Splinter: Shorty's tantrum and related posts
- Thread starter shorty_37
- Start date
- Status
ok, so in that regards let's do away with MODS because obviously, they ahve done they're bit by adding the ignore button!
mods, are there to hold back any arguements but some of them here, enjoy the fighting, THAT IS YOUR CHOICE!!
you are suppose to hold of or ward of any nasty feelings in threads, but i guess it only works for some mods!
I fail to see what that has to do with using the ignore button to avoid PMs from people you do not like.
Do you want to receive PMs from people you don't like?
my point exactly, you interfere with things that quite frankly have nothing to do with you
yes i know it is, but you are a mod, and you should god forbid shall i say MODERATE!!
I did, I told her to use the ignore button.
the audience? Is that what this is about? Is this why you won't PM me to work it out?
If I sent anyone a PM that offended you, it is never anyones fault but mine. Not Sandy's, but mine. Its my PM, I have ownership of it.
Mod Hat - Notes Around
Mod Hat — Notes Around
Okay, just a couple of notes:
Sandy, I realize that you were invited to this dance by proxy of being used as a club by one participant against another, however ... if, as you say in #53, you are done discussing anything with Shorty, speaking about her in a provocative manner, as you did in #56 isn't really helpful.
Shorty, it's not so much that nobody's saying anything about Orleander's behavior, but in this particular case, there's just not much to say. To the other, your focus on Orleander has been specific. You regarded attempts to address issues pertaining to the right to pass judgment and the presupposition of the worst (e.g., guilty until proven innocent) as being specifically about Orleander. In truth, I simply found the proposition that anyone owed information to those determined to judge them poorly absurd.
At present, you remind me of an episode that, for some reason, I still have a memory of. Hell, my brother and I couldn't have been more than eleven or twelve, but I apparently did something that pissed him off. Whatever the offense, my mother didn't see things the same way. She asked, "What am I supposed to do?" and my brother shouted, "Just ... get him in trouble!" Maybe it's the strangeness of the sentence that makes it stick in my mind after all these years. I mean, this wasn't like the time I accidentally caught him with the metal end on a sewing tape, or the time he accidentally put my tooth through my lip. This was ... well, that's just it. I don't remember what had him so agitated.
Yet, it's what comes to mind. He just wanted her to be angry with me, because that was, at that moment, how he defined fair.
And as to the private messages you posted, you do realize you shot yourself in the foot by doing so? No matter how tasteless or juvenile the messages were, publicizing and hollering about them was your chosen method. Apparently you didn't get the response you wanted. And let me make one point clear: it's not out of any particular love for Orleander, but rather because many people find this whole dispute childish.
Enmos, you do realize, don't you, that you're not helping? As to the alleged private message, I think we should wait until Shorty provides some better evidence about the one from "only this week". There's more to the story than you realize, which is why it's so important that Shorty back her claim if she intends this aspect of the dispute to be judged in the court of public opinion.
Additionally, your question about insult and ignore is dubiously founded. These two have a long-running dispute between them, and in this case Shorty chose to play the aggressor. This particular round could have been avoided if Shorty hadn't gone out of her way to pick it.
Now, as to the history of insults and ignore, part of the problem is that these two won't simply let it go and put each other on ignore. Quite frankly, since neither of them will take the high road, our sympathies are dwindling. There are plenty of long-running rivalries around this site. And I should know; I am and have been tangled up in more of them than most. But this particular dispute has become incredibly juvenile. The accusations flying openly back and forth and being whispered in our ears are the kind of thing we would have hoped to outgrow by high school.
Lucifers Angel, there is only so much we can do. I mean, I'm tempted to send them back to their corners and order them to ignore one another. And while your point might appear to make a certain amount of sense in specific consideration of this dispute, it is, simply, impractical as a general rule. It's amazing what offends some people.
If one or the other of these members would take some kind of high road in general, it would make it easier for us to draw lines in the sand.
Additionally, moderators are left to their discretion. Sometimes they don't see the same degree of offense as you might. Sometimes they just let it run in hopes that it will iron itself out. Sometimes ... who knows? In this case, for instance, I made the splinter topic for two reasons. First, I wasn't about to dump Bells' valiant and perspicacious efforts. She tried very hard to communicate with distressed members about the issues in question. Secondly, Shorty, obviously, feels slighted in this situation. Maybe if I let her fume and work out some of that vitriol ... well, maybe something positive will come from it. Eventually, this topic, from the valiant and perspicacious to the dishonest, juvenile, and downright nasty, will eventually be locked up and either sent off to the Cesspool to be forgotten or buried in the EM&J archives as an example of, well, something.
And, for the record, forum-specific moderators such as S.A.M., Bells, and me can only do so much when operating outside our jurisdiction. In this case, it's my jurisdiction, and I am grateful to S.A.M. and Bells for both their input and their restraint.
John99, if this is a case where they like each other and can't admit it, I know what to say about it: "Just get a room and give the rest of us some peace!"
Neildo, part of taking the high road is to ignore the side discussions, too. If more people would use their ignore button and offer us some rational perspective about what they see, we would be better positioned to figure out what to do about that kind of indirect exposure.
Mod Hat — Notes Around
Okay, just a couple of notes:
Sandy, I realize that you were invited to this dance by proxy of being used as a club by one participant against another, however ... if, as you say in #53, you are done discussing anything with Shorty, speaking about her in a provocative manner, as you did in #56 isn't really helpful.
• • •
Shorty, it's not so much that nobody's saying anything about Orleander's behavior, but in this particular case, there's just not much to say. To the other, your focus on Orleander has been specific. You regarded attempts to address issues pertaining to the right to pass judgment and the presupposition of the worst (e.g., guilty until proven innocent) as being specifically about Orleander. In truth, I simply found the proposition that anyone owed information to those determined to judge them poorly absurd.
At present, you remind me of an episode that, for some reason, I still have a memory of. Hell, my brother and I couldn't have been more than eleven or twelve, but I apparently did something that pissed him off. Whatever the offense, my mother didn't see things the same way. She asked, "What am I supposed to do?" and my brother shouted, "Just ... get him in trouble!" Maybe it's the strangeness of the sentence that makes it stick in my mind after all these years. I mean, this wasn't like the time I accidentally caught him with the metal end on a sewing tape, or the time he accidentally put my tooth through my lip. This was ... well, that's just it. I don't remember what had him so agitated.
Yet, it's what comes to mind. He just wanted her to be angry with me, because that was, at that moment, how he defined fair.
And as to the private messages you posted, you do realize you shot yourself in the foot by doing so? No matter how tasteless or juvenile the messages were, publicizing and hollering about them was your chosen method. Apparently you didn't get the response you wanted. And let me make one point clear: it's not out of any particular love for Orleander, but rather because many people find this whole dispute childish.
• • •
Enmos, you do realize, don't you, that you're not helping? As to the alleged private message, I think we should wait until Shorty provides some better evidence about the one from "only this week". There's more to the story than you realize, which is why it's so important that Shorty back her claim if she intends this aspect of the dispute to be judged in the court of public opinion.
Additionally, your question about insult and ignore is dubiously founded. These two have a long-running dispute between them, and in this case Shorty chose to play the aggressor. This particular round could have been avoided if Shorty hadn't gone out of her way to pick it.
Now, as to the history of insults and ignore, part of the problem is that these two won't simply let it go and put each other on ignore. Quite frankly, since neither of them will take the high road, our sympathies are dwindling. There are plenty of long-running rivalries around this site. And I should know; I am and have been tangled up in more of them than most. But this particular dispute has become incredibly juvenile. The accusations flying openly back and forth and being whispered in our ears are the kind of thing we would have hoped to outgrow by high school.
• • •
Lucifers Angel, there is only so much we can do. I mean, I'm tempted to send them back to their corners and order them to ignore one another. And while your point might appear to make a certain amount of sense in specific consideration of this dispute, it is, simply, impractical as a general rule. It's amazing what offends some people.
If one or the other of these members would take some kind of high road in general, it would make it easier for us to draw lines in the sand.
Additionally, moderators are left to their discretion. Sometimes they don't see the same degree of offense as you might. Sometimes they just let it run in hopes that it will iron itself out. Sometimes ... who knows? In this case, for instance, I made the splinter topic for two reasons. First, I wasn't about to dump Bells' valiant and perspicacious efforts. She tried very hard to communicate with distressed members about the issues in question. Secondly, Shorty, obviously, feels slighted in this situation. Maybe if I let her fume and work out some of that vitriol ... well, maybe something positive will come from it. Eventually, this topic, from the valiant and perspicacious to the dishonest, juvenile, and downright nasty, will eventually be locked up and either sent off to the Cesspool to be forgotten or buried in the EM&J archives as an example of, well, something.
And, for the record, forum-specific moderators such as S.A.M., Bells, and me can only do so much when operating outside our jurisdiction. In this case, it's my jurisdiction, and I am grateful to S.A.M. and Bells for both their input and their restraint.
• • •
John99, if this is a case where they like each other and can't admit it, I know what to say about it: "Just get a room and give the rest of us some peace!"
• • •
Neildo, part of taking the high road is to ignore the side discussions, too. If more people would use their ignore button and offer us some rational perspective about what they see, we would be better positioned to figure out what to do about that kind of indirect exposure.
Mod Hat - Generally speaking
Mod Hat — Generally speaking
Generally speaking, it's sort of a joke among men that when we see a catfight, we won't stop it. In fact, if we happen to have any baby oil, we'll start squirting it all over the combatants. This, of course, is not helpful. To be less sexist about it, there is a reason the fire department does not squirt lighter fluid onto a burning house.
Like I advised LA above, there are a couple of reasons I created this splinter. Obviously, there are some issues that need to be hashed out. And no, I don't expect much to be solved here. But if we continue to stoke the fire, there really is no point at all to letting this discussion go on. I keep hoping that someone puts up a coherent argument. And that isn't limited to Shorty, although she has the largest stake in this topic. On that note, it's worth pointing out that, while she never would provide me with links to make her point, she was happy enough to post links in order to take swings at Sandy.
I will use myself as an example, see #1760026/75:
Some people seem to think I actually enjoy making posts like that. It's not particularly fun, but it's part of the argument. While Shorty, for instance, may have chosen sarcasm—
—the one thing I can say is that there should be no doubt about how I'm seeing the discussion. That paragraph is just part of my explanation why I wasn't accepting a member's explanation of his position. For the record, I've also corrected a typo, having listed #27 as #7, and that's a problem that isn't fun to deal with, either. But it's a far better option than a "did not/did too" or "am not/are too" argument. Faced with that summary and perspective, the member apparently decided it wasn't worth pursuing the point and turned to flinging raw sewage. Having stooped that far and looking at having to acknowledge that fact, he decided to drop it.
So even though Shorty was left denouncing "all the LONG POSTS of BS", the one thing there was no question about was how I perceived the state of the discussion. To the other, while it was important enough for her to complain about Orleander, it was apparently too much to expect that she would make her point clearly.
In my experience, when I've tracked back through old posts to figure out what people are talking about, I've found that the summaries given me by the breathlessly-angry and hopelessly-offended tend to be inaccurate. Not necessarily in the sense of outright lies, but we all tend to make certain mistakes when rushing furiously to wrathful judgment.
Slowing down and picking through the posts that disturbed, upset, unsettled, or pissed me off has helped me avoid some of these errors. Perhaps one might dispute my interpretation of a given point, but, hey, there is the reference for them to see.
It really does help us understand what people are talking about, especially when it is a vague complaint like, "I get told all the time that it is ME who is always talking about my personal life and if I do be prepared to hear whatever anybody wants to say about it." Because when we're asked, "So why is it different for her?" the first question to mind is, "Well, what are the circumstances involved?"
Take, for instance, Shorty's question at the end of the above-linked post: "Btw: Why are most of the posts being deleted?"
That post was originally stamped at 7:07 PM (Pacific Standard Time) on Thursday, and edited at 7:20. Two off-topic posts were deleted on Thursday afternoon, and three more from one member had been deleted variously for flaming (two posts) and whining about the flames being deleted (one post). Add to that the four off-topic posts that were deleted on Wednesday, and that hardly constitutes "most of the posts".
In other words, the questions put before us are not always reflective of the realities they purport to represent. The more colloquial the question and more complicated the history invoked (e.g., "So why is it different for her?"), the harder it is for us to figure out what people are talking about.
No, you don't have to embed the links like I do, but the more organized the complaint, the easier it is for us to follow. Raw links as endnotes are a bit easier for the poster, a bit tougher on the reader, but still sufficient. Really, it depends on how much you're trying to document.
Mod Hat — Generally speaking
Generally speaking, it's sort of a joke among men that when we see a catfight, we won't stop it. In fact, if we happen to have any baby oil, we'll start squirting it all over the combatants. This, of course, is not helpful. To be less sexist about it, there is a reason the fire department does not squirt lighter fluid onto a burning house.
Like I advised LA above, there are a couple of reasons I created this splinter. Obviously, there are some issues that need to be hashed out. And no, I don't expect much to be solved here. But if we continue to stoke the fire, there really is no point at all to letting this discussion go on. I keep hoping that someone puts up a coherent argument. And that isn't limited to Shorty, although she has the largest stake in this topic. On that note, it's worth pointing out that, while she never would provide me with links to make her point, she was happy enough to post links in order to take swings at Sandy.
I will use myself as an example, see #1760026/75:
Tiassa said:
Some people seem to think I actually enjoy making posts like that. It's not particularly fun, but it's part of the argument. While Shorty, for instance, may have chosen sarcasm—
"Holy crap Tiassa, Is that post above long enough????? I think we all know what we posted 
"
"—the one thing I can say is that there should be no doubt about how I'm seeing the discussion. That paragraph is just part of my explanation why I wasn't accepting a member's explanation of his position. For the record, I've also corrected a typo, having listed #27 as #7, and that's a problem that isn't fun to deal with, either. But it's a far better option than a "did not/did too" or "am not/are too" argument. Faced with that summary and perspective, the member apparently decided it wasn't worth pursuing the point and turned to flinging raw sewage. Having stooped that far and looking at having to acknowledge that fact, he decided to drop it.
So even though Shorty was left denouncing "all the LONG POSTS of BS", the one thing there was no question about was how I perceived the state of the discussion. To the other, while it was important enough for her to complain about Orleander, it was apparently too much to expect that she would make her point clearly.
In my experience, when I've tracked back through old posts to figure out what people are talking about, I've found that the summaries given me by the breathlessly-angry and hopelessly-offended tend to be inaccurate. Not necessarily in the sense of outright lies, but we all tend to make certain mistakes when rushing furiously to wrathful judgment.
Slowing down and picking through the posts that disturbed, upset, unsettled, or pissed me off has helped me avoid some of these errors. Perhaps one might dispute my interpretation of a given point, but, hey, there is the reference for them to see.
It really does help us understand what people are talking about, especially when it is a vague complaint like, "I get told all the time that it is ME who is always talking about my personal life and if I do be prepared to hear whatever anybody wants to say about it." Because when we're asked, "So why is it different for her?" the first question to mind is, "Well, what are the circumstances involved?"
Take, for instance, Shorty's question at the end of the above-linked post: "Btw: Why are most of the posts being deleted?"
That post was originally stamped at 7:07 PM (Pacific Standard Time) on Thursday, and edited at 7:20. Two off-topic posts were deleted on Thursday afternoon, and three more from one member had been deleted variously for flaming (two posts) and whining about the flames being deleted (one post). Add to that the four off-topic posts that were deleted on Wednesday, and that hardly constitutes "most of the posts".
In other words, the questions put before us are not always reflective of the realities they purport to represent. The more colloquial the question and more complicated the history invoked (e.g., "So why is it different for her?"), the harder it is for us to figure out what people are talking about.
No, you don't have to embed the links like I do, but the more organized the complaint, the easier it is for us to follow. Raw links as endnotes are a bit easier for the poster, a bit tougher on the reader, but still sufficient. Really, it depends on how much you're trying to document.
Well I ask you one simple question, which I have asked many times before. I have asked you many times to please stop sending me provoking pms. Why do you still continue?
Also why are you involving Sandy in them as well now? Glad to see you aren't denying the recent one you sent me.
Tiassa, I am done with you! Take a break from all that typing
This whole thing started because I asked a question in the divorce thread. Then I got beaten down fromsome mods for asking a questions other members even asked. It had nothing to do with Orleander. YOU made it into that accusing me
of alternative motives for asking the question. Which I explained I didn't. That wasn't good enough you went on to call me dishonest
and a liar. You especially turned this whole thing into something between me and Orleander more than it ever was, by making all kinds of
accusations about what was being said in the divorce thread. I refuse to answer you anymore tiassa, I have done so enough.
Btw: I don't really need to post the recent Pm do I tiassa, since both Orleander and Sandy have not denied it. I think that is proof enough.
I would really like an answer from Orleander why she still continues sending them, it is not a hard question.
Last edited:
- Status