Originally posted by FMFTo create a greater injustice because you "felt" you were "wrongly" exposed to injustice.
I'm still reeling answer-less from your [b]well it isn't to act like you ~ that is weak double whammy on the other thread, so maybe I'll get back to you later regarding this latest absolute zinger.[/b]
It is funny actually because your ideology was to expose her to multiple attacks, which is abusive, but found that was the shoes you were to wear.
Originally posted by Executioner BrandI perpetrated no injustice because there was no onus on me to keep her behaviour secret. She has been criticized for what she did and she has been defended for what she did, seemingly with the more vocal and strident people doing the latter. I have also faced criticism and I have been supported.
To create a greater injustice because you "felt" you were "wrongly" exposed to injustice.
It is funny actually because your ideology was to expose her to multiple attacks, which is abusive, but found that was the shoes you were to wear.
To characterize these disagreements only as "multiple attacks" and "abusive" ~ and even disingenuously raise the spectre of sexual harassment somehow being in play ~ is to simply seek to poison the well and inhibit people expressing their disagreement.
What you are trying to do is a fairly standard off-the-shelf rhetorical trick intended to smother dissent. I haven't tried to smother Suzianne's dissent. Indeed, I have engaged her point by point on what she has been completely free to say and she has enjoyed much support as she explained herself and her actions.
You haven't been here long, Executioner Brand. But take it from me, You won't get very far with this particular rhetorical trick, although, ironically enough, Suzianne has been trying to use it herself here for years, to no avail.
Originally posted by FMFI can't judge what I do not know.
I perpetrated no injustice because there was no onus on me to keep her behaviour secret. She has been criticized for what she did and she has been defended for what she did, seemingly with the more vocal and strident people doing the latter. I have also faced criticism and I have been supported.
To characterize these disagreements only as "multiple attacks" ...[text shortened]... ough, ironically enough, Suzianne has been trying to use it herself here for years, to no avail.
...but fOrcing people to play x many games is wrong because it is abusive.
Originally posted by Executioner BrandWell perhaps, in some weird way, [i\'not knowing anything while pretending not to judge' [/i]is exactly why you are quite consciously casting yourself as someone seeking to inhibit the candid expression of people's disagreements, and the stuff about sexual harassment and "jihad" is just you pretending to be some kind of self-anointed Other-People's-Discourse-Annihilating Hard Nut. 🙄
I can't judge what I do not know.
Originally posted by FMFwas empathy not in the genes of your mother...
Well perhaps, in some weird way, [i\'not knowing anything while pretending not to judge' [/i]is exactly why you are quite consciously casting yourself as someone seeking to inhibit the candid expression of people's disagreements, and the stuff about sexual harassment and "jihad" is just you pretending to be some kind of self-anointed Other-People's-Discourse-Annihilating Hard Nut. 🙄
Originally posted by Executioner BrandYou're reaching a wee bit too pretentiously I think. My dear mother would be just as unimpressed with Suzianne's hypocritical antics as probably most other neutral outsiders looking in on what's been going on here for years.
was empathy not in the genes of your mother...
The contention made by two, and supported by a couple of others, is that a certain PM contained "abusive and threatening" language, and was an abuse of the private messaging facility.
A half dozen or so others disagree.
As I see it the PM in question contained one four word line that on the surface looks like a threat, but was only a concluding comment made that expressed an idea rather than an actual real threat.
The body of the PM was an expression of frustration, anger, resentment and resignation. It was an admission of defeat. I fully empathize with the feelings expressed. The last line was only meant to convey the sentiment expressed as an idea, and not a literal threat of violence. The consensus is that most posters here would agree with that conclusion.
I would contend that the sharing of this particular PM, based on the reasons given by the receiver, which are unsubstantiated, constitutes an abuse of the private messaging facility, and an abuse of an implied trust.
On the other hand, if a PM contained a literal threat such as, "I know who you are and where you live, and I'm going to come after you and beat you to a pulp", then it's an open game. No one could then object to the receiver of such a threat exposing the sender.
But this whole matter is obtuse in the extreme anyway given the fact that folks around here seem to enjoy the game of belittling one another all the time just the same.
So, so what? Who cares? Turn the page. Have a nice day. Love you all. 🙂
Originally posted by josephwJosephw,
The contention made by two, and supported by a couple of others, is that a certain PM contained "abusive and threatening" language, and was an abuse of the private messaging facility.
A half dozen or so others disagree.
As I see it the PM in question contained one four word line that on the surface looks like a threat, but was only a concluding commen ...[text shortened]... time just the same.
So, so what? Who cares? Turn the page. Have a nice day. Love you all. 🙂
I thought that was very well put and the sentiment shared my many in this forum!!!
Have a Very Merry Christmas by the way, if you don't celebrate it, then Happy Holidays to you.
Kind Regards,
-VR