Remember remember.
- Thread starter Danny
- Start date
Steve M.
Jedi Master
I'm a bit confused here. My intent is to question some things cause I'm not fully understanding the whole dynamic here.
Anart Wrote:
To which I agreed. Personally I was interested in seeing Danny through the issue(s) he was having vs. seeing, in my opinion, a bit of word slinging. I hope you don't feel like your being attacked by any of the following Guardian, but please let me explain myself - if I'm able. What I saw was mud slinging and name calling. I thought Guardian was being as or even more ruthless than Danny, but the majority of that has been deleted (a couple posts from last night are no longer there and there was a bit of name calling on both sides starting with Guardian, though I think Laura had been attacked already).
An example from Guardian:
I do understand that Danny came out of left field and attacked Laura, and I too was ready to react but didn't cause it wouldn't have been as creative as I would have liked, and likely more destructive to (hopefully) be of service to Danny. Now you sort of scare me Guardian. I do make slip ups, mistakes and errors. Pretty much constantly. But your method, again, in my opinion, was cut throat ruthless (name calling, degrading people for teeth or not teeth?). I hope you don't take that the wrong way. I'm really trying to word this well but having difficulties.
Guardian wrote:
And this is all that I'm 'trying' to do is offer a suggestion as well as understand how your use of "an emotional over reaction" gets you kudo's. It somehow feels backward to me, not to say it IS.
Guardian wrote:
My thought is that that is not entirely true. <--I'm speaking out of fear, thinking I will be attacked for offering my perspective, but I don't think anyone has told you, outside of Anart's statement quoted above. I think you were mistaken cause even after you called him out, and he showed a face I didn't recognize with his house raffle comment, you let it turn into a spat. Maybe I'm wrong and don't fully grasp the fight fire with fire technique. I don't have the understanding of many of our peers, so maybe I'm not grasping something fully, so I'm seeking to learn, but my intuition tells me that you were being nearly as pathological as Danny.
I've had issues before.. well, heck I have issues now. The issue currently is that I don't understand how this played out as it did with little or no discussion of (as I see it) what you did wrong (please excuse the black and white thinking, I just feel there is a misty gray area). I see hunger for attention, name calling and you patting yourself on the back (and others patting you on the back) for not showing any constraint and, IMO, a hunger to make someone look evil. What scares me though is that if someone gives you high kudo's and thinks you have no blind sides that you could set anyone up just cause you don't like them and everyone else would be trusting of your perspective and the other person would not be able to defend themselves due to the fact that everyone trusts you. This is how it looks to me. If there is something wrong with my line of thinking (which is likely), I wrote this in the hopes that someone will help me to see things as they in fact are. From my perspective you avoided looking at what Anart said and continued to sling mud and then said your open to suggestions. That is all this is, outside of a quest to understand why, for lack of a better way of saying it, you didn't get a form of reprimand.
Hope I wasn't to repetitive in my statements. I'm having a real issue with posting this, which again, is mostly fear based.
Anart Wrote:
To which I agreed. Personally I was interested in seeing Danny through the issue(s) he was having vs. seeing, in my opinion, a bit of word slinging. I hope you don't feel like your being attacked by any of the following Guardian, but please let me explain myself - if I'm able. What I saw was mud slinging and name calling. I thought Guardian was being as or even more ruthless than Danny, but the majority of that has been deleted (a couple posts from last night are no longer there and there was a bit of name calling on both sides starting with Guardian, though I think Laura had been attacked already).
An example from Guardian:
I do understand that Danny came out of left field and attacked Laura, and I too was ready to react but didn't cause it wouldn't have been as creative as I would have liked, and likely more destructive to (hopefully) be of service to Danny. Now you sort of scare me Guardian. I do make slip ups, mistakes and errors. Pretty much constantly. But your method, again, in my opinion, was cut throat ruthless (name calling, degrading people for teeth or not teeth?). I hope you don't take that the wrong way. I'm really trying to word this well but having difficulties.
Guardian wrote:
And this is all that I'm 'trying' to do is offer a suggestion as well as understand how your use of "an emotional over reaction" gets you kudo's. It somehow feels backward to me, not to say it IS.
Guardian wrote:
My thought is that that is not entirely true. <--I'm speaking out of fear, thinking I will be attacked for offering my perspective, but I don't think anyone has told you, outside of Anart's statement quoted above. I think you were mistaken cause even after you called him out, and he showed a face I didn't recognize with his house raffle comment, you let it turn into a spat. Maybe I'm wrong and don't fully grasp the fight fire with fire technique. I don't have the understanding of many of our peers, so maybe I'm not grasping something fully, so I'm seeking to learn, but my intuition tells me that you were being nearly as pathological as Danny.
I've had issues before.. well, heck I have issues now. The issue currently is that I don't understand how this played out as it did with little or no discussion of (as I see it) what you did wrong (please excuse the black and white thinking, I just feel there is a misty gray area). I see hunger for attention, name calling and you patting yourself on the back (and others patting you on the back) for not showing any constraint and, IMO, a hunger to make someone look evil. What scares me though is that if someone gives you high kudo's and thinks you have no blind sides that you could set anyone up just cause you don't like them and everyone else would be trusting of your perspective and the other person would not be able to defend themselves due to the fact that everyone trusts you. This is how it looks to me. If there is something wrong with my line of thinking (which is likely), I wrote this in the hopes that someone will help me to see things as they in fact are. From my perspective you avoided looking at what Anart said and continued to sling mud and then said your open to suggestions. That is all this is, outside of a quest to understand why, for lack of a better way of saying it, you didn't get a form of reprimand.
Hope I wasn't to repetitive in my statements. I'm having a real issue with posting this, which again, is mostly fear based.
Hi Balberon, I had similar thoughts but I know that I don't have all the facts so I trust that the more experienced heads know what they are doing. I also find it interesting to watch my own reactions as the situation unfolds as more data becomes available.
Do you know the movie, "Elizabeth"? I see Guardian as the character Sir Francis Walsingham. Totally loyal to his queen.
Do you know the movie, "Elizabeth"? I see Guardian as the character Sir Francis Walsingham. Totally loyal to his queen.
Buddy
The Living Force
Hi Balberon.
There's no need to fear. I understand what you are saying. anart is indeed correct. Concerning this thread, I see the difference as being in the approach. anart is a teacher and can see the same thing, yet chooses to ask questions and allow the member an opportunity to explain themselves, apologize for errant behavior, make amends (if necessary), change their mind and change their behavior. The comment about remembering ourselves and remembering the forum recognizes that as long as there is a chance of someone straightening up and flying right, we should offer them a hand, OSIT.
This is the way it should be according to the purpose for the forum and this Work. The alternative is to alienate someone who still has a chance to do a world of good.
Guardian doesn't have this particular training and experience. Where anart is an understanding but firm teacher, Guardian is an "exposer". As she points out in her previous posts, she is also a victim of constant attacks and abuse and she has found a way to deal with attacker and predator issues that work for her and work locally.
In my view, "the approach" that we take to an individual's post is where we could Work to gain more colinearity, or something.
anart and Guardian, please correct me where I may be wrong.
There's no need to fear. I understand what you are saying. anart is indeed correct. Concerning this thread, I see the difference as being in the approach. anart is a teacher and can see the same thing, yet chooses to ask questions and allow the member an opportunity to explain themselves, apologize for errant behavior, make amends (if necessary), change their mind and change their behavior. The comment about remembering ourselves and remembering the forum recognizes that as long as there is a chance of someone straightening up and flying right, we should offer them a hand, OSIT.
This is the way it should be according to the purpose for the forum and this Work. The alternative is to alienate someone who still has a chance to do a world of good.
Guardian doesn't have this particular training and experience. Where anart is an understanding but firm teacher, Guardian is an "exposer". As she points out in her previous posts, she is also a victim of constant attacks and abuse and she has found a way to deal with attacker and predator issues that work for her and work locally.
In my view, "the approach" that we take to an individual's post is where we could Work to gain more colinearity, or something.
anart and Guardian, please correct me where I may be wrong.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
Hi Balberon
FWIW, I also saw the same thing as you, and was pretty confused myself.
I have to say that like Azur, I have picked up something within your posts, Guardian that come across as a VERY ANGRY person. I do realize that you have had a lot of dealings with pathologicals in your online and real life but most of the time when I read your posts Guardian I sense a clear bitterness and anger towards people who have slip-ups. Whether the slip ups are big or small, doesn't really matter-you're always there with force. I also most of the time don't get your humor and see it as 'too much'. Please don't get me wrong, I do also appreciate what you do for the forum in terms of finding out info, and whatnot but I do wonder whether the hurt you have experienced in your life has effected you to a point of projecting that hurt onto different people and emotionally reacting to their behaviors. I also think that you identify with Laura and this forum extremely (that's not necessarily a bad thing) but it also shows when you come out guns firing, like in the instance with Danny as Balberon described and it doesn't put you or the forum in a very good light.
Like Azur, I hope that you don't let your anger consume you. Because I think you have a lot to offer, and you're a very intelligent person.
That's of course my take on it and I could be completely off base.
FWIW, I also saw the same thing as you, and was pretty confused myself.
I have to say that like Azur, I have picked up something within your posts, Guardian that come across as a VERY ANGRY person. I do realize that you have had a lot of dealings with pathologicals in your online and real life but most of the time when I read your posts Guardian I sense a clear bitterness and anger towards people who have slip-ups. Whether the slip ups are big or small, doesn't really matter-you're always there with force. I also most of the time don't get your humor and see it as 'too much'. Please don't get me wrong, I do also appreciate what you do for the forum in terms of finding out info, and whatnot but I do wonder whether the hurt you have experienced in your life has effected you to a point of projecting that hurt onto different people and emotionally reacting to their behaviors. I also think that you identify with Laura and this forum extremely (that's not necessarily a bad thing) but it also shows when you come out guns firing, like in the instance with Danny as Balberon described and it doesn't put you or the forum in a very good light.
Like Azur, I hope that you don't let your anger consume you. Because I think you have a lot to offer, and you're a very intelligent person.
That's of course my take on it and I could be completely off base.
Steve M.
Jedi Master
Hi Bud,
I guess then if I understand you correctly, Guardian was likely NOT emotionally invested, but said something that Danny would react to if he were (emotionally invested). Thus the scratch test. My mistake was that I read what Guardian posted as being emotionally invested which was not the case(?). I think this is what made me suspicious, cause of how I read things before any posts were removed. I really thought Guardian was genuinely angry and not probing to see where Danny would, was or will go with things. Not that there was anything wrong with being genuinely ticked off with what was written. The house raffle comment got me ticked off as well, especially considering that Danny (at least in my mind, after at least the last 4 years) would know the real story behind that.
My apologies for the misunderstanding Guardian/All and blaming you for giving/taking Kudo's where I felt they weren't at all due. I'm struggling to get my reading instrument overhauled and not be as reactive as I've been in the past. This is also part of the reason I brought up fears since I'm still working with the fear of what others might think (self-image predatorial junk) instead of coming right out with my thoughts.
aaron r, I haven't seen "Elizabeth" but I will try to over the next few days.
Edit: Thanks Deedlet for finding a better way of saying what I was initially trying to say.
I guess then if I understand you correctly, Guardian was likely NOT emotionally invested, but said something that Danny would react to if he were (emotionally invested). Thus the scratch test. My mistake was that I read what Guardian posted as being emotionally invested which was not the case(?). I think this is what made me suspicious, cause of how I read things before any posts were removed. I really thought Guardian was genuinely angry and not probing to see where Danny would, was or will go with things. Not that there was anything wrong with being genuinely ticked off with what was written. The house raffle comment got me ticked off as well, especially considering that Danny (at least in my mind, after at least the last 4 years) would know the real story behind that.
My apologies for the misunderstanding Guardian/All and blaming you for giving/taking Kudo's where I felt they weren't at all due. I'm struggling to get my reading instrument overhauled and not be as reactive as I've been in the past. This is also part of the reason I brought up fears since I'm still working with the fear of what others might think (self-image predatorial junk) instead of coming right out with my thoughts.
aaron r, I haven't seen "Elizabeth" but I will try to over the next few days.
Edit: Thanks Deedlet for finding a better way of saying what I was initially trying to say.
Buddy
The Living Force
Balberon said:
Well, that's just what I was thinking based on Guardian's subsequent responses and the comment from Laura indicating a recognition of the scratch, intentional or not.
Since that time when Laura kinda 'got on to me' and suggested that questions should be asked before assumptive responses are posted, I try my best to ask questions first before deciding the most proper response. No one has to tell me something twice (or more than 5 or 6 times, anyway).
But that's just what I think and, as I usually try to say: I could be wrong. :)
Bud said:
I think the point here is one of external consideration. Whether she was emotionally invested or not, the personal jabs in her posts were NOT called for. That's why they were deleted. That stuff wasn't necessary at all for a scratch test. (In fact, Danny got 'scratched' by two posts already that weren't even intended as scratches.) When a member fails to show consideration (Danny, in this case), even to a remarkable degree, that doesn't put any one of us off the hook for putting it into practice ourselves.
Azur
The Living Force
Guardian said:
Wish I did have a better technique! Humour goes a long way... Meditation too, especially the supercharged EE.
In situations where a huge flash suddenly builds up inside (when you are about to go non-linear, or nuclear :) ) something Laura said years ago and has been saying since is very useful: Keep it below the neck. When I first felt what that was really like, how you can actually control the energy flow (not suppressing it), it blows you away. The difference between knowing something intellectually and actually experiencing it, is orders of magnitude apart.
I consider it to be a tempering process, imagining a hammer hitting an anvil, shaping and reshaping a samurai sword... And letting it cool down, knowing the edge is sharper, the sword stronger for it.
Cheers Guardian!
Gonzo
The Living Force
I was watching this unfold last night and see today a few comments have been removed (correct me if I'm wrong).
I was concerned that Danny could be pushed over an unintended edge and decided to let more experienced members deal with the situation.
When I saw Guardian's post, which made mention of perhaps Danny not breeding (or something to that effect - going by poor memory, comment since deleted so I cannot verify), I thought a line had been crossed. Not only was it in poor taste, it was hurtful and possibly harmful to someone fragile.
I was waiting for a moderator to call Guardian on it as it seemed to me an out of proportion, childish reaction.
However, I also know that mods have side chats related to how to deal with situations and I am certain this thread was an area of discussion.
So, I would like to know, was Guardian acting alone or was this a planned scratch test?
I have felt that Guardian's approach in the past may be seen as confrontational and not as emotionally sensitive as some, including myself, might be accustomed.
If Guardian was operating alone, initiating a scratch test, I think some rules on method, approach and conditions of appropriateness might be in order to avoid pushing people over the edge due to lack of skill and psychological knowledge.
I'm no expert, but I don't think Danny is a psychopath but is certainly broken. I was afraid he was having a psychotic episode last night.
Thanks,
Gonzo
I was concerned that Danny could be pushed over an unintended edge and decided to let more experienced members deal with the situation.
When I saw Guardian's post, which made mention of perhaps Danny not breeding (or something to that effect - going by poor memory, comment since deleted so I cannot verify), I thought a line had been crossed. Not only was it in poor taste, it was hurtful and possibly harmful to someone fragile.
I was waiting for a moderator to call Guardian on it as it seemed to me an out of proportion, childish reaction.
However, I also know that mods have side chats related to how to deal with situations and I am certain this thread was an area of discussion.
So, I would like to know, was Guardian acting alone or was this a planned scratch test?
I have felt that Guardian's approach in the past may be seen as confrontational and not as emotionally sensitive as some, including myself, might be accustomed.
If Guardian was operating alone, initiating a scratch test, I think some rules on method, approach and conditions of appropriateness might be in order to avoid pushing people over the edge due to lack of skill and psychological knowledge.
I'm no expert, but I don't think Danny is a psychopath but is certainly broken. I was afraid he was having a psychotic episode last night.
Thanks,
Gonzo
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Balberon said:
Why? I didn't see him ask for help with any "issue" he was having...what I did see was his attack on Laura and a couple of Mods. Helping a psycho does not make you noble, it makes you dinner.
Not at all :)
Yes...you're very perceptive, that was the point of the exchange.
It served it's purpose.
Actually no, I didn't start it, I just finished it.
Yes, she had been.
Why? Are you planning on attacking Laura and/or the Forum too? ;D
Again you are very perceptive.
I think the difference might be that I recognized the face?
I think that's a distinct possiblity...being nice only works with the nice people hon, and Danny is not a nice person.
Oh I REALLY don't think you have to worry about that happening in this group Balberon.....noooooo not likely at all! You'll just have to trust me on this one ;D
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Guardian said:
Guardian, there is no evidence that Danny is a psycho. Emotionally over-reactive and not that bright, perhaps - but there is no evidence that he is a psycho.
b said:
G said:
There should never be an exchange on this forum that is ruthless. Ruthlessness should never be the point of any exchange.
I am not 'defending' Danny here - what I am doing is pointing out that bludgeoning someone is not the best way to make a point and becoming that which you are campaigning against is an ever-present danger.
