chasm

Ah the war continues to another post!

To me, I think that unless you are doing specific damage to someone, its better to be open and honest whenever possible. I love to discuss controversial stuff. Sure beats talking about the weather! Why should I not say what I think about myself? Why should I worry that someone may not agree? Thats fine, people do not have to agree with me, they can think and do as they please. No one likes when I wear my black cowboy hat to a William Allen game, but Ive done it and don't give a shit.

In fact, to a certain extent, I love the fact that within some basic boundaries, I am who I damn am and thats it. You can take me or leave me, but I really dont worry about what people think of me. I have reached a point where I can have a critical discussion about my life or anyone else's life, and as long as I am not being purposely hurtful, there is nothing wrong with it.

I personally think even when it hurts sometimes to hear the truth, that it helps you see how other people see you. This is not being directed at ANYONE in particular. One may have a picture of themselves that differs greatly from the way others perceive them or their attitude. I dont see how discussing these things is a bad thing, at the very least it is DAMN amusing.

Those who are pacifists, I say go ahead, thats fine. If thats what you are comfortable with, go with it. But at the same time, don't hate the question that you dont feel comfortable answering. Dont get mad at people for being confident. Just accept everyone as they are, and be politically correct whenever possible.

Once again, this conversation is NOT directed spcifically at one person. This kind of stuff comes up all the time with people I talk to, friends, family, co-workers, hell the general public. Everyone can respond to question as they see fit, but I dont see how hating the question gets anyone anywhere. If you shy away from answering, I question what you might have to hide!

You know, with all the time you guys are spending flexing your nuts..... Robb and Tom: It was just a question, and it was just a comment to a question (respectively). If you don't like the question don't respond to it, and don't post a question if you're going to bitch about the resonses you get. You're both going to say "Yea I know". But if you knew, this post wouldn't exist, I wouldn't be commenting, and the previous post would be about 8 comments shorter than it is. Why am i taking the time to comment? Because I'm getting paid right now, and this to me is a better use of my time than updating the Florida Tile price list. I could be out in the warehouse "field testing" a paper plane I made, but that seems to be better suited for my illustrious manager. Peace, love, and LSD kids. (Jon sucks)

Nah, no war here. This post is completely independent of any others.

Kyle, I didn't really bitch about the response, rather, I asked for a bit of common courtesy. I even took it upon myself to try to take the criticism constructively and to better explain the question so as to avoid any other confusion concerning my intentions.

Either way, a blog is for posting and there sure has been an uptick in posting lately.

Well I will agree with the uptick in posting. Incidentally, you should post more controversial things that really offend people. The posting will never end.

Preface:
Yes. I can be combative; I can be defensive. But I am usually provoked. Let it be noted that I have yet to attack a person’s character or attempt to degrade him/her in the eyes of his peers (in a non-joking fashion, at least).

Excerpt from “Consistency.” Posted by Tom.
“I happen to know this guy who has become, over years of [emasculation] at the hands of one particular woman…”

“I also happen to know this guy who, as his formal education has progressed, has become one of the most defensive and combative people I know with his written words and via verbal communications.”

“I guess it wouldn't be a real problem anyway if I did get confused for a moment and confronted him in person. Odds are (and history has shown) that he'll just go away.”

Response:
It is unfortunate that one individual cannot separate a simple comment in reference to an intellectual thought/question from a personal attack. I, by no means, ever attacked the post-er’s character or questioned his intellect. I merely said what I thought of his question (and to my knowledge, a post on a ‘blog is not an extension of one’s self). I may throw around humorous terms like “blog-tyrant,” but is only because I thought some comic relief was necessary to cool the discussion.

For those of you that know me, I do avoid confrontation in most instances—when it comes to possibly hurting one’s feelings, quashing one’s self-esteem, etc. Why fight over life’s trivialities? In terms of intellectual or philosophical discussion, I have strong opinions, and I tend to share them passionately and frequently through various forms of verbal discourse. I feel free to write or say as I please because I know that no substantial harm can result. They are only thoughts. And until someone makes it personal, no one really should get hurt.

The reason I may outwardly resemble a pacifist is because I choose my battles carefully. I have learned that much conflict can be avoided through reflection and compromise. I am not saying that I never get combative, because I do. I get defensive; I get hurt; I get enraged. But, I have never claimed to be a pacifist. That term has been thrust upon me by individuals that love to provoke; that love to vocalize; that love to showcase their supremacy over others.

If you spend your entire life judging others, or telling yourself that you are “better” than the next guy, you can never be happy. Individuals that practice this tend to be insecure. They tend to put down their peers to elevate themselves (in their own minds). More time should be spent admiring than criticizing.

Robb
aka "The emasculated pacifist that runs, with his tail between legs, at the sight of adversity."

If you volunteer to be this person, so be it.

That being the case, Robb, you only avoid conflict in PERSON. You call names, question tactics and run your mouth on xBox Live as if you were somehow deemed superior by none other than the Master Cheif himself and granted divine right to judge other players. (I'm not even gonna mention how you threw your boy Dan under the bus last night.) When we all used to play in the same two rooms, that did not happen. You sat there and you took the high road when Jon or others attacked you. Yes, you were provoked but provoked equally in both situations. (God, please forgive me for bringing Halo into this.)

If we were all sitting in a room and discussing the "average post" question, you would not have called it vacuous nor would you have implied I was of "below average temperament" if I questioned you for dismissing it so succinctly. However, given the perceived safety blanket of this or any other media not directly connected to the other party, you have little problem speaking up.

Well, bully for you for speaking up! I recommend you do it all the time if that's how you really feel. Don't hide behind "non-confrontational" in person and let it all out later when there are fewer repercussions.

Speak your mind OR hold your peace, not speak your mind AND hold your peace depending on what is easier at the time.

If being called a pacifist offends, my apologies. With Jon as your brother, it's difficult to consider you anything different. If I spoke anything but words of truth, my apologies. If I spoke nothing BUT the truth from my perspective and that of at least several others in our "group" about a guy I know, so be it.

I'm not questioning or attacking your character AND, even though I wrote this post a while ago, I waited (and waited) until your last comment before I decided to post it publically. I think you firmly believe that your method of dealing with certain things is the best method for everyone. I think you have the best intentions most of the time. However, I ask that you give me the common courtesy of dealing with me as forthcoming and honest in person as you do when I'm not physically present.

For future reference to all readers, a post on a blog IS an extension of the post-er. I'm not sure how it could NOT be. The post-er thought it up and wrote it down. How can that NOT be an extension of the post-er?

Therefore, when someone posts a question to facilitate discussion on a level above "what's your favorite TV show" and you say it's lacking content, ideas or intelligence, that is also a reflection on the post-er directly.

"If you spend your entire life judging others, or telling yourself that you are “better” than the next guy, you can never be happy." Okay, fair enough ... the whole, "there's always a bigger fish" adage, well said. However, if you are not secure enough to examine your own life and where you stand against others, where's the personal growth? Just as a quick example, what if you aspire to be a "better" Christian after you visit a jail in which you were grouped with seven convicts? Is this the road to "never be happy"?

"More time should be spent admiring than criticizing." I think this is a beautiful sentiment and I just wonder why you couldn't have gone there at first. That's all part of the self-realization I was trying to promote with the original "average" post. It wasn't intended to posit myself eternally in the above-average group or to imply anyone else was in the below-average group but to really take a hard look at situations where I or others might be below average and to admire and learn from those that are above average. In addition, should you find yourself in the above-average group, what can you do to help those who are below average?

I wave a white flag to the "average" discussion. My apologies for unintentionally insulting the post-er. I suppose that after years of writing and having to accept criticism on a larger scale, I have been able to separate my writing from myself. (i.e. just because someone does not like or disagrees with something I wrote does not mean he doesn't value or respect my opinion; he just doesn't share the same view.)

The 'blog forum lends itself to written discussion. I contribute on topics as I see fit.

In regards to not bringing conflict on a personal level, perhaps I should. But it is simply not in my nature to argue on a grand scale. Generally, I prefer written discourse (the 'ol letter writing correspondence between thinkers) because it gives the participants time to think and reflect upon their writings and retorts.

Any time someone wants to have a reasonable discussion or debate, you all know my contact information and general whereabouts. It just seems that most discussions (at least in our little circle) tend to be all-out witch hunts focusing on one individual or another (with the intent to seriously discredit the victim-of-the-night). Dan knows what I am talking about.