I love you, girl.

I was pointing out the folly of PJ's associations because I care about what happens to her. I don't give a shit about Mark (though he seems to think rather a lot about me) and you can hang with him just as much as you like. You'll doubtless find out for yourself in time how right I am.

"because PJ in no way deserves any degree of scorn for being on friendly terms with a fellow human being"

And that is the real point of this post, isn't it?

:o)>

SG, wait...you care so much about her that you publicly insulted her intelligence?

I'll have to let that one process a while, I guess, because at first glance it seems like a control issue. Strange.

Frevvins sakes, unless I missed something, one person only has stirred up this latest thing and that was SG making a small comment to PJ's guest poastie. Am I now in the "That's so gay! Oh, get over it!" crowd if I say it was just one guy, get over it?

Well, anyway. I guess Joe is being pointed at today too, but he seems all right to me. I'm obviously not in tune with the soap opera but so far as I can tell, Mark is a wee bit more blogwar-mongering than the Troll. Yeah, I could be wrong, don't mean to offend, 'n shit.

I'd probably like Mark too except (okay, no more of that rude third-person stuff) Mark, you're too way gaw damn drama-queenish for me. I know you make nice well but, well, I guess I have my own opinion about what's a veneer and what's the real person.

But PJ and gekko remain two of the very bestest and hawtest, and that's my opinion too.

After so many years of watching online people interact, while I sometimes think, "How on earth can she/he stand that person?" I can only look to myself knowing that others have said the same about people I like. I can't explain why some people "click" with me and some don't. It certainly doesn't always have anything to do with how nice, or easy to get along with, those people may be. But I do believe that most people have redeeming qualities, so when I can't bring myself to dig for the gold, I can appreciate when others do, so if I find you likeable, I'm not going to berate you because you may like someone I don't.

I will still be thinking, "How on earth can...?" though. ;-)

Gee, maybe it would help if I send Gekko an updated photo for this post...

Mark looks like my Uncle Steve. Except he wears glasses and has hair plugs. I hope it wasn't too whiney for me to point that out.

PJ: Love you back, GF.

SG: If you meant that, it would've been e-mail. Arrogant shithole that you are.

Don: Nope. But realize that people invest a lot of their emotions into some relationships and it can genuinely hurt when someone in the relationship lets you down or you feel betrayed. I know I've felt that way with some of the kerfuffles. Most blow past, but there are a few that broadsided me and then ... man, it hurt. Also realize we're gurls. We have feelings 'n stuff.

Arleen: With ya there, kiddo. :-)

Mark: Well, it's an old one and a little goofy, and I chose it purposefully for that.

Steve: You don't think he looks like Jesus? The rabbi, not the tree trimmer.

Jesus, what a mess. What a fucking mess.

For the record, I love gekko because she is my friend. I love gekko because she has gone to bat for me more times than once when she was the tougher of us two ... which she usually is. This was one of those times because she knows when I've been flattened, and can't fight back because the wind has been knocked out of me. When gekko gets ornery with people, yes even acid-tongued, and she says things I might not agree with or even like, but respect her right to put her dukes up whenever she wants, and with whomever she wants, I still love her because of what she has done for me more times than once.

I can't believe this whole thing is even happening.

None of this should be happening, PJ, not to you. Guilt by association? What is that,exactly?

Senator Joe McCarthy: Are you STILL a friend of Mark's?

PJ: I refuse to answer on the grounds my answer may incriminate me.

Is that what this has come to?

For the record, I'm reprinting the comment I left at PJ's guest post:

This is not why I started blogging. I'm through engaging when I see the collateral damage that our mutual animosity has created.

Go in peace, Alan.

Hugs, PJ.

I also pulled the posts that pertained to this issue out of respect fore PJ.

RESPECT FOR PJ. That is what is being asked for here.

My fault, Peej, for choosing this post to bash Joe in addition to tapping SG on the shoulder for his rudeness _and_ comment on the cliquish "if you don't hate the person I hate, then there's something wrong with you" attitude I felt SG (and Joe) was exuding. That got Joe all in a tizzy. He gets into tizzies when he is criticized and then he stomps on a people in his excitement at trying to show everyone he can't possibly ever be in the wrong. I am sorry you got whapped in the process.

I am sorry you got whapped in the process.

S'okay gek. I still love you for going to bat for me. Thanks again.

SG: If you meant that, it would've been e-mail. Arrogant shithole that you are.

Don't presume to tell me how to conduct myself. You open fire on two people behind their backs, and you know that at least one of them (me) never reads this blog. You're not in a position to comment on anyone else's behaviour. I said what I had to say openly, right where the people concerned could see it. Because I think silence where Mark is concerned is too close to tacit approval. He's a disgraceful person and should be opposed out in the open.

For the record, I also spoke to PJ in email. I still fail to see what the fuck any of this has to do with you.

"said what I had to say openly, right where the people concerned could see it."

And that was wrong. Yet you're still excusing it.

SG:
Don't presume to tell me how to conduct myself. I did not. Those who know how to read English can see that plainly. Of course you're free to be a lying shithead and pretend you're trying to help a friend by smacking her in public. I simply observed that if you really did mean to help her, as you assert, then you would have done so without embarrassing or hurting her.

You open fire on two people behind their backs, and you know that at least one of them (me) never reads this blog. You're not in a position to comment on anyone else's behaviour.

Sorry, but if I don't give a crap if you and Joe see that I think you're often fuckwits or not. I am free to talk about you as I please, when and where I please, and there is no moral obligation, ever, to inform you. And, of course, you're in no position yourself to tell me what my position is, innit. You're simply some wizzly little nothing across the world, not , like, someone who matters to me.

As for you really e-mailing PJ, so the fuck what? The point is you are playing clique games. Hate the person I hate, or I'll smack you around in public for all to see, then pretend it's really a good moral position. Because, of course, Mark's blog behavior is just SO fucking important it's a Good Thing to damage a friendship and hurt an undeserving soul.

You actually take blog thing so seriously that you'll damage a real relationship and cause emotional pain so you can make your arrogant, erroneous blog point.

Twat.

That's a tough act to follow...

Well, curiosity got the best of me, and I peeked at that thread. Hate to say it, but I agree with whoever that blogger was. That was what I was trying to say on a previous entry of yours. When you came back at me with 'reality, filters, and what not' Mark alters people's comments to get people riled up in his favor, and to paint a different picture of people. I know this cuz he did it to me. And stating this has me labeled as a whiner. Oh, well - none of you seem stupid. So you either figure it out for yourselves, or accept that as part of his personality. Don't matter to me much. I made my decision on the matter. It's a personal choice for everyone! :)

Cheers

Yep, it's a personal choice for everyone, but a mistake that so many people make is to, well, make up their minds and then become set in them. They refuse to see any other possibilities. Further, they love to believe that they have some special insight into someone else's motivations and thoughts. You display it right here when you say:

Mark alters people's comments to get people riled up in his favor, and to paint a different picture of people

That is, of course, only your perception of Mark's motives. While it may contain elements of truth in it, it is not at all the whole story. As such, it's terribly prejudicial. Of course it is your opinion and one to which you are entitled. I'm just saying the intelligent person will recognize it as somewhat uninformed, and the intelligent person will stand ready to change that opinion in the future.

IF it mattered -- and I'm not saying it should -- then you'd probably dig a little deeper to suss out the complete reason Mark alters comments.

I have to agree with you on one thing -- my perception is that Mark might be a little too quick with the trigger finger when it comes to comment modification. I'm not given to believe he weighs the pros and cons carefully before reacting. That's a very human thing; so often we react out of gut emotion, then later (sometimes) come to regret our actions.

I don't really know what you said, or even why you said it. I barely recall the angst-filled argument that caused Mark to alter your comment.

BTW, you may want to read my Comment
Policy. I, too, might alter someone's comment. I state, as clearly as I can, exactly when and why I might do that.

Hey Gekko,
Well, I've had enough. I just can't deal with the brain damage anymore. I'm hanging up Boiled Dinner. Thanks so much for all your contributions to my blog. I'll still be lurking around, popping up in comments here and there, but I'm going to focus on what gives me joy -- my family. See you soon!

Was it something I said, Jeff? I'll miss Boiled Dinner. One of the bright spots on the webernet. Enjoy that adorable son of yours, and all the great stuff in your life.

"my perception is that Mark might be a little too quick with the trigger finger when it comes to comment modification."

As much as I looppve you Gekkop, I have to disagree with you here. as I've stated there's a small number of people with whom I've done this: Alan, Cheezy and Steve.

"I'm not given to believe he weighs the pros and cons carefully before reacting. That's a very human thing; so often we react out of gut emotion, then later (sometimes) come to regret our actions."

I'm the first to admit that, Gekko, though not wrt comment moderation. And no regrets about editing Steve's comments. he's a fuckwitted troll and he doesn't comment there anymore. Mission accomplished, if you ask me.

"looppve"???

My latest post explains THAT typo.

I've deliberately avoided getting into any of this:

(a) Primarily because I think it's mostly pretty silly;

(b) Secondarily because for any who pay attention to me at all, I'm something of a polarizing figure, and more polarization does not necessarily sound like a good thing right in through here; and,

(c) Thirdarily because anyone who doesn't understand which side of this I'll fall on and who I'll protect, defend, and plant myself squarely in front of doesn't know anything about me at all and will therefore likely get hurt.

However, I absolutely HAD to respond to this post in order to encourage more discussion of dawn combat in lacy thongs.

- AD -
(I'm there for ya', babe, as long as I get to watch...)

Two things:

1.) Venus is retrograde and she is
hanging around with Saturn.

I don't want to say the other thing cause it's stupid.

- -
Okay,
Father Luke

Gecko, it's noble to defend a good friend. I'm the same way. But when someone changes comments to turn them from innocuous to inflammatory; and then uses that as justification to ban someone as a troll - then I really don't think my comment 'getting people riled up....' is some special insight or judgment. It is what it is, and if you weren't a good bud of his; you'd probably see it in a different manner.

Cheers

Steve, all due respect here, but ...

If you notice, Mark's comment policy is posted for all to see. It's in the sidebar. Called "Rules".

"Rule #2: Certain of you, and you know who you are, will be subject to humiliation or your comments will be altered or deleted at my discretion."

You pissed him off. You crossed his line. His purpose, as he clearly states, is to humiliate you. The underlying purpose, if you really want to go the mind-reading game, is to deter people from crossing his lines, not to incite blogwars.

Please note: I have a comment policy. You may access it in the little tool ribbon at the top. Read it. Understand it. Don't be taken by surprise. I make it clear where my lines are.

Secondly: I am disappointed in you with your dismissive "yer only sayin that cuz you like him" comment at the end. It says, rather clearly, you think you're the arbiter of all Mark Knowledge and if only I could see past my self-applied blinders I'd see reason. Maybe that's not how you meant it, but that's pretty much the basic underlying meaning of those sorts of comments, Steve. I see it in the manner I see it because I have given it careful, considered thought after years of experience in human interaction, after having read and pondered the opinions of many concerning Mark and comment modification, and having acquired insight into all manner of human behaviors. I may be many bad things, but I am not stupid, nor am I turning a blind eye.

The fact is that you see it the way you do because you felt burned by what Mark did. That experience has colored your judgement.

Think on it.

Of course I have. I've been blogging for 4 years and Mark is the first person to have called me a troll. He's also the only person who has ever banned me from a blog! He and you are also the only ones who I'm aware of who alter comments (that I've associated with). I've been called all kinds of things on my blog over the years. I've never banned them or altered their comments. The only thing I've ever banned are spammers. It's his blog to do what he wants. But when people are commenting about him and offering their negative opinions, I'm in agreement with them; because I went through the same thing. There was honestly no reason for Mark to have been pissed at me. The altered comments give the appearance that he should be pissed and ban me. But I never said those things! Not sure what else to say about it. It's his word against mine. But you aren't gonna go around the net, finding people saying I play those kind of games. However, you don't have to go far to see people saying that about Mark. Also, I've never meant to imply that you were stupid or insult your intelligence. Cheers

One last thing Gecko. I'm not gonna bother you with this debate anymore. I feel that I'm very clear and making sense. I also think that most who don't know any of you guys, and were to read what I've been saying; would be in agreement with me. :) Cheers

Steve - Your obsession with me is bordering on stalking.

How can I miss you when you won't go away?

Oh, and for the record, Steve, I guarantee you don't know shit about what I and "the other bloggers talking about me" have been through.

Fucking tourists think they have the maps all figured out...

Steve wrote: "Of course I have. I've been blogging for 4 years and Mark is the first person to have called me a troll."

Not sure what length of time has to do with it but if you come over to stir up trouble on someone's blog, that kind of defines you as a troll. Truly, I don't recall all the kerfuffle and what you might've done to rile anyone. Suffice it to say that whatever you said, Mark took exception to it and reacted to it, probably with anger. Can you at least accept responsibility that your words caused some unhappiness? Are you so sure you are just a happy go lucky innocent in all things? I somehow doubt that, because I know that, while Mark riles easily, he doesn't rile over nothing.

"He and you are also the only ones who I'm aware of who alter comments (that I've associated with)."

I started doing that when I had a persistent troll -- someone who truly wanted to cause unhappiness -- coming around and saying foul things about people dear to me. Sure, I could ban him. But he's familiar with how to get around that. So I adopted the policy. If you want to behave that way, then rather than me chasing you around and deleting your awful comments and banning you and banning you and banning you, I'll fuck with you. I'll make you say things that will embarrass you. I'll have you reveal secrets about yourself. If you don't want me to do that, then don't try to hurt people dear to me using my blog as your weapon.

He tried it one more time. I altered his comment, and he never, ever did rude things to those dear to me again. He's been back to my blog and made obnoxious comments, but none of them have been on the order of such hurtfulness as what he had been doing.

"I've been called all kinds of things on my blog over the years. I've never banned them or altered their comments."

I don't care if people want to insult me or say things that are confrontational, rude, obnoxious, foul, disgusting. I only care when someone seeks to hurt people I care very much about, or if they try to cause damage to me or mine in RL. I may remove the comment or I may alter it. I may ban them, but I'd rather they play it according to my rules.

As for your anti-Mark viewpoint, you're welcome to it. I disagree, clearly. I understand what you've been saying, but I see a broader perspective.

As of now, and for the record, Steve and I have mutually agreed to leave each other in peace.