Memo

Originally posted by Suzianne
But it is not the same as being direct. You are always indirect. I imagine this is so you can revisit it later and claim you never said any such-and-such thing.

Not at all. I stand by everything I have ever said and will apologize/explain of I have to retract anything. I am always very forthright and intent on getting to the heart of the matter.

Originally posted by FMF
Are you sure?

What did you think when Grampy Bobby suggested that his views on suicide were "the truth" and that those disagreeing with him were peddling "premediated lies"? If I recall correctly, the remark was directed at Kewpie.

His remarks were tied in with his religious beliefs. As such, I let it pass. I commented about it later in the thread. My comment was sympathetic to dive's comments, though not nearly as vehement.

(Of course, let me preface this by saying that I don't have the thread in front of me, and so your "conclusions" may not mesh with mine, nor do I have any way of telling if your quotes correspond to what was actually said. )

Originally posted by FMF
Not at all. I stand by everything I have ever said and will apologize/explain of I have to retract anything. I am always very forthright and intent on getting to the heart of the matter.

This has not been my experience. Your skill at "forum combat" has given you skill at "making people look bad" regardless of what they actually said. This is yet another way that you are indirect.

Originally posted by FMF
What about the insults dished out by Grampy Bobby's defenders? Do you consider those posters to be "uneducated"?

yes i do. insults may come out after many pages of heated arguements, that is human nature,
But for some one to call me a dumbass, straight away after one post i made.
Well to me that"s rather sad, normally due to a poor education. or maybe they are just like that in real life.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This has not been my experience. Your skill at "forum combat" has given you skill at "making people look bad" regardless of what they actually said. This is yet another way that you are indirect.

People who do not fare well in discussions ~ and perhaps make themselves look bad with what they post ~ feel rubbed up the wrong way and start dishing out personal insults and condemnations unrelated to the discussions. You are a prime example of this. So is robbie. The two of you are quite similar in certain ways.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the key reasons I infuriate you are that I am always direct, I never rise to the bait of your insults or get fobbed off by your evasion, I don't dodge, I don't deflect, I just stick to the topics. It seems to make you fly off the handle all the time.

Not only is your conclusion about me wrong, but so is your estimate of your own actions.

You're not even being direct in this post you just wrote. Now I realize that your post was precisely crafted, but good god, man, you cannot be that blind to what you're actually doing in this post. You seemingly either can't help yourself, or, you can't believe anyone can see through it if you just tell them otherwise.

And apparently, it's important to your self-esteem to remain "in control" at all times, while characterizing others as "out of control". But that's for another "counseling session".


I'm done. Good day, sir.

Originally posted by Suzianne
His remarks were tied in with his religious beliefs. As such, I let it pass. I commented about it later in the thread. My comment was sympathetic to dive's comments, though not nearly as vehement.

(Of course, let me preface this by saying that I don't have the thread in front of me, and so your "conclusions" may not mesh with mine, nor do I have any way of telling if your quotes correspond to what was actually said. )

So you think it was well within the bounds of civil discourse for his to declare those who disagreed with him to be peddling "premeditated lies"? I don't. I think it's one of the nastiest things anyone has said ~ on a serious subject ~ on this forum for weeks and weeks, not to mention the insinuation that suicides are related to a lack of "honour code". Do you think it was acceptable for him to characterize disagreement with as being "lies"?

-Removed-

And this is only one reason we butt heads regularly. You overinflate the severity of some issues and underinflate others. But this is part of how we're different.

But please, try to refrain from the FMF tactics. I've had enough for one night.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You're not even being direct in this post you just wrote. Now I realize that your post was precisely crafted, but good god, man, you cannot be that blind to what you're actually doing in this post. You seemingly either can't help yourself, or, you can't believe anyone can see through it if you just tell them otherwise.

Here it is again: "I think the key reasons I infuriate you are that I am always direct, I never rise to the bait of your insults or get fobbed off by your evasion, I don't dodge, I don't deflect, I just stick to the topics. It seems to make you fly off the handle all the time."

It's a string of straight ahead declarative clauses:

I infuriate you.
I am telling you my reasons why I think it is so.
I never rise to the bait of your insults.
I never get fobbed off by your evasions.
I don't dodge.
I don't deflect.
I just stick to the topics.
It believe these are the reason you fly off the handle all the time.

No beating around the bush. Just plain, direct, forthright.

-Removed-

Now this is direct. Take heed, FMF.

It's horribly, ludicrously wrong, but it's direct.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Now [b]this is direct. Take heed, FMF.

It's horribly, ludicrously wrong, but it's direct.[/b]

Are you using some strange unconventional personal definition of the words "direct" and "indirect"?