|
In Reply to: Re: Didn't mean it that way posted by Joseph on September 08, 2003 at 19:38:24:
"I think you said that to trivialize the points I've had the opportunity to make."
A question of relative perspectives. Mine is that you are overdoing it, so in meeting, yours is that I am trivializing it?
There was no malice or calculated debate strategies involved - could you give me the benefit of the doubt?
"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."
Again, a question of perpectives. The threads speak for themselves. When I look at them again, it still seems to me that you were bringing this up plenty, all on your own without additional provocation, just to make points that were already made. I'm sure you look at them differently.
"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."
No fear of discussions, at all. Action/Reaction is one thing, but in my perspecpective it is more on the monotonous side, when you are looking for opportunities to repeat the same points. Some of your "opportunities" to reinforce points you've already made were unwarranted, IMO. After a certain point, it makes for a dead and dull board rather than a live one.
While I understand what you have said on the matter before may have been deleted, as part of a complex series of threads dealing with a sensitive subject that had to be removed; what you've said this time around is already on record here.
Some discussions are beyond the scope of this board. When you make it personal - and by that I mean that if you feel specifically wronged by members of the staff here, it is personal, and you do push buttons for reactions - it doesn't belong on this board. You can always email individual members of the staff about your concerns.
"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."
Fair enough, if you felt I went out of my way to trivialize your concerns.
However, I agree with the concerns you are bringing up, and even with why you think they are not trivial. So the problem isn't there.
Sometimes we may disagree on whether something is more on the "trivial" side or the "serious" side of the continuum. Sometimes it's not even that we're disagreeing, but that we don't see the same need to discuss things in a certain tone, theme or format.
IMO, you have a lot of important points to make, and a lot of experience and knowlege to offer. If anything trivializes an important discussion, it's when you make it personal and say things such as: at the time of that incident, exFamily.org staff were all too busy trying to look for ways to blame you - the fact is we were all shocked by what was going on and had a really bad situation on our hands that we couldn't fix. It's trivial when you keep repeating that you already said such and such 1 year ago (and insinuate nobody agreed with you whatsoever when you were absolutely right). It's trivial when you create a major point of contention where there appears to be none.
I am not ignoring the fact that individual members of the staff had/have points of disagreements with you 1 year ago or today. I do however think you could stay focused on the topics actually being discussed, without slipping in digs and insinuations to elicit reactions - like the staff as a whole are/were in full agreement (if you only knew about the disagreements we can have!) to support Sam no matter what, etc, etc.
You know, I keep saying that I think you have important points to make, and I do enjoy hearing your perspective. Somehow though, that isn't getting across and you seem to think that I am attempting to censor or marginalize you.
I think we've said enough for now, but I'm sure I've said plenty to offend you again, so you can have the last word. ;-)
