Why is it so easy to block people?

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

If that is actually true and not just something you believe then you are very unusual. A friend used to be a roadie and she used to play a game they called how low can you go. Their challenge to others was through words alone in 30 minutes they could make anyone physically sick. Ex-marines, truck drivers, roadies on other crews when they accepted the challenge always gave in. Everyone has weak spots not so hard to find if you go looking for them

---

I presume that this game was played exclusively against other Americans?

Or perhaps against rather delicate grammar nazis, who were appalled at the mangling of their beautiful language.

Or maybe their victims were all closet bulimics, who felt the game therapeutic.

Did they find it considerably less effective when they were playing the game against non-English-speakers who had no idea what they were talking about, and if so, what does that tell you about the effectiveness of words?

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

Psst, Aethelwine - this is just one of Storm's strawman arguments to try and get people upset. He's probably actually trying to get his friend, whose hobby is acting exactly like your roadie friend, to join in. However, his friend may be busy today or possibly has run out of forum alts.

---

Strawman argument? It is rather a completely justifiable position against lily-livered brown-tonguing politicians trying to cater to the rose-tinged inclusivism of the LWL lobby who have absolutely no constructive argument for the existence of their elusive concept of "cyberbullying", which is seemingly based on the writings of Lewis Carroll.

Did you know that in the most recent "horrifying" suicide in the UK, supposedly based on "cyberbullying", forensic investigation post mortem revealed that 99% of the "mean" posts were actually made from the "victim's" own phone! Now that is what I call a severe case of masochistic attention whoring. Mentally ill, or what?

And THAT just about epitomises the state of the anti-cyberbullying lobby.

ETA: I HAVE been busy; I have been running a Bank Holiday mobile surgery for a specific set of  "cyberbullying" victims - those who have been told online that they are obese; we used a specially adapted van which had extra-wide doors so that the fat-asses could squeeze in.

EFTA: Oh, and there is absolutely no chance of the last eventuality coming to pass, you will doubtless be delighted to hear.

[Melita Magic]

Pie you make a point but if someone is actually mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, words can wound. If the person is already in a compromised state of mind or emotion, that one word could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Also, cyber bullying is often used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment. 

But that would have to be a person who cares inordinately about what others think of them.

[Dresden Ceriano]

You've given me so much to work with here I hardly know where to start.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen fighting "fire with fire" work. I've seen people think it worked. I tried it myself long ago and discovered that I was never able to score that deadly blow. I'm not that clever. I can't find that lethal comeback that lays my opponent out on the ground. All I do is wear myself out, looking dumber, or more obsessed, by the minute. I'm sure it has worked somewhere, but it's not dependable enough to rely on.

---

This has often been my own observation.  I have to think that the only time it ever works is when both the parties involved actually care to resolve the situation, rather than just continue the argument for the argument's sake.  Once one party reaches that point, there's very little that can be done in the way of resolution and the only sane thing to do is remove yourself from the situation.

However, this doesn't mean that you need not try to resolve it before it does or even before you realize that it has.  It does have a lot to do with the way in which you choose to argue... arguing a point is different than just throwing insults back and forth.  In other words, arguing can be constructive when it's done in a constructive manner.  The key is to know when the person with whom you're arguing has stopped arguing constructively... it's then that it becomes time to just remove yourself from a situation which is going nowhere but downhill.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I generally advocate ignoring, walking away, etc. But there are times that's the wrong answer. When there's a bully on the playground, walking away may solve your problem, but it doesn't solve the problem for those who remain. You may advise them to walk away, but there's a cost to doing so (leaving the playground or their friends) and they may be unwilling or unable to bear it. I generally ignore trolls here in the forums, but they do sour the experience for others.

---

You seem to be making a comparison between bullies on a playground and trolls in this forum.  To me, that comparison doesn't really hold up.  Playground bullies can cause actual physical harm to the people that are left to deal with them... this is not so in a forum.  That threat being removed makes the dynamic completely different.  Whereas you jumping in to help someone in a playground might cause the bully to back down, you doing the same here would more than likely just exacerbate the situation.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I have been accused by SL friends of exacerbating a bad situation by walking away from it. They may be right, I hope not. 

Sometimes you think you can't address bad behavior, but you can't be completely certain until you try. In Aeth's example, returning fire didn't ultimately work, but the estate manager did intervene,

addressing the conduct

 (not the person) in a way that apparently worked. I have tried that with mixed results, and will continue to try, in hopes of learning to do it better.

---

Your accusing friends have it completely backwards, for the reason which I've stated above... at least in the context of this forum.  Trolls need to be fed... if they aren't, they waste away.  All you'd be doing by engaging them, would be giving them the sustenance that they need in order to continue their bad behavior.

I've gotten posts pulled and warnings for trying to address bad behavior in this forum... it would be as if the estate manager in Aeth's example had banned, not only the offending party, but those that engaged them as well, for no other reason than because they could.  The fact that the moderators here are not nearly as competent as that estate manager does make a difference in situations such as this.

...Dres *is trying make a concerted effort to stop engaging and start RICing instead*

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Pie you make a point but if someone is actually mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, words can wound. If the person is already in a compromised state of mind or emotion, that one word could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Also, cyber bullying is often used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment. 

But that would have to be a person who cares inordinately about what others think of them.

---

One time, I was sitting on a bench on the balcony at a bar, when this drag queen walked by; as she passed me, I told her, "Hey, I love your dress," at which point she called me a b!tch and kicked me in the face.  Obviously she was having issues which I was unaware of at the time and what I'd said set her off.  I wonder if, instead of kicking me in the face, she had broken down and jumped off the balcony to her death... would I somehow be to blame for it?  What if instead of saying I love her dress, I'd said I hate it?  Would that make me more liable?

...Dres

[JPG0809]

That's why we have Abuse Reports

[Sephina Frostbite]

I wonder if you started this thread just to stir up people. You've only posted once since your post and never explained yourself further. Neither here nor there but I am wonder what your thoughts are after all these posting if you actually read them. I would be nice to know how long it took you took banned people and what reason if this indeed was not a troll topic. A further explanation would be nice. 

[Skylar Meridoc]

---

Sephina Frostbite wrote:

I wonder if you started this thread just to stir up people. You've only posted once since your post and never explained yourself further. Neither here nor there but I am wonder what your thoughts are after all these posting if you actually read them. I would be nice to know how long it took you took banned people and what reason if this indeed was not a troll topic. A further explanation would be nice. 

---

Thanks for all your answers. Well, i don't sit at the computer 24/7 and watch how fast people reply to my post lol...

I am surprised there are so many responses. Well, it usually takes me a long time until i really block someone.

I blocked my ex partner too before, because he bullied me. And after that i got more spam emails than before, and he also bullied me on FB. So i simply deleted my FB too.

No, i dont want to stir up people. I was just asking here because i didn't know where else to ask.

Yeah, maybe i am a little selfish too sometimes... But sometimes there are situations where i think that "Blocking" is not enough to make them pay. Or is it just me? I dont know... Oh well, life goes on, right?

 

 

[Aethelwine]

Pie,

 

threats of verbal beatings, imagining me crying and strawman analogies over 3 posts would seem to indicate you are upset about something I said. My apologies if it helps nothing I said was directed at you I don't even recall noticing you before.

 

Hugs

[Sephina Frostbite]

Thank you for taking the time to clarifying it up!! At first I was shocked but then I realize maybe blocking 20+ people was over a long amount of time or maybe it was because of trolls. I hope that you have a good day and I apologize if any words I said were harsh. Wish you luck in finding friends!! (No I don't mean that viciously LOL)

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Pie you make a point but if someone is actually mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, words can wound. If the person is already in a compromised state of mind or emotion, that one word could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Also, cyber bullying is often used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment. 

But that would have to be a person who cares inordinately about what others think of them.

---

So everyone is supposed to go around walking on eggshells on the basis that there might be one individual who just once might decide to read these forums, because that person might have some sort of phobia about reading a word like, say, "beastiality" - the mis-spelling of bestiality, not the concept itself, of course!

I don't think so. If someone is mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, they should be attending the LWL Sunday breakfast in the feeds, not reading these forums - unless they put on their fantasy blinkers and stick to Hippy's "Friends" thread.

Further, baseball bats are used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment, but I don't see much of a lobby to stop the MLB programme.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Pie,

 

threats of verbal beatings, imagining me crying and strawman analogies over 3 posts would seem to indicate you are upset about something I said. My apologies if it helps nothing I said was directed at you I don't even recall noticing you before.

 

Hugs

---

I don't get upset. I learned that "sticks and stones might break my bones but words could never hurt me" before I could read (which was at the age of three; I have always been mature for my age).

As well as ignoring the misuse of our wonderful language by idiots who can't frame insults without resorting to expletives, I also took on board the "sticks and stones" bit, and developed so that I became sufficiently physically imposing that I never had to suffer that side of the threat either.

Win-win.

In comparison with you losers.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

You've given me so much to work with here I hardly know where to start.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen fighting "fire with fire" work. I've seen people think it worked. I tried it myself long ago and discovered that I was never able to score that deadly blow. I'm not that clever. I can't find that lethal comeback that lays my opponent out on the ground. All I do is wear myself out, looking dumber, or more obsessed, by the minute. I'm sure it has worked somewhere, but it's not dependable enough to rely on.

---

This has often been my own observation.  I have to think that the only time it ever works is when both the parties involved actually care to resolve the situation, rather than just continue the argument for the argument's sake.  Once one party reaches that point, there's very little that can be done in the way of resolution and the only sane thing to do is remove yourself from the situation.

However, this doesn't mean that you need not try to resolve it before it does or even before you realize that it has.  It does have a lot to do with the way in which you choose to argue... arguing a point is different than just throwing insults back and forth.  In other words, arguing can be constructive when it's done in a constructive manner.  The key is to know when the person with whom you're arguing has stopped arguing constructively... it's then that it becomes time to just remove yourself from a situation which is going nowhere but downhill.

I never said one needn't try constructive methods to resolve differences. I hope my history in the forum shows that I do. Losing an argument is one of the best ways to learn. But that's a whole different animal than fighting fire with fire, which I do my best to avoid. It is key to know when the other person has stopped, is incapable of, or unwilling to arguing constructively. It may take me a while to figure that out, but when I do, I disengage.

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I generally advocate ignoring, walking away, etc. But there are times that's the wrong answer. When there's a bully on the playground, walking away may solve your problem, but it doesn't solve the problem for those who remain. You may advise them to walk away, but there's a cost to doing so (leaving the playground or their friends) and they may be unwilling or unable to bear it. I generally ignore trolls here in the forums, but they do sour the experience for others.

---

You seem to be making a comparison between bullies on a playground and trolls in this forum.  To me, that comparison doesn't really hold up.  Playground bullies can cause actual physical harm to the people that are left to deal with them... this is not so in a forum.  That threat being removed makes the dynamic completely different.  Whereas you jumping in to help someone in a playground might cause the bully to back down, you doing the same here would more than likely just exacerbate the situation.

The comparison is inexact, but the existence of the term 

 suggests I'm not the only one who thinks it holds up. On the playground it's easier and faster to corner your prey and you can inflict physical harm. Online it might be harder to corner prey, but it can be done. And harm, though not physical, can still be inflicted.

I agree that it's more than likely that engaging, in any way, with such a personality online will exacerbate the situation. Twenty years ago, I soundly defeated a bully in a constructive (from my side) argument in a technical forum with a fairly simple thought experiment that revealed his naivete. My rebuttal was attractive enough to turn the forum tide against him and he vanished. I've never repeated the feat. I think it was a fluke. Since then, the most beautifully crafted of logical arguments, replete with evidence to support my thesis, has failed to move an uncountable number of people who ultimately appear to me to be exhibiting a pathology. Of course, I might be the one with the pathology, as has been suggested more than once.

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I have been accused by SL friends of exacerbating a bad situation by walking away from it. They may be right, I hope not. Sometimes you think you can't address bad behavior, but you can't be completely certain until you try. In Aeth's example, returning fire didn't ultimately work, but the estate manager did intervene, 

addressing the conduct

 (not the person) in a way that apparently worked. I have tried that with mixed results, and will continue to try, in hopes of learning to do it better.

---

Your accusing friends have it completely backwards, for the reason which I've stated above... at least in the context of this forum.  Trolls need to be fed... if they aren't, they waste away.  All you'd be doing by engaging them, would be giving them the sustenance that they need in order to continue their bad behavior.

I'm not speaking just of this forum. I've encountered asshats in virtually every online venue I've inhabited for the last 25 years and I've had people wonder why I wasn't more active in addressing them. And if I thought my friends had it completely backwards, I'd not give it further thought. I've never found a better way to handle them than to ignore them, but that has not always been a cost free solution. I've had to walk away from truly interesting little groups because one bad apple decided to disrupt it and the others were unable to disengage, or the venue itself made it too tedious to ignore (no blocking tools, no filters, no moderation). 

You need only one "victim" in a venue to provide enough food to sustain a bully. If the venue is open, there will always be fresh meat for them to chew on. It's simply not pleasant to see the same dance over and over again.

I've gotten posts pulled and warnings for trying to address bad behavior in this forum... it would be as if the estate manager in Aeth's example had banned, not only the offending party, but those that engaged them as well, for no other reason than because they could.  The fact that the moderators here are not nearly as competent as that estate manager does make a difference in situations such as this.

I've been accused publicly of setting and/or controlling the tone of this forum with my supposedly formidible powers of persuasion, yet I've never RICed anyone (other than the recent Mumbai spam) and, with the exception of my April Fool's parody of Philip Rosedale a couple years ago, I've never received a warning nor had a post pulled. While we might agree on the incompetence of the moderation, our experiences seem different.

...Dres *is trying make a concerted effort to stop engaging and start RICing instead*

I do neither... and wonder if I could do better.

---

[Storm Clarence]

My two cents on what you wrote, Madelaine.

 

Of course you haven't had any posts returned. You are not the one being RIC'ed; and it isn't because some of your posts are not deserving, imo (and that's what it's all about, opinion, right?) Your back-room machinations (to which at one time I was privy) have set the tone. You may not be doing the RIC'ing (we have to accept your word on this,) but the RIC's come from a majority of the people who, again, imo, you have *used* to achieve a very specific end.

 

Your posts are not (yet) being RIC'ed that is why they remain. It is NOT because you are the only person without sin who also posts on SLF.

 

I agree with Dres insofar as you drawing parallels where there really isn't any. Forum trolls and schoolyard bullies? Perhaps if you had attended a school (away from your home-schooling) you would know the difference, so I will excuse your ignorance with this one.

 

However, your subsequent attempt to justify this huge 'leap' by writing an argument that reflects kindly on your 'tossing' forum trolls into the mix is left only for your "-ites" to subscribe. I do not. You are too well calculating with your words. You wanted SLF forum trolls to be a topic, and now it is (troll much?) Please, don't try to sell me on your vast experience in forum participation. You were directly referring to SLF (again, in conversations to which I was the recipient of your angst and 'disappointment' that, in your opinion, SLF had one individual who was tearing at the fabric/ripping at the community; and he had to be stopped.) Now there are two. The by-product of your social engineering is very tangible (please refer back to my second sentence in this post.)

 

[Aethelwine]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Pie,

 

threats of verbal beatings, imagining me crying and strawman analogies over 3 posts would seem to indicate you are upset about something I said. My apologies if it helps nothing I said was directed at you I don't even recall noticing you before.

 

Hugs

---

I don't get upset. I learned that "sticks and stones might break my bones but words could never hurt me" before I could read (which was at the age of three; I have always been mature for my age).

As well as ignoring the misuse of our wonderful language by idiots who can't frame insults without resorting to expletives, I also took on board the "sticks and stones" bit, and developed so that I became sufficiently physically imposing that I never had to suffer that side of the threat either.

Win-win.

In comparison with you losers.

---

Well your words tell a very different story. If you never get upset it seems to be because you come across as always upset. Your way of dealing with others and yourself is a denial of your and their feelings. It must be truly horrible to lack empathy and self awareness. I hope at some point you have the courage to grow up.

A little film that addresses the sticks and stones children's rhyme.

[Amie Kaestner]

Yeah let's just do what my goverment's doing and make police track down and arrest people when they say mean things on the internet. Time and tax money well spent.

[Aethelwine]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

My two cents on what you wrote, Madelaine.

 

Of course you haven't had any posts returned. You are not the one being RIC'ed; and it isn't because some of your posts are not deserving, imo (and that's what it's all about, opinion, right?) Your back-room machinations (to which at one time I was privy) have set the tone. You may not be doing the RIC'ing (we have to accept your word on this,) but the RIC's come from a majority of the people who, again, imo, you have *used* to achieve a very specific end.

 

Your posts are not (yet) being RIC'ed that is why they remain. It is NOT because you are the only person without sin who also posts on SLF.

 

I agree with Dres insofar as you drawing parallels where there really isn't any. Forum trolls and schoolyard bullies? Perhaps if you had attended a school (away from your home-schooling) you would know the difference, so I will excuse your ignorance with this one.

 

However, your subsequent attempt to justify this huge 'leap' by writing an argument that reflects kindly on your 'tossing' forum trolls into the mix is left only for your "-ites" to subscribe. I do not. You are too well calculating with your words. You wanted SLF forum trolls to be a topic, and now it is (troll much?) Please, don't try to sell me on your vast experience in forum participation. You were directly referring to SLF (again, in conversations to which I was the recipient of your angst and 'disappointment' that, in your opinion, SLF had one individual who was tearing at the fabric/ripping at the community; and he had to be stopped.) Now there are two. The by-product of your social engineering is very tangible (please refer back to my second sentence in this post.)

 

---

your perception of the thread seems to be more about the past than the reality.

[Storm Clarence]

Excuse me? I think it was Madelaine who wrote: "25 years..." "I've never..." "Trolls are of the same ilk as that of schoolyard bullies." "Gyspy is beautiful."

 

I wrote what I wrote based on a prescience founded in a deep understanding of my environment.

PS Who are you!

[Aethelwine]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

 the pb was on the mesh itself.

Since this creator had really strict Terms and conditions, that i found a lil abusive, i was expecting that at least the item was coming without glitch.

so i left an honnest review explaining what happened. 

So i had to face the creator saying i could im first... Why ? I accepted the fact i lost my money and wont use this item.. and what is the purpose of review if we cant be honnest and sincere ? 

---

I used to buy some of those kits, back when I had a sim people visited fairly often - it was an easy way to make occasional thank you gifts or gifts for friends occasionally, too. Maybe not highly creative or original but, better quality than I could make for SL on my own. And most were not terribly expensive so no big loss.

I never got the ones that had a list of conditions a mile long. I don't dispute their 'right' to do that - up to them. But also up to me if I want to agree to their terms. I don't plan to do anything nefarious with them anyway. But, in my experience, the ones who have the longest, strictest policies (aside from not giving the textures away - that's a given) are hardest to deal with should anything be amiss or go wrong or whatever. Also some of them ironically were using stolen textures for the same kits they put those iron clad clauses with. (laff)

I also found it annoying that some would forbid giving the results away. Not to a friend as a gift, not to set out for visitors. Nowhere, nothing, nada for free. "That competes with others who sell them." Not really, because I don't have a store in SL, (at that time) or a marketplace store. Also maybe that's the kit's fault for not allowing anything but clones to be made from it. They don't say what price it has to sell for (aside from now many will say $50L minimum) so doesn't that also create the same climate of competition? If one sells it for 50L and another for 500L - same product? So then why is it not OK to offer for 0L or 1L or 50L.

In short, arbitrary uptightness is annoying to me.

I do keep all note cards that came with kits and such. But I don't want to some day forget to refresh my memory on one of those and end up in trouble because I sold something for 25L the kit maker thought was worth more. That to me is just weird. Let the end user decide those things. The kit maker should be able to govern other things like giving away the kit, giving away its contents unchanged, taking them to other grids, etc. That, I understand.

So those ones - even if it's a great looking kit - I just avoid. Sounds by your experience as if I made a good decision.

About reviews and IMs. I've seen that said in the forums too, that customers have an obligation to creators or merchants to IM them first. No, they don't. They just don't. Have your product ready or don't sell it. Expect reviews based on what happens. If the customer's review is unfair, offer to redress the situation if you wish (merchants/creators) but don't argue, dispute, harass, or lecture them about their customer responsibility. That ended when  you got their money. 

Just my opinion!

[Storm Clarence]

This entire thread is filled with 'personal' comments. Most of the comments, including name-calling, are directed at the OP. Re-read, perhaps you will be in a better postion then to frame your argument. Or, at least, you will not seem like the one who got hurt by *my* words addressed to Madelaine.

 

PS "Truly" is such an empty word. I take exception to fools who try to fool.

[Melita Magic]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Pie you make a point but if someone is actually mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, words can wound. If the person is already in a compromised state of mind or emotion, that one word could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Also, cyber bullying is often used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment. 

But that would have to be a person who cares inordinately about what others think of them.

---

So everyone is supposed to go around walking on eggshells on the basis that there might be one individual who just once might decide to read these forums, because that person might have some sort of phobia about reading a word like, say, "beastiality" - the mis-spelling of bestiality, not the concept itself, of course!

I don't think so. If someone is mentally ill, overly sensitive, or emotionally distraught to begin with, they should be attending the LWL Sunday breakfast in the feeds, not reading these forums - unless they put on their fantasy blinkers and stick to Hippy's "Friends" thread.

Further, baseball bats are used as a tool in conjunction with other forms of bullying or harassment, but I don't see much of a lobby to stop the MLB programme.

---

I never mentioned the forums.

[Aethelwine]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

This entire thread is filled with 'personal' comments. Most of the comments, including name-calling, are directed at the OP. Re-read, perhaps you will be in a better postion then to frame your argument. Or, at least, you will not seem like the one who got hurt by *my* words addressed to Madelaine.

 

PS "Truly" is such an empty word.

I take exception to fools who try to fool.

---

I am aware of the 'personal comments' made against the Op. Why I found your statement excusing that worth commenting on. It seems it is perhaps you that needs to do some rereading

And re: the bolded section...that contradicts what you have been saying all through this thread about words not hurting. It seems with you it is bad grammar that hurts as well as someone simply taking a diffeent view. For someone so sensitive to others words your contention through out the thread verges on the humorous.

 

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

 

Well your words tell a very different story.

---

By George she's got it!

My point is that EVERYBODY gets a different story from the same set of words. The writer is NOT responsible for the multiplicity of interpretations of the same words by a spectrum of readers from the semi-literate to the cognoscenti, and  from the stable to the wildly reptile-brained hyperemotionals.

And it is very apparent that your own perception, as evidenced by your posts, is jaded by an inferiority complex rolled up with a smidgeon of paranoia, covered with a gloss of denial. See, I can do the telepathic, remote layman's diagnosis of psychological deficiencies.

I, of course, revel in my entirely justified narcissistic superiority complex; it would be false modesty of me to admit to anything less. And you should really check out recent research that confirms my contention that psychopaths are actually even more empathic than the norm; the word you are clutching for is sympathetic, which is not an emotion I entertain for the weak, the gullible, the ignorant and the ingenuous. Pity, maybe.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

 

Well your words tell a very different story.

---

By George she's got it!

My point is that EVERYBODY gets a different story from the same set of words. The writer is NOT responsible for the multiplicity of interpretations of the same words by a spectrum of readers from the semi-literate to the cognoscenti, and  from the stable to the wildly reptile-brained hyperemotionals.

And it is very apparent that your own perception, as evidenced by your posts, is jaded by an inferiority complex rolled up with a smidgeon of paranoia, covered with a gloss of denial. See, I can do the telepathic, remote layman's diagnosis of psychological deficiencies.

I, of course, revel in my entirely justified narcissistic superiority complex; it would be false modesty of me to admit to anything less. And you should really check out recent research that confirms my contention that psychopaths are actually even more empathic than the norm; the word you are clutching for is sympathetic, which is not an emotion I entertain for the weak, the gullible, the ignorant and the ingenuous. Pity, maybe.

---

Most people have, at one time or another, been what one could consider to be weak, gullible, ignorant or ingenuous.  I was once all of those things, but I was taught well by someone who was narcissistic enough to think he knew better than I.  Some people wish to remain weak and gullible... some people just want to wallow in their ignorance or simply choose to be ingenuous.

Thankfully, this so called troll taught me how to not be so weak; showed me how to conduct myself and not continue being so gullible; encouraged me to keep my ignorance in check and defused me of my want to be ingenuous at times... simply by calling out those who were and making me understand that if I should choose to be, I'd be called out as well.

For that, I thank him immensely.

...Dres (Not to mention that he taught me that if I wanted to get my point across, it would serve me well to have good grammar and check my spelling.)

P.S.  I don't feel the need to organize a Pep rally any time soon.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

 

Well your words tell a very different story.

---

By George she's got it!

My point is that EVERYBODY gets a different story from the same set of words. The writer is NOT responsible for the multiplicity of interpretations of the same words by a spectrum of readers from the semi-literate to the cognoscenti, and  from the stable to the wildly reptile-brained hyperemotionals.

And it is very apparent that your own perception, as evidenced by your posts, is jaded by an inferiority complex rolled up with a smidgeon of paranoia, covered with a gloss of denial. See, I can do the telepathic, remote layman's diagnosis of psychological deficiencies.

I, of course, revel in my entirely justified narcissistic superiority complex; it would be false modesty of me to admit to anything less. And you should really check out recent research that confirms my contention that psychopaths are actually even more empathic than the norm; the word you are clutching for is sympathetic, which is not an emotion I entertain for the weak, the gullible, the ignorant and the ingenuous. Pity, maybe.

---

Most people have, at one time or another, been what one could consider to be weak, gullible, ignorant or ingenuous. 

I was once all of those things, but I was taught well by someone who was narcissistic enough to think he knew better than I.  Some people wish to remain weak and gullible... some people just want to wallow in their ignorance or simply choose to be ingenuous.

Thankfully, this so called troll taught me how to not be so weak; showed me how to conduct myself and not continue being so gullible; encouraged me to keep my ignorance in check and defused me of my want to be ingenuous at times... simply by calling out those who were and making me understand that if I should choose to be, I'd be called out as well.

For that, I thank him immensely.

...Dres (Not to mention that he taught me that if I wanted to get my point across, it would serve me well to have good grammar and check my spelling.)

P.S.  I don't feel the need to organize a Pep rally any time soon.

---

I would hazard a guess that those same individuals wish they had told their kid to watch television or play Xbox rather than sit by mommy and watch adults chat in SL.