CE - Volume 1, pp 1-43

[Ampage]

There has always been trolls among us, always will be. Thats the problem with sites that don't track ISP's. The multiples thrive that way.

[shin]

They do track ISPs here, which Knightschool has probably discovered by now

My take is that her pointing out flaws, ironies and inconsistencies just, how you say, shits you up a wall....and then you're equating it to being talked dooooowwwn to...and we ALL do that to one another at times when we're confident in our convictions.

You've always had a talent of pretending to be objective while clearly being subjective. My posts: flawed, ironic, inconsistent. Her posts: merely pointing out these points, kindly doing me a service, even though she didn't even read what I had said correctly, but hey, we all do that when we mean well!

No apology for me, too? Aww. No fair.

Question: If saying something like "shin, I don't know how many times to say this, you always think you're right when you're wrong" when I'm just trying to add an observation isn't being talked doooowwwnn to, then what is it? Perhaps you think that's me getting what I deserve? Clue me in.

[shin]

It'd be best to leave the oil reserves alone. I've heard the same rumors concerning a terrorist strike (especially after the June 30th deadline) and until we can get a new form of reliable energy, we're pretty much stuck with the system we have now. And if Bod Woodward's right, the price is gonna drop just in time for the election anyways.

[RocDoc]

Question: If saying something like "shin, I don't know how many times to say this, you always think you're right when you're wrong" when I'm just trying to add an observation isn't being talked doooowwwnn to, then what is it? Perhaps you think that's me getting what I deserve? Clue me in.

What is it?

Clue: This question you think you're hearing, you always think you're right when you're wrong, is when simply truly anyone, YOU even, has a confidence and conviction in their own viewpoint....but you're choosing here to capitalize, underline and otherwise emphasize the you're wrong into a personal affront. To me this is just a discussion among persons with strong convictions...even that you took personally my citing of the 'flaws, ironies, inconsistencies' that Chrisfan often brings to a convo, as being JUST you being picked on...

...and then the 'well where's MY apology'...

...and then there's your belief that she didn't read, 'correctly', what you TRIED to say. So semantically, you're perfect? A-ha.

Look, simply put, you're opinionated, I'm opinionated, Chrisfan's opinionated and it's actually your own choice to feel victimized somehow here...

[shin]

but you're choosing here to capitalize, underline and otherwise emphasize the you're wrong into a personal affront.
[...]
...and then there's your belief that she didn't read, 'correctly', what you TRIED to say. So semantically, you're perfect? A-ha.

My "belief"? See, here we go again. It was a personal affront, because her comments weren't rooted in reality. Her response insisted I was saying something, that *all* conservataives are "outraged at the outrage" to quote the now infamous Sen. Inhofe remarks, that I was not saying. Period. Was not saying that. I even stipulated that I'm only talking about "those" who feel that way. So if her response wasn't based on what I said, what then? Maybe what she assumed I was saying? Maybe she had an assumption based on her own perception of what I'm all about? Maybe, perhaps, kind of?

Then she almost demanded that I conform my posts to, what, not speak about anything unless she approves it? Keep the responses ONLY on what's been said? I do this, and therefore you should too? No matter what her point on that was, it's quite clear that she's trying to make me conform to some sort of posting guideline of staying on topic. (Side note: what I had said was in direct response to your WP article, which was conveniently overlooked, meaning that the whole thing was out of touch with reality on both fronts.)

But here's the rub. You're telling me, basically, that I have "confidence and conviction" in my "viewpoint", which keeps me from understanding, that, yes, I'm "wrong", and that I should take it as a "personal affront".

So this basically says that me being wrong is already established as fact. Hence your snobbish semantics remark. It's just a matter of time before I get over my stubborn self and realize this. With you helping Chrisfan to help me to recognize this reality that I'm having such a hard time with.

So tell me then. What is my "viewpoint" that I have such "conviction" in that I'm "wrong" about? You know, since this is about my viewpoint, and not personal?

Clue: This question you think you're hearing, you always think you're right when you're wrong

Shin, I don't know how many different ways I can say it to you. Be careful how you categorize "the right's" thinking. You're off the mark more often than you're on it.

Ok. What should I have heard when she said "you're off the mark more often than you're on it"? Since my perception is off.

-

Hey. You don't like me. It's no secret. Never have, probably never will. I don't expect you to ever like me. Nor do I expect you to "respect" me. But cut this apologist shit out, for once. Or maybe you can be fair and balanced and give me one too.

[Rit]

ampage, that poster who told you that quote at the bottom of your posts? that were me ;D

[chrisfan]

shin said:

Question: If saying something like "shin, I don't know how many times to say this, you always think you're right when you're wrong" when I'm just trying to add an observation isn't being talked doooowwwnn to, then what is it? Perhaps you think that's me getting what I deserve? Clue me in.

Well if YOU said that, I'd say you were talking to yourself.

I'm trying very hard to stop commenting on this, because it's not a current event, it's been going on for months now, and quite frankly, it's boring. But I do think that Doc is right in saying that often times, you can take disagreement to your views a little too personally. That's just my observation. It may be right, it may be wrong, but that is how you come across to me. An example of that would be when you shared the idea you came up with for middle east peace while visiting Japan. As I remember, you were very cautious to post it on CE because you didn't want it criticized. My or anyone else's disagreeing with you is not a personal affront to you ... just like (I would hope) your disagreeing with me is not a personal affront to me. Some of my favorite people in this world are flaming liberals. that does not mean I don't like them. So I'll just say (and then I'll TRY to leave it at that) that when I disagree with you, I'm disagreeing with an OPINION ... not you the person. And when you or anyone puts for an argument that I don't agree with, and doesn't give any back-up for the argument that persuades me, I'm not going to change my opinion. That says absolutely nothing about you the person, or the validity of your opinion. It's just life.

Do I dislike you? No. Do I respect you? From time to time. I would just enjoy debating with you more if everything did not become this personal affront. It gets really old when you resort to the "well you're never going to criticize this" or "I've challenged you to come around to this and you won't" or personal insults. Am I totally innocent of doing the same? No. And I'm not pretending that I am. I just see it more from you, to more people, more often than not. And since this has become about you, I'm commenting on you, rather than others and/or myself.

[chrisfan]

Did anyone watching, listening, or reading the news last night/this morning see much about the 9/11 hearing that took place yesterday? I got home late from work last night, so I didn't watch as much last night as I normaly do, but I was very dissapointed with how little coverage they got. I watched a lot of the hearings on C-Span last night, and I honestly thought it was some of the most compelling and telling testimony of the hearings so far. They were actually dealing with something concrete -- something that we CAN and SHOULD be controlling in the emergency response to terrorist strikes. One of the men (I believe he was in charge of security at the WTC) was talking about the mistakes they made, but more importantly, he spoke about what has changed (and what has not changed) since then. He was covering things like the fact that post-9/11 in NYC, if a building is on fire, people will NOT listen to orders to wait for other floors to evacuate, but rather they will all start leaving the building right away. He got into the implications that has when stair wells are narrow, etc. At first i was thinking that was a simple fix. But if you consider how many buildings are in NYC, and how old they are, and how narrow the stair wells probably are (who needs the stairs? We have elevators!) making the changes would be a major undertaking. But you do have new buildings that have gone in since then, and at least according to this guy, the building codes have not been adjusted at all to make stairways wider for a larger capacity.

It was fascinating. To me, this is the most valuable thing the commission is looking at, because this is a simple way that we could be making changes to protect ourselves in the future. And the message coming from these guys was basically "We ain't doing much". I'm sure that Guiliani's testimony today will get more coverage, because he's Rudy. But I think it's a shame that our lazy ratings-crazed media let what I think is a big story just fly right past them for the most part.

[Ampage]

RitalinPants said:

ampage, that poster who told you that quote at the bottom of your posts? that were me ;D

Ritalin, that’s so cool. I completely forgot who said it, but I think it was on a Liz Phair board if I do recall.

[RocDoc]

Clue: This question you think you're hearing, "you always think you're right when you're wrong", is when simply truly anyone, YOU even, has a confidence and conviction in their own viewpoint....but you're choosing here to capitalize, underline and otherwise emphasize the "you're wrong" into a personal affront.

The quotations to that underlined bit which you quoted from Chrisfan there, are critical. Maybe you missed that they were italicized the first time, but those were Chrisfan, as quoted by you, and your 'quote' didn't have that bit set aside for attribution in any way...

This whole 'Fuck you, you're not CAPABLE of being objective here because you dislike me' is really fucking tiresome. Hell yes, I'm being objective about this. You just wish to think that your ineffable logic to so many of the world's questions which you 'answer' here, are going to so convince everyone by virtue of your messianic fervor to just drop everything and become CONVERTS TO YOUR "SIDE"....and when it doesn't happen, you STILL go into a fucking snit.

'Wrong' regarding MANY(not all, no)of the questions here is very relative and is VERY fraught with complexities of perception, which are acted upon by where you are in your life, your social standing, country of origin, etcetcetcETC!

Relative to 'you', who you are, how you've gotten here, well, hell yes then; you're 'right', you're 'correct', 'you're 'in the right corner' howEVER many ways one can say it! That's great, it's fanTAStic!

But to someone having come up under different circumstances(ie education, age, family status, country of origin, etc), what you've proselytized and preached as fervently as possible, still OFTEN doesn't mean dick.

THERE is what I'm talking about regarding Chrisfan saying "you are 'wrong', shin", one view which to ME says,
'Look, I'm coming at this from another direction;
'Look, I'm looking at this a different way;
'Here's MY take'
.....and you're instantly 'GAAAH! Don't question my veracity!'

You're NOT 'wrong' in any sort of a didactic, binary sense, which is the point you're totally missing ....but your convictions....'OUR' convictions are strong enough that the others' convictions become 'Paah! What do THEY know?!'

Which I have FINALLY come around to just generally accepting, that 'wrong'/'right' aren't necessarily infallible here....which of course DOESN'T mean that there's no point I'll argue if I find something outrageous....

~

So this basically says that me being wrong is already established as fact. Hence your snobbish semantics remark.

'As fact' in the sense that people here are not going to agree with some of the things you say and that you could grant that 'wrong' can often be relative and STILL contrary to what your convictions tell you, then yes. Fuck yes.

..and 'objectively'.

~

Re the 'semantics'...um, snobbish? Wha?

So.

You DO communicate perfectly with each and every attempt, nary a typo, nary a misplaced pronoun, comma or quotation mark?

I'm strictly subjective you're saying and yet you grant yourself a perfect A+ as an infallible communicator? What bullshit.

THERE's an attitude just begging to be 'disliked'...d'ya see it?

[shin]

But I do think that Doc is right in saying that often times, you can take disagreement to your views a little too personally.

I'll accept this criticism. I'd say it's more wrong than you think but more right than I'll admit. But the thing is...I took the tone of your post personally, not your "disagreement". It's a criticism that has nothing to do with this argument because I never objected to a "disagreement" personally. There really wasn't a "disagreement" anyways, because I never anything that can be disagreed with. Unless you're saying that no one period feels outrage at the outrage, which we both know is false, hence your frustration at telling me that, no, Shin, not everyone feels that way.

When I saw what you wrote, with the tone you had, I said "Jesus Christ, why can't I have a civil conversation with these people without it getting unnecessarily sarcastic" and instead of sitting it off I acted on it. After I posted what I posted, I said to myself "damn it, now you've exacerbated the problem." And for that I apologized and will do so again now.

But look. Your post was nice and all, but really, all you've ever had to say, if *anything*, was one of two things: "I misunderstood what you said, Shin" and "I became unnecessarily frustrated". I was going to add "I'm sorry" somewhere in there, but it's not really about being sorry. It's just about admitting a mistake. I've admitting to making mine, it's not a lot to ask for you to do the same. And that's the only mistake you've really made and the only one that deserves to be called on. So do what you wish, but I'm putting that out there.


Now, speaking of exacerbating the problem...to take just one quote of many to choose from:

THERE is what I'm talking about regarding Chrisfan saying "you are 'wrong', shin", one view which to ME says,
'Look, I'm coming at this from another direction;
'Look, I'm looking at this a different way;
'Here's MY take'
.....and you're instantly 'GAAAH! Don't question my veracity!'

Unfortunately, this is not even close to the case of what took place. Allow me to inform you of what transpired, so your posts can come across as objective, as you claim you are:

"How come these conservatives who are 'outraged at the outrage' want to draw attention to Nick Berg when it could be just as politically disastrous as the prison scandal?"

"Shin, I object to you speaking for conservatives. You have no basis or right by which to speak for them."

"I'm not speaking "for" conservatives. I'm merely speaking *about* those who have stated such feelings, at least the ones that I've had a chance to see for myself. Here's a link to one such person who fits this description, not to mention a loose connection to the preceding WP article just above."

This is, in a sense, what happened. And considering I"m the one who actually wrote what it is I wrote, I think I'm in a far greater position to explain what I was saying than you. Add to this a momentary drop in civility, which I embellished in and apologized for my part of, and you've got the basics of what was said. Chrisfan misunderstood what I was saying and understandably was frustrated with what she thought I said. All I've been trying to do, all I've been trying to do, is merely get somebody to recognize this. Because this is all it is. A misunderstanding.

And if you could either:
A) take the time to actually figure out what was said instead of merely reverting to the customary pro-Chrisfan/anti-Shin stance that you KNOW you've taken *exclusively*, without fail, as long you've ever nosedived into our conversations, and then filtering what was said into that subjective mindset,
B) post something that defends my perspective as well, explains what I was trying to do as something other than 'GAAAH! Don't question my veracity!', maybe say something like "Shin was just trying to make an observation, that's all", you know, since you're objective and all,
or C) just mind your own business,
then maybe this sort of stuff could be further avoided, since it takes two (three?) to tango. I completely and wholly expect you to do none of these, but at least I'm informing you of what you can do to further improve yourself, since you've now apparently come to recognize that you can be wrong from time to time. Hey, surprise me.

Think of it this way: I'm questioning your veracity and your convictions. Unless you think you have an A+ grip on the truth, you should at least be willing to, you know...consider the idea you might have been entirely wrong.

[shin]

Now then: Who here is 'outraged by the outrage'? :-P

[chrisfan]

shin said:

I'll accept this criticism. I'd say it's more wrong than you think but more right than I'll admit. But the thing is...I took the tone of your post personally, not your "disagreement".

All I'm going to say to this is that given this is a written format, and not a verbal one, the "tone" HAS to come from YOUR perception, and I cannot control that. I know that I've read the "tone" of posts incorrectly before. I'd ask you to consider that you perhaps read the "tone" of my and other posts incorrectly at times. And in doing so, and insisting that your perception was right, there is not much that I can do to fix it.

[chrisfan]

shin said:

Now then: Who here is 'outraged by the outrage'? :-P

I'm just outraged by the fact that i write this lovely post about the 9/11 commission and lack of valid news coverage, and it goes ignored.

[ClubberLang]

i'm outraged that i couldn't watch The Price is Right 2 days in a row because of these 9/11 hearings. If Plinko was played and I missed it all hell is gonna break loose