about that conversation...

[ImaginaryDay]

Posting here is a privilege that I don't try to abuse. I post elsewhere now because of the culture of antagonism and baiting that still seems to exist here. It seems I can't even give objective information without the word "argue" being thrown about. "And, to be honest, I resent that." I post in a thread now, what, once a month? I was posting daily, but it seems that change is slow to come, if at all, so I stay away. I come to the chat-box, mostly, because I've made some friends here, and it's a good place to connect.
When and if I post in a thread, give me the courtesy to post, and don't antagonize. I'll give you the same. Simple.
Respond away.

 

[mkgal1]

Posting here is a privilege that I don't try to abuse. I post elsewhere now because of the culture of antagonism and baiting that still seems to exist here. It seems I can't even give objective information without the word "argue" being thrown about. And, to be honest, I resent the hell out of that (mods - I really don't care about the context of the word). I post in a thread now, what, once a month? I was posting daily, but it seems that change is slow to come, if at all, so I stay away. I come to the chat-box, mostly, because I've made some friends here, and it's a good place to connect.
When and if I post in a thread, give me the courtesy to post, and don't antagonize. I'll give you the same. Simple.
Respond away.

I'm unsure of what you're expecting? This *is* a discussion board.....is it not? Doesn't that naturally mean that others are going to have opinions that are contrary to yours? Is others expressing their contrary opinions "antagonizing"? Because that's *all* I've seen recently (others giving their opinions). "Antagonizing" is a whole other thing (IMO). This post may be closer to "antagonizing" and "baiting" than any others.....to be blunt.

***Being that I most recently used the word, "argue" here.....I will take this opportunity to just say that I meant it to mean I was willing to move forward without further disagreement (it was clear we were going to have to agree to disagree). It wasn't an accusation---it was more of a self-affirmation that I wasn't going to go any further. Being defensive and overly sensitive to words is a huge obstacle in discussion. Just throwing that out there.....HTH.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I was expecting a conversation that doesn't turn into the same type of baiting that happened here in the past. Expressing a contrary opinion is just what I did. "I'm not going to argue about it" is an invitation to do just that.
This thread is me expressing exasperation at the fact that there are places that are not enjoyable to post any longer. It used to be enjoyable here. Throwing around statements about "not arguing", when nothing of the sort is going on, is not enjoyable, and just makes things miserable. It just does.
And, you know, I have a right to feel how I feel. I have a right to express things the way I see them, right or wrong. Avoiding all of that is what made me leave, and also caused some major conflict a year or so ago on this very sub-forum. Hurtful things were said, and they started exactly how things started with the post in the other thread. I won't engage in that any longer, but I will confront things that aren't right, and could lead right down the same rabbit hole. I'm sorry that offends you.

 

[mkgal1]

"I'm not going to argue about it" is an invitation to do just that

Saying (to myself, mostly) "I'm not going to argue" is an invitation to argue? Is that what you mean?

Throwing around statements about "not arguing", when nothing of the sort is going on, is not enjoyable, and just makes things miserable. It just does.

It seems there was an assumption made. I wasn't saying there *was* arguing----I was backing out before it got to "arguing".

 

[mkgal1]

Avoiding all of that is what made me leave, and also caused some major conflict a year or so ago on this very sub-forum. Hurtful things were said, and they started exactly how things started with the post in the other thread. I won't engage in that any longer, but I will confront things that aren't right, and could lead right down the same rabbit hole. I'm sorry that offends you.

Nope....no offense. I believe in addressing things instead of sweeping them under the rug.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Nope....no offense. I believe in addressing things instead of sweeping them under the rug.

So do I. Have a great day.

 

[mkgal1]

Good talk.

Do you feel your grievance has been resolved?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Good talk.

Thank you

Do you feel your grievance has been resolved?

Resolution is in a change of attitude. See the OP for your answer.

 

[mkgal1]

Do you feel your grievance has been resolved?

Resolution is in a change of attitude. See the OP for your answer.

Why so evasive? IMO......"not sweeping things under the rug" means getting things out in the open (and seeking to understand the other person in order to untangle misunderstandings) and you seem to be wanting to stir things up---but only to a certain point---not to resolve them (that's my impression, anyway). This isn't quite seeming like a conversation.

The only solid information I'm getting is this:

Avoiding all of that is what made me leave, and also caused some major conflict a year or so ago on this very sub-forum. Hurtful things were said, and they started exactly how things started with the post in the other thread. I won't engage in that any longer, but I will confront things that aren't right, and could lead right down the same rabbit hole.

You posted this publicly, so I'm going to respond publicly.

I don't know what "hurtful" things were said, but I'm honestly open to discuss that if the words came from me (but it should be private, as I doubt others care to read it). I suspect there's a misunderstanding there.

Did you see my explanation for my word usage in the other thread? It wasn't directed towards you---it wasn't an implication that there was arguing. I was merely stating that I wasn't going to continue tossing my opinion back any longer as I'd already stated my beliefs. That's all. Like I'd said.....it was more of a self-affirmation than anything.

It seems that your intention for this thread is to "confront things that aren't right" (as you stated in the above quote). If it stops there---w/o trying to understand another person's words-- then I believe *that* is "not right" and just stirs up contention (otherwise known as "antagonizing", "goading", or "baiting"). JMHO since we're putting opinions out there.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Did you see my explanation for my word usage in the other thread? It wasn't directed towards you---it wasn't an implication that there was arguing. I was merely stating that I wasn't going to continue tossing my opinion back any longer as I'd already stated my beliefs. That's all. Like I'd said.....it was more of a self-affirmation than anything.

Here's what I guess I don't understand, and have never understood about the tone of some of the conversations here (not all, but some). You (in this case) stated an opinion. I stated a fact. The response was "I am not going to argue anymore". That was an implication that there was arguing. If you weren't "going to continue tossing (your) opinion back any longer as (you'd) already stated (your) beliefs", say that.

I don't think anyone here "enjoys" stirring the pot, but the response in the other thread just opened the door to a response from me.
So, do I "feel" my grievance has been resolved? No. And it probably won't be. That's why I spend my time elsewhere. All I asked in the OP was that, if I do post here, just allow me the courtesy to post and don't antagonize.

 

[mkgal1]

Here's what I guess I don't understand, and have never understood about the tone of some of the conversations here (not all, but some). You (in this case) stated an opinion. I stated a fact.

Interesting. I believe we *both* stated opinions or observations. But that's not the main point....moving on....

The response was "I am not going to argue anymore". That was an implication that there was arguing. If you weren't "going to continue tossing (your) opinion back any longer as (you'd) already stated (your) beliefs", say that.

I didn't realize my words were going to be so carefully scrutinized (and misunderstood). I actually didn't say, "I am not going to argue anymore". I did say, "I'm not going to argue with you".

The reason those words probably came to mind was that you'd previously posted in response to my post (that stated an observation I've made--something I've witnessed) "that actually isn't what happens" (which invalidates what I've actually witnessed). I was going to let that go and not get into it as I'd thought I'd made my point already and wasn't going to belabor the point (and I was trying to be respectful).

I don't think anyone here "enjoys" stirring the pot, but the response in the other thread just opened the door to a response from me.
So, do I "feel" my grievance has been resolved? No. And it probably won't be. That's why I spend my time elsewhere. All I asked in the OP was that, if I do post here, just allow me the courtesy to post and don't antagonize.

You mean your *perception* of my response--because it seems you're looking for something to pick on and scrutinize (and, quite frankly, that seems to have gone on for a long while now).

And when you say "don't antagonize".....I don't know how to respond to that. I've never intentionally done so (and---sincerely---have tiptoed around your posts for a long time now and tried to be as respectful and aware as possible). I don't know what else to do. I seem to raise your hackles for some reason. Maybe that has more to do with you than me?? I don't know.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Interesting. I believe we *both* stated opinions or observations. But that's not the main point....moving on....

Okay. I won't quibble anymore about that.

I didn't realize my words were going to be so carefully scrutinized (and misunderstood). I actually didn't say, "I am not going to argue anymore". I did say, "I'm not going to argue with you".

The point is that you didn't say what you intended. You said as much a couple of posts ago. Please say what you mean, and that will save a TON of misunderstanding.

The reason those words probably came to mind was that you'd previously posted in response to my post (that stated an observation I've made--something I've witnessed) "that actually isn't what happens" (which invalidates what I've actually witnessed).

I wasn't trying to invalidate you or what you've witnessed. I gave information from the manufacturer (with a link), and provided more information from what I gleaned from it. If you chose not to read it, that was your choice. I also anecdotal information, which you also invalidated, so we're even there I guess...

I was going to let that go and not get into it as I'd thought I'd made my point already and wasn't going to belabor the point (and I was trying to be respectful).

Not "getting into it" is to let others have their say. So who was faster getting on the "invalidation" bandwagon? check the thread.

You mean your *perception* of my response--because it seems you're looking for something to pick on and scrutinize (and, quite frankly, that seems to have gone on for a long while now).

I won't comment on this publicly.

And when you say "don't antagonize".....I don't know how to respond to that. I've never intentionally done so (and---sincerely---have tiptoed around your posts for a long time now and tried to be as respectful and aware as possible).

I won't comment on this publicly.

I don't know what else to do. I seem to raise your hackles for some reason.

This, I will respond to. It's been mutual for about a year and a half now, and I would prefer that, if you feel you need to "tip-toe", that you not respond at all. I can't control that if you do, though.

Maybe that has more to do with you than me?? I don't know.

Doubtful. It's both of us.

 

[mkgal1]

The point is that you didn't say what you intended. Please say what you mean, and that will save a TON of misunderstanding.

Yes I did. Still scrutinizing? I offered another way of saying it to try to clarify---but I still meant what I originally said (both versions mean the same thing to me).

Maybe not leaping to conclusions on what a person means and getting defensive will save "a ton of misunderstandings".....?

 

[mkgal1]

I wasn't trying to invalidate you or what you've witnessed. I gave information from the manufacturer (with a link), and provided more information from what I gleaned from it. If you chose not to read it, that was your choice. I also anecdotal information, which you also invalidated, so we're even there I guess...

"That's actually not what happens" is what you said. It happened---I've seen it. That you witnessed something else was never "taken" from you, nor did I ever say anything like, "I can't believe that happened!"--so we're not "even". You can have your different observation---I'm okay with that. I never invalidated your different experience.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I wasn't saying there *was* arguing----I was backing out before it got to "arguing".

I didn't realize my words were going to be so carefully scrutinized (and misunderstood). I actually didn't say, "I am not going to argue anymore". I did say, "I'm not going to argue with you".

I offered another way of saying it to try to clarify---but I still meant what I originally said (both mean the same thing to me).

Maybe not leaping to conclusions on what a person means and getting defensive will save "a ton of misunderstandings".....?

If you can follow all that, I applaud you. Perhaps if you say what you mean, it will save a ton of misunderstandings, like I said.

 

[mkgal1]

It's been mutual for about a year and a half now, and I would prefer that, if you feel you need to "tip-toe", that you not respond at all. I can't control that if you do, though.

Please don't presume to know what goes on in my heart or head.

When I say I "tiptoe".....I mean that I'm *trying* not to "antagonize" you (which is what you've asked). It seems I just can't appease you in that no matter how I post.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

You can have your different observation---I'm okay with that. I never invalidated your different experience.

Right. He's figured out the collar is what he has to fear. Fear isn't my idea of a good motivator. I prefer that my dog trusts me (personally) and that he knows his good behavior will be rewarded.

 

[mkgal1]

That's not "invalidating". It's explaining how the collar works. I actually validated what you said by saying, "right". Negative conditioning is based on fear/pain. I also phrased that as a personal opinion ("fear isn't my idea of a good motivator").

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Please don't presume to know what goes on in my heart or head. I'm willing to look at each poster's with a "clean slate" as if I'd never had any interaction with them prior (IOW.....I don't hold onto past tensions and cause that to cloud interpretation of posts).

You can't deny there were a lot more than "past tensions" that were never made right, but that can't be discussed here.
As far as posting, it's like I said - have the courtesy to let me post and don't antagonize.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

That's not "invalidating". It's explaining how the collar works. I actually validated what you said by saying, "right".

Seriously...?