But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.
Evidently and by your own measure Al is a moron because he did not at any time (as I have repeated over and over) attach ANY (got that Odeon) negative connotation, nor was he using the the term "ganging up" in any loaded way or meaning.
So now either I am lying or I am not, which Odeon? Choose one.
That is as simple as this gets.
The thread was genuine. It was me genuinely mocking you, but also genuinely seeing how off track I was. It appears that I wasn't. BUT let's test the theory, here were some suggestion of better alternatives, you tell me what I "SHOULD HAVE" used:
"mobbing"
"dog piling"
"Lending support"
"Constructive Criticism"
"Forming a Posse"
Now you may have a problem with any of these suggestions too. But they may well have been used by the members offering them. Mind you THOSE members never pulled me up on MY phrase. So I want you to tell me which of these phrases YOU do not find appropriate or loaded?
Then tell me what phrase GIVEN the context I SHOULD have used?
Its fine to throw it out there and say I meant x in a y way. But YOU need to back yourself. If I deny it am I lying? Yes or no? If I ought not have used that phrase then what phrase would have been suitable in the way that I meant it, and in describing what I was describing? As you have not told me I sought other opinions, were THEIR opinions equally wrong or right?
IF they are wrong too or if you find it difficult in finding an appropriate phrase then are YOU perhaps wrong? If you come up with a better phrase, is it JUST your opinion and does that make your a moral arbiter?
Recently in Australia, we had an idiot in some position of power they don't deserve pushing idiotic narratives.
Here is one:
There has been A LOT of pushback. Why? Because to most people "Hey guys" is NOT a loaded phrase. But to some it is. Some people saying "Hey guys" mean it to say "hey everyone" BUT there is a thought that some may mean it to be purely an allocation of masculine gender identity or whatever this idiot is pronouncing. So the speaker has to re-think THEIR position? NO!
If you are with me so far, you will probably agree that it matters in which way the person meant it and that there was more than one way they could have. You would likely agree, it may mean a person upset by the usage can complain or express confusion as to how they actually meant it, BUT THAT does not change the usage or intent.
They have found the use of "Hey girls" for women is almost equally rejected. Most people are not sensitive to it and most do not see it as problematic.
If I take this a step further, if I say "Hey gang" what am I implying about the make up of the people I am talking about? Not a lot?
When I said "ganging up" I meant it entirely in the sense that they were both collectively and together disagreeing/arguing/critiquing/criticising DFG. THAT is it. Together and at the same time.
There was NO moral judgement. There was nothing nasty. There as no implication of bullying - not on here.
So again I have asked a lot of very reasonable questions (many of which you seem to have sought to evade) and in context of all I have said, I would not mind some answers.
