MsJack wrote:A snort of derision. Opening up a post with "oh brother" is another way of saying, "I think you're being ridiculous."
Well, that's overly dramatic. Its not a snort of derision. Its probably more along the lines of "I think you're being dramatic". Considering the context I think that comes across quite clearly.
MsJack wrote:Stem said, “ I know you promote having a good to great understanding of LDS”
Sneering at my knowledge of the LDS church.
That is not sneering. That's acknowledging your own position--you think you have a good to great understanding of LDS. Sneer would be more along the lines of "I know you think you know, but you really don't know much of anything"--you know more along the lines of how you responded to me?
MsJack wrote:
Stem said, “but his is a classic fail on your part.”
In what universe is telling someone that they've engaged in "classic fail" considered polite? Really now, is that how your parents raised you?
Surely I put the "you're wrong" in unambiguous terms. I don't see how that is hostile. I didn't say it was polite. Although, polite is a far cry from hostile. You claimed I was being hostile by saying you were wrong, or had failed on this particular thing. I clarified for you it was meant to be helpful to you, rather than to be impolite.
stemelbow wrote:This part was just weird. I didn't know whether or not to be offended by it because I have no idea what you mean by my "partners." I asked you for clarification and you never provided it.
Sure I did. I told you your partners references those who hold the same position as you regarding the LDS Church--meaning its not the true church.
That was when I decided I was done with you. When I complain to someone that I think s/he is being rude, I expect it to be taken seriously, even if the person thinks s/he was not trying to be rude. Being rude is not simply about intentions, it's about perception. My daughter doesn't think she's being rude when she wanders to someone else's table at McDonald's and eats their fries, but trust me, I still scold her for it.
I did take it seriously. I clearly responded by telling you it was not meant to be rude at all, but helpful. Sorry for the offense you took from it. I did not mean anything nasty.
Spending a week trying to paint yourself as some kind of hapless victim and obsessively bringing the same thing up over and over again to me when it's clear that neither of us is going to budge and I've repeatedly expressed a desire to let the matter drop is definitely a good way to provoke me.
My week’s been quite busy with many things. To try and paint it as I’ve spent a week responding to you, when it took a total of maybe 30 minutes in total, is pretty disingenuous, MsJack. I have tried to let it drop too, but others, like Rambo, keep bringing it up spinning it as I am bad, or wrong for Rambo’s sake. I just wanted to clarify my position.
I don't know if you deserved everything you got when you first got here, stemelbow. But you certainly deserve most of what you're getting now.
So because I said you failed on one thing regarding understanding LDS, because I thought you were dramatic so I said, “oh brother” is somehow enough for you to think I deserve it? Whatever, MsJack. I’m willing to drop it, but I felt it fair to respond to this. I can’t imagine anyone other than you seeing my comment regarding how you failed in your take on LDS on one simple little thing as hostile, like you suggested. Hey, maybe many of your partners here (you know the ones who hold the position that the LDS Church is wrong) agree with you and saying you have failed in your analysis is hostile. I mean I can’t imagine any to hold that view with integrity considering what goes on here, but they might. I don’t know.