The T1 NFR User lobby

[whyterabbyt]

audiobot202 quoth
WR, I actually have enjoyed reading your posts. They have been informative and articulate. However, you'd be wise to consider the reaction of the poster he was addressing. HE found it mildly offensive. I'm not recontextualising at all. I'm simply reading this thread.

Sorry, that's my fault. In my post substitute 'someone' for 'you' in the latter half of it. It wasnt intended to be accusatory at you specifically.

I really dont think LM would have even suspected that what he wrote could be taken badly. But it happens, and hopefully DHR accepts that LM meant things differently.

But yeah, valleys' point is pretty valid, although not quite as much as

Perhaps we should all get a grip here. This place has become very hostile in the past 24 hours.

Which is very true. A little bit over-fractious. Im personally going to go have a soothing cup of hot chocolate and look at some amusing and cute pictures of kittens in socks and teacups and wellington boots...

[headquest]

Sounds like a good solution there WR I think I'll do the same (mostly because I can't be bothered to trawl through the 101 posts Lunch Money has made about Reason - which he doesn't even own! - according to the Forum search feature )

Good night one and all!

[Lunch Money]

Hmmm, well in case you didn't notice, DRH53 seemed to be quite upset/offended by Greg's insinuations.

That's not my responsibility, and if it was an issue between him and I (he WAS asking for clarification, not making an accusation, unlike you) then I would (and did) cheerily reassure him that I in no way meant to insult him and the conversation would have been over.

My post was written basically to put DRH53 at his ease regarding the fact that I doubted Greg meant it personally.

It was? It didn't seem that way to me. It seemed like you were 'apologizing' on my behalf for what you perceived as an insult. I didn't need you to apologize on my behalf because it wasn't an insult in the first place. And part of your method of reassuring him was to call me an idiot and make a false claim, like this one:

That's because I've witnessed Greg upset people unintentionally before.

Wrong again. I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying. I don't intentionally upset people, I refute and/or debate their points, and THAT sometimes upsets people. Since I don't debate with insults (as I mentioned, I prefer logic, and ad hominem is not something I go in for), their getting upset is due to the nature of the debate, not due to my intentionally trying to upset them. For crying out loud, headquest, I'm a teacher of young children who has won the confidence and trust of many students who simply did not respond to other teachers. It's in my very nature to be nurturing and supportive. But that doesn't mean coddling people, and a conversation with two sides and contrasting information isn't the situation in which I need to nurture. In those cases, I seek to educate and be educated.

He's basically a decent guy, but as he explains in his last post, he "plays devils advocate" to stir up debate, and from time to time that upsets people.

No, it's not to stir up debate, it's to engage in a debate that's already been stirred up. Even if I'm the first person to post a reply to a new thread, the debate may have already begun by the initial poster writing a point that is debate-worthy. I don't "stir up" anything, and here you go again making false claims about my character. I'm not interested in fabricating debates, I simply enjoy engaging in them when I have something of intelligence and utility to contribute. That doesn't mean every post is intelligent and "useful," just that when I'm debating it's for those purposes, not just to stir shit up.

Now he's upset because I used the "idiot" emoticon. Well I'm sure that you know that DRH53 is a very creative guy, and I think that insulting him was an idiotic thing to do.

Did you not read WR's post??? In order for this syllogism to work, the first premise that has to be true is that I was insulting him. Since I was NOT insulting him, I did nothing idiotic, and therefore your choice of emoticon reveals more about you than it does about me.

It's like I have to be a simpleton in order to be perceived as "nice and cuddly" or something. The fact that I can debate with precision and logic doesn't negate the other aspects of my personality. I'm a loving and devoted boyfriend, a guy who's absolutely nutzo for his puppy dog (who I raised by myself from since he was 4 weeks old), a teacher who is sought after by his students for proper advice because they realize that I am not only supportive, but also truthful with them. I, a grown man of 31 years, will do the human beatbox (I'm not too bad!) for a group of grade 2 students who adore me (silly munchkins that they are) and then turn around and talk with my friends about the direction Sagan has taken what Einstein had begun.

I'm a complete person, headquest, and it's really disheartening that you continue to try to paint me as some sort of fiend.

Once upon a time, I learned the following: You will always win when you give the benefit of the doubt. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that I had insulted anyone, you could have instead given me the benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming when I said that I play devil's advocate I am "stirring things up" you could have made the correct assumption (actually, you wouldn't need to assume, because I actually said it overtly) that it's because I'm a champion of logic and reason.

What kind of person ARE you? I hope it's not always so negative in headquest-land. How do you approach your friends when they have a differing opinion? Do you instantly dismiss them and alienate them, or do you give them credit?

[Lunch Money]

Sounds like a good solution there WR I think I'll do the same (mostly because I can't be bothered to trawl through the 101 posts Lunch Money has made about Reason - which he doesn't even own! - according to the Forum search feature )

Good night one and all!

What the f**k, headquest? You absolutely have no idea how to listen to someone, do you. Nope, you've decided that I'm some sort of fiend, and so you're not even listening to logic.

If you type in (as I did, with disbelief) "Lunch Money" as a user, and "reason" for the keyword, you get 101 hits, but they're not about reason. The word "reason" isn't just for the software, you know.

Holy f**k.

I mean, anyone who's curious can do exactly the same search and you'd see I'm not posting about Reason. The first one was what... "Question about Balanced Cables" or whatever.

What the hell? You've gone off the deep end.

And a second point (here's logic again) -- I don't have to be an owner of anything to have knowledge of it or an opinion. I don't own every guitar made, but I know a hell of a lot about them.

Start making sense. Start reading what I've said. Start extending some credit. Stop making assumptions. It's a pretty simple formula.

[valley]

ok, ok...

thread lock...