Beautifully said. I have tried to get this same point across with varying degrees of success for years. Maybe, just maybe, this will get through the skulls of some of the usual suspects this time.
People took time out of their day to try to help and give advice and it is only polite that they get a thank you as well as a brief synopsis of how it all worked out or didn’t work out.
I think that it was most likely a stupid drunken mistake. I would be willing to believe that it was one of those “it seemed funny at the time” kind of deals. I would also be willing to believe that he was soliciting a better cover story than his own “practical joke gone wrong” one which would have been lame. Either one is reasonable to assume from what we have been told.
It seems clear (to me, at least) that the OP in this thread is a relatively mild form of baiting. However, given that the original thread was in IMHO where some may not have felt that to be an appropriate forum for what they really felt, and considering that this post elicited a response that was not forthcoming in the original thread, it is difficult to argue with success.
So, I’ll post here what I didn’t want to post there: I was only vaguely aware of Otto’s gambling proclivities, but the tone of his post led me to think that it was an “Uhoh, I was hammered and I really screwed up. Help me guys - how can I make this look like a joke?” rather than a practical joke gone awry.
The odd thing is that if the tone of the original had been that of contrition, the responses would have been completely different. Most of us know people who have problems with alcohol or gambling or money (assuming that one or more of these were at work here), and could have offered at least some degree of sympathy, and perhaps even constructive suggestions. The casual tone of his OP and subsequent responses there, and his response here lead me to believe that he assessed the value of his dignity and his friendship with a gambler’s eye, and decided that $20 would cover it.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but assuming that I am correct, I really don’t care how this story ends.
Does every Pit thread have to be about George W Bush?
That’s the sum of it. People were all beating around the bush over there and it was clear that Otto would not be back. I am guilty as charged if you accuse me of forcing things to a resolution.
BTW, I am strongly against the assumption that he must be guilty because he is a gambler. You can think whatever you want of him, but don’t pin poor character to gambling. I am not a gambler (I spent 3 days in Vegas and one year right next to Fooxwoods without betting a penny), but I know of many people whose hobbie is gambling that have showered me with money.
One of the issues in this thread, if not the original, is the issue of providing an emotionally driven response and getting flack for it. Aangelica summed up the problem very well on the previous page.
I think it’s possible to make an emotional response; you just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else as to what you are doing. Are you responding objectively, emotionally, or are you going to confuse the two and likely get called on it? It’s quite alright, in my opinion at least, to say, “I don’t know all the facts of the matter, but I know JoJo and in my opinion he wouldn’t act the way people are saying he did.” Some argumentative individual may still want to observe that your anecdotal knowledge isn’t the same as a fact, but you’ve acknowledged that already by not confusing the two.
More often, though, when there isn’t a compelling enough objective argument to be made, I see people try to defend friends by twisting words or misinterpreting what others are saying. This isn’t a bar fight, and an ‘I got your back no matter what’ mentality doesn’t work the same way.
The bolded part sounds more like you reading between the lines and applying motives not in evidence. I don’t know if Otto is telling the truth, or lying through his teeth. But I’m not going to get so emotionally invested in any of his (or anyone else’s) posts that I start making unfounded accusations. He says is was a drunken practical joke gone awry, and that he f-ed up. Good enough for me. As I don’t imply any motives or make any emotional investment, I don’t need ‘closure’. IMNSHO, the people who need closure are those that invented a story far beyond the original 1/2 dozen or so sentences.
The death rattle is a horrible, haunting sound that you will never forget, having heard it. Their suffocation is slow, as the lung’s mucous allows just enough passage of air to sustain one more long drawn out gasp. When the body makes its last few demands for breath, the rattle you hear is the sound of drowning.
Liberal, in all seriousness, I am squicked out not so much by the graphic description, but by your inclusion of a very personal experience into a thread it isn’t really relevant to. Sorry about your mom, but do you think you can stop now?
Perhaps the problem is that the “…random speculation in regards to [his] character, habits, and alleged gambling addiction…” is rather closely entwined with the requests to learn how this turned out. Perhaps Otto feels that the same people who invented out of whole fabric his bad character, unwholesome habits, and irredeemable gambling addiction might not be so favorably inclined to hear and accept an explanation of the matter. Call it a crazy hunch.
I think Otto did a foolish thing. But I accept his explanation at face value that he didn’t intend to steal, and that his judgement was clouded by the drinks he’d had that evening. I accept this explanation because there is no compelling evidence to support a contrary inference. I especially think this “gambling addiction” crap is absurd; the creation of idiots who lack sufficient experience and knowledge of the activity to reach any kind of an informed conclusion.
Now, an adult that does something stupid because his judgement is clouded by booze is not to be cheered, of course. But neither does he deserve this level of vilification. And having GOTTEN this level of vilification, I can absolutely understand his reluctance to return to the fray and give the hyenas and jackals fresh meat.
I think there is. Otto tells us so. If you accept WWWD (What Would Waverly Do?): After the unfortunate error in judgment, and during what I assume is a moment of sobriety, the friend approached and asked a direct question about the $20. I cannot imagine myself digging my hole deeper and lying at this point. That isn’t temporary and alcohol induced bad judgment anymore.
Oh, can I nominate this for the most unintentionally hilarious post of the week or something? Media whores? WTF?
Otto posted about a very dubious situation on IMHO. Who is the media whore there? I mean, really, if you post your personal business on the internet, esp. business that might depict you in a negative way, people are going point it out to say shit you don’t want to hear. We don’t know you IRL, for the most part, so why should we candy coat it? You’ll get an unvarnished opinion. When it gets into the territory of shit you REALLY don’t want to hear, it winds up in the Pit. The only person whoring here is Otto, and when the pimp slaps him, he cries and runs away.
I saw this as someone who doesn’t have strong feelings about Otto either way and didn’t remember that bit about his gambling. To me it goes to a larger issue of people thinking the internet (the Dope, their public blog, their Myspace page, etc.) is their personal diary, and grave offense when anyone’s response proves that other humans not only do in fact exist, but are paying attention and will call you out on your stupidity. How can you be self-righteous when you put it all out there for everyone to judge?
