I agree with kabbes on this. I think Opal is great and a mainstay of the boards. I have no ill will toward her. And I wasn’t bothered by her analogy. I was, however, bothered by her reaction to DF and unwillingess, even here, to apologize to him or at least to acknowledge that her reaction to his post may have been a bit overblown.
Why does this bug me so much? DF posted a couple times, both very benign. He goes out of his way to say, in essence, Hey, I’m not bashing Opal’s ethics, but I just don’t get where she’s coming from. Opal then launches into him, using “clueless,” “dense,” “completely unaware,” and “uninformed,” and even takes a shot for him posting in what she (from the impression I got) thought should be a vegetarian-only thread. DF’s post could have just as easily been made my me.
Again, I think you’re great, Opal, and I’m glad you started this thread. But your lack of address to DF is glaring to me and I honestly don’t get it.
There are probably better ways to respond to a perceived hijack, especially one that is basically a polite inquiry into the ethics underlying the question in the OP, than “clueless,” “dense,” “completely unaware,” and “uninformed.”
I accept Opal’s apology, but why should people just accept a blanket statement if they still have some questions they want cleared up? If Opal clarifies a few things to a few people then perhaps more people will mean it when they say “I accept.”
Like Coldie, for instance, who wonders why he was singled out as the biggest jerk ever.
No Sgt J, that is not how it works. This is a post mortem into what happened to try to stop it happening again. The cycle of argument-contrition-argument helps noone.
When it’s a first offence, you shrug and say don’t do it again. When it is repeat behaviour you say “Cool and thanks. Now here’s what I think happened and how it could have been avoided”.
Or at least, you do if you care about the individuals involved. Because you don’t want to see them fight. In the past or future.
I totally disagree, Sgt. J. From what I saw in the thread in question, there were two issues she was called out for: the analogy, and attacking DF. She apologized for and explained the analogy, but didn’t address her attacks on DF. Why should I accept an apology for the former without understanding why she didn’t offer an apology for the latter (the more egregious offense, IMO)? I’m glad she answered my question, though I have to admit it will color my perception of her from now on.
I completely understand what you guys are saying, but it seems kind of unrealistic to expect to hammer someone into contrition on a litany of fronts. I thought that was continuing the cycle of argument. I’m from the “Operant Conditioning” school. You’re not going to train people to apologize and be civil unless you accept it graciously (even if it’s flawed).
I stayed completely out of this entire issue – people I care about on both sides, and no issue that warranted me antagonizing any of them. But I have to post to commend Diane for le mot juste to tie this thread off properly – Opal, m’dear, you’ve been hoist with your own petard!!
So what? I mean, I think Doghouse Reilly was an absolute SHIT to bring something like that up. So you’re bipolar. I’m obsessive compulsive.
For someone to use something like in a Pit thread is, in my mind, morally bankrupt and disgusting.
