Basically, I feel like Allyson is being poked here for something that was said weeks ago which she already apologized for. Maybe her tone is harsher than it should be but, were I in her postition, I'd be feeling pretty damn defensive right now and I don't think my tone would be any nicer.

What Bitterchick said.

Are you asking her to restate her position in gentler words? Or are you asking her to change her position?

Me, personally? The former and not the latter. I can see that she's unrepentant, and that's fine. I can't change her mind on this intellectual issue, and I don't expect to. But I do expect a more civil tongue than I've seen tonight. That's all.

I do think it's something we all need to be conscious of, especially now, because the chief thing we all seem to object to, in Zoe, is her lapses in civil discourse. If we continue to object to one instance of uncivility, I feel it worthwhile to object to other instances, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of keeping the board polite for and by everyone.

Okay, I understand.

I'm with PMM and bitterchick on this one.

But I do expect a more civil tongue than I've seen tonight. That's all.

Okay but you don't think that, maybe, at some point, we need to let this go? I believe the first mention of Allyson came here: Lyra Jane "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Apr 11, 2003 3:32:57 pm EDT

Over seven hundreds posts later, Allyson addressed the issue: Allyson "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Apr 14, 2003 3:53:46 pm EDT. I thought she was polite and calm and forthcoming. As the debate continued on and she felt as if she was being attacked, she got testy.

And now that I'm looking at this debate side by side with the Zoe debate, I'm getting testy. So I'm gonna go self-Doblerize.

Ciao!

By no means do I think Allyson's the only one who has gotten snide in Bureaucracy in the history of the world or even today, but she's doing it now (okay, sometime in the past 5 hours), and claiming that truth trumps politeness, a premise with which I disagree strenuously.

Just so I understand your position, Nutty, it would have been preferable or even okay if I had said:

"I feel as though Zoe is not One of Us. Since she refuses to acknowledge our feelings, and continues on in the same vein that is making a portion of our community insane with rage, I feel as though Zoe is not deserving of my respect. She has earned none, and in fact, has been quite successful at draining the small amount of respect I reserve for folks, simply for being human.

Furthermore, I felt that the situation had reached a point where it became acceptable to me, that she learn empathy through humiliation. I sprayed water in the face of the cat, hoping she would learn, or leave the premises. From what I had seen of Zoe's behavior, over time, it had become clear that she had no interest in adding a positive contribution to the Buffistas, and in fact, I suspect that she is more interested in receiving negative attention, and will become more and more annoying in order to get that attention.

I am not sorry for any pain I may have caused Zoe, except that I believe she probably enjoyed it, given that she continues to post as though there hasn't been 500 posts in Bureaucracy describing the pain she is causing. Instead, she chooses to ignore that pain and continue to post, which is a definate sign of disrespect to this community.

Because my actions in flaming Zoe bothered some Buffistas, I felt a wee bit bad about it. I felt that I should apologize to the offended Buffistas, because I do respect THEIR feelings. Because i respect their feelings, I apologized for hurting them.

I did not feel bad enough to wish I hadn't done it, because although it may lower some folks' opinion of me, I enjoyed flaming Zoe. I still feel some satisfaction for having done it, despite feeling sorry for the hurt feelings of some Buffistas."

Instead of say:

Zoe is subhuman, and deserved public humiliation, and no, ain't gonna apologize for it.

Because, to me, I'm saying the same thing, but in a more polite manner. I will of course spend the extra time to flesh out the words to make them more palatable, if it saves you pain, Nutty.

Because manners count.

For example. I adore Kat, I have for some time.

The conversation got heated. In using the word "Orwellian" (among other things, I believe) I was part (most?) of what upset her the other night. I feel like hell about this.

Did I hurt her feelings on purpose? No. But I screwed up and I owe her an apology.

This is the first part of it. When I figure out just what to say I'll send her a personal one as well.

But you care about Kat. I do not care about Zoe. Is that what the issue is? That I care so little (not at all) about this poster?

Basically, I feel like Allyson is being poked here for something that was said weeks ago which she already apologized for. Maybe her tone is harsher than it should be but, were I in her postition, I'd be feeling pretty damn defensive right now and I don't think my tone would be any nicer.

What Bitterchick said.

For the record, I'm with bitterchick, Plei, and ita.

It seems like you don't care much that you've offended other posters too.

That is your right of course.

Frankly, when I come in and express dissent (or agreement), whether I'm the first (rarely) or the fifteenth (usually), I reserve the right to stand by my word. Also, to stand by the changing of my mind. I'm not twelve, I'm not peer pressure's bitch.

I'm so with you on this one, ita. t deleted an unnecessary "Frankly" I find "pile-on" unnecessarily conflating and incendiary. Same thing with groupthink. And for that matter being called fascist (akin to a Nazi of course) and orwellian. When used, it makes me tune out the poster and really want to send a big giant raspberry their way.

Voicing agreement is no more of a pile-on than voicing disagreement (I've been on the fair end of a lot of disagreement of late). Moreover, voicing agreement or disagreement is no more of a pile-on then the love fests that happen after people say they need support.