dresden_k
12-12-2005, 01:43 AM
Firstly I apologize to bored readers and surprised moderators that I'm posting this. This isn't a new thread really, but a rebuttal to the thread that was closed regarding the "idiot van".
What started as a rant about an event the poster of the original article felt noteworthy had developed into an irrational argument that was spiraling out of proportion. I understand why the moderators closed the thread, and I'm sure some of it was merely because the author of the thread was known to the moderators more than I am.
However, I resent that the author was given two chances to speak out, firstly speaking to the general audience, to which I replied, and then to quash what I said and immediately have it closed. I have a response that I would like to bring to the surface. I would have kept it in the private sphere in emails or private messages, but while the author comes off as the righteous defender, my reputation has been dirtied, but most importantly the reputation of a real world, public business has been tarnished and I feel it deserves more defense than was offered.
What you'll read here is the cut-and-paste'd private message I just sent to the author:
I checked the Criminal Code of Canada. You're wrong. But, as you pointed out in your 3 page ramble, you're tired of arguing and I'm tired of defending myself. I will point out that you gave yourself a change first to speak, I publicly made my response and then you bashed what I said and closed off the forum. I don't care how tired you are, that's just cowardly.
I peg you as someone who doesn't like to be told he's wrong and I presume you're feeling righteous because you thought that what you saw was dangerous.
I have a different side of the story. I have changed my tone in communicating with you because at first I was embarrassed that I called you a whore - by the way, I'm not sure where you've been living for the last four thousand years, but many words are uttered in that context that are not literal. Then, it became obvious that you not only wanted to insult me privately but publicly as well, slander the name of that business, insult my mother and try to make yourself out to be the forum hero, rallying for safe roads and justice.
You tried to retell a story from your perspective and got busted on the off chance that someone related to the story was on here to tell the other side of it. Happily for you, the moderators and other forum readers side on your behalf. I hope you're gleefully bemused at the attention you've received for fighting off the newbie.
I don't care what you think. You made the logical error of assuming something about a person's character - two people actually - based on one specific event and the understandable defense of one's family member. You then extrapolated those into sweeping declarations that are just not true.
Maybe she made a mistake, and maybe the road was icy. Maybe the pedestrians shouldn't have kept walking, and maybe you have no real reason to be so upset. You weren't hurt, the pedestrians weren't hurt, your public name hasn't been tarnished and neither has your reputation here. Sometimes there are circumstances that arise on public roads that are not ideal and they are not necessarily anyone's fault. If nothing actually happens, that's when you honk, shake your head and go on with your day.
Either way, you took it too far.
-----------------------------
So there it is. I realize the "community" here is likely to support the other argument not on its logical merit but because his screen name is known to you or you've met him at a meet before.
I believe it comes down to a one time event involving an icy road, too-bold pedestrians and the voiced opinion of someone who was neither the driver of the van nor the people crossing the street. He didn't know what happened in the capital T, Truth sense of the word, he just knows what he saw, and I retold what I heard first hand. The driver of the van has no reason to lie to me other than potentially attempting to save face as the author seemed to think, and I presume the author has had no reason to lie other than to get a juicier story for the audience.
What I can't understand is what makes the author so upset. He's had nothing to lose except "being right". We're not talking about him and his life outside the forum will not be affected by this incident whatsoever. If the pedestrians were so mad don't you think they would have done something? Call the school perhaps? They haven't. So, if the people most affected have left it be, why didn't the author?
Regardless, I appreciate the patience of the forum in this debate which really shouldn't have been made public in the first place, both sides resorting to childish tactics of name calling and with the manipulated "logic" escalating out of control as well.
Close the thread if you like. Ban me. Make a thread called "Dresden_K is a moron who sleeps with farm animals and drinks clotted whole milk". Believe me to be a "little kid defending his mommy" as the author has told me in two different messages - I'm relating the story because the driver of the van is not a member of this forum. You can think whatever you want, just remember that there are two sides to any story and that yes, people who are defending themselves will nit pick the points of their debater's arguments; there is no other way to defend one's self on a forum or in person.
What started as a rant about an event the poster of the original article felt noteworthy had developed into an irrational argument that was spiraling out of proportion. I understand why the moderators closed the thread, and I'm sure some of it was merely because the author of the thread was known to the moderators more than I am.
However, I resent that the author was given two chances to speak out, firstly speaking to the general audience, to which I replied, and then to quash what I said and immediately have it closed. I have a response that I would like to bring to the surface. I would have kept it in the private sphere in emails or private messages, but while the author comes off as the righteous defender, my reputation has been dirtied, but most importantly the reputation of a real world, public business has been tarnished and I feel it deserves more defense than was offered.
What you'll read here is the cut-and-paste'd private message I just sent to the author:
I checked the Criminal Code of Canada. You're wrong. But, as you pointed out in your 3 page ramble, you're tired of arguing and I'm tired of defending myself. I will point out that you gave yourself a change first to speak, I publicly made my response and then you bashed what I said and closed off the forum. I don't care how tired you are, that's just cowardly.
I peg you as someone who doesn't like to be told he's wrong and I presume you're feeling righteous because you thought that what you saw was dangerous.
I have a different side of the story. I have changed my tone in communicating with you because at first I was embarrassed that I called you a whore - by the way, I'm not sure where you've been living for the last four thousand years, but many words are uttered in that context that are not literal. Then, it became obvious that you not only wanted to insult me privately but publicly as well, slander the name of that business, insult my mother and try to make yourself out to be the forum hero, rallying for safe roads and justice.
You tried to retell a story from your perspective and got busted on the off chance that someone related to the story was on here to tell the other side of it. Happily for you, the moderators and other forum readers side on your behalf. I hope you're gleefully bemused at the attention you've received for fighting off the newbie.
I don't care what you think. You made the logical error of assuming something about a person's character - two people actually - based on one specific event and the understandable defense of one's family member. You then extrapolated those into sweeping declarations that are just not true.
Maybe she made a mistake, and maybe the road was icy. Maybe the pedestrians shouldn't have kept walking, and maybe you have no real reason to be so upset. You weren't hurt, the pedestrians weren't hurt, your public name hasn't been tarnished and neither has your reputation here. Sometimes there are circumstances that arise on public roads that are not ideal and they are not necessarily anyone's fault. If nothing actually happens, that's when you honk, shake your head and go on with your day.
Either way, you took it too far.
-----------------------------
So there it is. I realize the "community" here is likely to support the other argument not on its logical merit but because his screen name is known to you or you've met him at a meet before.
I believe it comes down to a one time event involving an icy road, too-bold pedestrians and the voiced opinion of someone who was neither the driver of the van nor the people crossing the street. He didn't know what happened in the capital T, Truth sense of the word, he just knows what he saw, and I retold what I heard first hand. The driver of the van has no reason to lie to me other than potentially attempting to save face as the author seemed to think, and I presume the author has had no reason to lie other than to get a juicier story for the audience.
What I can't understand is what makes the author so upset. He's had nothing to lose except "being right". We're not talking about him and his life outside the forum will not be affected by this incident whatsoever. If the pedestrians were so mad don't you think they would have done something? Call the school perhaps? They haven't. So, if the people most affected have left it be, why didn't the author?
Regardless, I appreciate the patience of the forum in this debate which really shouldn't have been made public in the first place, both sides resorting to childish tactics of name calling and with the manipulated "logic" escalating out of control as well.
Close the thread if you like. Ban me. Make a thread called "Dresden_K is a moron who sleeps with farm animals and drinks clotted whole milk". Believe me to be a "little kid defending his mommy" as the author has told me in two different messages - I'm relating the story because the driver of the van is not a member of this forum. You can think whatever you want, just remember that there are two sides to any story and that yes, people who are defending themselves will nit pick the points of their debater's arguments; there is no other way to defend one's self on a forum or in person.