I miss the Pied Piper and Antiseptic more than the other three. Foxy seemed genuinely hurt by some people's lack of basic courtesy. Suze just couldn't cope with others disagreeing with her. I don't remember Poirot.

@NathanJ, that was excellent! Kudos to you.

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” ― Brigham Young.

( Yes, he founded the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). So what? He probably got the phrase from someone who wasn't - that's how it goes. No matter what is said either it stands on it's own or it doesn't. )

What Nathan said stands on it's own. Thanks for that Nathan.

NathanJ,

I thought that was rather bizarre of you to paraphrase a previous post of mine like that. There appeared to be no concrete reason for you doing so.

<<But posting on this page shouldn't be just be about winning.>>

By ‘winning’, I meant that one cannot do anything right. I think you know that. Taking a word that I used and addressing it in a different sense to what was meant at the time is equivocation and dishonest.

It is also cowardly to use a different discussion thread to challenge, or attack even, what I have said on another thread, as if to hope that I don’t notice.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I did in our last discussion. I was simply being thorough in my responses and you turned that against me for no apparent reason other than the fact that you didn't like what was being said.

What you’re essentially saying now is that my only option, to keep you satisfied and offence-free, was to let you have the last word, regardless of whether or not I had more to add, or to post less-thorough responses that would have inevitably resulted in an unnecessarily long back-and-forth.

None of us are obliged to limit the number of thoughts we express, or let others have the last word when there is clearly more to be said, just because some of us are sensitive souls.

What a cheap shot your last two posts were.

AJ Philips,

The title of this topic clearly says: "Apparent Loss of some of OLO's & 'the Forums' best advocates"

So I don't (and didn't) want to go into dictionary definitions or someone's personal interpretations about winning.

I clearly want to stay to the discussion topic.

The fact, that I did not mention your name, was out of basic respect and that other people did not need to know (a particular name) re this topic.

That particular posting (which you refer to) - which was a lot of wording (very specifically in regards to eight points, towards the end of the discussion) were not about the topic, they were about personal attitudes towards posting on this website. This can easily show why the headline refers to an: "Apparent Loss of some of OLO's & 'the Forums' best advocates."

To put this in perspective, a lot of people are busy and they don't always want to be going onto pages 35....36....37.... on this website. A person may only be willing to do that if they feel very strongly about a topic.

The fact I posted the information, also is not a one off issue. I've had other people question my comments previously, via searches on this website. I did not consider this offensive at all, as after all I made the comments and posted them on this website, but talking people down (as some have mentioned as part of this discussion topic) does turn some people off commenting on this page and that is why, as I said before) I left your name off, in regards to this topic.

It's no different than all forms of other social media, like Facebook. If I place something on facebook, I have to be fully responsible for that. Now you've mentioned your name, with the text (I included), when I didn't mention your name at all (and had no intention of doing that), that's unfixable.

NathanJ,

So are you saying, then, that you have also used the different topic of this thread as a way of committing the equivocation fallacy?

<<The title of this topic clearly says … So I don't (and didn't) want to go into dictionary definitions or someone's personal interpretations about winning.>>

Personal or not, my interpretation of my own words is everything. You don’t get to use my words to make a point that strays from what I had said. I was willing to let it go too, until you attacked me in your post to Yuyutsu.

<<The fact, that I did not mention your name, was out of basic respect and that other people did not need to know (a particular name) re this topic.>>

Which, again, is why I was willing to let it slide until your post to Yuyutsu. Either way, though, you still don’t get to use someone else’s words like that. Nor do I believe you would have unless you had an ulterior motive.

If, in your next paragraph, you are saying that you used my points to highlight why some may feel like leaving through sheer exacerbation, then fine. Again, up until your post to Yuyutsu, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there. It's flattering to be that quotable, but you overstepped the mark with your equivocation and your post to Yuyutsu.

<<… a lot of people are busy and they don't always want to be going onto pages 35....36....37.... on this website. A person may only be willing to do that if they feel very strongly about a topic.>>

So why were you not willing to grant that I felt strongly about the topic? I only ever post when I feel strongly about a topic.

<<I've had other people question my comments previously, via searches on this website. I did not consider this offensive at all, as after all I made the comments and posted them on this website …>>

Did they skew the meaning of what you said had and then slag off at you afterwards?

Continued…

…Continued

<<It's no different than all forms of other social media … If I place something on facebook, I have to be fully responsible for that.>>

Yes, you have to take responsibility for what you say, but never for a misconstrual of what you have said. What you did was wrong. Own it.

<<Now you've mentioned your name, with the text (I included), when I didn't mention your name at all (and had no intention of doing that), that's unfixable.>>

Oh, phooey. You just wanted to hit back at me with the immunity that you thought omitting my name would provide. That's cowardly.

You say this as though I should be ashamed too. There is nothing that is unfixable here, and I am quite happy to own what you had accurately quoted. It was a good point, after all. The only thing that needed fixing was your equivocation and misrepresentation, but that’s been fixed now.

None of the accusations in your post to Yuyutsu were in any way accurate, or at least relevant to me, so there is nothing for me to feel embarrassed about or ashamed of now that I have 'blown' the anonymity that you halfheartedly provided me with.