I Rote A Paean to Myself

by Tallyman 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  COMF

  Tom,

  Hi. Sure I'm still here. Why wouldn't I be?

  All the usual reasons anybody's gone from the forum for a while.

  "maybe", "interpreted", "badly", "context", "implying", "maybe",
  "obliquely", "maybe", "?", "misunderstand", "?"

  All those- key words and symbols, KOMF.

  The key that I went by was your devoting nearly three fourths of your four-part post to me, based on that post I made. You say "maybe" in that quote, but the post as a whole has me tried and convicted before you even hear my reply... a surprising attitude, considering how it stung you when people did it with you. And I see that the pre-conviction still stands even after my assurance to you that the reference was not to that incident.

  Why did YOU bring up the internet, when Farkel and I did not talk at all about the Internet?

  I wasn't in on your conversation with Farkel. I wrote of what I knew: your posts. We were on the internet, discussing a person we know from the internet.

  He wrote nothing of the Internet or of the "Tallyman" persona.

  The Tallyman persona is all I, and anyone else who hadn't met you in person or by phone, knew of you. The Tallyman persona IS you to such people. Doug spoke of your demeanor on the phone. I remarked on its contrast with the Tallyman persona.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Where would "internet distance and invisibility"
  come into play in the confrontation between you and your brother?
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  It wouldn't.
  Of course.
  And since I have never had any "internet distance or invisibility"...
  it makes your comments all the more mysterious and oblique.

  You have the same internet distance and invisibility that everyone else on the internet has. You are in California, aren't you? Wherever you are, the one place you are not is right here beside me at my computer. And yet you and I are speaking. You are thousands of miles distant from me, and invisible to me, as you speak to me. That is internet distance and invisibility. Real names, addresses and pictures have nothing to do with it. Being out of arm's reach of the one you're addressing... that's what internet distance and invisibility is. And since you and your brother were looking at each other and were within arm's reach of each other, it's obvious that I couldn't have been referring to that incident with my words. Not that any of that matters, though... you've done found you a scapegoat now, and you're jist gonna open up a can of whupass on him fer all that people done to ya, ain'tcha.

  "others" ...read those same comments by you... and "understood" them and "interpreted" them, the same way as me.

  I thought you said that you didn't do that. Remember this?
  

  maybe", "interpreted", "badly", "context", "implying", "maybe",
  "obliquely", "maybe", "?", "misunderstand", "?"

  All those- key words and symbols, KOMF.

  
  You either did, or you didn't, Tom. Which is it?

  Why, if you are trying to remain anonymous on the Internet, and don't want your jW son finding out about your "activities"... Why In The Hell do you keep putting up your facial photograph next to every post you make... for someone to "make" you?

  I don't. I only put it up one time. The software is what keeps putting it up on every post. But, the reasons I leave it up are:
  a) I left the borg 14 years ago, and I didn't have a beard when I left. I've changed a lot since then, and people who knew me wouldn't recognize me in that picture.
  b) I don't think the picture shows enough detail for anyone to recognize me anyway. Waiting didn't know me from the picture, when we met. "So, do I look like my pic?" I asked, and she just stared at me and didn't say anything.
  c) Recognizing a picture is not the same as recognizing a name. Prisca has a picture of Sandra Bullock for her pic. I suspected that, but couldn't tell for sure until I saw her tell somebody. Too small, not enough detail. My name, now... they wouldn't have any trouble recognizing that.
  d) For that matter, they could track me down any number of ways if they wanted to find me badly enough. I'm not going to paranoid extremes to hide who I am; I'm just keeping my last name and my address to myself. It's probably possible to find those out, too, if somebody wants them badly enough. Oh, well...

  COMF
• 

  Tallyman

  KOMF,

  Hi. Sure I'm still here. Why wouldn't I be?

  All the usual reasons anybody's gone from the forum for a while.

  And would those usual reasons include antisocial behavior?

  You say "maybe" in that quote, but the post as a whole has me tried and convicted before you even hear my reply... a surprising attitude, considering how it stung you when people did it with you.

  "maybe", "interpreted", "badly", "context", "implying", "maybe", "obliquely", "maybe", "?", "misunderstand", "?"

  All those words, I used, non-judgmental words, and then I ended it with a "did I misunderstand your statement?" and a "maybe I missed it on H2O that you retracted or revised those statements you made?"...

  THAT is "trying and convicting" you before I hear a reply?

  I hardly 'tried and convicted' you.

  And I see that the pre-conviction still stands even after my assurance to you that the reference was not to that incident.

  No, after hearing your "explanation" of it, I buy into even less your description of it being a "tongue-in-cheek" exaggeration.

  I hope you'll be able to grasp that fact that there was no slight to you in anything I said. If not... oh, well.

  Just like there was no "slight" in referring to me as "obnoxious" and "antisocial"... you gotta be kidding, rite? NOW, you're using a little 'tongue-in-cheek' humor, rite?

  They answered your questions, presented the facts, and
  explained my thoughts clearly. I'm happy with them.

  Only in YOUR mind, they did. Only YOU are happy with them.
  You didn't help me out on my puzzlement, on just what a "clear" subtlety is? How could such a thing exist? A 'clear subtlety' would be a bit of an oxymoron, wouldn't it?

  Whether you accept them or not is your choice, as we all know.

  By now, you've probably guessed, I don't accept "them".
  I think it's more a case of - how did mommy put it? - "weasling" .

  BTW, what did you mean by another "case of aggression"...?
  Farkel and I had been talking about my "case" and he relayed that in his post to the people I know on H2O?

  What did you mean? "case", - singular - "of aggression" . What "aggression" were you referring to, apart from the context of the "aggression" that took place concerning my "case" - (and talking about who the aggressor was and who the victim(s) were) ...again, the "case" of which Farkel and I had been discussing?

  You never did explain that part.

  Doug spoke of your demeanor on the phone. I remarked on its contrast with the Tallyman persona.

  Yeah, so?
  I was in the Lowest Ebb of My Life, when Doug and I talked on the phone. My "demeanor" would have been in "contrast with" WHATEVER persona I had exhibited on the Internet, before that point.

  You have the same internet distance and invisibility that everyone else on the internet has.

  Then if you believe that, why single me out as being NOT LIKE everyone else on the Internet? Why make the "contrast" you did? Is EVERYONE else on the Internet the same? Is EVERYONE else, like all those jWs and X-jWs, the same talking on the Internet as they would talk in person, at arm's length, as you put it?

  Is EVERYONE else on the Internet, who has the same distance and invisibility as you claim I have, ... also "obnoxious", "aggressive" and "antisocial".

  (especially the really Anonymous Ones, unlike me)

  You claim to be the SAME person in Real Life as you are on the Internet. Does that mean you are a phony in Real Life, who hides behind an alias?

  We severely disagree on the meaning of "Internet Distance and Invisibility".

  "others" ...read those same comments by you... and "understood" them and "interpreted" them, the same way as me.

  I thought you said that you didn't do that. Remember this?

  maybe", "interpreted", "badly", "context", "implying", "maybe",
  "obliquely", "maybe", "?", "misunderstand", "?"

  D'oh! Yeah, I "remember" them, KOMF. I just wrote them this afternoon.

  All those- key words and symbols, KOMF.

  You either did, or you didn't, Tom. Which is it?

  What did you read? You didn't read where I said:
  "Maybe I misinterpreted you badly, KOMF"... but I DID interpret your words.
  Sure I did. I said so. How many times do you need to read it,
  to decide "which is it"?

  I thought I correctly "understood" your words, your drift.
  Like "others" did.
  Like "Uncle Bruce" who found your words "curious"... and having it cross
  his mind that maybe you were "thinking the worst" ... and writing it,
  whereas, he admitted it crossing his mind, but he didn't dare write it...
  because he didn't want to "try and convict" me, before all the facts came out,
  or even give that impression.

  Real names, addresses and pictures have nothing to do with it.

  Says you! Real names, addresses, phone numbers, pictures... have EVERYTHING to do with it. ANONYMITY is what "Internet Distance and Invisibility" is all about. The "anonymous nature" the Internet so easily affords a person, is one of the main catalysts for "bold and aggressive" behaviour.

  So, why would the Tallyman "persona" be so bold as to say the things he has over the years, WITHOUT the benefit of anonymity?
  Because, maybe that is the way he really "speaks" (sometimes?) in real life?
  So, where is your "contrast"?
  What does soft-spokenness, slow-talking or Southern drawl or sensitivity, or whatever, have to do with it?

  I have manners. I show courtesy. I know proper phone etiquette.
  WHY would I launch into my "Tallyman persona" with a first time caller, like Doug Checketts, who was very polite himself. Very caring and very concerned about my welfare...

  Why in heavens name would I go into an "aggressive KultKrimeFighting mode" speaking for the first time with Doug Checketts on the phone?

  And you say "what you see is what you get" about yerself. "Same in person as on the Internet". BullShit to that, hoss! Who do you think believes that?

  Being out of arm's reach of the one you're addressing... that's what internet distance and invisibility is.

  BullShit to that, too!
  You're concerned about "being out of arm's reach" when on the Internet? As if someone would strike you, if you were talking to them in person, the same way you write on the Internet?

  The only one(s) I know of that should have that type of concern here on the DB,
  is "You Know", when he made those horrible comments about Farkel's Dad's illness,
  or was that "LurkerNoMore"... anyway, Farkel let that person know that he would be in danger of bodily harm if he was in "arm's reach"...

  But why should you have that kind of concern?

  You're not in the same camp as those jokers, are you?

  TT

  .

  edited for tags...
• 

  COMF

  And would those usual reasons include antisocial behavior?

  If you like. Add it to the list; I don't mind.

  All those words, I used, non-judgmental words, and then I ended it with a "did I misunderstand your statement?"

  And I answered, "Yes, you did."

  and a "maybe I missed it on H2O that you retracted or revised those statements you made?"...

  No need for revision. I didn't say anything wrong.

  I hardly 'tried and convicted' you.

  Right.

  Just like there was no "slight" in referring to me as "obnoxious" and "antisocial"... you gotta be kidding, rite? NOW, you're using a little 'tongue-in-cheek' humor, rite?

  Knock it off, Tom. You aren't mad about "obnoxious and antisocial." You had your mind made up way before I got the chance to say anything in reply to you. However, your behavior was, and is, obnoxious. It's just a fact of life; as Maximus says, "Own it."

  That doesn't mean that you are obnoxious. Of course, the behavior is all we get, here. Don't want your behavior described as obnoxious? Don't behave obnoxiously.

  You didn't help me out on my puzzlement, on just what a "clear" subtlety is?

  I don't know. That's your terminology. You define it.

  By now, you've probably guessed, I don't accept "them".
  I think it's more a case of - how did mommy put it? - "weasling".

  Think whatever you need to. I present the facts; I don't force-feed them.

  BTW, what did you mean by another "case of aggression"...?
  What did you mean? "case", - singular - "of aggression" . What "aggression" were you referring to, apart from the context of the "aggression" that took place concerning my "case" - (and talking about who the aggressor was and who the victim(s) were) ...again, the "case" of which Farkel and I had been discussing?

  This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

  You never did explain that part.

  I don't recall being asked to explain that part. However, it, like the obnoxiousness, is a simple matter to grasp. The internet has made it possible for people to communicate with others in a medium where words are all there is. As a result, folks have tended to become confrontational, aggressive, and obnoxious much more easily than they would if they were within eyeshot or touching distance of the one they're addressing. There are many cases of it. Yours, if that were true of you, would be "another case."

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Doug spoke of your demeanor on the phone. I remarked on its contrast with the Tallyman persona.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Yeah, so?

  You asked me why I was talking about the Tallyman persona. I answered your question.

  why single me out as being NOT LIKE everyone else on the Internet? Why make the "contrast" you did?

  I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't singled you out for anything.

  You claim to be the SAME person in Real Life as you are on the Internet. Does that mean you are a phony in Real Life, who hides behind an alias?

  Are you still beating your wife, Tom?

  We severely disagree on the meaning of "Internet Distance and Invisibility".

  We're talking about my words. I chose them. The way I meant them is what they mean. I know the word "anonymity", Tom. If I had meant anonymity, I would have used that word. I chose the words "distance and invisibility" because I was talking about distance and invisibility.

  I thought I correctly "understood" your words, your drift.
  Like "others" did.
  Like "Uncle Bruce" who found your words "curious"...

  Okay, lemmie see... you and Unk both weren't sure what I meant. That proves I meant it the way you understood it? Wow... that's heavy.

  he admitted it crossing his mind, but he didn't dare write it...
  because he didn't want to "try and convict" me, before all the facts came out,
  or even give that impression.

  Neither did I. That's why I never said a word about the shooting.

  Says you! Real names, addresses, phone numbers, pictures... have EVERYTHING to do with it. ANONYMITY is what "Internet Distance and Invisibility" is all about. The "anonymous nature" the Internet so easily affords a person, is one of the main catalysts for "bold and aggressive" behaviour.

  Wrong. I know your name and identity, but I can't see you or touch you. There is internet distance and invisibility between you and me, although you are not anonymous. Repeating: I know the word anonymity. If that's what I had meant, that's what I would have said. I chose "distance" and "invisibility" because that's what I was talking about. In your own mind you changed it into something I didn't say. That's not my fault.

  So, where is your "contrast"?

  Um... here, in the next couple of quotes?

  WHY would I launch into my "Tallyman persona" with a first time caller, like Doug Checketts, who was very polite himself

  Why in heavens name would I go into an "aggressive KultKrimeFighting mode" speaking for the first time with Doug Checketts on the phone?

  Moving right along...
  

  BullShit to that, hoss! Who do you think believes that?

  Frankly, Tom, if you want to believe a lie, I don't mind. I just tell it like it is. You're free to make up any imaginary crap you want, to justify directing your anger at me. Don't expect me to agree, though. I'm being kind to you because of your emotional condition, and because I realize you're just zeroing in on me as a convenient focus for all your unexpressed anger; but I won't agree to things you say that aren't true.

  You're concerned about "being out of arm's reach" when on the Internet? As if someone would strike you, if you were talking to them in person, the same way you write on the Internet?

  I'm not concerned about it; I'm talking about it. That's what allows the aggression to come out... being out of harm's way.

  But why should you have that kind of concern?

  I don't.

  COMF
• 

  Farkel

  Tom,

  : The only one(s) I know of that should have that type of concern here on the DB, is "You Know", when he made those horrible comments about Farkel's Dad's illness, or was that "LurkerNoMore"... anyway

  In all fairness to You Know, he has never sunk that low. It was LurkerNoMore who did that. You Know has a thousand times more class the LNM. That being said, you can easily figure out how much "class" LNM has.

  I don't understand why you boys are fighting, either. You both are stuck in something and both want to be right at all costs. Is it worth it? You both know how much I (and others) care about each of you, and I'm not sure if this discussion is worth the energy it is taking. Is it, really?

  Farkel
• 

  Tallyman

  KOMF,

  !

  ?

  .

  Tom Talley