That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Please leave me alone.
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.)
Quote 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, 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.