View previous topic | View next topic


Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

192536.  Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:14 pm Reply with quote

suze, I think grizzly is grown up enough to realise that the light hearted banter regarding his blog is just that. It's a conversation that has been going on since recording number one both on here, but primarily, and possibly more importantly, face to face. I'm sorry if you don't "get" the humour here but please on occasion you need to lighten up a little.

The important thing is that the parties involved in the "blog prostitution scandal" are aware it's a little bit of fun between those concerned. I

192551.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:12 am Reply with quote

I know Suze and I can testify that she is plenty light enough.

192562.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:57 am Reply with quote

OK, if there is to be a public complaint about my (among others) conduct, then I think it is only fair that I have the oppurtunity to present my defence. Jenny, Flash, Gray - if you disagree then by all means strike this from the record, but I need to unload this from my head so I can get on with things.

Beep - first of all let me say that I am very sorry that you have taken such great offence to our exchanges over the last few days. I hang around here because I love a vigorous debate and, naturally, that involves a level of cordial disagreement.

You talk of 'personal and infantile abuse', but I'm struggling to find it in any of my posts. However, I have been referred to us a 'bully', a 'troll' and explicitly a bigot. Oh, and and arsehole - but I get called that so often it's like orange sauce off a duck's back.

I don't think I've ever been called any of the first three before and I'm sorry, but I do find being called a bigot out-right genuinely offensive.

If you knew anything about my personal history, you would know how ludicrous that accusation is. Both Dr B and I tried to reason woth you, and received more abuse in return.

I attempted to move the discussion on, but the questions I posed were ignored. I also note that numerous other forumees have been given short shrift by you in their admirable attempts to quell the situation.

It does seem to me that you were spurred into your trenchant approach as a result of a discussion that took place previously, where the poster in question was being deliberately shocking and winding us up on purpose, without even believing what he was posting. I was furious that I wasted an afternoon on that spurious point, but simply asked him to provide his reasoning behind his tactics. I'm still waiting for a response. It does seem peculiar to me that you feel the need to defend that poster's honour in an unrelated thread.

I guess that the final problem is time. Looking at our post-counts, you'll see that both Dr B and I have been around for a while and have talked a great deal. We've covered a lot of ground, and know where each other stand on a great many issues. Therefore, we know when an issue is being seriously debated and when we are just having a bit of fun.

That particular thread fell, up until your intervention, squarely into the 'fun' category. Intermingled in with the stuff about the pagan response and the origins of the drawing were a discussion about the relative merits of the Simpsons and Family Guy, a brief touch on the evils of Rupert Murdoch and an enlightening discussion on the Silver Ring Thing and other religious jewellery. A typically meandering QI thread.

Fundamentally, I think that freedom of speech means exactly that. If someone has the right to hold beliefs, then the right to hold exactly the opposite is also equal. I'm not stopping Pagans from doing or saying anything and I am perfectly entitled to state my disbelief. Search through my posts and I believe you'll find that is a consistent theme.

If you disagree with anything I say that's totally fine with me, but please, please, please lay out exactly what your problems are with what I have said, instead of awarding me distinctly unsavoury labels.

192591.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:27 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I'm sorry if you don't "get" the humour here but please on occasion you need to lighten up a little.

Yea OK, maybe I do. I'm afraid that working in an industry where I could find myself suspended just because someone claimed that I'd been (in an unspecified way) rude to him doesn't really encourage lightness. (It hasn't happened to me, but it did happen to a colleague of mine a couple years ago.) But hey. I'm out of that for the next year at least, I had some rather good news this morning, and all is generally FAB - so lightness is in!

192633.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:33 am Reply with quote

Ok, so I'm trying not to get too involved here (not exactly knowing too much about it), but I will say that generally, in life, it saddens me when people who get on end up falling out due to something that ends up being blown out of proportion.

May I perhaps propose discussion between the 2 main parties involved (and perhaps one medium) to state clearly what theie problems are, in order to prevent confused arguments which end up not being solved?

192636.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:44 am Reply with quote

Natalie wrote:
(and perhaps one medium)

Just a medium? no chance of an extra large?


192639.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:46 am Reply with quote

Pah. Like Mr. Connolly said : It's time you started smoking and lose some weight.

192672.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:44 am Reply with quote

I'll go and get Mystic Meg if you think it will help. Personally, I think you will need a mediator.



192888.  Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:58 pm Reply with quote

Unless Natalie is hinting that there is an unexplained lump in the patio...

192983.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:47 am Reply with quote

That lump is explainable. It's Dr Bob. And he is ON the pation. Sunbathing.



192987.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:49 am Reply with quote

I have zero interest in reading any further posts aimed at me from any of those involved in the recent fun at my expense. Twisting my words does not show good character. Nor will they spoil my enjoyment of this site as I believe was the intention. They will get no further attention from me, although from what I have read about myself, I doubt they will offer me the same courtesy. Every site has people like that and to bow to their behaviour is to let them win.

193022.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:37 am Reply with quote

beep, i think you might be feeling a bit paranoid, could that be? it happens to the best of us sometimes, and it's nothing to feel bad about really. it is, however, something to be aware of when judging other people's behaviour towards you and deciding how you're going to react. you'll probably consider this patronising - i would in one of my paranoid moods - but i promise it's not meant that way. just my two cents...



193121.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:57 am Reply with quote

The major problem with online communication is that there is no tone and body language involved. Something said in jest, or as a light-hearted dig, can come across as highly insulting and very annoying.

I tend to have a fairly thick skin, and take most things aimed at me with a pinch of salt. If someone wants to insult me on here (or any other forum) well that's up to them. The words don't particularly insult me, as I have a default setting of 'insults are generally meant in a humourours non-serious way'. And I will reply in a banter-y sort of way.

I think, perhaps, people (and I aim at everyone with this, I am not targetting Beep) take things said on fora too seriously at some point. Take a few minutes out, re-read what was said from a humourous POV and most if not all insults read as childish silliness.



193131.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:03 am Reply with quote




193287.  Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:31 pm Reply with quote

Huh? Unexplained lump?

Now whose twisting words? :s I'm lost.


Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group