2012 - a retrospective

[Al Swearegen]

Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?

Yes I would like you to show why what I said was a strawman and then try to push it over.

Right there. See I don't even know if you want me to say yes or no to any of those questions. So if you're trying to set a trap where I nod along to everything, it went straight over my head.

Yes I remember Shleed starting his own site and butterflies wanting people to go there. Yes I remember some people disliking her, and I'm sure she got told more than once to just fuck off to there, though I don't remember specific incidences. I have no idea what was in her mind and whether it related to people being young or old. I don't think it's silly to suggest people here might be reluctant or unable to accept others since rigidity is a common aspergers trait and pretty much just about every drama since WP's conception has demonstrated that just because we're on the spectrum doesn't make everyone magically get along or be above petty social crap.

But yes I definitely think that there may (and I say may) be some merit in things going the "other way". Consider though how things have been in the worst dramacausts.

I do remember.

Things do not happen in a vaccum, Py. When Butterflies talks of a time when this place was  better, she talks about it in Apr 2010. This was before those efforts I outlined and you agreed with. It was a time she was unknown or collectively held high esteem. She played a large part in the changes in how she is now perceived and how she is treated. It is not about youth or being young and that is not why she found the forum great before and not now.

[Al Swearegen]

Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.

Maybe the board, during this time, will be graced by Shleed making references and inferences to to I2, that he doesn't care and that everyone else does.

And Les will continue to make assumptions, essays and lengthy arguments that are in reality inefficient and meandering. He will also turn nanosemantics into picosemantics.

Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too

['Butterflies']

If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?

Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.

I just dont think that would be a good idea.

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty

She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?

I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.

 


Why would I want to misrepresent Bods posts? I like Bod a lot. She is easily one of my favorite people here.

I have no idea of why. You tell me. Are you simply bad at quoting? Be as it may, you managed to miss her points almost completely.

You are making absolutely no sense here Odeon. Your comments are appearing further and further from reality by the page.

Obviously I dont disagree with "Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required." Or, "In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way."

I disagreed with the points by Bod that I quoted from her. I had no reason to quote what I didnt disagree with.
Just because you felt they were the important points in her post, doesnt mean I have to.

This is obviously beyond you and I can't be bothered to explain, tbh.

I realise you want younger members to hang around with, but from the looks of it you'd need kids from the local kindergarten to understand them.
 

It has got to the stage where you just appear to be arguing with me over random nothingness.

I realise now that most of this must be incomprehensible to you. Oh well.

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

['Butterflies']

  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect. 
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.

Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora.

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.

[odeon]

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

['Butterflies']

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post

[Al Swearegen]

  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect. 
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.

Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora.

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.

I was not discussing it with you was i butterflies?

Now Honestly speaking, was I

a) Desperately trying to bring up Pandora?

OR

b) Was I reacting on a faux pas made by CBC about Pandora which left her confused and with no point of reference as to what was going on AND my quick introduction to who Pandora was on AFF (of which CBC was a mod and Pandora the most prolific poster there at the time) and links about here here, was providing CBC with the point of reference so she did not feel so confused?

If you say a) you are an idiot and no about of poor reading comprehension and emoticons will save you from looking like one.
If you say a) and b) then you are again an idiot because i did not create a situation that CBC made that faux pas that left her in need of such an explaination.
If you say b) ....well you will not say b. That is too honest.

[odeon]

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post

No, I'm saying that most people have that ability. Most.

['Butterflies']

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post

No, I'm saying that most people have that ability. Most.

Here is Bods post in full:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?

As you can see in the part I have highlighted, Bod clearly says that she thinks the younger members want somewhere to post where they dont have to see or read posts from people who they consider to be old or farty.
I was saying to her that I would not want somewhere to post, where older people are expected to not post.

['Butterflies']

  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect. 
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.

Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora.

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.

I was not discussing it with you was i butterflies?

Now Honestly speaking, was I

a) Desperately trying to bring up Pandora?

OR

b) Was I reacting on a faux pas made by CBC about Pandora which left her confused and with no point of reference as to what was going on AND my quick introduction to who Pandora was on AFF (of which CBC was a mod and Pandora the most prolific poster there at the time) and links about here here, was providing CBC with the point of reference so she did not feel so confused?

If you say a) you are an idiot and no about of poor reading comprehension and emoticons will save you from looking like one.
If you say a) and b) then you are again an idiot because i did not create a situation that CBC made that faux pas that left her in need of such an explaination.
If you say b) ....well you will not say b. That is too honest.

But Les, you brought Pandora up before CBC even mentioned her.

Here was your first post mentioning Pandora:

That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Really? So this was not just then ordinary bullshit that you have been accusing it of being, but horrific? You think that is a little too much? Are you or anyone horrified by what I said....really? Melodrama?

I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).

I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.

Yet what you quoted below is a difference of perspection between what you said and how I interpreted what you said. Nothing paranoid in that and ineffect you make no real point

It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this

You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.

...and we were never in dispute as i do not believe you could take 4-5 members away from here either. I suffer no paranoia in believing that you couldn't.
Now if what you are trying to say is that I believed by you writing about another 4-5 members apart from you, leaving, that you were trying to using this occassion and this thread as a means to put shit on I2 so people would hopefully leave, absolutely.
Do or did I think that you would or could be successful in your efforts? No.
Again can not see the paranoia.
If you are saying you talk of you and others leaving was not about either actively or passively trying to induce people to leave then I read it differently.

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

Quote-altering? Nope. Quoting out of context? Nope. Why? You DO go on to justify that you think your efforts with Parrakeet (despite my disclaimer quoted) was funny. It does not affect the crux of what I was saying in the least.
I should be ashamed? No Butterflies. You ought to cut with the melodrama. I don't think anyone is buying it.

As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful

Stating it emphatically does not lend a bad position credibility Butterflies.

And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though

Yes because you refuted having ever fucked around peopel here and now when I make my point you rely on this tactic much like you did with Pandora, when placed in poor light you tried to say that me backing myself was poor form. Thionk of your friend. In fact you are a poor friend for back yourself against me.

Pretty piss poor

Now here is CBCs post, made almost an hour later.
As you can see, you brought up Pandora around 53 minutes before CBC mentioned her.

  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.   

TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare 

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon! 

I propose a re-recruitment drive

  You could call it  "Operation Pandora's Box."   

[odeon]

You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

[TA]

This is still going on? 

Butterflies, if you don't like it here, leave and start your own place for the younger crowd. That will get you a better result than complaining incessantly about the age demographics of I².

[TheoK]

Papiliones mihi grati sunt 

[odeon]

/shrugs

[Al Swearegen]

Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.