From: Glasgow, Scotland
This has been a great thread, doing exactly what I had hoped. We've gotten a lot of great information from a lot of people everywhere. We've had people with particular expertise weigh in with their own thoughts. There are differences of opinion but mostly folks get along and self-regulate. I've taken thoughts posted in here by John Dillworth, Obvert, RFalvo, Chickenboy, Cap Mandrake and shared them with my family, both in writing and in conversation. This is an excellent community. In person, I believe everyone here would be most gracious to everybody else. Without exception.
I've known many of the people in here for years. Over that time, most of them have built up tremendous deposits of good will. If they've said the wrong thing in here, from time, to time, those can be overlooked (mostly, usually) because they have such established records. That's happened a few times.
There is one person in here who overdrew his account of good will seriously. He's made the atmosphere poisonous. He's provoked other members to various expressions of outrage or leaving. I've seen people who have never had a discouraging word become uncharacteristically miffed at him, but it's not them. It's him. He's the poison.
The fact of the matter is that behind the ant-bellum camaraderie charade that you adopt, you cannot accept any viewpoint as correct unless it fits with your own. Related to this is your repeated attempts to keep control of the discussion to avoid facts that you find challenging to deal with.
That has been demonstrated several times on this thread.
Rather that deal with this cognitive dissonance (and make no mistake, cognitive dissonance is what it is), it is much easier to adopt the role of being aggrieved by a malicious outside force, in the form of this "poisoner".
And he has his enablers. While most people in here say what they think, there is one who tells others what to think. He cloaks his words in "I want to build bridges" while doing his work and tearing them down. When he gets things absolutely, demonstratively wrong, he slips away in the dark. Always, 100% of the time, refuses to acknowledge a mistake.
Please, provide examples! I am always willing to be proven wrong.
Unless I have missed it, there has been zero (0) evidence presented to challenge any claims that I've made in this thread.
Which is really what this is all about. You have a preference for narrative and anecdote. Mine is for facts and statistics. Both have their merits, but one is much heavier than the other, as you will well know.
There is one other that internalizes things and sees boogeymen where there aren't any. A few days ago, he posted that it was an age thing for me; that I was picking on him and others because of generational matters, which isn't true. Until that moment, I had no idea how old he was. From the context of his comment, I now suppose he's in his 30s or 40s but for all I knew, until then, he was my age or 20 or 80. Another fellow I know pretty well is, I think, in his late 40s, but's that's my age (or so I think). The poisoner is comparatively younger based on a comment he made a year ago in another thread, but I'm not sure. It doesn't matter.
Not in the slightest.
I have found your attitude of consistent and unabashed optimism exceptionally inappropriate. I can't recall having ever seen an individual simply refuse to acknowledge factual evidence (that they have found themselves!) as it didn't fit with their conception of how events were unfolding.
Unsure how age is relevant to this discussion.
Or is there some component to generational things that explains the behavior of these three? Is that why the poisoner and his enablers insist on keeping everything public? Is that why they refused every request to keep this private or take matters private? Is this a Facebook way of doing things? (Probably not - there are undoubtedly a bunch of folks in here, younger and older, who use Facebook but don't act this way.)
Likely in the interests of full disclosure, and to keep at least a veneer of civility.
Your own PM's to me, for example, are the valid justification in my eyes. They would not be fitting with the narrative you have outlined above.
I have the poisoner on Ignore and it's worked pretty well - not perfectly, but well. I'm adding his two enablers. They've seriously drawn on their stock of goodwill. Not overdrawn though. I'll be glad to discuss things privately with them at length, in depth. Always have been.
Every person in here is a good man in person, I believe. Even the one who poisoned this thread.
No, we'll keep this public, thank you. Transparency is something of great value.
This is no doubt of some embarrassment to your attempts of being the genial gentlemen that you work so hard to come across as, so I think we'll keep it public to highlight just how duplicitous you can be when someone dares to take a position contrary to yours.