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 himselfWhy 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
