(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Honestly I wasn't; I didn't want to misquote and she'd removed the post. 'Still in love with me
an expression of strong feelings is it not?
Can we not split hairs?
I suppose being as you have had little experience of me and my capabilities/conduct where proper argumentation is concerned you cannot be expected to give me too much credit..
I often flag others for misrepresentation, and assure that you that I would not deliberately go about it myself when I see it as a cheap/deflective tactic, criticise others for it, and know only too well how easy it is to spot
I honestly don't see how I've referred to it as pertinent, the nuts of the bolts of the issue are what matter here. The message concerning the words upon which my comments are based remains the same, however we paraphrase them, and the facts of the matter remain the same re: point addressed in my last PM concerning contextual suppositions relating to 'drama' and 'boastfulness'
One can be ill informed but still be open to criticism for making rash judgements + issuing related statements without being in possession of all of the facts/seeking to quiz/investigate to better ascertain the facts. No contradiction there
If you genuinely believe this then please see the following for reference:
I'm sure if she didn't feel as got-at she might have done, she's a pretty humble, and if anything overly apologetic/conflict averse person. I wouldn't expect
anyone to hold their hand up when they haven't, in fact
, done anything particularly wrong though. The only person I'd expect to do that is..
..he died for our sins, so she wouldn't have to
She said she couldn't especially appreciate how she, as you put it: "did indeed come across as quite boastful
" ~ (the bolded makes it sound far too categorical). That is not to say that she could not conceive of a way in which she might have come across as quite boastful to those 1) Supposing
that her OP came from an overly dramatic/queen-of-me
place; and/or 2) Taking her totally seriously
in subsequent posts
Would you feel the same way about stoning someone? Or about carbon footprints?
Ethics reach a higher level than plausible deniability re: individual actions vs. their wider, contextual, ramifications; you seem both smart, and decent, enough to realise that, and to take it on board
She was also told to shut up in quite an aggressive and derogatory manner by the guy who was banned
Oh dear. I don't need to score points, nor would I cheapen myself/castrate myself/devalue my soul by doing so; for me this is an ethical matter
I smite dragons whether fair maidens thank me for it or not
(the 'dragons' are metaphorical you understand
although perhaps not in the case of tartan, she certainly behaved like a reptilian beast with a sore head breathing fire!)
Uneccessarily? We are not the arbiters of what is necessary, on this, reasonably
I acknowledge that she left herself open to criticism by posting something which could be interpreted as queen-of-me
, and probably (unwittingly) stoked the flames with her lighthearted reposts
The antipathy in some of the subsequent rhetoric was not justifiable however, and I stand by the notion that one cannot not substantiate claims on a persons character with such little information, let alone when said information is far from cut and dry
As I alluded to in my original response, I don't do queues anyway so don't you worry about such things