Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - UnbiasedObserver

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 205
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:37:55 PM »
Jason, you're rehashing what I already stated, but let me add that Miss P takes responsibility in the new thread she created (see the previous page in this thread), and Matthies is right wrt anonymity. 

I think I see what you are saying (in this quotation and the rest of your post) and can respond pretty quickly.  I doubt too many people are reading, but I think that I should clarify what was likely confusing to everyone who is, so I'll do it here.

First, I'm sorry I was being kind of a jerk in that thread (the "Drake" thread).  I don't think I did or said anything egregious or personally insulting (except one thing I said to PILOFOLO, as noted above), but I do think I could have and should have been nicer.  It was, indeed, a bad vibe thread.  This happens.  One person misreads another's tone and responds in kind, and the hostilities and misunderstandings cascade into an angry argument.  It's hard to fix the blame for that kind of thing on one person, but given my early and significant participation in the thread, I undoubtedly played a role. I should have been the better person and walked away when I saw that things were getting ugly.  I also should have been more careful not to inflame ISUCKATTHIS by calling his argument hysterical.  I apologize, unequivocally, for both of these things.

My point in saying that I am not at fault in this conflict is that I didn't do any of the things ISUCKATTHIS, PILOFOLO, and Jake_MONDATTA accused me of, which appear to serve as the basis for ISUCKATTHIS' continued harassment.  To go from saying, "Hey, wow, you were kind of a jerk to me in that thread," to this is not at all a logical or normal progression.  I have never seen anything like it, and I certainly didn't do anything that explains, let alone justifies, it.

EDIT to finish a fragment I accidentally cut short.

I think your response is totally logical and fair, and I agree with it.  I couldn't have stated this any better.   :)

(And THIS is my last post in this thread!)

UnbiasedObserver, thank you for taking the time to think about and offer your constructive criticism.  I know it's not easy, and I do appreciate it.  I've been away for a few days due to personal obligations and the pesky matter of the upcoming bar exam, but I wanted to respond quickly to your post after reading it, thinking about it, and skimming through the Drake thread.

First, you're welcome.

Second, I'm going to try and keep this short; this will be my last time posting wrt this.  You and I have limited time (good luck on the Bar!), and it's not worth it. 

First, you said a few things specifically about my interactions with ISUCKATTHIS.

1. You're right that it wasn't very friendly to call ISUCKATTHIS' argument hysterical.  I did think that his repeated insistence that this stapling error was going to affect multiple students' GPAs and career prospects was hysterical, but I probably should have been milder about it and made the same argument without using that dismissive term.  I don't think I was out of line, but I will offer my apologies for being a bit harsh.

It wasn't as much the comment, as it was when you made it.  (Please note that I re-read the pertinent parts of the thread a few days ago, rather thoroughly; however, I'm basing what I type today based on that recollection.  If I do mess up something, I apologize.)

You made the "hysterical" comment right after ISUCK said he was going to bow out of the discussion because he was bored/waste of time/whatever.  Responding the way that you did only fuels the fire when someone was going to agree to disagree with you, IMHO.  I mean, we all want to have the last word (myself included!  :P), but sometimes in a charged discussion we should just be silent when our opponent attempts a (relatively) graceful exit.

2. How did you got the impression that I complained because ISUCKATTHIS decided to let bygones be bygones and leave the thread?  As far as I remember (and my skim through the thread bears this out), I did not complain about this, and I was perfectly happy to agree to disagree.  I did, however, respond to ISUCKATTHIS when he continued to reappear in the thread and discuss things I had said earlier.  I think that's pretty normal behavior on a discussion board.  There were probably a few points where I could have let him have the last word and I didn't, but I didn't complain that he said he was leaving. 

That said, even if I had been so unreasonable as to complain about this, I don't see how this could justify or even play a role in the fracas that followed. 

See the remarks above please.  While you technically didn't complain necessarily, it seems that your "hysterical" comment was directed at ISUCK after he said he was leaving. 

Why didn't you post it earlier?  My inference is that you were upset at his exit, and tried to land a quick jab before he left.  So maybe I was wrong to label it as "complaining," but it still didn't seem appropriate.

As for not being at fault, both sides are at fault IMHO.  While I'm not saying you're necessarily substantially at fault, I think it's reasonably foreseeable on a message board for a regular to know that things happen like this quite often when someone makes an unflattering comment such as the one above.  Miss P, you and I are regulars on this message board, and perhaps others.  Are you going to say you couldn't see this was going to happen, at least in some form? 

Fault is fault.   Too often in life, we dwell on percentages, as if we're dealing with a comparitive negligence case.  Life is about relationships, not assigning percentages of fault--and sometimes that means recognizing that we had some part to play in severing a relationship (or potential relationship), regardless of our belief in its severity. 

Upon rereading, I agree with you that my initial posts in that thread were colder than they should have been.  For instance, I think I went overboard in my response to the OP's remark that the people who took the self-scheduled exam later than her were procrastinators.  Her attitude did seem, well, stank, but I'm sure I've been in a situation where I've felt wronged and developed a stank attitude as well.  I should have thought about that.  I'll try to be mindful of this in the future.

Are you referring to me, you and me, as having had similar problems in other threads?  I don't remember this.  I don't think I'm generally thought of as particularly severe or coldhearted, but I could be wrong.

No no no!  Sorry for the ambiguity there.  In that instance, I was referring to the problem as this forum's problem, not yours. I apologize.   

I have to respectfully disagree with you about this. I did say one very nasty thing to PILOFOLO in the Drake thread, but that is highly unusual -- and, to be honest, I still feel bad about it now.  I would have apologized about it had PILOFOLO not himself slung insults at me for days before and weeks after this incident. 

In general, however, I don't say things I regret: I am much more likely to regret engaging in pointless arguments than I am to regret anything I say during one.  I think most who know me would likely say that I am high-strung and assertive but not mean.  I make my share of mistakes, but not usually the kind you've described.

I will admit that I could be wrong with this.  But you worry me when you say you're sorry, but then you claim that you're not at fault.   :-\

We all do that to an extent.  I know I do!  But I try to limit it, and if you do it, I encourage you to do the same.

However, with that being said, I think you're a great poster on here.  As we've discussed before, we've been on this forum for a VERY long time.  And I've always thought you were a good poster.  And you still are, IMHO.  At the same time, I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism, to be fair to both sides, and because you're nice enough to listen to what I have to say. 

And I think you're a good poster because you seem to be a person of good character.  So don't think that I see you otherwise, but people with good character can also miss things!  :)

I do agree that we shouldn't say things to people here that we wouldn't say IRL, as I tried to say several times earlier in the "Senate Floor" thread. (I know this came up, at least, during my discussion with Scentless Apprentice.  Matthies and I have also argued with Wally about this in the past.)  To the extent that I seem more frank and opinionated, say, than you or another poster, it's likely a reflection of my real-life personality. I don't think that's necessarily better or worse, just different.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. 

As to frankness, I don't see what you mean there.  I think I've shown that I'm frank on here too; in fact, I'm starting to worry that people are going to become upset with what I say for being too frank!  :D

I respect differences as much as anyone; I think my "track record" shows this. 

You said things like this about mutual fault a number of times (I pulled only one quotation), and I'm still confused.  As I said above, I don't know what fault you think I have yet to admit with respect to this conflict.  All of my posts in response to and about ISUCKATTHIS, Jake_MONDATTA, and PILOFOLO in the last month (at least) have been defenses to their accusations about my posting behavior.  I happen to think they have shown themselves to be obnoxious trolls, but I haven't been posting wild accusations about them or chasing after them in other threads or calling them names or anything else.  I've merely responded to their posts, directed at me, in threads in which I am already active.  (I also once agreed with another poster that they appear to be backed by the same person, which I thought was relevant to a discussion we were having about whether and when harassment should be moderated.)  As you said above, it's fair for me to respond to these posters' baseless accusations against me.  Under the circumstances, I believe I have done so as civilly as one could expect.

In any case, thank you again for your thoughtful post.  Have a good night. :)

Sorry for the confusion.

My concern is that you do have SOME fault; see the relevant remarks I made above.  Am I saying it's much?  Again, not necessarily, and I've defended you throughout the thread as a result.  But sometimes it seems to me that you're paying homage to being apologetic, but then you say you're not at fault (seemingly at all).  That doesn't jive with me, and it seems that you want to save face.  I know I'm being redundant, and we all try to save face, but sometimes it takes a real woman (or man) to confess that they've played some part in a mess, even if it makes her/him appear weak(er). 

Anyhow, if you want to continue this discussion a little more, I'll be happy to do it via pm.  But I think I'll duck out of this if I can, for you and for me! 

I didn't summon posters into the thread to harass ISUCKATTHIS.  It's that simple.  In the SFLSD thread, it's common practice to post links to other threads that we find interesting (for whatever reason, including absurdity) and to discuss what's happening on the rest of the board.  Matthies does it.  I do it.  We all do it. 

Two months ago, I did post several times about how stupid and aggravating the Drake thread was.  I wasn't thinking long and hard about whether to do so at the time; these were just casual posts in a social thread.  Nonetheless, I can identify three reasons why I did, none of which have to do with leading a gang into the thread to beat up on ISUCKATTHIS.  First, I knew my friends who were already posting in the thread (goaliechica, Susan B. Anthony) would empathize.  Second, I thought it might be funny to others who hadn't seen it.  Third, I wanted to vent my frustration outside of the thread (instead of engaging further with PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTHIS) because I thought that it might save me some aggravation -- and I knew my SFLSD friends would tell me so.  (This last reason may seem pathetic, but it's probably healthier to vent than to take out your frustrations on others, especially when your tension is likely at least as much about other things -- in my case, finals -- as it is about whatever you're complaining about.  Believe it or not, I don't think my real-life friends are interested in hearing me gripe about what happened on the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board on a given day, so I tend to do my venting here on the board itself.)

This is standard operating procedure in lots of threads, not just the social ones, and on other law school discussion sites as well. If you happen to be someone who got cross linked in another thread its usually for one of three possible reasons: (1) Your post is humorous, (2) Your post is interesting and/or thought provoking (it matters not if you agree or disagree), (3) Your asshatery has made you worthy of notice.

A cross post is commonly interpreted as altering others you regularly communicate with online in a diffrent thread about a thread in which one of the above items appears. It’s not a call for help, or back up, or anything more than sending a link to some webpage out in an e-mail or posting it on your facebook page is. Interpreting it as such is either (a) grandiose on the party being linked side (b) ranging on conspiracy theorist level or (c) a complete lack of understanding of how social message boards or the internet works.

Does such linking happen to often correspond with new poster entering the thread? Yes of course, that’s the whole point of cross posting - to alert others of something of note to which they may have views or opinions of their own to post. But that is done freely and purely by the choice of the reader who reads the link from another thread. It does not correlate that the crosslink is a request for help, nor that the new posters are just entering the discussion to come to the crosslink posters aide. It shows only that the crosslink poster was right, others find that thread worthy of responding to because it meets one of the three criteria listed above that made it worthy of posting a cross link in the first place.

Absent a “please attack this guy” or “help I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” accompanying remark in a cross post, thinking that the sole, primary, or even intended response was to unleash the attack dogs is reading way more into it than anyone ought to be reasonably be doing that has been on the internet for more than a few days.


Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:27:01 PM »
Well, thanks for trying to clear this up. 

Irrx, I'm just trying to be fair.  I said his side should be heard, not that he's right. 

Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:28:46 PM »
You two are taking LSD (and yourselves) way too seriously. If this board is causing you to get so worked up as to waste several pages debating utter nonsense, perhaps this place isn't worth your time?

Not really.  It doesn't take me long to respond. 

I will try my best to find this out and get back to you for my school.  I'm not guaranteeing anything though!  :)

Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 08:59:45 PM »
I do not think I am wrong about you, Irrx.  However, if I cannot find the post of Miss P's I refer to above, for fairness sake I will apologize.  Of course it could easily just have been deleted, like your posts.  In any event, you had no reason to attack me beyond the fact that I was disagreeing with one of your cronies.  Even if the post with the link I mentioned turns out to have been deleted, you attacked me wihtout reason or provocation, exactly as I said you did.
It is true that I looked up the post history of several of the other posters who were attacking me and others at the behest of Miss P.  You're right that the list of those posters includes a who's who in the "feeling you" thread:  ThisIsWrong, Susan B. Anthony, dashrashi, Sheltron5000, goaliechica, etc.  If you check the record, EACH of these posters interjected themselves into the Drake thread to make disparaging comments about one or more of the posters disagreeing with Miss P.  Further, EACH of them (with the possible exception of Susan B who was part of the conversation before Miss P) did so after Miss P posted about the Drake thread in the "feeling you" thread.
Still, whether or not you post regularly in the "feeling you" thread is beside the point.  As you admit above, you were one member of the pack of attack dogs that included these posters. 
I do, however, agree that you accused me of not "knowing" you and that you were right about that.  As I wrote above, I had no idea who you were.  You knew me no more than I knew you.  All you knew about me was that I dared to disagree with Miss P about some exam given at Drake University.  Nevertheless, you were hurling insults at me in that thread for at least three hours. I don't remember exactly what those insults were (it's been months and you've spinelessly deleted the posts).  However, the assertion that you didn't come out of the blue flinging insults at me is simply false. 

Now, while I don't think Miss P is at fault for what I'm going to assert, I WILL, at the risk of people getting mad at me, add that it *might* (I stress the word "might") be plausible that certain posters came into the Drake thread solely to disparage you. 

I recall a thread a few months ago where I admonished a poster above for an uncalled-for comment, and all of a sudden people started defending that poster after a short time.  While I'm not saying that this poster asked for the cavalry, it came regardless.  So it's not implausible to argue this.

And Irrx, he makes a good point.  Your sig DOES give credibility to his theory, and why are you so secretive?  You probably don't waste time deleting posts for no reason at all. 

Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:39:19 PM »
Yeah, it's going nowhere.  I keep asking for clear evidence, via quotes, and all I'm getting is oblique references that *might* point to what he's trying to prove.

Instead of just admitting that both sides had a fault in this matter, we have to keep playing this game.  I see this enough IRL; it's a shame to see it continue on the 'nets.   :-\

Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 06, 2009, 11:32:26 PM »
Hey Sands:

Do you have Law School Discussion Moderator on your resume?  Honest question.  Just curious.

Oh, another smart ass comment?  Nice.  I was willing to skip the few complaints against this poster but since they insist, enjoy being banned.

I thought that you were going to try and rely upon this comment.

Based on context, this is specious reasoning because:

1) Where does Sands state that Miss P complained?  

2) Was she the only person who complained?

3) Did she complain with the intention to have Pilofilo banned, or....

4) Did she complain so that Sands would give him a warning?

5) Did Sands possibly also do it because he was mocked, and subsequently made this post showing the true cause of the banning? (If I recall correctly, I mentioned this and I think you said this also seemed likely.  If that's true, then it wasn't Miss P that caused the banning.)

EDIT:  Please note that I'm not saying this was necessarily the case.  I'm just stating the many possibilities that could've occurred that ISUCK is not acknowledging because he's emotionally invested in this conflict.

6) It's much easier to give a person one reason for being banned rather than multiple.  It seems obvious that Sands was peeved (and perhaps rightfully so; we're not necessarily privy to everything that transpired), and he probably made a quick reply to justify what occurred.  

Trying to rely upon this statement, based upon context, looks great on paper but isn't very practical.  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 205