61 replies to this topic

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

I am not seeing what is going so "not well". I certainly have not been confrontational at all in this conversation, and have consistently complied to your requests for clarification, as well as providing in depth, reasoned answers. Any issues, appear to be largely of your own making or imagination. As for the OP, the tome taken and approach was deliberately very calculated as a challenge to those who dare not like full customization. You may note I am far from the only person responding on this thread who took your OP, and subsequent posts, in that manner.

Again, the person being combative, etc here... is not me. You seem to take dissenting posts and opinions VERY personally, which is a problem if one desires to post questions and debates, in a public forum.

What I am saying is that we have butted heads before. Is this fair to say? I also find your responses to generally carry a condescending tone but perhaps I am mistaken or reading into it. Perhaps.

Now as far as your assumptions to what the original intent is, I have issue with. Just to be sure I took a look at my origninal post and do not see how anyone could reasonably think that there was anything hostile or provoking.... If anything I would argue that I chose wording that was inclusionary and my usage of childhood memories to most would be classic disarming and relational. So if it was taken by you as something other than this I apologize and am outright stating that it absolutely was not my intent.

So if I am taking this personally fair enough. Again look at my wording in my original post. It wasn't intended to set people on attack. I would again think it disarming when I clearly admit lack of knowledge and use words like suggest. These do not denote the aggressive tones of someone who is arguing from a position of authority. Yet here we are not in debate. This doesn't seem or feel like a positive exchange between two people on the forums. Yet the big difference between you and I is that I am saying I am not a victim and have played a part. You however are saying the problem rests firmly on my shoulders while you are seemingly making assumptions about my motivation. Not sure then how this would get back on track other than by me disengaging.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

What I am saying is that we have butted heads before. Is this fair to say? I also find your responses to generally carry a condescending tone but perhaps I am mistaken or reading into it. Perhaps.

Now as far as your assumptions to what the original intent is, I have issue with. Just to be sure I took a look at my origninal post and do not see how anyone could reasonably think that there was anything hostile or provoking.... If anything I would argue that I chose wording that was inclusionary and my usage of childhood memories to most would be classic disarming and relational. So if it was taken by you as something other than this I apologize and am outright stating that it absolutely was not my intent.

So if I am taking this personally fair enough. Again look at my wording in my original post. It wasn't intended to set people on attack. I would again think it disarming when I clearly admit lack of knowledge and use words like suggest. These do not denote the aggressive tones of someone who is arguing from a position of authority. Yet here we are not in debate. This doesn't seem or feel like a positive exchange between two people on the forums. Yet the big difference between you and I is that I am saying I am not a victim and have played a part. You however are saying the problem rests firmly on my shoulders while you are seemingly making assumptions about my motivation. Not sure then how this would get back on track other than by me disengaging.

I would say by leaving preconceptions at the door, and not (either of us) assuming the other is "on the attack". I would say the vast majority of posts on this thread accomplish that. I would say when addressing your OP, in particular, the majority of my posts have striven to be very informative and neutral in tone.

Have we locked horns? Sure. Discussions and debates do that. I don't see why disagreeing with someone on something has to become confrontational, nor where disagreement on one post means one hast to be confrontational on other, totally unrelated posts. I clash with Gas Guzzler, McGral, Hit the Deck, Deathlike, etc on several things. Other things we have completely cordial conversations over. Other instances... I usually get along with 1453r... that said there will be times we flat disagree, and not always in polite terms.

In neither case does it imply a need for animosity. I will freely admit, there are a number of people on my ignore list, and you cna't post as much as I do without some worthies taking things personally, or as some sort of challenge (apparently some trolls think that by "proving me wrong" they win the internet or something... I'm sure it's an accomplishment that will get them all sorts of intimate accommodations with their preferred gender). Meh.

So what? I'm going to disagree with you. Unless you are just totally off the deep end, I will also agree with you. Generally speaking, if you are respectful, I try to stay so, also. I say generally, because I am by no means perfect. Especially in print, things get misunderstood, humor, sarcasm, etc do not always translate. It's never my intent to offend..... except for a few individuals who have consistently proven themselves .... lacking.. then, yeah, I tend to not worry about being terribly polite to them.

But at no time have i been trying to attack YOU, in the course of this thread, even if I have attacked your (perceived?) premise for the thread itself. Disnegaging is certainly an option, and your choice, but at the end of the day, I don't see where that benefits either of us, or the nature of the conversation.