|
Post by faune on Jul 11, 2014 22:48:50 GMT -5
These rounds of accusations reminds me of that old game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey, in which each attempt to nail the target usually is way off center due to the blindfold in place. The blindfold, of course, would be one's ego. Very much like pointing a finger in accusation and having three fingers pointing back at oneself!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 23:28:51 GMT -5
Faune, do you remember this story? It's more like that:
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 12, 2014 0:04:09 GMT -5
Faune, do you remember this story? It's more like that: Spin it as you wish. You made several claims but when pressed to support your allegations - nothing. You claimed that the professional staff of a major institution was following a protocol that made them criminally negligent yet when pressed to explain the protocol with which you were familiar - nothing. I presented real life examples and you distorted the examples in a vain attempt to support your preconceived ideas. When the distortion was pointed out you simply ignored it. You claimed that I was going around in circles and avoiding answering yet when pressed for examples that supported your claim - nothing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 12:37:17 GMT -5
The Not Unexpected Response
Very true.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 19:14:13 GMT -5
These rounds of accusations reminds me of that old game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey, in which each attempt to nail the target usually is way off center due to the blindfold in place. The blindfold, of course, would be one's ego. Very much like pointing a finger in accusation and having three fingers pointing back at oneself!
Faune, you are making an assumption about this exchange we have witnessed as being a "game" and a matter of "ego."
It is not a "game". It is a serious matter of truth and honesty & credibility.
Until you have crossed swords with CD, you've no idea what it is really like.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 10:45:42 GMT -5
These rounds of accusations reminds me of that old game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey, in which each attempt to nail the target usually is way off center due to the blindfold in place. The blindfold, of course, would be one's ego. Very much like pointing a finger in accusation and having three fingers pointing back at oneself!
Faune, you are making an assumption about this exchange we have witnessed as being a "game" and a matter of "ego."
It is not a "game". It is a serious matter of truth and honesty & credibility.
Until you have crossed swords with CD, you've no idea what it is really like.
Dmmichgood ~ What I can't understand is why it is so important to attack one's character on Board over petty details and go round and round with it? Why can't you just let it go and move on to something more enlightening? After all, even if a person makes a wrong assumption or statement once in a while, there's no reason to beat them up over it, IMHO? We all are human and make plenty of mistakes and we all tend to have our own opinion on things, regardless of what others may think. That's what makes us unique as individuals. I likened what I saw on the Board to "Pin the Tail on the Donkey" because it reminded me of that familiar game with the blindfold in place. Honestly, it's not courteous or necessary to carry on a harangue over small potatoes. If there is a disagreement, there's better ways of handling it than discrediting one's character to make a point, which reminds me of the ad-hominem approach. That's just not playing nice, IMHO. literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 10:55:26 GMT -5
Again you have distorted what I posted. The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. It has been my observation that children of that age group really don't care if people are wearing pants or not and I spend an extraordinary amount of time putting pants back on my grandchildren every time we get ready to leave the house! What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. This is not just my observation but in revisiting posts it is clear that it happens with many who post opposing views. Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
This does happen with many who post opposing views to his.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
Just to provide an example to my previous comment, this is what I meant about attacking one's character to sway the argument in your favor as an ad hominem approach in any heated discussion.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 13, 2014 11:12:37 GMT -5
Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
This does happen with many who post opposing views to his.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
Just to provide an example to my previous comment, this is what I mean about attacking one's character to sway the argument in your favor as an ad hominem approach in any heated discussion. That CD distorts and twists other people's words is "simply" a matter of fact. It is a traceable feature of some (this thread, for sure, but not all) discussions with him. This, IMO, is a verifiable fact, not an ad hominum attack. To go further and claim why this happens is speculative and may qualify as an ad hominum attack. It is not clear to me that CD is even aware of his practice.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 11:52:13 GMT -5
Just to provide an example to my previous comment, this is what I mean about attacking one's character to sway the argument in your favor as an ad hominem approach in any heated discussion. That CD distorts and twists other people's words is "simply" a matter of fact. It is a traceable feature of some (this thread, for sure, but not all) discussions with him. This, IMO, is a verifiable fact, not an ad hominum attack. To go further and claim why this happens is speculative and may qualify as an ad hominum attack. It is not clear to me that CD is even aware of his practice. Matisse ~ I was just commenting on the style of posts relating to Clearday's character. The example I gave a few minutes ago was what I considered an ad hominem attack on his person. I gave a link defining this approach in discussion to clarify my statement along with an example of what I considered qualified here. I have not followed this thread completely, so I don't feel I can comment on its contents. However, my reference was to the unkind comments made about his person. Such a display of temper is not necessary on this Board to make a valid point, IMHO.
My own dealings with Clearday on Board have not presented me with such a picture as portrayed within this thread. He seems to clearly present his point of view and support it with examples to back it up. I have no issue with his posting style and found these attacks a little disconcerting based on my own interactions with him on TMB.
literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 11:56:40 GMT -5
What I can't understand is why it is so important to attack one's character on Board over petty details and go round and round with it? Perhaps you find t difficult to understand because it is not someone's character that is being attacked but their posts.I guess in my case because I have been accused of distorting posts, not providing all of the required information in my examples, and other unsupported claims. If they are true I am willing to admit the error, correct the statement, and apologize for posting what turned out to be a error. The problem is that after a number of requests there has been no response pointing out the things that I have been accused of.Not if they admit that the post was in error. Not if they can can point out, for example, where I had made the claimed distortions.Yes, but many of us do not make groundless accusations and then back away and not admit that the accusation was either groundless of point out where the problem was posted. Thank you for your opinion. Personally, accusing someone of distorting the facts, accusing a professional staff of unethical, perhaps even criminal, behavior is not small potatoes.No one has mentioned character except you. I am looking for examples of the distortion I have been accused of posting and some solid examples of, for example, the protocol that Clearday believes are usually in place in residential institutions.You are correct. And I have been told that the number of 'likes' I will get for my posts will suffer as well. You can base your posts on opinions and facts or tailor them in a way that will get more 'likes'. There are some who are interested in counting 'likes'. I am not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 12:47:33 GMT -5
Rational ~ Since I have not followed this thread completely, I probably missed out on a lot of the things you are referring to here? I was just commenting on some of the unkind remarks made about Clearday by another and selected the post that stood out to me as an example of being in poor taste, since it appeared as an attack on his character by presenting him in an unfavorable light. I also noticed in your posts that you requested clarification and examples, which I feel is the proper way to handle any disagreement. It's just when discussions become distasteful over time that I find it unsettling.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 13, 2014 12:51:48 GMT -5
That CD distorts and twists other people's words is "simply" a matter of fact. It is a traceable feature of some (this thread, for sure, but not all) discussions with him. This, IMO, is a verifiable fact, not an ad hominum attack. To go further and claim why this happens is speculative and may qualify as an ad hominum attack. It is not clear to me that CD is even aware of his practice. Matisse ~ I was just commenting on the style of posts relating to Clearday's character. The example I gave a few minutes ago was what I considered an ad hominem attack on his person. I gave a link defining this approach in discussion to clarify my statement along with an example of what I considered qualified here. I have not followed this thread completely, so I don't feel I can comment on its contents. However, my reference was to the unkind comments made about his person. Such a display of temper is not necessary on this Board to make a valid point, IMHO.
My own dealings with Clearday on Board have not presented me with such a picture as portrayed within this thread. He seems to clearly present his point of view and support it with examples to back it up. I have no issue with his posting style and found these attacks a little disconcerting based on my own interactions with him on TMB.
literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
Describing one's experience of conversing with another (he is like a slippery eel, for example) is not an ad hominum attack. It is a colorful description of a personal experience. I might object if someone declared "CD is a slippery eel" (e.g.); I do not think this has been the case. It still would not qualify as an ad hominum attack. You admit that you have not read the thread closely. I tend to concur with dmmichgood's description and I agree with rational's observation that clearday has made some serious personal accusations that he has not been willing to back up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 13:16:03 GMT -5
Rational ~ Since I have not followed this thread completely, I probably missed out on a lot of the things you are referring to here? This would raise the question: Why are you commenting about a situation that you admit you have little knowledge?It was presenting @clearday in the available light.Why did I not get that from your original comments?I find it unsettling what accusations are made without anything to back them up. I find it unsettling when the examples I posted were distorted to support the views of another and then when this distortion was pointed out, with examples, it was ignored.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 13:17:08 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I was just commenting on the style of posts relating to Clearday's character. The example I gave a few minutes ago was what I considered an ad hominem attack on his person. I gave a link defining this approach in discussion to clarify my statement along with an example of what I considered qualified here. I have not followed this thread completely, so I don't feel I can comment on its contents. However, my reference was to the unkind comments made about his person. Such a display of temper is not necessary on this Board to make a valid point, IMHO.
My own dealings with Clearday on Board have not presented me with such a picture as portrayed within this thread. He seems to clearly present his point of view and support it with examples to back it up. I have no issue with his posting style and found these attacks a little disconcerting based on my own interactions with him on TMB.
literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
Describing one's experience of conversing with another (he is like a slippery eel, for example) is not an ad hominum attack. It is a colorful description of a personal experience. I might object if someone declared "CD is a slippery eel" (e.g.); I do not think this has been the case. It still would not qualify as an ad hominum attack. You admit that you have not read the thread closely. I tend to concur with dmmichgood's description and I agree with rational's observation that clearday has made some serious personal accusations that he has not been willing to back up. Matisse ~ There were a few remarks made within that post that I personally would not like being said about me personally, which didn't paint a good picture of the person being described. That's basically why I viewed it as an attack on one's character. However, I probably missed what gave rise to such words, since I had not completely followed this thread, picking up on the last couple pages? Obviously, it was becoming ugly in content to provoke such a remark? Perhaps I need to go back and review the contents of this thread for myself in all fairness to everybody concerned? I know how topics can become heated over time and accusations usually fly as a result. No doubt this happened here? I just felt Dmmichgood was getting a little hot under the collar to may such a remark, since she normally doesn't respond in this way. So, perhaps I do need to review this thread more carefully to see what all the fuss was about?
Dmmichgood responding to Rational...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 13:33:36 GMT -5
Rational ~ Since I have not followed this thread completely, I probably missed out on a lot of the things you are referring to here? This would raise the question: Why are you commenting about a situation that you admit you have little knowledge?It was presenting @clearday in the available light.Why did I not get that from your original comments?I find it unsettling what accusations are made without anything to back them up. I find it unsettling when the examples I posted were distorted to support the views of another and then when this distortion was pointed out, with examples, it was ignored. Rational ~ I can understand your concerns from what you relayed above. If a person's comments are viewed in such a way, I can see how it would be unnerving to you personally. However, I was not commenting on your remarks, but rather Dmmichgood's response to you. She really came across as being "hot under the collar" over something, although she's normally pretty cool in her responses and right on target. Undoubtedly, something said really got her goat this time around?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 13:38:53 GMT -5
Undoubtedly, something said really got her goat this time around? ::) I think it is ongoing and frequently seen behavior that she was commenting on.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 13, 2014 13:39:58 GMT -5
This would raise the question: Why are you commenting about a situation that you admit you have little knowledge?It was presenting @clearday in the available light.Why did I not get that from your original comments?I find it unsettling what accusations are made without anything to back them up. I find it unsettling when the examples I posted were distorted to support the views of another and then when this distortion was pointed out, with examples, it was ignored. Rational ~ I can understand your concerns from what you relayed above. If a person's comments are viewed in such a way, I can see how it would be unnerving to you personally. However, I was not commenting on your remarks, but rather Dmmichgood's response to you. She really came across as being "hot under the collar" over something, although she's normally pretty cool in her responses and right on target. Undoubtedly, something said got her goat this time around? ::) Funny faune, you are coming across to me as being dismissive of Dmmichgood - and maybe even a bit insulting! IMO, she had good reason to be upset. Dmmichgood, rational and I each had our words twisted and taken out of context multiple times over the course of the thread. This is something that is highly frustrating to me, as well. Dmmichgood's description of her experience fits my experience too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 13:54:26 GMT -5
CDs close involvement with the 2x2 fellowship and it's influence has often put me at odds with him on board discussions - but I have never noticed unbecoming board behavior. In my opinion he is one of the most reasonable 2x2 members on the board. Cut him a little slack!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 13:56:06 GMT -5
Rational ~ I can understand your concerns from what you relayed above. If a person's comments are viewed in such a way, I can see how it would be unnerving to you personally. However, I was not commenting on your remarks, but rather Dmmichgood's response to you. She really came across as being "hot under the collar" over something, although she's normally pretty cool in her responses and right on target. Undoubtedly, something said got her goat this time around? Funny faune, you are coming across to me as being dismissive of Dmmichgood - and maybe even a bit insulting! IMO, she had good reason to be upset. Dmmichgood, rational and I each had our words twisted and taken out of context multiple times over the course of the thread. This is something that is highly frustrating to me, as well. Dmmichgood's description of her experience fits my experience too. Mattisse ~ I wasn't trying to be insulting or dismissive here. I was just commenting on how her statement came across to me personally. I felt she must had been "hot under the collar" over something to make such a remark, as normally she's pretty cool and witty in her responses, as I pointed out above. That's why I felt something had really "gotten her goat" to make her come back with such a remark. I guess I really need to review this thread more closely to see what I missed in transition to generate such a response?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2014 14:26:14 GMT -5
Why? He has distorted what was posted and failed to take any responsibility for his actions. He has made up things from whole cloth and then refused to admit there was need of a correction. If this was the first time that @clearday had operated like this I could see cutting him a little slack. If I was the only poster that noticed it I could see cutting him a little slack. But it is ongoing behavior and at some point someone needs to point it out. As I have said in the past, I find @clearday to be articulate and for many topics very knowledgeable. In other cases I find him to be deceptive and not completely honest in his posts.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 15:36:37 GMT -5
Rational ~ Well, I finally got up to Page 8 where I found the topic of CSA getting heated between you and Clearday. I was on vacation for a week in Florida and missed a lot of what was discussed on line. I'm going to take a break from the Board for a while and come back and finish the rest of this thread to get a better picture of what I missed being discussed. However, it does seem like kindling was continually added to the fire to keep it going from what I have read so far, which probably contributed to the hard feelings witnessed? It seems this argument all stemmed from some doctor's opinion on the effects of CSA upon victims which was in need of clarifiers? Please correct me, if I'm wrong?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 15:42:32 GMT -5
Some reasons for sexual abuse victims not reporting: 1. Victim suicide 2. Death of the abuser 3. Victim spiralling into substance abuse, crime, abusive relationships, promiscuity or prostitution as a direct result of the abuse 4. Fear of destroying family relationships 5. Fear of not being believed, or being dragged through court, or retribution from the perpetrator 6. Fear of hell for reporting "the Lord's anointed" 7. Unwilling for the stigma Discompassionate onlookers might dismiss all of the above as "simply forgotten". And much more (some overlapping your list): incomprehension, shame, threats by perp, fear of family breakup, fear of loss of affection loyalty conflicts, not wanting to burden others hoping forgetfulness will ease the pain fear of unreliable memory if not reported after a long time belief they deserved what they got lack of guarantee of a successful legal outcome, fear of mental abuse by the other side of the legal team I believe these are all viable reasons for CSA going unreported by the victims, which unfortunately allows such criminal acts to be repeated. My personal opinion on this matter is that any such deviant behavior towards children should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation and action, regardless who is involved. People who commit such acts are emotionally sick people and need to be stopped. Doing nothing only compounds the problem and makes matters worse in the long wrong. JMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 16:57:13 GMT -5
Why? He has distorted what was posted and failed to take any responsibility for his actions. He has made up things from whole cloth and then refused to admit there was need of a correction. If this was the first time that @clearday had operated like this I could see cutting him a little slack. If I was the only poster that noticed it I could see cutting him a little slack. But it is ongoing behavior and at some point someone needs to point it out. As I have said in the past, I find @clearday to be articulate and for many topics very knowledgeable. In other cases I find him to be deceptive and not completely honest in his posts. Rational -- I don't at all agree with your, in my mind, quite unfounded critisizm and nothing but personal slander -- I regard your post at an unacceptable personal character attack that is quite against the rules of this board. Get a hold of yourself! Edgar
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 19:37:11 GMT -5
This board has degenerated into unmitigated streams of personal attacks and it's nothing new, just worse than ever. I am no longer interested in participating in such an environment as I have productive things to do.
If the mods decide to sort this out and are interested in my participation on this board, they can let me know how they have done it and contact me by email at itsaclearday@gmail.com
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 20:36:05 GMT -5
aw clearday i've been embarrassed a couple of times and i don't let it stop me from participating comeback man...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 21:24:57 GMT -5
aw clearday i've been embarrassed a couple of times and i don't let it stop me from participating comeback man... Clearday ~ Perhaps feathers got ruffled again over personal opinions on the subject of CSA, but I feel it would be a great loss to this Board to see you stop posting here. You offer a lot of good perspectives on things and I would really miss your constructive input. Hopefully, you will reconsider and not let comments made on this thread defer you? I'm sure you have plenty of people on this Board in your corner who enjoy your posts and the wisdom you share ~ myself included! That's one reason why I took issue with some of the comments being made, which I felt were not justified from my own dealings with you on Board. So, please reconsider sticking around and letting the dust settle from these unpleasant interactions?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 13, 2014 21:30:37 GMT -5
Why? He has distorted what was posted and failed to take any responsibility for his actions. He has made up things from whole cloth and then refused to admit there was need of a correction. If this was the first time that @clearday had operated like this I could see cutting him a little slack. If I was the only poster that noticed it I could see cutting him a little slack. But it is ongoing behavior and at some point someone needs to point it out. As I have said in the past, I find @clearday to be articulate and for many topics very knowledgeable. In other cases I find him to be deceptive and not completely honest in his posts. This is a pretty ugly post Rational. 1. By claiming that "other posters noticed it" you're effectively ganging up on CD. Speak your own mind, but don't speak for other posters who should be posting themselves. 2. A personal attack is out of order. If you disagree with something CD has posted, then write about it. Discuss the issues, and leave the people alone.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 13, 2014 21:34:22 GMT -5
This makes me sad. Though I do think Clearday should have had a thicker skin, should he choose to not participate here anymore, then I think it is a real loss for both the 2X2 and ex-2X2 community.
I think the behavior exhibited here has been some of the most disgraceful and immature that I have observed in my almost 19 years of participating in 2X2-related forums.
To the parties involved – you are most entitled to your own opinions over any other people or interactions on this board. You are even entitled to express them. Please be very clear that it is YOUR opinion and not necessarily shared by others. Learning to express such opinions with kindness and grace is a worthy endeavor.
Please be very clear that these kinds of opinions are reflections of your own perceptions, and not necessarily of any kind of objective reality. (No matter how convinced you are to the contrary.)
Faune made the observation earlier in this thread: “These rounds of accusations reminds me of that old game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey, in which each attempt to nail the target usually is way off center due to the blindfold in place. The blindfold, of course, would be one's ego.”
And the posts that followed were (IMO) such a clear illustration of this very thing.
From my life experience, if you ever have a choice of being “right” or being kind (or even passably mature, even if you can’t reach for kindness), then choose kindness/maturity every time. Many times, I have had the experience of later learning that my “rightness” was not so right after all.
|
|