Contrary to popular belief, I don’t in fact attempt to murder every Amarr affiliate I come to contact with.
I’ve suggested before that you ask people about these things. Not just me, but also others. You should make your own judgments, but they should be based on information, not imagination.
But you won’t. Instead of asking and looking for answers, you keep on talking and preaching and explaining your views and dismissing anything thant goes contrary to them, and call that “exploration” and “taking it lighlty”.
EDIT: Let me rephrase my offer. Come back to me when you have given me some reason to believe you actually want to understand, not just find out things you can then use to support your story.
Heh. That was kind of my point-- that I’d walk out of there just fine, but it wouldn’t be for my own sake. I haven’t forgotten events at the music festival.
But whatever, Else. I’m not so eager to cater to you. My interest in dialog is an invitation, not an offer of concessions aside from a willingness to hear. It’s definitely not an invitation to cut at me, then call me self-centered and closed-minded when I defend myself.
Block me, so you’ll never have to hear my voice again. I’m tired, and going to bed.
For the record, I have no idea what you mean by this.
You have
not invited me to anything,
not shown any interest in dialogue.
Ranting at the IGS about what you think I am like, telling Arrendis you have no intent to change that opinion no matter what, and never directing as much as a question or token implication that you are interested in listening to me directly is not interest in dialogue. If anything, it is the opposite.
Just because you have told yourself you are a seeker of information and dialogue does not make you so. Actions speak louder than words.
I’ve not come to you to beg for dialogue or a chance to explain myself either. You keep on starting these “let me explain Elsebeth to the general public” things - not me. I react, and part of that reaction is pointing out that your claims about “dialogue” and “exploration” and actually understanding me based on some superior information are false.
There are many people on your side of the war who have actually spoken to me in a spirit of seeking for knowledge of me - you are not one of them. What you have done when talking about me, by your own admission in this thread, is seeking to hurt me. Gods be damned, even Lord Consort Aldrith Shutaq Newelle does a better job at seeking dialogue with me than you do.
So get off your ■■■■■■■ high horse and stop trying to act like you are some kind of peaceful agent who just wanted to have a nice chat, and me the one who is rejecting sincere dialogue and needs to be catered to.
If you want it to stop, just stop it. Show me, for once, the knowledge-seeker you claim to be.
Or block me yourself, so you don’t have to see me interject inconvenient replies to your smacktalk.
There are few things more disheartening than to see a conversation go in circles over and over again to the point of frustration and hostility, even if the participants enter it with earnest intentions to find some sort of compromise and do better than the last time.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think either of you is being disingenuous about what you mean and what you want from this interaction. I find that few people in a sound state of mind and at least somewhat healthy conscience knowingly lie - they might put a spin on it, they might not tell the whole truth, they might dress it up to present it in a better light, but if they want to get their point across, they will not tell an outright falsehood.
But no matter how the argument is presented, the other party will always view it through the lens of their own perception. You can’t alter that perception. Personal bias is inherently hard to suppress, let alone overcome. I’d go as far as to say that people who say they’re neutral and unbiased are full of s… somewhat overconfident assumptions about their own impartiality. Obviously, I’m pretty biased and have a vested interest in this - I don’t like the way this argument is going, what it’s doing to people I like and the prospects of this war ever ending (however small its impact on said war might be), so feel free to ignore me.
But in the end, what I’m saying is, you have a strong incompatibility of opinion. Perhaps it would be better just to leave each other alone? Not burning bridges or anything, just stop interacting, stop provoking each other and focus on something else, at least for a while. Even if the other party doesn’t respect this ceasefire - well, as some recent examples in neighboring threads demonstrate, one digging a hole for another will inevitably end up falling into it herself.
We’re not quite on the same page here. I’m talking about the conversation taking place right now, not what, per that same admission, happened way back during Thebeka. I’m not making excuses for that one - guilt-by-association attacks are the same thing we complain about when someone tries to tar the entire Empire with the same militant Sarum/Khanid-flavored brush.
Yet again, that was Thebeka. You two have been offering (admittedly back-handed) advice to each other and trying to (admittedly half-heartedly) find common ground as late as of just a day ago. Unsuccessfully, of course, but the attempt was there. There must be some perception that it might be worth it to pursue some form of understanding, which doesn’t really spell out “malice” to me.
It might simply be the wrong time to try to achieve that. It might never be the right time, but it’s not worth losing sleep over, either.
I am afraid I find it really hard to read “some perception that it might be worth it to pursue some form of understanding” to it when
we’ve already been through one yelling match about her habit of Explaining™ me
she’s acknowledged she did it to intentionally hurt me and backed off
she starts doing it again
she then states she has no intent to change her opinion of me no matter what, nor has interest to talk to me directly
she never directs questions or other attempts to confirm or clarify to me, but instead continues to Explain™
she then reiterates her motive was to hurt me.
It does spell malice, to me, I’m afraid.
I don’t know what would need to happen to make it spell something else, but just smiling sweetly and claiming she’s been “inviting me to dialogue” all along does not seem to work.
I’d be fine, of course, with her just stopping. I’m not the one pretending I’m the paragon of neutrality and mere a seeker of dialogue, here.
That first round of Explain™ might have been an attempt to understand, as unfortunate as it turned out.
But I’m veering into Explaining™ Aria now, which would be A) rude B) presumptuous C) highly hypocritical.
Obviously, I’d rather not do that. I’m trying to defuse an argument here (or at least I hope I am - I admit I don’t have a stellar record of “not making things worse”), not start a new one.
That’s good enough, really. I’ll be happy if I can help reach such a compromise - if only to see Ms. Tsukiyo there pout at being deprived of entertainment.
I usually do it in a consensual way, within specific scenarios and all that. SSC, RACK and PRICK i consider good references depending on the context/mood/participant(s).
