Meta-meta discussion: The conflicts between Miss P, ISUCKATTHIS, et al.

[Miss P]

In an effort to allow the thread "The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here" to return to its original purpose, I am starting a new thread to continue the discussion taking place there about several conflicts that arose in that thread and two other threads, "Drake Law Faculty Bumbles Writing Exams, Will Students Suffer?" and "Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?"

Please do not take the fact that I have started this thread as an indication that I hope these conflicts will continue.  Indeed, I will be thrilled if this thread dies a swift, natural death.  For my part, I will (below) post two lengthy responses to comments in the last several pages of the "Senate Floor" thread.  After that, I do not plan to respond to the same arguments and allegations again because I think there's little point in doing so.  (I may choose to respond if something new comes up.)

Godspeed, all!

[Miss P]

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 said a few things specifically about my interactions with ISUCKATTHIS.

With that being said, I do think you jumped the gun in the Drake thread by claiming that ISUCK was being hysterical, and then complaining that all-of-a-sudden he decided to let bygones be bygones and leave the thread.

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.

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. 


***

You then went on to discuss my posting in the Drake thread in general.

And you did seem to show a decent lack of empathy and sympathy from the start in the Drake thread.  (Please note that I agree with your assessment of the Drake scenario, in terms of what happened to that student(s).  But there are better ways to word our responses to show proper sympathy and empathy towards the students who were in that situation.  We've had similar problems in other threads, and we need to be careful about this.)

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.

***

It seems that sometimes you let your emotions get the best of you--and then you start shooting off responses, without considering the import of your words.  I'd venture that most of us consider doing that at times, but we must remember that words can hurt on here just as they can hurt IRL; therefore, we should use the same caution online as we do IRL.

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 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.

With that being said, this reminds me of a nasty divorce where both sides are at fault, yet each side is convinced that it is entirely the other fault's side. 

. . .

Honestly, ISUCK, you and Miss P need to just let it go.  This would end if both of you would just admit that you're both partially at fault--and then let it go.  It's really sad that humans can't just admit that they've screwed up wrt each other and still have a meaningful relationship....

But I don't see that from either of you.  Agreeing to disagree often just leads to more problems. 

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.

[Miss P]

As for the rest, it seems there are two separate accusations against me in the last few pages of the "Senate Floor" thread: first, that I summoned people into the Drake thread to gang up on ISUCKATTHIS and, second, that I somehow got PILOFOLO banned because I disagreed with him.  I'll take each of these in turn below.


The Bat Signal

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.)

I don't remember anyone saying anything particularly nasty to ISUCKATTHIS, though I could be wrong about this.  I do remember that Dashrashi called PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTHIS "twits," and This Is Wrong ("J") was being fairly aggressive.  But by that point, this was par for the course in the thread, which had a strangely hostile vibe from the outset, perhaps in part due to the tone of my response to the OP.

In any case, I didn't summon these posters to the thread or engage a whole lot with anything they said when they were there. And frankly it seems odd to direct all this indignation toward me for (as yet unspecified) hateful things other people purportedly wrote in an open thread on an open discussion board.  Especially when the board is slow, people gravitate toward the active threads, as Matthies and IrrX did, and as PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTAHIS did.  That's just how it works. 

Moreover, as I've pointed out before, the fact that people who are friends with each other here often agree with each other is unremarkable.  Our friendships are, for the most part, natural outgrowths of our shared sympathies about the issues people tend to discuss here.  That most of us came down on the same side of this issue as well (Dashrashi did not) is not evidence of a conspiracy to get ISUCKATTHIS.


The Ban

This allegation can be summed up with this quotation:

If Miss P knew that posters were banned because of her complaints and then complained about a poster, I think it's safe to say she wanted the poster banned.  Arguing otherwise is a bit like contending that someone who sticks a gun to another's head and pulls the trigger didn't necessarily want to shoot that person... that they were just really into pulling triggers. Who knew that indulging one's self in the normally benign hobby of trigger pulling would have such dire consequences in this case?

In it, ISUCKATTHIS makes several (false) assumptions, including the following:

1. That I have made numerous complaints.  (I complain primarily about spam/shills and have only otherwise complained about inappropriate revelations of personal information [e.g., a poster's real name], extreme vulgarity [e.g., the n-word], and extraordinary racism.)

2. That any of my complaints have resulted in posters' being banned.  (I am not aware of a single instance in which this is true.  Moreover, Sands has explicitly said that the moderators exercise independent judgment and do not act at the behest of any one poster or group of posters.)

3. That the moderators' only potential -- or likely -- response to complaints is banning.  (I have mentioned, and advocated, several others, including deleting and moving posts or offending information, issuing public warnings, issuing private warnings, and temporary suspensions.  As far as I can tell -- the sample size is not big -- my complaints have most often resulted in no action, post-deletion, or private warnings.)

ISUCKATTHIS claimed several times in the last few pages that Sands said that my "complaints" (emphasis added) were the chief reason he banned PILOFOLO.  This is simply not true.  Sands said that he banned PILOFOLO based on several reports to the moderators.  Sands did not identify any of those complaints as having been from me.  This is because they were not from me.  To clarify the timeline, I'll point out that Sands says that he had received several complaints about PILOFOLO before posting a warning in the "Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?" thread.  My sole complaint, in the form of a personal message, was a response to that warning.  It therefore came after several complaints.

In that message I mentioned some of PILOFOLO's obnoxious behavior. I thought Sands had issued the warning to the wrong poster and should have directed it at PILOFOLO.  I concluded:

If you read that thread for context, even after certain posts have been modified, you can tell that any admonition to "play nice" should have been directed at both PILOFOLO and the OP if it was going to be directed at comotellamas.

Thus, in addition to all of the problems I noted above, ISUCKATTHIS' gun analogy fails because I didn't even do the thing he said was so dangerous.  He has accused me of recklessly "pulling the trigger" of the report-to-moderator function, but I didn't.  I wrote a personal message to Sands that specifically indicated that I thought he should issue a warning -- if he was going to take any action at all.  Even if we accept ISUCKATTHIS' analogy, my message was more like a scalpel than a gun.

ISUCKATTHIS, I know you are upset that PILOFOLO was banned, but you are really going after the wrong person. I think we are actually on the same side of the discussion about how the board should be moderated.  I have said repeatedly, both before and after this incident, that posters should only be banned for egregious conduct, and that, except under extraordinary circumstances, they should receive advance warnings.  I don't have personal knowledge of all of the things that led to PILOFOLO's ban, but I certainly think he deserved a warning if he didn't get one.  (FWIW, I have seen a few instances that would likely justify immediate banning; the last I can think of was several years ago when a group of posters from AutoAdmit came through in the middle of the night and plastered the board with vulgar images, the n-word and various racist jokes and lies, and identifying information and disparaging remarks about several black posters.)


Finally,

Please leave me alone. 

I will stop responding to your posts once you stop posting about me.  It's that easy. 

[Matthies]

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.

[UnbiasedObserver]

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.

Well-stated. 

[UnbiasedObserver]

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!  ), 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! 

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! 

[Miss P]

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). 

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.

[UnbiasedObserver]

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!)