What's wrong with Wade!?!

[_Infymus]

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes, Wade. I really hate when you (always) say, "You fundamentally misunderstand my point" (or something similar).

Just once, I'd like to hear you say, "You fully understand what I what I'm saying" and proceed accordingly.

Funny, but everyone seems to (nearly) always understand what I am trying to say. Why do you have to be so different?

[_Moniker]

I've already told you what irritates me about your posting style. Apparently you're the only person on this board whose posts I read that I can not comprehend. If you are coming across in a manner (apparently to the majority of posters) that you don't intend, perhaps it's your form of communication and not the readers who are at fault?

I also have never, ever seen you say that you were wrong. It irritated me slightly that you said discussing LDS clothing was gossipy --you then backed away from that --- and stereotypical. I had some fairly good rebuttals to your point. Do you eat at Hooters, Wade? Is it okay to say I don't think I want to go to Hooters because of the environment? I think you hold yourself to a different standard than everyone else. I think you're often judgmental by saying we are being judgmental and, quite frankly, it gets a bit old.

[_skippy the dead]

Apparently he is a needy attention whore.

(And yes, I know that by replying to his inane thread, I have contributed to his desires for attention.)

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I resent you because you are in a Kayak in your avatar and I love kayaking. I joined the canoe club, they go kayaking but it has been too cold to go out in this weather, so I haven't.

I don't really know you, but I get the feeling their is something you hope to achieve from this thread, but I doubt you will get it. I would normally say what I think but I am trying to control myself. I can't seem to put my thought into words. Just that this thread is silly and you will not easily find what it is you really intend to find.

Pirate.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, I don't have anything against you. I don't know you. All I can say is that you're one of those posters (and there are a few) whom I think is completely disingenuous in what you write here. I don't really believe that much of what you say is what you really think, or that the message you're pretending to get across is the real point of any given post.

I don't fault you for this, however. This board is just for fun, after all. You can be whoever you want to be. I'm just telling you how your posting style strikes me. This may give some insight as to why I don't take anything you say all that seriously.

[_wenglund]

You remind me of a couple of posters I have met through the years.

You love conflict. The more personal it is, the better. You love getting into a heated argument for what appears to be a sheer pleasure in "making up" afterwards. It's all drama drama and it gives me the willies. I always suspect it is a lonely person on the other side of the computer screen, dying for human interaction to the point you will manufacture what drama you can so you can feel emotional highs and lows. It almost feels like I am an unwitting pawn in some kind of strange mental/emotional masturbation.

Josh Skains is the same way. For those who are familiar with Ed/Noa, he is also the same way. Your style is a bit different, but I think the end result is the same. The farther you can dig under someone else's skin, the greater the high you feel.

You asked. I answer. I will almost always refrain from these type of entanglements for fear of getting sticky.

That was great. I hope it was of some help to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I actually think that your posts have improved since I first "met" you a couple of years ago. ;)

One thing that I would suggest is to lighten up a little bit about feeling that every conversation (on this board, at any rate) has to provide some type of purpose.

Sometimes, people just like talk about things. An example of this was when you were criticizing Harmony about her thread regarding BYU and tithing. Her intent in posting the thread was not to make some monumental change. She just wanted to talk about it. I'll let her answer for herself, but I think part of the reason she probably posted the thread was to find out if anyone else had some of the same thoughts that she did. Nothing wrong with this. I don't think there is even anything really negative about this.

Also, you do tend to word things in a way that you have to know will insult people, and then seem surprised when they are actually offended, claiming that you only wanted to help them.

I don't know. Maybe you really are that ignorant about human interactions, but I find that hard to believe, because you seem like a very intelligent person.

One thing I have respected about you is that you are very willing to listen to someone one on one. You and I probably had one of the worst clashes on the board. (Well, Bob Crockett and I come a close second, but we've managed to patch things up, too.) But, we were able to talk things out in PM, and I think have remained very civil toward each other, even in our disagreements.

I appreciate the kind and positive things that you and Scottie said, but I was hoping to keep this thread purely negative about me so as to supposedly dissipate the ill-feelings towards me. I am grateful, though, to the extent that you did contribute to that end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yes, Wade. I really hate when you (always) say, "You fundamentally misunderstand my point" (or something similar).

Just once, I'd like to hear you say, "You fully understand what I what I'm saying" and proceed accordingly.

Clearly, you funamentally understood what I said in the OP, and responded accordingly. Had you said something positive about me (like Scottie and Liz), that would have suggested a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. ;-)

Funny, but everyone seems to (nearly) always understand what I am trying to say. Why do you have to be so different?

I'll let you answer that yourself, since you fully understand me. ;-) Hopefully, your answer will be negative towards me, in keeping with the intent of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I've already told you what irritates me about your posting style. Apparently you're the only person on this board whose posts I read that I can not comprehend. If you are coming across in a manner (apparently to the majority of posters) that you don't intend, perhaps it's your form of communication and not the readers who are at fault?

I also have never, ever seen you say that you were wrong. It irritated me slightly that you said discussing LDS clothing was gossipy --you then backed away from that --- and stereotypical. I had some fairly good rebuttals to your point. Do you eat at Hooters, Wade? Is it okay to say I don't think I want to go to Hooters because of the environment? I think you hold yourself to a different standard than everyone else. I think you're often judgmental by saying we are being judgmental and, quite frankly, it gets a bit old.

These were all wonderfully negative things to say about me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-