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.
.
.

Thank you Pris,

Hear, hear ...

Speaking one's truth is freedom. It is inherent with-in each of us how we choose to respond to another person's truth. I agree whole heartedly that this thread is not only valuable but beautiful.

Beautiful Beings ... *holds That as Truth*

Pris wrote:

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”.

Phil wrote:

Pris wrote:

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”.

My opinion here? I think you are being over-analytical and unnecessarily self-judging. I liked your 'take' on the subject of this thread, Phil, irregardless of Shezbeth's reaction to it. It's too bad you deleted some stuff. If the admin has a problem with it, they'll let you know. Say what you want to say so long as you stay as respectful as possible.

I'm not sure what is exactly 'allowed' in this forum yet. But, compared to what has happened to me in The Mists recently, this 'exchange' is rather innocent.

Shezbeth can be overly sensitive. Hey, we're all learning as we go. In his defense, he's one of my most favourite little A-holes on the forums (at least he strives to be ). He is different, intriguing, and fun. I've ticked him off on numerous occasions (sometimes, it's not even intentional lol)... and still he invites me to join him here in EE. What a guy!
.
.

Heres a weird thing. I started the process of clicking this thread and was overwhelmed by the smell of dark chocolate. 0_0

Edit: coffee had been on all day

Naga_Fireball wrote:Heres a weird thing. I started the process of clicking this thread and was overwhelmed by the smell of dark chocolate. 0_0

Edit: coffee had been on all day

It's amazing how there's a kitteh meme for practically all occasions.


.
.

Bravo Phil, a double-bind is PRECISELY what I was doing. Kudos to you for seeing through it, and for effectively illustrating it. You gave me a brilliant opportunity (assisted by some <ahem> timely remarks by Christine on Skype), and I couldn't resist.

Still, I would appreciate if we COULD leave any discussion about morality in ANOTHER thread. This is not just for me to share MY favorite tactics, but for EVERYONE to share THEIRS; we can discuss moral implications - of which there are many! - for another thread, k?

Shezbeth wrote:Bravo Phil, a double-bind is PRECISELY what I was doing. Kudos to you for seeing through it, and for effectively illustrating it. You gave me a brilliant opportunity (assisted by some <ahem> timely remarks by Christine on Skype), and I couldn't resist.

Still, I would appreciate if we COULD leave any discussion about morality in ANOTHER thread. This is not just for me to share MY favorite tactics, but for EVERYONE to share THEIRS; we can discuss moral implications - of which there are many! - for another thread, k?

Heey!! Back again? Tsk tsk you trickster you! So yeah, no morality. Let's get on with it, yes?
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
...waiting...
.............waiting...


......................Zzzzzzz...


.
.