In all cases, emphasis is mine.

Posted at 21-February-2007, 07:04 PM (relative my time, -4:00GMT)

Posted at 23-February-2007, 01:09 PM (relative my time, -4:00GMT)
Not quite an accusation of an accusation of lying, but interesting nontheless.


Posted at 23-February-2007, 10:47 PM (again, relative my time -4:00 GMT)

Posted 24-February-2007, 12:45 AM (-4:00 GMT)

Posted at 25-February-2007, 03:46 AM (relative my time -4:00 GMT)

My mistake. There were four instances of you falsely accusing people of accusing you of lying, and one accusation of a total stranger lying to a board member, in an elapsed time of approximately 3 days, 9 hours.

Look, I'm not busting your chops over this because I'm being mean. I'm doing this because your behavior has been poor and I would like you to adjust it. As for Lonewulf, it isn't just him. Your temper has been mouthing off (in this thread, anyway) at nearly everybody who's dared disagree with you, no matter how mildly, since at least the 20th. It's getting tiresome.

[Edit: I should also add that people in the past have gotten warned and/or banned for throwing rollyeyes and sarcasm at people. It seems to depend on the mod, but it's part of the "be nice" rule. If you haven't read the rules yet, you should strongly consider doing so now.]

Your behavior is your responsibility to regulate. Not ours. If you don't think you can handle being civil here, let me know now and I'll simply place you in my ignore list, something I try hard to avoid having to do (there currently being only two people in it.)

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

You overreacted. Multiple times. Believe me on this if nothing else.

One last interesting quote for you to consider.

This is the last thing I have to say on this subject. What you do with it is up to you.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

There is One.




Clearly stated as SARCASM and Clarified later as such several times. Read the Complete posts and conversation.
The argument was that with the state of the world as bad as it is- people couldnt POSSIBLY be happy. It was sarcasm used to show the ridiculousness of the idea. Lonewulf was the only one who misinterpretted that and because he did i had to point out that it was sarcasm- so even if it with all the emotes wasnt enough- my cleear statement does. Lonewulf ALSO did the SAME ARGUMENT back to me in stating that all children should be abused- Are you going to try to claim he said it seriously and use it as an argument against him?
Quoting Lonewulf: All refer to the ONE SAME accusation. You are trying to count them as Seperate accusations to present your case. That is incorrect. You are twisting the facts to complete your argument.

incorrect. refer above- did you actually READ those posts at ALL?!?! Others behavior is theirs as well Yet you ignore theirs and point out that You think i am incorrect. Read my last post previous to your reply. A detective figures out what happened prior to the guilty parties admission. I did that so it APPEARED that i over reacted- yet her admission clarified that i did indeed infer correctly.

Agreed and you are continuing it when i thought it was settled. Again re-read my last post prior to this reply. I admitted to the parts where i was wrong.

Okay. If you're not going to adjust your behavior... [*adds Neverfly to ignore list. *]

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Or maybe that person rather than fiercly defending it puts you on ignore after they point out how wrong you were and that you posted incorrect information due to not reading the posts, points out that you incorrectly twisted the truth to fit your argument

Let me add my opinion that you, Neverfly, did overreact on this occasion to Gillian's post. She did not accuse you of lying, only of being wrong, which you were. Her later clarification of her reasons for jumping on that point were not indications that she thought you were lying, only that others had and that is why she had the knowledge that the Supreme court was the wrong venue for your claim. If anything, the exchange in this thread should be a lesson to be more careful.

You posted wrong information. Someone told you it was wrong. Instead of checking your post and determining if there was indeed an error you got defensive. Had you instead realized that your post was in error, a whole lot of acrimony could have been avoided.

From my point of view, you do seem to take some posts as more personally than they are intended. You also seem to impart meaning to other's posts that may not be there and then react strongly to those posts. My advice is to take a step back before submitting a heated post. Reread the posts involved. Take a break from the board. Give the reaction some time to cool. Then respond. If after some time and consideration you feel that a heated response is still called for, at least you will have given it some consideration instead of shooting from the hip.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I am not a part of the administration of the forum, and my words carry no real weight beyond advising.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Quite right, Musashi. In fact, the reason I clarified was to add emphasis to the fact that I was perfectly willing to assume that the rest was fact anyway. I did not throw it all out at once. I thought about it and responded in a way that I felt was appropriate.

You know, for someone who accuses others of having negative attitudes, you spend an awful lot of time assuming the worst of other people. I tend to assume the best of people (when my brain chemistry isn't interfering, of course) and the worst of situations. You do the opposite.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

On more than one side i think. [ETA: what this statement means. I was wrong and admitted to the points where i was wrong in my behavior. Gillianren admitted that she thought i was lying because of her history with others. Although it initially looked like i overreacted- i was correct- she admitted so. However i wasnt the ONLY person who behaved very badly. Lonewulf and Matksutov behaved horribly. Moose accused me of bad behavior when he himself misread posts- didnt bother to read posts and misrepresented the information to make his argument hold weight that didnt exist.. Then he put me on ignore- he couldnt admit that he was wrong. Lonewulf could not admit he was wrong. Maksutov has failed to comment at all much less apologize like a man- or admit that he was wrong. Gillianren admitted to thinking i lied- like the others who lied to her- but could not admit to being wrong. Musahi misrepresented the context of Gillianrens admission (in bold below). He could not admit that he was wrong. I seem to be the ONLY person who admitted to where i was wrong.]
And to be honest i probably DID overreact- and has resulted in a severe hijacking.
What actually went through my mind as i thought about it was more like "several people lied to Gillianren on this issue and she unconsciously attributed that to me." She clearly said that others lied and her tendancy was to say i did the same. She did NOT say that others lied and that is why she knew about the difference between supreme court and superior. Had that been the case- she would have asked right away if i meant superior.

BOY! IT COULD have! [ETA: just NOW saw the part where you said i should have checked my post- yes that would have been best- since i was wrong ]i have to agree- or better yet- i should have PM'ed her and asked for clarification first.

Yes and in the past i have done that. I should have at SEVERAL points this time.
After being harranged a few times and then Maksutovs appalling post- My wits and temper were at an end. Its easy to say in hindsight what i SHOULD have done. But in the middle of it all getting jumped on about my typing style- and getting that whole registry thing that may have damaged my computer if i was more gullible and managed to make mistakes and mess up my registry..
Frankly i had it.
In the back of my head i kept thinking i should drop it. Its not that big a deal... and before you posted I knew i should leave this thread and just wait for a mod to PM me with a banning notice.

In the meantime- the last two posts of gotten that were polite and calm were from you and Gillianren. Which really bothers me because She clarified herself and apologixzed- got us back on topic- i accepted - thanked her and was glad it was over- and got back on topic- only for me to end up dragging her through the mud again. I really Hate that it turned out that way.

But yeah i think this should really be the last post on this hijack.
I was wrong to overreact- to not Deal with it in an adult manner and i probably AM being to defensive and taking things to personally. Im used to an entirely different set up than this forum and need to adjust myself accordingly.

Touche- and you may be very right about that...
Im sorry about this blow up and for acting the way i did. I should have handled it quite differently- and the results are posted on this thread.

Y'know, ever since I put Neverfly on ignore, this thread has become easier to read.

Anyways, I do think that happiness has gone up as resources have gone up. Anyone disagree?

Don't get me wrong, people in the past could be happy with attitudes. However, things that cause pain and torment (and itchiness) tend to downgrade average happiness levels. And I somehow think that the serfs in medieval Europe were less happy, on average, than the average nobility.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

I feel like I said that a hundred posts or so ago...

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Yeah, I kinda want to get back on track.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

I'm thinking it isn't enough to say happy vs not-happy. Since I came off my anti-depressants, I've been suspecting there might actually be two emotions there: happiness and contentment.

I get the impression that (at least when brain chemistry isn't a direct impediment) contentment comes chiefly from satisfaction of one's needs. Happiness may well be an emotion that's completely independent of that, and may rest mostly on one's self-perception.

Paris Hilton, for example, may well be content. Her every (real) need has been met. Is she happy? Who knows. I'm not even sure she does.

To take it a step further, Brittany Spears's needs are pretty much a given as well, and if you asked her, she'd probably say she's content. But is she happy? I'd have to say no, she's definitely going through a personal crisis right now.

Can folks in poverty or extreme poverty be happy? Sure. Can they be content? I suspect that depends on how much of their day goes towards meeting the basics of survival and (relative) comfort. Someone who can't get ahead but is afloat may well be content. Someone who's bailing for all they're worth and still sinking may be under considerably more stress and less contentment.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

But is it easier to be happy when you're starving or when you aren't?

Is it easier to be happy if you can't get what you want as opposed to when you can?

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

That's where I've been going, too.

I also want to go back to the infant mortality rate thing. If you know that odds are pretty good that your child won't survive to adulthood, wouldn't that have a strong impact on how happy you are? I mean, say you've gone through the trouble and pain of giving birth a dozen times--not merely reasonable but common in pre-industrial societies!--and had, say, half of those kids die--ditto. Wouldn't that affect your happiness level?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"