Phil wrote:I WAS actually sorry for trying your patience, as my intentions were not that...I honestly did believe you were missing a point, which was important to me, which I guess you consider some commentary on morality…so I’m removing from your thread.
And now I really am sorry for "derailing".
Enjoy your thread, it is now clear for your verbal artistry, I’ve removed my diarreah.
Geez, Phil. You think what you did was the equivalent of 'verbal diarrhea'(and removed
some of it)? Why? Because Shezbeth suggested it was diarrhea? As for 'derailing', FA could have just ignored you and continued with his agenda. But, he didn't. What does THAT say about him
? Still, your input, Phil, and the 'exchange' between the two of you hardly constitutes a 'derailing' IMHO. This thread just started... soooo much potential...
Clearly, you are both good at verbal artistry.
I misinterpreted his original post (which I can’t remember and don’t care to re-read) to be a start of a discussion of the “effective employment of dark side tactics”.
Through our exchange, I found he prefers to make an authoritative listing of those tactics, specifically removing any moral implications of using them. It took me a minute to understand that, as I felt that what made any tactic “dark side” was intent, therefore making the term itself a sort of speaking morality. I see the “dark side” as simply using deception…and I think we have to lie to ourselves to allow us to think that it’s ever it ok to use (and have an outcome without negative consequences).
So my intrusions of what I considered valid illustrators of my point, that all “effective employment” of dark side tactics leads to unintended and counterproductive results IS verbal poo, to him, in this thread of his, which is based on the premise that the tactics can be analyzed in a “morality-free” manner.
When you are creating what I consider sand art (which each piece captured in a snapshot…which is how I look at forums) with a zombie ninja with a flair for the dramatic, sometimes you gotta take it to the performance art level….my posts here weren’t to dazzle an audience or feed my ego, it was to test to see if I could convince someone in love with the structure of the reality we find ourselves to consider an alternative.
The posts not only failed horribly in their intended purpose, but also had what I shez do what I perceived to be as employing dark side tactics. Whether he intended or not, I saw him as creating a double bind (perhaps while playing the victim?) by calling my writing “off topic” shit, while projecting the fear of accusations of censorship if I had Christine move (or remove) it…really leaving me no good choices—the obvious would be to run my mouth more to show how I might be seen to be “right”, but then I’d be playing the games I claim to be trying to ruin the “fun” in.
So while it’s perfectly reasonable (and predictable) to show me as trying to “win at his game”, it really doesn’t have to be. It can be whatever he makes it. I see the only real “win-win” solution is to retitle this thread to include “hijacked by Phil” and him start his definitive subjective listing of his favorite dark side employment tactics (which I promise to stay out of)…
Unless he can show the error in my thinking….which is pretty much the only reason I drop loads on these forums anymore: I don’t WANT to be right. I want feedback to show where I am thinking in counter-productive way. I really don’t want to “win”.