You people

Post Reply New Topic

cause I am a sexy beast?

thats a joke.

actually I should be happy. The only times anyone mistakes me for emotional are in these threads. In real life people are offended only because I am not emotional enough. Which amuses me, because it is quite ironic.


or the oddity in this thread could be new traffic from this thread

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt88187.html

Last edited by Shiggily on 14 Jan 2009, 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

pm me if you want to intellectually discuss.

There's a thread about your thread about how we all post in threads?

Mmm, well I suppose you must be.

I'm confused here. Please explain.



This appears contradictory. But, I think I understand what you mean here. You don't always get passionate in a fight but sometimes you do. Which any one does, I suppose. (I think I acknowledged that some where back there, but maybe not.)


Very Reactionary. A little Retaliatory. Mildly Condescending. Definitely Unnecessary--(for rational discussion.) Just calling your attention to it.



My only point is that you do not have enough room to talk to start an entire thread about it. That is the job of the moderators, and they have done it. Alot.

If there is one person (or even a few) attacking you personally, by all means ignore them, stand up for yourself, grab a moderator... Something. But trying to shove 'shoulds' down the throat of a group majority is hypocritical and standing up in an attempt to unilaterally shame a majority into behavioral mandates based on your perception of what is proper, is Not. Your. Job.



Well maybe. But the response strikes me as a rationalization. Also "...a little useless." (again covertly implied) is offensive.



...Human Behavior-absolutely necessary. Human beings are not technical manuals. Most are more subtle and nuanced than poetry.



Nope, not all, just a few. If you exhibit consistent behavior in response to specific stimuli in this context your thought patterns and behavior are easy to determine. I certainly can't ascertain 'all' of them. If I implied that I should have been more clear.



I said this:



I believe you. I believe you. My triple negatives got me in trouble there. I should have said: "Which is not to say that I disbelieve that you are a 'cookie-cutter INTJ, because what you are manifesting here rather is... " I'll make an effort to be more scrupulous in grammar with you in the future though. Spot on there. I completely missed it.



Hearing that you shouldn't eat junk food from the chubby guy with the twinkie just irritates most people, and they don't listen.

In your opinion. Which is slanted negatively. As an further example
You're not evil. Not by miles. I never said that. Using a couple of little verbal backhands doesn't make you evil. It's insidious because they are hard to pinpoint and so covert even you don't like to see them, (or more to the point, admit them.) You're not evil, you're just not better than any one else when it comes to this. Certainly not morally lofty enough to start finger-shaking at the 'majority'.



Wow. You're right. That was a much better word. I had you all wrong. Thank you for making a point of telling me of your of restraint. You don't indulge in sneaky personal attacks at all!


Good metaphor by the way. My track record with people 'on the ground', so to speak, and even on line is pretty good. It really doesn't take much to establish a pattern of behavior in specific circumstances.

This doesn't mean that I know the entirety that is you by any stretch, but I can make some pretty good educated guesses at predicting your behavior (again in response to specific stimuli) Part of that is based on an understanding of common (and some not so common) subconscious motivators, among a few other things.

I confess, the arm-chair psycho-analysis is something I use but (usually) don't clarify in a response, but I put it in there this time mostly to push your buttons. (Which doesn't mean, that I wasn't telling the truth about what I think motivates you. I didn't lie. I just disclosed more than I normally would about the road to my conclusions. But in the end, that is just my opinion.) In short to get you to respond predictably to certain stimuli.

Hitting the "How dare you! You don't know me!" button was a bit of a guess, (in terms of exactly how vehemently you would respond) but an educated one based on what you had exhibited. I shouldn't have done it, at least not that way. It was a little underhanded and heavy handed even for me, and I should have pulled that punch a little more. I'm sorry, I won't do that to you again. However, damage done, which leads us too:



*low whistle* Nice.

And we move from covert attacks to overt ones in what looks like an possible attempt to escalate the conflict.

Which is following a pattern I had outlined here:



Maybe I know you in these circumstances a little better than you might want to think. Maybe I'm wrong though.




Well, both, in a way. I'm actually asking for more clarification of what you specifically think would be appropriate behavior. Where are the lines? What are the levels in conflict escalation? What are the appropriate methods for ensuring the status quo is maintained? All the stuff. The ambiguity is leaving room for a lot of potentially slanted, or even abusive interpretations.



But I'm not offended by most of what you say. I found the 'delusional' crack mildly personally offensive. But that is the first time you've said something to me that actually offended me. However, you say things that are intended to be offensive, and then A.deny it. or B. explain that that is just how you are and you shouldn't have to change to suit me. You're right on B.

However, when you are just as offensive as anyone why would you think it is appropriate to start an entire thread admonishing other people for doing as much, or even less than you do? That is what I find offensive. If you were to pop off this way in some un-related thread, I would ignore most of the barbs. A lot of others wouldn't though, and this is going to continue to cause you to be involved in conflicts that escalate.



'I'm sorry if you...' is usually putting responsibility on someone else. It is dressing it up in polite-social-nuance-fog.

'I'm sorry if I...' is usually taking responsibility for your own actions.

That is how I see it. 'I'm sorry if you see things differently.'



I said that the things you said are offensive, or intended to be offensive. Not that I was offended by them.

And I never ever said that I was offended by 'everything that you say.' That is inflammatory, putting words in my mouth and flat untrue. Another method for insulting people, escalating a conflict, and trying to subtly paint your adversary as more nasty than they are.

I don't have a problem with the way that you communicate. I can see some of how you get yourself in trouble, but we all do. I highlighted some specifics so that you could see where what you said was offensive, and sneaky, and that your communication style isn't any more benign than any one else's. Just because I can recognize these little verbal barbs and point them out doesn't mean that I am offended by them.

However, I have a problem with, and am offended by the fact that you started an entire thread admonishing others for doing precisely what you are doing.



No you don't need to change who you are to fit me. Just don't start an entire thread telling others they should change their behavior when you won't.


I suppose they might be, if one focuses on the fact that my communication style is very similar (only a little meaner) to yours.

You changing your communication style isn't my point. I'm not asking you to change it. Why would I ask you to change what I won't change? I'm asking you to acknowledge that you aren't any better than the rest of us, and therefor have no grounds to start a thread telling others they should change their ways.

I wouldn't start a thread like this, or even tell you that you, or most other people that they have an obligation to change their communication style because... Well... Because I'm a b***h. I don't have any room to talk.

Nope.

Weeellll... If I used that word I shouldn't have. Self absorbed, might be better. But not any more than most people. We all are. *raises hand* For Aspies it's even a defining character trait.

A bit. But I've seen worse, and probably less than I am when all is said and done.

in my personal experience of life, all the people i have known who were incapable of admitting fault, and have trouble being honest with themselves about who they are and how they conduct themselves, were the most unhappy (and often the most unstable internally).....there is nothing wrong with being human and having flaws. we ALL have them, and we are ALL EQUAL in that way. my flaws may be different from yours, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that we are equally flawed. i used to struggle with this issue myself, but due to some rather "humbling" experiences, i have discovered there is a wonderful freedom and peace to be found when you accept your own fallibility. i have come to think many people labour under the misconception that living in a state of humility is to live without dignity. this is absolutely not true. in fact, it's rather the opposite. openly embracing your faults and mistakes is what truly allows you to grow as a person. you can't change anything until you are willing to look at it honestly. it's why we're all here

so yes, people tend to lose their temper and get emotional sometimes when discussing issues. certainly people are going to cross lines, say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment, make mistakes, and have their judgment blurred by their frustration. as long as we can all talk about that honestly and maturely, and each own our own mistakes, then there shouldn't be a problem in the long run. people will recognise their mistakes and correct them. you have to have faith in that. i mean, we are all adults here (for the most part), so i do think creating a thread putting yourself above the majority morally, and then not being able to own that for what it is, is an instance of not being able to admit when you have made a mistake. we're not going to lynch you, you know. we just want to hear you say that you don't think you're any better than the rest of us here, and you make many of the same mistakes that we do. that shouldn't be hard to do. it is the truth.

i am certain of it.

Dare we ask how?

It isn't a good idea to ask too much about how people make their money sometimes.

Well you do a bit. Defensiveness isn't necessarily passionate, or even heated, or even luke warm. It can be very cold and methodical. Sometimes it is around here, since some Aspies use their logic as a defense mechanism. Point of note-- I don't know if you fall into that category or not yet, I wasn't trying to imply you.


Maybe not hard for you. Plenty of people find it very difficult though.

Also, she does indulge in personal attacks, (and it doesn't take much resistance to get her there) so why is she admonishing everyone else about it?



I'm pointing out that she isn't better than any one else. I don't hate that about her. I never said I hated that about her. (I'm not sure I've even used the word hate in any of my posts. That one is coming exclusively from the two of you. Funny thing that.) I do the same things that she does. No doubt.

The difference is:

I'm not trying to tell her or anyone else to knock it off. She is. She does precisely what she is trying to tell others not to do.

I'm just trying to point out where she does it.



They can create an environment that is very hostile. Especially when someone who indulges in these sort of attacks uses them carte-blanche against anyone that offers them any resistance.

A jerk who is screaming and calling names is usually either ignored, put under intense social pressure from the group itself, or handled by an authority figure.

This covert stuff is harder to pin down, and so builds and builds and can really intimidate some people and can turn into a target/bully problem. If things get to that point others have usually learned the behavior, as the path of least resistance to get ones way, and it has spread, and is very hard to clamp down on.

I am being overly 'sensitive' to point out some of the smaller instances, to prove a predictable pattern of behavior. I predicted she would escalate these attacks. I am trying to draw attention to the progress of the behavioral pattern. If you look in her next response to me, she has done just that, and begun to attack me overtly. Even edging to name calling and even making inferences about my sanity in an attempt to discredit/intimidate me.


I don't feel censorship is evil. I believe in social order. But it is the job of the moderators here. Not someone who is just as bad about personal attacks as anyone else; possibly under less provocation than most.



I am highlighting the covert things that she does to show how she attempts to escalate conflicts in little ways that are hard to pin down so that she will not be held accountable. She will escalate her attacks if I continue to be un-intimidated, probably even if/when I scale down and attempt to connect with her. Even an apology from me will mean little to her until I completely concede her point.

I point out where she is doing precisely what she is claiming others 'shouldn't do, and she (and you, which confuses me) get defensive, and begin to make assumptions about my intent and emotional state--i.e. that I 'hate' her, or her communication style, or that I am 'offended', or even 'offended by everything that she says.' This isn't true. I just think she is being hypocritical, by manifesting a behavior and trying to admonish others for the same thing.

I'm not telling her to stop it. I'm telling her to stop telling others to stop it, because she isn't any better. That's it. That's all.




Again. I'm not telling her she is wrong for what she says, or how she says it. I am telling her that she wrong for saying those things and telling others they shouldn't do it.

I don't see how this is any more offensive than 'fumbling around'. Less so in my opinion. But that's my opinion. I also said 'suspected'. I'm not saying that she is incapable of logic, or rational thought. I'm just saying that her anger at resistance is coloring her ability to understand my responses, which in my opinion is very human, very normal, and at worst annoying, but not a crime. If left unchecked though it can contribute to an overall breakdown in communication.



She said she 'failed to see the point I was fumbling around for.' She stated incomprehension. She completely blamed it on me, (which wasn't very nice), but I made an attempt to explain it in a different way anyway.




"read it" can come across as demanding. "...you might figure out where I am coming from." Implies I might not because...? Very subtle, very sneaky. Her contempt is manifesting in very covert ways. I would guess she's sitting on her temper here pretty hard, but it is squeaking out.

That is your opinion. But still just an opinion. You said before you have a hard time with nuance, and psychology is all about nuance. Just because you don't understand a thing does not mean it is invalid. I really suck at at algebra but it is apparently pretty useful to alot of people.




I'm just flat confused by this, which tells me there may be a 'given' that you think I've got, but I don't. Can you explain this one a bit further please?




Yes, hypocritical, if my point was that she should stop acting, or communicating this way. It's not. My point is that she shouldn't tell others not to act the same way that she is.

I'm not seeing where I am insulting her here. Also, no where, not even here do I tell her don't do this. I just say that she is and so shouldn't tell others to do it.




I think this may be a narrow way of looking at interaction. Maybe overlooking nuance here...? I dunno.



I'm a little confused again. Could you go into more detail here.



Because she is the OP who started this entire thread for the purpose of trying to unilaterally set a standard of behavior that she herself does not uphold.



I was trying to convey that she would continue to run into problems with this. That doesn't mean she should change it, just accept that people would be offended. If she doesn't want to change fine.

I really don't understand where you are getting that I am implying that anyone should change their communication style. I find that the assumptions that lead to that insistence a little illogical myself actually.



I was trying to mirror some of her own behavior here, and show her how some of her statements could be taken as offensive by others. I should have explained that in the end I suppose. It's not my natural tendency in a debate, and I take that as a given that people understand those things about me way before they ever could or should. My own 'mind-blindness', or just laziness maybe. But yes, that is certainly what getting defensive can look like.

Yes. It depends on alot of things though. In the easiest example, sometimes my temper gets the best of me and I'm being a snot. I accept the consequences for that, (especially if I have genuinely hurt some one) and (hopefully) learn from it.

I change tactics situationally. I try to adjust for the different personalities I'm dealing with, and my tactics and goals in a debate. I'm not always benign by any means, and it's usually not even my goal, but some personalities I'm more careful with than others.



Why do you keep assuming that I am asking people to change? I usually don't. Except in extreme circumstances. This isn't one of them. I don't think I've run into one of those on WP.



I see them as barbs.

She is exhibiting a behavior pattern that is predictable, and that I have seen before. She uses those barbs, her 'tone' if you will to escalate a situation incrementally and subtly, so that it is difficult to see that she is actually the antagonist. She pokes and prods and pushes people until she feels justified in overtly calling them names, indulging in ad-hominem, and personal attacks, and then walks away with the satisfaction of being able to bully someone and blame it all on them.

Not a demon. Not evil. Very human. No better than me. And really not that big a deal. But it is still doing exactly what she is telling everyone else not to do. Just more subtly.




You're right. I should have said that better. I was a little iffy about that one because I knew someone could take it out of context and squew my meaning, which... Surprise. Some one did. Which I consider kind of debate dirty pool. But, most consider it fair play. So, I'll amend it...

"What I am criticizing is that you started an entire thread trying to shame everyone else into acting civilized when you exhibit precisely the same uncivilized behavior. Before admonishing everyone else one has a responsibility to adjust ones personality traits to what one is requiring form everyone else. If you cannot or will not do this, then do not require it of everyone else."

Now it should stand with my intent on it's own.



Ah. So she only has to play by the rules she has set out until (she perceives) someone has hurt her feelings enough? Then free-for-all huh? That strikes me as a bit of a rationalization for future bad behavior as well, to be honest.

Also, I don't feel I have personally attacked her. I have stated what my opinion of her motivation is, in terms of her subconscious one. I prodded her a bit with it, when I was very blunt about it. But I have never called her irrational, or overly emotional, or evil. In spite of what she (and you apparently) would contend. I have said that her communication style is insidious and sneaky, and that some of her responses are irrational, and that I feel she intentionally escalates conflicts. I have said that the premise of the thread is hypocritical because of that.

I do all of these things, I've accused her of (and then some to be honest), but I'm not trying to tell everyone else that they need to change. Regardless of how much both of you seem to be invested in thinking so.




Common ground in one aspect does not make an alliance or even tolerance in many circumstances. I'm not starting entire threads telling people to play nice either.



No. My premise is only different than what you are assuming it is. Under your assumptions; Yes contradictory.

Last edited by pheonixiis on 14 Jan 2009, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

theres multiple flaws with your logic on this one. Those who are unhappy are because of their flaws not because they cannot admit them. What makes more people unhappy ius embracing their flaws and not taking ownership of said flaws with ownership comes the ability to change the unwanted behavior



Yes we all do have flaws the type of flaws we have are all different and the difference between me and most people is that I actively seek out flaws and eradicate them for all purposes. Letting flaws be there and embracing them as ok means you'll never learn to correct them. I doubt being comfortable with being flawed is a good ideaology for the reason that it discounts ownership and your ability to fix your flaws.

I am here to discuss things I am not here because I am flawed thats better corrected without wrong planet. Saying that its alright to act immaturely because we all have flaws is illogical especially when said behavior can be corrected.



Well if thats problems they face they shouldn't involve themselves in a discussion which might make them act irrationally. Acknowledging that your flawed does not give you permission to act in this manner. We all should have an obligation to act in a mature, rational manner.

This was nicely put.

Did I miss something?

Did Shiggily effectively:
call someone delusional,
for pointing out her own hypocricy,
in a post based on the premise that personal attacks are couterproductive,
while explaining very clearly and adamantly that she wasn't being offensive by doing so?! !!

Talk about unintentional irony.

This is 10 pages of pots calling kettles black, while trying to convince us (and/or themselves)they aren't pots at all. (yes, Abangyarudo I include you)

Congratulations Shiggily! Welcome to PPR. You really are one of "you people".

Look objectively at what's happening here. You may learn something about yourself you don't like. And only after recognizing that can you avoid it and actually move toward becoming who you think you already are.

Defensiveness would indicate I am trying to win the situation/conversation/debate/whatever you wish to call it. In the end I'm not I just feel most of your points seem hypocritical because while saying you dislike what the op has done you use it under the guise we have different objectives. If you do not like personality traits of someone displaying them is hypocritical in my estimation.




That does not mean they shouldn't try to not get that way.



Examples?





your right I use the word hate to depict a strong dislike. I think we have different opinions as to the severity of the word. Hence if I think a guy acts like an idiot I will say I hate that does that really mean I get emotionally invested and really hate it? no its just I present a strong dislike for it.



I go back to my initial comment I do not see the harm in saying that people should conduct themselves in a more mature, respectful manner.



Your taking a position of authority that you feel shiggily is wrong in taking. Hypocritical.







We'll have to agree to dissagree I see no barbs, especially snarky comments, I think your assuming tone because the lack of tone that is availble in a posting of this nature.



Hence when people are on the internet they should be free from being held to a standard of behavior?



Maybe so ... because it implies looking at the possibility of it being a perception problem something you do not seem to consider.

I am being overly 'sensitive' to point out some of the smaller instances, to prove a predictable pattern of behavior. I predicted she would escalate these attacks. I am trying to draw attention to the progress of the behavioral pattern. If you look in her next response to me, she has done just that, and begun to attack me overtly. Even edging to name calling and even making inferences about my sanity in an attempt to discredit/intimidate me.




Maybe so but shes not actively censoring she feels that people should conduct themselves to a better standard of behavior. If someone is being a jerk and I say to them "hey dude its not a big deal but your embarassing yourself?" Under your criteria I would be equally wrong. The people who are offended by his behavior will not feel the same way.





Your assuming alot of things here. If for instance someone who has been offensive to me in the past said sorry (like my ex who personally insulted me recently got back in touch with me and has been apologizing) I would accept it. My only issue would be if I felt they are sincere or not since its my decision if I feel like forgiving her. They have acted irrationally or disrespectful to me so they are not owed the forgiveness it comes based on merit and the situation.



You've show a perception not based on any logical evidence besides "its there you see that comment where shes like oh it may help you. SHES SAYING that to insult me." Hence why I view your opinions with certain skepticism. Furthermore your confused as to my involvement my involvement is simply noting the facts I see. In a similar vein the reason why starvingartist is agreeing with you could be intrepreted as her just wanting to get back at me. Do I care why she has involved herself? not really. Do I think its a little odd that she just started in this topic when I posted and you responded with a conflicting view? yes I think in the end though its just what happens and if it makes her happy to support anything thats conflicting with me. Whatever floats her boat.



So because you don't have the same objective its ok for you to portray all the characteristics you say are "annoying" of the op?



Funny you were just complaining about me talking bout your emotional state.


Which as we can see that the intent of those responses and patterns may be a victim of a misperception.





In her opinion what you said may be more offensive then "fumbling around" this is where your point starts to crumble even though you don't see it. Hence why I think this is purely emotional and not based on any concrete logic.



No her anger is not coloring her responses because you've been rather incoherent I've been trying to piece together what you mean since besides contradictions in each post your ideas are not clearly expressed. Maybe we can assume that since me and shiggly seem to put more focus on logical perspective and you and starvingartist use a more emotional perspective that puts us at a certain disadvantage in interpreting eachother?





She was clearly noting that you were kind of looking for straws and that the point was a little contradictory to previous points. When you have one perspective and you can't make sense of what someone is saying sometimes it is the fault of the other person to articulate their ideas. I see no blame in the sentence but again I chalk it up to emotional senistivity.






ok then lets see all the things you requested I do and count them as demanding. Do you see the flaw in the logic yet. As far as undermining self confidence the only person who can do that is you in that way I'm reminded of the comedy of Katt Williams.

" You turn around and say he (censored)ed up my self esteem" and I'm like (censored) it is SELF esteem it is esteem of your mother (censored)ing self. (I know its offtopic but it was why I laughed when I saw that statement.

Again this could be a perception problem for instance starvingartist implied that I read too much into the coincidence I'm open to the idea its unlikely but I have to be open to the fact that it could merely be a coincidence.





Psychology's inabilities to properly diagnose people and to make mistakes in judgements is well documented. The aglebra example lacks any sort of logic. Psychology is not about nuance since nuance is one of the things they never picked up. Hence when I was 14 to 16 I was told I had social anxiety disorder in the end though I saw socializing at that time as a series of demonstrating value and social value powerplays. They work for some people but not for others in a related topic some people find value in the writings of Hitler while I see a mass of illogical ramblings from a madman.






She said to read the assumingly myers-briggs personality result to give you a better understanding of her. Later you expressed that she most likely is that result and how she displays all the good and bad of that label. Not only is that a veiled attack if we use your criteria but it also shows you gained more understanding of her as a person. Hence that would make the objective of the information a sucess.






A hypocritical statement implies that it doesn't take into account factors that you exhibit so no matter what your objective is the label remains true.



Still doesn't explain why your displaying those traits you have a negative taste for in the op.






Maybe so but as an example I know a guy at work who also claims to be from New York my home state. Everytime he acts like a fool he says "I'm a new yorker right right!!" One day when he was acting real stupid and I was having a bad day I just said. "Acting like a fool is not a new york thing. It is pretty global." He was a guy that fought with everyone
so of course he put a target on me. Well your such a pipsqueak ... (Continued illogical ramblings)

which I responded. "Look jack I have nothing against but in the end you act like a child and the immaturity you pass off as being from New York if thats how you want to define yourself thats great but I will not be defined by your immature behavior we're two different people we're not kin. I choose my way you choose yours and if you want to act like an idiot put the blame where it belongs: your own personal development. I stood up amongst countless nods to the truth behind what I had just said and left. He came up to me later that day apologizing saying to me "how he did go to far and he aplogizes to me and the other girl (he sexually harrassed the other girl she was present). More on this further down in this message



In this example he was trying to demonstrate higher social value through being the dominent member of the break room. By noone saying anything or challenging him it made him the "Alpha" (for lack of a better word) of the situation. Hence when I replied negatively it became a contest for social value if I would have caved in it would have given him the illusion that his value is above mine. Hence my clearly stating the goals in a calm and collected manner showed that in the situation I was the higher social value in that situation. (Social value is used in alot of books especially by "Pick Up Artists" so if your interested in the topic you can look there) In that way human social behavior is alot like wolves.





Your claiming a certain moral highground yourself but displaying those properties you admit are undesired in other posters.The idea that she has to display a certain standard of behavior while you are free to act as immature or disrespectful is Illogical and hypocritical again.









If she changes her behavior someone else would find it offensive so its a catch 22. As a previous example how would you account for the reason that different moods of mine seemingly attract different women towards me. Its the same reason theres no one size fits all way of interacting with people. You will run into the same issue that people will find your overly senistive and emotional hence that would be implying you could change that behavior as well. It all comes down to the pot calling the kettle black.



Your saying thats the reasons why her point should not be considered is due to the fact that she displays the same characteristics. Hence she should change her behavior to make her point taken seriously. In the end this doesn't make sense as most of your supposed issues with her communication style have no basis in verfiable fact (as much as there can be in this world). If only you looked more in the logic of your own statements I believe you'd find such contradictions.





I was more talking about your insuitions of what she did but also the other part.

Yes. It depends on alot of things though. In the easiest example, sometimes my temper gets the best of me and I'm being a snot. I accept the consequences for that, (especially if I have genuinely hurt some one) and (hopefully) learn from it.

I change tactics situationally. I try to adjust for the different personalities I'm dealing with, and my tactics and goals in a debate. I'm not always benign by any means, and it's usually not even my goal, but some personalities I'm more careful with than others. [/quote]

you ignored the point of the statement. If I say Illogical and I hurt someones feelings should I be obligated to take the consequences for that and apologize? Or should I accept that the person is most likely overlysenistive and that their perceived slight was through no fault of my own?





you have implied character flaws that offend you and will cause her to have continued social difficulty through her lifetime if thats the cause its only natural that your impling its something she should change.




Perception vs Reality is something you might want to consider here.



So this is infact based on your personal experiences and no logic. People are different so assuming based on personal experience is illogical. Its the same as ephrella saying all men are sex crazed and idiots because those are the people she met. Also you've engaged in ad-hominem.



Possible misperception?





So much for not asking her to change Nor did it acuratly portray what she was asking. This is kind of tiring as your statements are just long winded versions of "you did it too" "your calling me names" "your being mean to me on purpose" in rather ordinary statements you would here everyday. Hence why I treat all of your responses as emotional they have no basis in logical and when they do it contradicts former statements.



Your statements and supposed intent don't match.



Ah. So she only has to play by the rules she has set out until (she perceives) someone has hurt her feelings enough? Then free-for-all huh? That strikes me as a bit of a rationalization for future bad behavior as well, to be honest. [/quote]

Very hypocritical you've admitted to doing the same thing. Your not making sense you'll probably take that as offensive but you aren't and I feel you should know that upfront because it colors my understanding of your points which I've been trying to apply logic to but its nowhere to be found.



If you haven't she hasn't you have comitted the same types of language to eachother. So if your really sue you haven't then maybe your emotions are blinding you to the fact that there has been little to no malice in her statements.



Then that includes insulting her and displaying the characteristics you dislike of her which under your own logic destroys your point. Hence shall we consider these ramblings done?






not asking for that but you've been attacking her just because you felt her comments had malice that I personally do not see. As people with ASD's feel perscuted its very likely that your being overly senistive and reading into things that aren't there. Something you have never considered during this thread.



No. My premise is only different than what you are assuming it is. Under your assumptions; Yes contradictory.[/quote]

Under any assumption it is contradictory. I did not see a contradiction in the line above. I did however see a contradiction that ya feel contradiction is on a situational basis in this example it is not.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 14 Jan 2009, 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

example of hypocricy? And if the shoe fits most of the statements seem to be from a misperception while delusional only accounts for someone seeing something that is not there. In this case the word fits the situation.

[/uote]
in a post based on the premise that personal attacks are couterproductive,
while explaining very clearly and adamantly that she wasn't being offensive by doing so?! !! [/quote]

If the word fits fine it has a negative meaning that is offensive by itself it is not an offensive statement. Your putting emotional value thats not there. Seeing as the whole response is overly emotional I'll assume your one of the points of the original post.



If your rather blind to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a dig and was rather accurate... I guess...



Feel free to your point makes no logical sense so when it does maybe we can discuss it. As this is all about personal attacks (gee whiz the original point of the article) I assume your overly emotionally biased. Seeing from this also immature in attempting to call people out to get them angry. Have fun with that since it only destroys your own perceived point.



Too bad that doesn't make sense huh?

It is mostly parts like these that are ironic. The parts where you tell me that I am intending something you assume I am intending, and that you are inserting meaning into things I say that aren't there. And then you say that putting words into people's mouths is an inflammatory action. Which is what you are doing to me. Despite the fact that I repeatedly tell you I am not. I would just like you to stop assuming that I am out to get people, or that I am the equivalent to a fat person with a Twinkie. I am more like a slightly overweight person who occasionally eats junk food. Granted if a fat person told me I needed to lose weight and eat healthy and I actually did need to do so, I probably wouldn't be offended. The advice is valid regardless of who says it. It happens all the time in photography. You place your work out to be critiqued and a group of people critique it. Sometimes, the people who critique your work do so negatively even though their skill is less than yours. You need to separate your views of their work and evaluate the critique objectively to determine if the critique has any merit. Now, the best advice, on average, comes from the more seasoned and skilled photographers. But one should not discount advice from the less skilled photographers based entirely on their skill. Because they might have something valid to say.

For the same reason one should never discount another person's contribution to a discussion simply because they do not have as high of a degree as you, or attended as prestigious of a university, or are younger, older, religious, atheist, communist, conservative, liberal, or from someone you just do not like, etc.

Evaluate the remarks on their own before you dismiss them for some personal dislike of the person who is giving them. They might be valid.

I said "Or just saying your thoughts about me are inaccurate, and maybe you aren't entirely delusional... but your assumptions about me are. "

So not that pheonixiis is delusional but that according to the definition of delusional, her assumptions about my motives are. It is like the difference between saying a person is stupid or something they did was stupid. Perfectly intelligent people do incredibly stupid things all the time. The occasional stupid action doesn't make them any less intelligent, and being intelligent doesn't make stupid actions any less stupid.

So I stated that her opinions about my motives are false, but she still believes them. It qualifies for the definition of delusion. But I doubt that she is inherently delusional. Granted the way I worded it was poor. I shouldn't have used "maybe" and "entirely". I should have used just "maybe". I mean, I don't like to make 100% statements about people I don't know. So I can't guarantee whether she is or is not inherently delusional, because I do not know her. But I do know me and I do know my motives, and she doesn't. So I meant to say that maybe she isn't delusional, but her assumptions about me are. And that statement means that while I do not know anything about the state of her mentally, nor her motives, nor her purposes, I can state that she continues to believe that her opinions of me are more valid then my knowledge of myself. and that those beliefs (not necessarily her) are what I qualify as delusional.

words are not my strong point.