Appropriate Communication for a Spirituality Forum

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I understood his point because it was valid. I tend to agree with things that I find valid.

Not sure why that needed explaining.

So, as I said, instead of carefully hedging, you could have simply said you agreed with it up front.

@fmf said
So, as I said, instead of carefully hedging, you could have simply said you agreed with it up front.

Apologies my grammar was too nuanced for your understanding.

@petewxyz said
No burns here. I won't bore you with how I acquired the thickness of my skin, but thanks for your concern.

You appear to have the thinnest skin of anyone who has rocked up here in a long time. Especially one who announces "I try and approach most things from a position of not understanding and not knowing. I think you learn more from others that way." That, and a glass chin. Quite a combo.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Apologies my grammar was too nuanced for your understanding.

Not so. You started off apparently trying to keep your opinion secret and only offered one when pressed.

@fmf said
Not so. You started off apparently trying to keep your opinion secret and only offered one when pressed.

Only in your head sir. I'm perfectly transparent.

@bigdoggproblem said
Recently Dive said he "knew I programmed for RHP, and convinced Russ to hamstring the search engine", two absurdly false claims. I contented myself with a single mocking reply, then ignored further posts on the topic. Easy peasy. That's all you have to do: just stop replying when you feel the conversation is no longer productive.

Your boot room experience is a shining example to Petewxyz.

Nevertheless...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Only in your head sir. I'm perfectly transparent.

No, not only in MY head, in what you wrote.

"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."

I understand petewxyz's point about me "not having the necessary ethics to have conversations with people", but it does not mean I agree with it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I find this a very peculiar post to be honest, referencing the radio programme. I took the time to write and send you over 40 micro fictions, and after the first programme aired sent you positive feedback by email and via this site. You didn't reply to either of those messages. How is that me flouncing off? Writing micros now has become a useful tool in maintaining c ...[text shortened]... e written nearly 300. The radio show was great listening and I have made no comment to the contrary.

You’re not being entirely honest are you.

We all know exactly why you flounced off, and it was a big flouncing off, and for a very lightweight reason (imo) and one which I feel exemplifies FMF’s apparently (to others) severe but accurate use of fair-weatherness as a character adjective.

You have through your own actions turned a profitable albeit distance-based relationship into a partisan issue which you are gently but pointedly underlining in this forum.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't think it was unreasonable for Pete to have expected other posters to want to ascertain what he actually meant. That is after all what happens in most real world interactions. If I go into Gregg's and accidentally order a cauliflower and then acknowledge I have used the wrong terminology, the salesperson will generally accept that and ask what I actually meant to order, not spend the next hour questioning me about cauliflowers.

What I think would be a really positive move would be for Persecuted Pete to take responsibility for his own posts and to not start parallel threads which are thinly veiled bitching about people who call him out for saying stupid things.

Now as harsh as that may sound about your new-found friend, it is absolutely bang on, and I know that you will agree with it.

@petewxyz said

No burns here. I won't bore you with how I acquired the thickness of my skin, but thanks for your concern.

At the risk of inviting more of your petulant wrath, I don’t think biggdogproblem was expressing “concern” for you.

You are not in any danger whatsoever, except perhaps from a leaky ego.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I find this a very peculiar post to be honest, referencing the radio programme. I took the time to write and send you over 40 micro fictions, and after the first programme aired sent you positive feedback by email and via this site. You didn't reply to either of those messages. How is that me flouncing off?

You flounced off AFTER you wrote them. You didn't even say goodbye. Or indeed say anything for weeks. Your first ever 'brush' with me, where I didn't agree with you over something, in private, and you were gone. You actually think I'm going to ask Yvonne to spend any of her time voicing any more of your stuff? Presumably you plan to make your radio programmes with someone else, right?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
How is that me flouncing off?

Perhaps you need to revisit your ugly little sequence of bridge-burning parting-shot speeches. They are still there where you curled them off before flouncing off. I remember reading them as I sat in the ICU.

@fmf said
No, not only in MY head, in what you wrote.

"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."

I understand petewxyz's point about me "not having the necessary ethics to have conversations with people", but it does not mean I agree with it.

You simply misconstrued what I wrote and instead used the Duchess tactic of 'apparently' to tell me what I actually meant. Yet another example of having no interest in what another poster was trying to convey.

'Understand' his point about censorship was akin to 'see sense in.'

But sure, you go ahead and tell me what I meant.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You simply misconstrued what I wrote and instead used the Duchess tactic of 'apparently' to tell me what I actually meant. Yet another example of having no interest in what another poster was trying to convey.

'Understand' his point about censorship was akin to 'see sense in.'

But sure, you go ahead and tell me what I meant.

I pressed you and you stopped hedging. I agree with you about BigDoggProblem's take on petewxyz's OP, by the way.

@divegeester said
You’re not being entirely honest are you.

We all know exactly why you flounced off, and it was a big flouncing off, and for a very lightweight reason (imo) and one which I feel exemplifies FMF’s apparently (to others) severe but accurate use of fair-weatherness as a character adjective.

You have through your own actions turned a profitable albeit distance-based relationship into a partisan issue which you are gently but pointedly underlining in this forum.

I don't think it was a lightweight reason at all and would do exactly the same again. It was in fact the exact opposite of 'fair-weatherness' why I left your club and my unwillingness to be party to the character assassination of a person I consider a friend. I would have done the same for anybody I considered a friend, including FMF or yourself. - And sure, we would collectively mull over reprobates like Romans, but why you should think I would be cool in doing so with an individual you knew I considered a friend escapes me.