Jump to content

Love Zhaoying

Resident
  • Posts

    35,780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    182

Posts posted by Love Zhaoying

  1. 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:
    7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    AA from fellow travelers..

    See though AA isn't meant to be followed by the book. Take what you need and leave the rest. So no need to modify it at all.  Even Step 9 where you make amends attributes what that means to each person.  It isn't an absolute. 

    Travelers? Are we sure Luna doesn't mean AAA? 😹

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  2. 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

    For the record when I commented on your posting style I wasn't trying to attack you (If you thought that)

    No, I did not take it personally. 

    I do find it a little confusing sometimes when people focus on my "joke" posts to the exclusion of my "serious" posts, but I don't have much control over that. (For awhile, I added "Is joke!" to some joke posts to help those who may not "get it", but was mocked for it.)

    I get it, when I see someone's name come across the "Unread Feed" in post after post after post, I can get annoyed - especially if they recently annoyed me!

     

  3. I think one thing (not brought up yet so far as I recall) that is often missed when referencing "disagreeable people" is:  

    It is way too easy to assume that someone who posts something "challenging" (whether negative, critical, complaints, etc.) actually WANTS a reply.

    Sometimes people just want to vent.

    One reason "not responding" can be so difficult is, if a "disagreeable" post appears to be "provocative".  Do they want a response? Are they "daring" someone to respond? Are they seeing who has the "courage" to respond?

    A couple approaches:

    1. Know your audience. If the "usually disagreeable" person is posting something that fits a "pattern", and you already know responding to that doesn't score any points / win any friends, just ignore the post and move on.

    2. Know when to ignore the post. If they are not directly addressing you, or a part of the topic that you care about, there's no reason to respond.

    3. Know when to "cut your losses". If you choose to respond to a "disagreeable" post, and it doesn't go well, no need to continue. 

    5. Know when to "count your blessings". If a "usually disagreeable" person posts something "challenging"/"provocative" and it is not "targeting" YOU, just be thankful and move on, there is no need to respond.

    6. Know when to step in.  If a "disagreeable" post is targeted to someone unjustly and you REALLY want to come to their defense, go for it. But, don't be a "White Knight" and always come to the defense of the "underdog".  Be warned in any case, it probably won't end the way you originally hoped.

     

    • Like 2
  4. 11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
    47 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

    Can't be me, I love a good drama! I just dislike being attacked by disagreeable people all the time.

    On reflection I wonder if as in how like attracts like, disagreeable people attract disagreeable people? If one is being attacked by disagreeable people, is it possible that one is attracting that to themselves by being disagreeable in some form?

    Attempting to focus on the topic of "disagreeable people" (on the Forum, in this case):

    Possibly. 

    But in actuality, I am only "attacked" regularly by a very, very few individuals.  For the most part, I think of the "usually disagreeable" people, possibly only TWO quote / direct posts towards me in a provoking manner if I did not quote, tag, or address them first.

    So no, even though I get a lot of people complaining about my post count and style, I do not think that I "attract" disagreeable people.  Very, very few complain about my post "content" or give unprovoked personal attacks.  Possibly TWO.

    So, the lesson I learn from that is:  If you do not want to engage with disagreeable people, do not quote or engage them, and they will for the most part leave you alone. 

    Thanks for brightening my day, sometimes I tend to focus on the negative and forget that for the MOST part, disagreeable people leave me alone.  The vast majority of people who engage me are nice, complementary, friendly, and seem to appreciate my content.

    So, was I exaggerating by saying I was "attacked" by disagreeable "all the time" if it is only ONE, maybe TWO individuals?  Possibly, although not on purpose - if even ONE disagreeable person were to "attack" you regularly and without provocation, it feels like being bullied.

    Thanks again!

     

    • Like 1
  5. 13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    Scrolling up I saw the fighting and attacks against each other end after Gopi's apology, and then some though-provoking comments by Istel, Cinnamon, Sammy, Sid, Love, myself, Sabrina, and Kathlen...so not sure what you're referring to.

    Thank you, I tried VERY hard. It seems that when I listed certain aspects of "disagreeable people", those lists were taken personally as if I were singling out individuals. That certainly was not my intent. 

    • Like 1
  6. 4 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

    Bassets.

    That makes sense, as the basset hound was the mascot for the "hush puppy shoe". I never heard them referred to as the "hush puppy dog" aside from the shoe! From what little I know, I believe they make annoying baying noises.
     

    Peeve: My huskies are very quiet usually. I wonder if there are talking-back/howling/singing/screaming Husky sounds in SL to use with Husky avatars?

     

    • Haha 1
  7. 1 minute ago, Istelathis said:

    I sometimes wonder if socializing is transactional, and arguments could result in a feeling that a debt is owed, or perhaps there was too much interest incurred and a person feels cheated. In such a scenario there are payments involved, debts to be collected, investments to be made.  It wouldn't surprise me, considering we live in such a society where everything has some sort of value assigned to it.  It might just be a fundamental aspect of humanity, and our own methods of trade were built out of that, an extension of the way we socialize.

    As such, arguments could be seen as a form of the transaction of emotional currency when one feels cheated.  I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous, but entertaining to think about.  It all comes down to the emotional currency I tells ya Gopi (and lack of reggae)

    One issue I've read about which seems related, is that some see relationships as not only "transactional", but as a "zero sum game" where there's always a "winner" and "loser". Along with this comes the idea that "if you're not with me, you're against me".

    From this, I see a lot of "disagreeable" interactions and the apparent need to note your disagreement so people KNOW you disagree, and that you've possibly been wronged, harmed, etc.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  8. 10 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

    This is accurate. While I have come to appreciate your posts more now as the humor you intend @Love Zhaoying reading the forum in the last few months has been like being hit with a blizzard and tornado all at once. You rapid fire off responses and comments so fast no one really can get a discussion going in-between your "jokes".  It does sometimes get tiresome.

    Thanks for the feedback.  I could try replying every 5 minutes instead of every 1 minute!

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...