[Lorric]

So I suppose this little snark post is just fine.

Was the other thread insufficient for some reason?

See how ridiculous this argument is?

I'm pretty sure there's more where that came from, and I can find them.

[AdmiralRalwood]

So I suppose this little snark post is just fine.

Was the other thread insufficient for some reason?

See how ridiculous this argument is?

I'm pretty sure there's more where that came from, and I can find them.

You mean how I was asking a question again?

But let's assume that I have, in the past, made a post identical in form to yours. Why exactly does somebody else having done something wrong at some point in the past make it okay for you to do something wrong in the present? Why does your established pattern of behavior not matter to how people react to your posts now?

[Lorric]

I find your reasoning flawed. You've pulled that out of nowhere, your aggressive interpretation of my post.

Let's go back to the post I produced of yours. If that was just a straight question with no intended snark, then it is I who have interpreted it wrong.

This quote of mine, it is you who have interpreted it wrong. It is impossible to speak with perfect clarity. There will always be misunderstandings. So people talk to each other to clear them up.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I find your reasoning flawed. You've pulled that out of nowhere, your aggressive interpretation of my post.

Let's go back to the post I produced of yours. If that was just a straight question with no intended snark, then it is I who have interpreted it wrong.

This quote of mine, it is you who have interpreted it wrong. It is impossible to speak with perfect clarity. There will always be misunderstandings. So people talk to each other to clear them up.

I didn't interpret your post; I let you know what the implications of your phrasing were. Yes, there will always be misunderstandings; that's why my post was a question asking for clarification. Did you seek clarification in your post?

[Lorric]

I didn't need it. I was correct. I stated a fact.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I didn't need it. I was correct. I stated a fact.

You turned out to be correct in the end. You stated your interpretation of the situation, which turned out to be correct. This is not the same thing as stating a fact. You axiomatically assumed that your interpretation of the situation was correct and acted accordingly, without any accordance for the possibility that you might be wrong and the way in which you expressed this conveys the implications I was trying to point out to you earlier.

[Lorric]

I will seek a second opinion on this. But I don't see anything wrong with stating a fact that is a fact.

[Lorric]

I'm bringing this back to the front because I still wish to know the answer.

Yes, I somehow forgot and then forgot to merge the threads.

That's what I said. Why did it take Ralwood to point that out?

We point out that there's already a thread for things all the time, in thread. Thread gets merged. That's what I did. Why did we need all this? Why was the thread not just merged after I posted? Did you click my link?

[AdmiralRalwood]

I'm bringing this back to the front because I still wish to know the answer.

Yes, I somehow forgot and then forgot to merge the threads.

That's what I said. Why did it take Ralwood to point that out?

We point out that there's already a thread for things all the time, in thread. Thread gets merged. That's what I did. Why did we need all this? Why was the thread not just merged after I posted? Did you click my link?

Why does your established pattern of behavior not matter to how people react to your posts now?

[Lorric]

What are you saying?

If you're saying what I think you're saying, all I did was state a fact. Even if you felt someone was metaphorically punching you in the face with facts they're still facts. You would still absorb that information and act on it.

[AdmiralRalwood]

What are you saying?

I'm saying that your posts do not exist in a context-free vacuum; they exist in the context of every post you have ever made. Why do you think your past behavior should have no impact on how people react to your posts today?

[Lorric]

What are you saying?

I'm saying that your posts do not exist in a context-free vacuum; they exist in the context of every post you have ever made. Why do you think your past behavior should have no impact on how people react to your posts today?

I don't.

But you don't know me. You need to throw all of that away and start over.

[AdmiralRalwood]

What are you saying?

I'm saying that your posts do not exist in a context-free vacuum; they exist in the context of every post you have ever made. Why do you think your past behavior should have no impact on how people react to your posts today?

I don't.

But you don't know me. You need to throw all of that away and start over.

Those two paragraphs are inherently contradictory. You cannot simultaneously not think your past behavior should have no impact on how people react to your posts today and tell people to throw out your past behavior and "start over".

[Lorric]

Let me try again.

I do not think people should pretend the past doesn't exist.

What I am saying is your opinion of me (and I mean this encompassing a number of people) is badly wrong. So it should be tossed out completely and restarted. As in, it's possible to go back to the past if you feel it necessary, but with a clean slate to re-evaluate. I can help with getting to know the real me if you talk and listen to me and it stays civil.

I do not like this acrimonious relationship I have with certain people around here any more than you do, but a lot of it is rage against a construct that isn't me, a strawman that's been put in my place.

Also, holding grudges is going to damage any chance of reconciliation quite badly.

[AdmiralRalwood]

What I am saying is your opinion of me (and I mean this encompassing a number of people) is badly wrong. So it should be tossed out completely and restarted. As in, it's possible to go back to the past if you feel it necessary, but with a clean slate to re-evaluate. I can help with getting to know the real me if you talk and listen to me and it stays civil.

I do not like this acrimonious relationship I have with certain people around here any more than you do, but a lot of it is rage against a construct that isn't me, a strawman that's been put in my place.

Your behavior in this thread alone is enough to cause friction with the rest of the userbase; the fact that you are apparently unaware of this is part of the problem.

[Luis Dias]

I find all this Lorric bashing to be intolerable, gruesome, ridiculous.

That is all.

[Lorric]

What I am saying is your opinion of me (and I mean this encompassing a number of people) is badly wrong. So it should be tossed out completely and restarted. As in, it's possible to go back to the past if you feel it necessary, but with a clean slate to re-evaluate. I can help with getting to know the real me if you talk and listen to me and it stays civil.

I do not like this acrimonious relationship I have with certain people around here any more than you do, but a lot of it is rage against a construct that isn't me, a strawman that's been put in my place.

Your behavior in this thread alone is enough to cause friction with the rest of the userbase; the fact that you are apparently unaware of this is part of the problem.

I'm not trying to brush this thread away.

I am going to get my second opinion and if my second opinion sways me, I will accede. I've changed my HLP behaviour plenty of times before, and I can do it again. That is also a good reason why the past should be forgotten. 2015 Lorric is a World away from 2012 or even 2013 Lorric and significantly different to 2014 Lorric.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I find all this Lorric bashing to be intolerable, gruesome, ridiculous.

That is all.

If you are referring to the contents of this thread, I would ask you to please point it out, because I'm not seeing it.

If, however, you instead mean the general tenor of conversation whenever Lorric's name is mentioned on IRC, I will concede you might have a point about it being "gruesome", but it is clearly neither "intolerable" (since I haven't seen anybody get banned, kicked, or even sternly warned over it) nor "ridiculous", since it is in reaction to his own behavior.

What I am saying is your opinion of me (and I mean this encompassing a number of people) is badly wrong. So it should be tossed out completely and restarted. As in, it's possible to go back to the past if you feel it necessary, but with a clean slate to re-evaluate. I can help with getting to know the real me if you talk and listen to me and it stays civil.

I do not like this acrimonious relationship I have with certain people around here any more than you do, but a lot of it is rage against a construct that isn't me, a strawman that's been put in my place.

Your behavior in this thread alone is enough to cause friction with the rest of the userbase; the fact that you are apparently unaware of this is part of the problem.

I'm not trying to brush this thread away.

I am going to get my second opinion and if my second opinion sways me, I will accede. I've changed my HLP behaviour plenty of times before, and I can do it again. That is also a good reason why the past should be forgotten. 2015 Lorric is a World away from 2012 or even 2013 Lorric and significantly different to 2014 Lorric.

If you're relying on only one external opinion, and/or keep asking the same person(s) for outside opinions, that may explain why so many people feel like you are incapable of learning from your mistakes.

[Lorric]

I'll let Luis elaborate on that.

The part addressed to me, the second opinion is going to be Zacam. The second opinion has been Zacam for a while and he's changed me in numerous ways. Prior to that there have been others.

[AdmiralRalwood]

the second opinion is going to be Zacam. The second opinion has been Zacam for a while and he's changed me in numerous ways. Prior to that there have been others.

So you only get one external opinion, and regularly go to the same person every time. This, indeed, explains a great deal.