the fault of the readers concluding that, not myself. It's correct though to say I didn't effectively communicate those answers to some posters. The question we arrive at is whether the other posters made a good faith effort to see the answers and failed (for which I would share responsibility) or didn't really try or plastered over my position with their own fabricated ones to argue against.
Personally, depending on the poster, I'd think it's a different balance of all three.
|
|
|
GH comes at person X (right now it is me) over whatever, we go back and forth, a bunch of his buddies all jump in to bully, it becomes 1 against the world, and if that doesn't work better run to the teachers.
You have no idea how hard fought that was (to the degree it's true). The thread you pulled p6's (He never showed those PM's did he?) quotes from is testament to that. What you definitely don't see there, is what you're describing (unless you invert the parties) . This thread is a lot of that too. Perhaps zlefin was before your time? I miss zlefin ironically.
Another thing, if you want to say something is your position don't do the opposite. What do I mean by this, if you say you are not going to post for a month 2 weeks in don't post that you are not posting. + Show Spoiler + If you want to regain trust with a Mod you don't get along with, don't post a "redacted" PM on here to stir up trouble.+ Show Spoiler + PM them back and ask. If you are not comfortable with them PM another mod and ask their advice. Also, why would a Mod not like you? Is it a right wing conspiracy? Or perhaps are you at fault, I'm sure there are Mods that don't like me, that is because I have created frustrating work for them, not because of poor me.
This is an example of something I would consider ambiguous "direct questions" it's unclear to me whether I'm required to respond to or not? For which I don't know what else to do but ask for clarification.
|
i mean i aggressively attacked GH when he spent days haranguing P6 for that one mistake. some people have changed, and some people haven’t.
i’m not impressed by your recollection of a quote i also lived through and have seen become obsoleted history. I don’t need P6 to translate your two page dialogue for me. i saw you mischaracterize his position for over a page and not once back it up. i don’t know what there is for you to disagree with, it’s all there in writing. you looked foolish. and GH tried his best to make you look less foolish, imo.
feel free to not PM me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
