@DSeid is an excellent poster and never causes issues for the Mods.
I enjoy his posting as a fellow poster.
But in this exchange, he does seem to be the one that overreacted the most. Hopefully everyone can let it drop now.
Appreciated.
By my read it was a classist smug dig at with the friend having a “I’m so much better than the racist rural (redneck) trash I left behind” attitude now that I’m in Portland. Why else specify it? And the “sanctimonious” snark in response to Beck’s hey Oklahoma has its good points, lots of Native culture, was right in line with that elitist attitude. Completely uncalled for. Yeah reality check on Portland’s moral superiority over rural trash was a simple mild thing to my mind. The histrionic response accusing me of things took me off guard.
@needscoffee honestly there was no anger here. Annoyance yes. RF was, to my read being an asshole, to Beck, and to me, accusing me of saying things I did not say. Again I don’t do innuendo. It’s the Pit. Someone is an ass here I can, if I’m the mood for it, be Pit appropriate in response. I was having fun. Sorry if got carried away
But you are right. I rarely get angry here. Maybe three times total. Worst one was back in QZ days.
But that’s not what was getting at. Sometimes 2 people can read the same thing and get a completely different take on what was written.
It reminds me of when my mother-in-law was asked by her hairdresser how long or short she wanted her hair. She said “I want it over my ears”. She got the opposite of what she thought she was asking for.
Seriously then, if the point was only “I’ve only known one person who actually used ‘otious’ in conversation” why bother with the specificity of their being in Portland and their being anti-Oklahoma, where they came from? And to then react that way to Beck’s completely benign comment? If it wasn’t meant as an elitist and somewhat ignorant dig at “rednecks” then why react so defensively on attack to that?
There’s a difference between “left over my ears” and “cut over my ears”.
I’ve found it’s more useful to tell a hairdresser (or barber in my case) where I want my hair cut rather than where I don’t want it cut. You don’t want to give ambiguous directlions.
That’s probably a good philosophy in any situation really.
Oh, sure, but at the time it never occurred to her that it could be taken any other way than the way she was envisioning. You (not you you) don’t know what you don’t know.
(Anyway, she got a good laugh out of it and decided she liked the new look.)
I’m not going to get involved in the larger conversation here, but this bit really annoyed me. And no, incidentally, I’m not a knight, white or otherwise.
You would do well to recognize an important distinction between “content” and “tone”. “Content” is an objective concept that consists of the words actually written, and either their plain meaning or the meanings that could reasonably be inferred. Whereas “tone” is a subjective interpretation that derives from prior beliefs and perhaps prejudices. When you complain about “tone” with no substantive evidence from content, your complaint is worthless.
I will respond to this.
I am constantly (and sometimes irrationally) irritated by this poster, which is why I have them on Ignore. I don’t know why I looked at that post, but when I did it struck me as just so over the top and out of place, and yes pious if you prefer to sanctimonious, as a response to the brief side mention of Oklahoma in my post, which incidentally was about another person’s opinion, not mine. It seemed to me to be an attempt to make an argument where there was none. I encourage folks to scroll back up and read it again, they might (or might not) discover some sympathy for this point of view.
No doubt I would have done better to continue to ignore the poster, which I will try better to do in the future. My anecdote was perhaps over-elaborated, as @DSeid later complained, and perhaps I have old man’s disease of telling more details in a story than are necessary. It was an anecdote, and that sometimes happens with anecdotes. There was no point to it except to provide a little background to what was otherwise a bald and boring little fact.
Gimme five bees for a quarter!
Okay. I am now picturing you as Grandpa Simpson 
and not meaning it how I (and Beck) read it.
And we can leave both the racist history of Oregon and Portland and the plus sides of Oklahoma for another day! 
And, in acknowledgment of a PM, the horrific racist history of Oklahoma and Chicagoland too! To be fair Oregon’s Exclusion laws were on the books, sent a message, but were not enforced, and the violence used in Chicago and Oklahoma was of a different thing.
and if you revisit their mid-19th century policies, you can see something like this:
1844 Lash Law: The provisional government passed a law banning slavery but also prohibiting Black people from living in Oregon; those who stayed were subject to lashes (whipping) every six months until they left
Oregon also had active KKK, even electing them
on second thought, never mind.
um, sorry.