Posted by crazy teresa on August 5, 2005, at 23:10:47
In reply to Re: I should have said » crazy teresa, posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 21:58:55
> > I don't recall stating that I avoid conflict, > I hadn't said that you did avoid conflict anywhere. I inferred that you thought it was 'better' from what you said here:
> Isn't anyone willing to be the bigger/better person (in your own mind) and walk away from all the spatting on this board,No, I don't think it's better. See my post about reasoning with the unreasonable. I don't see the point in 'beating a dead horse.' I see on Admin. some frustration without resolution, with no end in sight because of one person.
>
> nor did I question anyone's maturity.
> >
>
> I took that from what you said here:
> >I am curiously reminded of my grade school aged children; as an adult, I need to know when something is terribly wrong, but I do not need to know about or become involved in every petty dispute that occurs every 5 minutes.I was referring to my job as peacekeeper.
> > I did not say I do not understand the reason for Admin. threads.
> I was referring to this:
> enjoyed? Am I seeing anger issues or fun?This is a website with concerns regarding mental health issues. Are there no people here with anger issues, or those who will only fight for the sake of fighting?
> > I did not generalize. I gave specific examples.
>
> I was referring to the title of your post.
> "Generally speaking"A genuine effort to not get blocked, to show you I was not directing anything at anybody in particular. I was curious and interested.
> Yet 3 more examples of what I'm talking about! MUCH more is read into posts than what they actually say. I was curious as to why there is so much fighting that goes on and whether or not you enjoy it and how Dr. Bob and the deputies feel about it bexcaue of the positions they're in.
> >
> > There was really no reason to refer to some other posts that could make others feel bad, now was there?
> >
>
> There was a reason to refer to a post. As an example of reading more into posts than there is, I absolutely meant no insult to anyone who enjoyed that thread. Spriggy is one of my favorite posters.
> I simply meant, different strokes for different folks. There was nothing inferred by >it.You were talking directly to me and I participated in the post. By saying 'some don't understand the need' in your response I felt like you were being condescending towards me--in my mind, there was no reference to spriggy at all! Thus my point that the longer some of these discussions continue, the more issues that are brought into the debate and the reason for the post in the first place is lost.
> Some like "Reality T.V" some like "Sit Coms"
> Had I made judgement on it by labelling it petty, reminiscent of children, then that would be a judgement, and it's quite likely I meant to make someone feel bad, or that it was going to happen.Again I was referring to my roll as peacekeeper, nothing more.
>
> Did you think that anyone involved in the "over analyzation and spatting" on the admin board might feel bad?" Maybe someone who didn't think their questions were over analyzing or defending themselves was spatting?
>
>I apologize. That was not my intent. My point was that I do not understand why once I make a post(I don't like cabbage), if someone does not like it, why doesn't that someone respond with a reasonable request for clarification (why don't you like cabbage?) and nothing more (OMG, she HATES cabbage, she must want to kill all people who like cabbage and the growers, too!) I do not enjoy having to pick apart each and every sentence and debate it, feeling as if I am being bated--being questioned just to see if someone will get me to slip up so he can feel the joy of seeing another be reprimanned.
t
poster:crazy teresa
thread:537930
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/538115.html