|
In Reply to: Didn't mean it that way posted by WC on September 08, 2003 at 18:09:20:
I think you said that to trivialize the points I've had the opportunity to make.
Let's work on this a bit....
"I just tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to voice in an uninflammatory manner, the way it seems to me. You had said the reason you brought this up at all was because your name was mentioned. Then you said you brought it up because you wanted to set the record straight. Then you just said right now you'd speak up whenever you felt misprepresented"
You make it sound like I kept changing my mind, when that was, in fact, all part of the same thing. Sam brought my name up, and misrepresented the facts all in one message.
"So in response to that I was asking if you didn't notice that you have been more than just replying to your name being brought up, or facts being misrepresented; and if you noticed you were initiating and re-initiating the subject constantly, not allowing anyone to diverge from the theme of how you were right about Sam 1 year ago, and how you were wronged by "this board" already then and even now and want to make a case for it. "
So what? What did you think would happen when you put up a discussion board? Perhaps there might be discussions? This kind of thing lives and breathes and changes with each new post. Action/Reaction. I wasn't just posting a chain of messages to myself.
"I don't know if perhaps the answer may be in your love for conflict?"
I guess I'm the only person in this thread that loves conflict, right? Again, I'm not just posting a bunch of replies to myself here, WC. Look around.
"Maybe you'll consider that another provocation, but it's just not my thing to keep conflict alive, when the fundamental parts of the issue are settled, or no new points are made, just to go on and on about it. "
This isn't a good example of that. I pulled off. And I come back and there is one more snide remark, and I'm just supposed to let it slide? What, am I supposed to be the better person in all this, and just sit and silently accept it?
"I don't know if this is a communication problem. Perhaps you don't feel anything has been settled, for lack of exFamily.org representatives jumping in and agreeing with you?"
I don't think that you have to agree with me. I do think that when you go out of your way to make my concerns appear trivial by reducing them to "I told you so", that you have to be prepared to hear, once again, why I think that it is not trivial.
