The conspiracy against Stemelbow, real or not...?

[_jon]

I'll leave it as I said and let you all over-react to it. I've said my piece on it. I think you all will over-react to my comments and suggest things I never said, implied nor intended.

Stem, you add little snippets and quips to your posts that reveal an underlying paranoia.
I get the sense that you feel 'the board' is against you and that the 'posters' gang up and co-ordinate their efforts to twist your words and undermine your comments.

I do not believe that to be true, I've said that before. I do not believe your statements of 'you all will over-react'. I think that maybe you couch it this way so that when your arguments crash and burn you can call 'foul' and put it down to you being victimised.

I do not feel it is right to let you continue to malign the board posters with general sweeping statements of 'you guys' and 'you all' etc.

So put up or shut up. Name names and quote...errr....quotes.

CFR on the conspiracy, the ganging up, the whatever you want to call it.
Let's end your paranoid criticisms once and for all.

[_Some Schmo]

Come on, jon. Don't do this to him. Sure, his posts are a substitute for actual thought, but is that any reason to make him think now?

Kind of cruel, man.

Oh wait, I can't argue with you about this. I'm part of the conspiracy too! Sorry about that. Carry on.

[_Rambo]

I don't even think the guy is LDS.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you add little snippets and quips to your posts that reveal an underlying paranoia.

No paranoia, just pointing out the obvious.

I get the sense that you feel 'the board' is against you and that the 'posters' gang up and co-ordinate their efforts to twist your words and undermine your comments.

Nope. you've misunderstood.

I do not believe that to be true, I've said that before. I do not believe your statements of 'you all will over-react'. I think that maybe you couch it this way so that when your arguments crash and burn you can call 'foul' and put it down to you being victimised.

Oh please. It just so happens in that thread I felt people were clearly over-reacting to my comments--that just me took my words to mean something they never were meant to mean and when I said she did so she continued to try and force my words to mean something they were never intended to do. I suppose my calling out "you all" was a bit of an exasperation on my part, as this type of thing happens not just from just me, but from othe rposters as well.

I do not feel it is right to let you continue to malign the board posters with general sweeping statements of 'you guys' and 'you all' etc.

But its so much easier to say "you guys" and "you all" when I'm referring to many posters. I get your point. I'll try to do better.

So put up or shut up. Name names and quote...errr....quotes.

I suppose you didn't read the context from which my comments came? That was a classic case of attempting to force my words into something they were never intended to be. She went from saying I said Mrs. Consig's response was not valid or something. i never said that. When I told her that, she maintained that thought and tried to twist my words into meaning that I said her response was not valid. Somehow I already offended Consig on the matter so I did not wish to go over it agian and again with her. I said my piece. Now you wish to take my comments bring them into another thread and whine about me. What can I do? I'm forced to explain it all to you, I guess.

CFR on the conspiracy, the ganging up, the whatever you want to call it.
Let's end your paranoid criticisms once and for all.

Interesting. I have no paranoid criticism. I do not claim to be ganged up on, as yo uhave attributed to me. I see no vast conspiracy. You are unfairly categorizing my thoughts. Its been clear to me that people will over-react to my comments because I'm TBM and many offensive comments by those who aren't TBM go without notice. Its clear to me that at times, my comments and their intended meaning are twisted to be something they were never intended to be. I don't think that a conspiracy. I don't think I'm paranoid. I think the problem is people have a particular bias. They see things as they want to. They read my words with the bent that I'm a TBM. And largely I think they do it unintentionally.

[_sock puppet]

I don't even think the guy is LDS.

I thought he might be why me's younger brother.

[_just me]

Not trying to twist your words. Trying to clarify. Showing you what your words mean to me, when I use the dictionary definitions of the words.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "validate" in this context.

When you tell someone that their reaction is an OVERREACTION you are saying that it is beyond the emotion warranted for the situation.

Do you believe her reaction was unwarranted?

[_just me]

I mean, good grief, I even look words up in the dictionary to go out of my way NOT to misrepresent your words, stem. For some reason I really am interested in conversing with you. But you make it frustratingly hard most of the time.

Also, if everyone here is having a hard time understanding what you are trying to convey it might just be that your communication skills could use some improvement.

For reference sake, this is what Emotional Validation means:

Emotional validation is the process of learning about, understanding, and expressing acceptance of another person’s emotional experience. Emotional validation is distinguished from emotional invalidation, in which another person’s emotional experiences are rejected, ignored, or judged.

When you said Mrs. Consig was overreacting you were, by definition, invalidating her emotions.

[_stemelbow]

Not trying to twist your words. Trying to clarify. Showing you what your words mean to me, when I use the dictionary definitions of the words.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "validate" in this context.

When you tell someone that their reaction is an OVERREACTION you are saying that it is beyond the emotion warranted for the situation.

Do you believe her reaction was unwarranted?

I told you already, that while I see that she seemed to have over-reacted I do not in any way assume to know whether the pain she feels over the issue, unrelated to the topic raised by the HT, which is why I saw it as over-reacting, is valid or not. I'm not playing that game, Just me. I don't think you intended to twist it, or make it appear I'm saying something other than I did say or intended. I don't take it personally. I just think you over-reacted to my comments, have chosen to view them in a less charitable way for whatever reason, and decided to take it in a direction I never intended. I truly think you sincerely have misread me and are continuing to push it. I don't want to go along anymore less my words, unintentionally, get turned into something they never were.

[_stemelbow]

When you said Mrs. Consig was overreacting you were, by definition, invalidating her emotions.

That is simply not true. See my above post. You have clearly misunderstood me.

[_stemelbow]

Come on, jon. Don't do this to him. Sure, his posts are a substitute for actual thought, but is that any reason to make him think now?

Kind of cruel, man.

Oh wait, I can't argue with you about this. I'm part of the conspiracy too! Sorry about that. Carry on.

yeah, jon, thanks a lot for creatng a thread for Schmoe and probably others to whine about me.