I wouldn't call that inconsistent. They're entirely different circumstances with entirely different social norms. Car rides are pretty much automatic ice breakers, since they're close quarters and long duration. You don't have control over your socialization, and you recognize this, so it's not as apprehensive.Octavius wrote:It's kind of funny, really. I had a nice conversation with my counselor this morning about how I tend to allow myself to distract myself with little things in order to give myself excuses not to interact with people, in fear that I might generate awkwardness or conflict. And also that I apply that refusal to socialize inconsistently. Like, for example, riding in some stranger's car to go dig up fossils an hour away from Albany on Saturday morning, but being fundamentally uncomfortable entering a small room to go hang out and chit-chat with people on campus.
ART21
Moderator: Octavius
Re: ART21
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
Re: ART21
Yeah, but a small room with no sense of when it would be appropriate or not appropriate to leave has that same sort of close quarters, long duration feeling.
Re: ART21
I don't see any evidence to support your theories about your own behaviour you outline above. This seems to stem from your overreacting. My kind of humour is one in which me and my friends poke fun at eachother, and of course at ourselves. You were the one who, after I pointed out slightly tongue in cheek that you sounded bitter, then launched a tirade of drivel about how I contributed nothing to the show, was very unfunny, followed up by some conjecture I didn't quite follow about how this quite naturally meant that in real life I 'take advantage of people's politeness in order to be abrasive'. There was no pressing need to do that, and looking back at what you've just written I have no remorse about writing my first response to you, which I originally felt a little bad about having to do.
My past experience talking to you over the past few years gives me absolutely no reason to believe any of the absurd levels of self-aggrandisement you've just reached. You're reasonable enough to admit that you're human and slip up from time to time, yet you seem to only apply that principle to yourself. The rest of us are too, yet instead of extending the capability of an honest mistake to me, you prefer, as you put it, 'the latter route'.
It's simple enough to accuse me of being an 'arrogant shithead' (interestingly after assuring me that you don't resort to ad-hominem attacks), but maybe you should think a little more about why somebody feel that the only way they can address you is through condescension. Sure, I was a little abrasive when I joined ART last night, but I felt I had to be. It was wrong of me and wasn't constructive, sure, but I feel that's always been the way you've addressed me from the start, so I started talking to you back in kind and you didn't like it.
You didn't like it at all.
I think there is probably a more level-headed and constructive way to deal with this than what this argument is becoming, in any case.
My past experience talking to you over the past few years gives me absolutely no reason to believe any of the absurd levels of self-aggrandisement you've just reached. You're reasonable enough to admit that you're human and slip up from time to time, yet you seem to only apply that principle to yourself. The rest of us are too, yet instead of extending the capability of an honest mistake to me, you prefer, as you put it, 'the latter route'.
It's simple enough to accuse me of being an 'arrogant shithead' (interestingly after assuring me that you don't resort to ad-hominem attacks), but maybe you should think a little more about why somebody feel that the only way they can address you is through condescension. Sure, I was a little abrasive when I joined ART last night, but I felt I had to be. It was wrong of me and wasn't constructive, sure, but I feel that's always been the way you've addressed me from the start, so I started talking to you back in kind and you didn't like it.
You didn't like it at all.
I'm really not willing to personalise this to the degree you seem to want to, but perhaps you should consider, since that part of your post was entirely reasonable and understandable, that I did not mean quite the disgusting levels of offence you have obviously taken on board from our talk on ART. If you say you're sensible enough to acknowledge personality flaws in yourself, then perhaps you can extend that to others rather than seeing their honest mistakes or hiccups as personally directed abuse.I am under no delusions that I'm a righteous being of great importance. I'm somebody who is bored enough who enjoys making a 45-minute online radio show to entertain a very small group of people. I probably had more fun making the art for this ART than I made making the ART for that art (I had so much fun at it, that I'll probably do it in the future). I am perfectly willing to acknowledge personality flaws and make efforts to correct them.
I think there is probably a more level-headed and constructive way to deal with this than what this argument is becoming, in any case.
Re: ART21
Reading for comprehension!or because they have already taken that route with me and I figure "well, they've checked out of the reasoned discussion, I might as well too".
You repeatedly talked over people, even to the point of making incoherent sounds, resulting in the other person stopping so that you could say something. That's something I don't have to deal with when editing other people's speech. When dealing with others, in an instant when two people started talking at once, they both stop, and then, in an awkward yet endearing way, try to negotiate who goes first through a series of false starts until somebody bowed out to let the other person go. All stuff that can cleanly be edited out. One person constantly repeating a nonsense syllable while someone else talks means I throw out what that person said, because the interference means that the person talking can't be understood.
EDIT: Having had the chance to take a step back and reread my "Bitter" post, I do realize it went further than it should have. Then again, so did the tit-for-tat about the stupid legos. The thing I was trying to convey there was that I may have come off as bitter, but there was a reason for it, and the way you were approaching it more or less completely pissed me off. I mean really, it was the kind of snide commenting that makes me want to avoid reading Youtube comments. I think I got more carried away the less I actually gave a damn about where the conversation was going.
Re: ART21
I direct you to the following paragraph of my last post in this thread.
So, what I am to take on board from this, it would seem, is that because I spoke over a few people on a micronational radio show, I am a bad human being.
The exact aim of this argument is beginning to elude me, because it sure as hell isn't reconciliation or resolving the problem.
A worse person that me would even entertain the idea that you thrive off conflict. A worse person than me, that is.
I've even italicised the most relevant sentence for you.I'm really not willing to personalise this to the degree you seem to want to, but perhaps you should consider, since that part of your post was entirely reasonable and understandable, that I did not mean quite the disgusting levels of offence you have obviously taken on board from our talk on ART. If you say you're sensible enough to acknowledge personality flaws in yourself, then perhaps you can extend that to others rather than seeing their honest mistakes or hiccups as personally directed abuse.
So, what I am to take on board from this, it would seem, is that because I spoke over a few people on a micronational radio show, I am a bad human being.
The exact aim of this argument is beginning to elude me, because it sure as hell isn't reconciliation or resolving the problem.
A worse person that me would even entertain the idea that you thrive off conflict. A worse person than me, that is.
Re: ART21
The arrogant shithead stuff was more to do with how I perceived your conduct in this thread. And that thread a few weeks ago in Shireroth. And the Laqi thing.
See, it's that business right there! You're going ahead and saying it, but then hiding behind the notion that you're not actually saying it. What is up with that?A worse person that me would even entertain the idea that you thrive off conflict. A worse person than me, that is.
Re: ART21
Well, let's entertain the possibility that I am saying it. I assume that would be less irritating.
What will you do to prove me wrong? Nothing. Having established that I'm an arrogant dickhead, what are you going to do to show everybody quite how much better you are? Nothing.
You've made it amply clear you have absolutely no interest in reaching any kind of mutual understanding or improving the situation. Until you show an iota of commitment to doing so, I fail to see how you can try and cast yourself as the moral authority on good behaviour and getting along with others in this thread.
If I'm condescending you, it's because I have very few other options left at the moment.
What will you do to prove me wrong? Nothing. Having established that I'm an arrogant dickhead, what are you going to do to show everybody quite how much better you are? Nothing.
You've made it amply clear you have absolutely no interest in reaching any kind of mutual understanding or improving the situation. Until you show an iota of commitment to doing so, I fail to see how you can try and cast yourself as the moral authority on good behaviour and getting along with others in this thread.
If I'm condescending you, it's because I have very few other options left at the moment.
Re: ART21
You entered the conversation with that tone, and dialed it higher when I responded negatively towards it.
And again, you're muddling the two issues. My opinion of your conduct is allowed to exist independent of my opinion of my own conduct. I already think I've done a poor job at this, and I have no intention of trying to cast myself as someone inherently better, and I don't see why I need to, especially after my poor performance. My intention is to do better next time.
And again, you're muddling the two issues. My opinion of your conduct is allowed to exist independent of my opinion of my own conduct. I already think I've done a poor job at this, and I have no intention of trying to cast myself as someone inherently better, and I don't see why I need to, especially after my poor performance. My intention is to do better next time.
Re: ART21
Hey, man, like I said, I don't really care about how someone else calls them. The only aspect I don't particularly enjoy is when someone tries to browbeat me because I said something wrong and should be mocked for it. Which led to me doing a "well actually" in the promo post where I gave a dictionary citation indicating that "legos" is an observed usage. The response to which involved some sort of weird prescriptivist position that words can't evolve, or something. Which I responded to in the usual Prescriptivist/Descriptivist tack that Linguistics has to deal with, and chose to equate this particular instance to other instances where brand names can colloquially replace the common noun they represent. Which was mocked for taking it too seriously, for some reason.
But apparently, I'm also not allowed to make snarky comments about an over-used, overly drawn out gag, which offended Max here and caused a big explosion of RAGE, or something.
But apparently, I'm also not allowed to make snarky comments about an over-used, overly drawn out gag, which offended Max here and caused a big explosion of RAGE, or something.
Re: ART21
Chris, this is getting ridiculous. You're actually vain enough to believe the only reason somebody could change their tone is for fear of your wrath, your distaste? As for muddling, my point was that I've extended some kind of offer of understanding. I've also apologised to you for what insult I caused for you on ART. You have done nothing constructive to respond in a similar vein. Yet you still wonder why I feel I have to be abrasive and condescending towards you.
The only positive thing I can take home from this is that there's a next time.
Unless of course, by next time, you mean another argument like this, without any goal or even piecemeal attempt to reach some kind of agreement.
As for snark, let's remember that you were the one who started this argument because you accused me of offending you, not the other way round. Let's not be disingenuous.
I was right- you do thrive off conflict.
Thrive away for another couple of minutes, because to deny you the pleasure- and I begin suspect there is a little in this for you- I'm ending this here.
The only positive thing I can take home from this is that there's a next time.
Unless of course, by next time, you mean another argument like this, without any goal or even piecemeal attempt to reach some kind of agreement.
And again we come back to square one. Lego. Is your shell really so thin that you can't take a little light-hearted fun at your expense? The point of the matter is that IT WASN'T A FUCKING VENUE FOR A PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE LINGUISTICS OF LEGO (all caps for emphasis, you still don't seem to have understood). It was a joke. I'm used to Americans mocking me for my accent, and at times I find it quite amusing. For somebody who runs a Radio Show you really are a delicate creature, aren't you?The only aspect I don't particularly enjoy is when someone tries to browbeat me because I said something wrong and should be mocked for it.
As for snark, let's remember that you were the one who started this argument because you accused me of offending you, not the other way round. Let's not be disingenuous.
I was right- you do thrive off conflict.
Thrive away for another couple of minutes, because to deny you the pleasure- and I begin suspect there is a little in this for you- I'm ending this here.
Re: ART21
Probably. Like I said, I now regret the overly-inflammatory post I had made in response to Max's dismissive condescension. The only reason I didn't delete it was that, at the time, I was annoyed at Max's continued use of that tone, which added onto the annoying buzzkill I had in making a coherent 45 minutes, which required listening to an over-used, overly drawn out gag at least a couple more times as I scanned through the raw audio for usable material. And by the time I changed my mind on the appropriateness of that post, people had already seen it, and I couldn't exactly delete it at that point.Emir of Raspur wrote:So the moral of the story is that you can't win?
I mean, I've already said that I went too far and that I intend to avoid future occurrences of it. Max chooses instead to react to words that he himself puts into my mouth, and then walk away like he's a smooth operator. I like how I can't even summarize events without Max deciding that I'm not capable of dropping the whole thing, and that I thrive off conflict when I respond to him in similar tone that he used towards me. I'm not sure I ever even picked anything up, other than doing a 1-minute search on dictionary.com and appending it to the end of a post.
Re: ART21
I don't care about the LEGO thing. I'm starting to get this Kafkaesque feeling that when I say that, people think I mean the opposite.
Re: ART21
I feel that Chris should stop building his pedestal, which he is now hastily attempting to reconstruct now that it has become clear to him that other people he respects are interested in the argument. A joy to watch, and also rather predictable.
I offered Chrim an apology and went halfway to trying to walk away without some kind of resentment, or at least not much. He has made no response in kind, nor even accepted nor acknowledged my apology or attempts to improve the situation. That is the reason I am now frustrated, as much as he will try and portray it otherwise. It's that simple.
I will now walk away, not like I'm a smooth operator (putting words in mouths, was I believe mentioned?)- in fact, as I've admitted on several occasions on this thread, I don't think I am by any means. But at least I can walk away knowing that I've offered Chris an apology and tried to resolve the situation, but he's shown no interest. Whatsoever.
I offered Chrim an apology and went halfway to trying to walk away without some kind of resentment, or at least not much. He has made no response in kind, nor even accepted nor acknowledged my apology or attempts to improve the situation. That is the reason I am now frustrated, as much as he will try and portray it otherwise. It's that simple.
I will now walk away, not like I'm a smooth operator (putting words in mouths, was I believe mentioned?)- in fact, as I've admitted on several occasions on this thread, I don't think I am by any means. But at least I can walk away knowing that I've offered Chris an apology and tried to resolve the situation, but he's shown no interest. Whatsoever.
Re: ART21
Alright, seriously, I am speaking another language now, aren't I. I've already said I regret my actions. What more do you want out of me?
Re: ART21
My words exactly. I've said the same- well, a bit more, I apologised, which you haven't even acknowledged. I don't really understand why we're still trading insults. I sent a PM to you on the issue and you appear to have ignored it, so I got the impression you were focused more on having a tedious and embarrassing public argument.
Re: ART21
Chris, I don't want to take sides here, but I haven't actually seen you apologise for anything. You're the one who decided to make this personal at the start.
Kiss and make up chaps - max has already puckered his lips. I don't see you doing the same.
Kiss and make up chaps - max has already puckered his lips. I don't see you doing the same.
Re: ART21
I chose to respond to the PM in kind by dropping the angry pretense in this thread and more overtly Mea Culpaing.
EDIT: Your brother has cooties, Aster. And he has a doodoo face. Kinda like yours.
EDIT: Your brother has cooties, Aster. And he has a doodoo face. Kinda like yours.