2012 - a retrospective

[skyblue1]

When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!

Well, we know MissKitty will chose a Leonberger, CBC will choose a Sheltie, Parts will choose a large breed dog...........

.... and I will have another cat please

[El]

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?

Seems to me that she may well be following bod's advice anyway, in this very thread.   

[Pyraxis]

Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?

I'm asking the sky. You know, throwing a question out there to see if it picks up any interesting responses. If nobody said that, then all that'll happen is I won't get any answers. No big loss.

When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. 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?

Is it? You just set up a great big honkin' straw man, you want me to push it over for you?
*poke*

The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?

There's nothing I disagree with there. If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it. (Which I was, at one point in 2010, yeh?) So hell, I've got nothing against calling out hypocrisy, or treating untrustworthy people with caution.
But it seems a lot of the point here is that it's swung too far in the other direction. Instead of too much drama, too little activity altogether. Hence reconsidering if the old pattern is still valid.

['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?

Seems to me that she may well be following bod's advice anyway, in this very thread.   

I have to pluss you for that
 

[Al Swearegen]

Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?

I'm asking the sky. You know, throwing a question out there to see if it picks up any interesting responses. If nobody said that, then all that'll happen is I won't get any answers. No big loss.

When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. 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?

Is it? You just set up a great big honkin' straw man, you want me to push it over for you?
*poke*

The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?

There's nothing I disagree with there. If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it. (Which I was, at one point in 2010, yeh?) So hell, I've got nothing against calling out hypocrisy, or treating untrustworthy people with caution.
But it seems a lot of the point here is that it's swung too far in the other direction. Instead of too much drama, too little activity altogether. Hence reconsidering if the old pattern is still valid.

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

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.

If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it.

Absolutely.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

If it's any consideration, I've noticed that activity somewhat correlates with off-site dramas (especially with WP). Lately no such dramas are emerging and things have gone rather quiet.

All the community needs is a new source of external stimuli to provoke frenzy posting and attract new members.

[Al Swearegen]

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

['Butterflies']

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

OMG. Now youre bringing Pandora into this. I can hear the sound of a thousand tiny violins

["couldbecousin"]

  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.   

['Butterflies']

  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 

["couldbecousin"]

  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! 

['Butterflies']

  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

["couldbecousin"]

  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."   

['Butterflies']

  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."   

 

 

[Al Swearegen]

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

OMG. Now youre bringing Pandora into this. I can hear the sound of a thousand tiny violins

Violins? What melodramatic flight of fancy are you on now?
Yes this example of trying to say that I ought not have referenced Odeon in backing myself, has exactly the same hallmarks as when you did a call out on me (playing Pandora's protector) from me against me referencing her. Remember that? You were suddenly her protector, defending her against me from mentioning her in respect to attacks you made on her. Much like you did with Odeon, and in both instances you try to deflect to me for having the temerity to bring it up.

Violins..no that is more beat up and melodrama.

What have we now? Slowly ticking off a checklist

Over the top melodrama
Deflections
Misrepresentations
Calling everything bullshit
Vague assertions

I think re-writes certainly are on the cards but I think straw man arguments and hypocritical judgments still waits. Maybe a few very gutterball low blows for good measure.

Page 30 yet?

I do not think Squid or Eris or Scrap or Binty is banned. Nothing stopping them joining in. I don't care either way if they are here or not