Cornucopia of recent things

[pixeeperfect]

PPrincipledIIntelligentXXtRemEEEnergeticEEnjoyablePPhilosophicalEEdgyRRelaxedFFunnyEEarthyCComplicatedTTrustworthy
Name Acronym Generator
From Go-Quiz.comI think it's strangely accurate except for the generic Xxtreme part. I'm sure they would put that on anyone's X. Michael's Bday was yesterday. It was rather lovely. I think he had a nice time. I got

Comments

[limner]

Richard is not currently aware of any problem. Or, to put it differently, several people have told us there is a problem in the last week or so, you and either Jared or Jamie, I don't remember which, but until Mike sees fit to bring it up we don't care. Any issue he has with Richard is between him and his therapist until he decides otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. He hasn't made any noise, other than his long history of not wanting his friends to be friends with Rich, and while I have my theories about where all that comes from, again it's between him and his councelor, until he decides otherwise. I don't much go for that 'go between' stuff, unless it's an actual organized mediation type of thing. Although if so many people seem to think there's all this conflict, there could be some truth to it all, but even then I'll assume the truth is something else, and not listen to all the noise. It's not only not my problem, it isn't Richard's problem either. IMO

Anyway, unless he wants to have a talk, he hasn't been disrespectful or anything, and we'll continue to assume there is no problem. And while Mike doesn't really seem to want to be FRIENDS with us, he is a BROTHER, and we're family. He and Rich are family, and if anyone has ants in their pants, in ten years noone will remember and we'll all still be family. Y'know? With family ya gotta let people be who they are.

Incidentally, if I am remembering right, Leslie has GOOD impressions of Mike, because he was so nice to her. Which is how we like to make opinions, by firsthand acquaintance.

missed point taken, another shot at point given

[pixeeperfect]

As far as you are concerned? a therapist? Ok, you apparently care too much. When I said it was Michael and Richard's "problem" and not ours, i meant it concerned, dealt with, and only included them and not us...my mistake. No real reason to assume conflict or even mediate. Either way, you are not involved. If they talk about it one day, cool, if they don't, cool. Michael doesn't lose any sleep over this issue, and he CERTAINLY does not care enough about it enough to talk to a counselor. I am the only one "making noise" about not wanting to go to xmas b/c of pressure and conflict. I perfectly understand the "family" reality of nothing really mattering in the long run. However, I am NOT part of this family and Michael seems to want me at y'all's xmas. This is difficult for ME and ME alone (hence my posting in the first place, not to have this silly discussion). If you absolutely had to analyze this, I find it a waste of your time to consult J&J about it. Their opinion is obviously biased b/c of how we all feel about each other. But the fact remains, they know no details other than Michael and Richard don't really like each other. Talk about giving it the "go between." There is obviously tension, if there was none, really none (not this explanation you CALL nothing), it seems you might have posted more simply that you don't know what we're talking about. This would have sufficed fine instead of a series of indirect and riddled insults. Thank you for all of those, we'll keep them in mind. Oh and one more thing: We are NOT accustomed to rely on "firsthand acquaintances." However, first impressions do say alot: especially when some little girl at HIS family gathering says "Oh, I know who YOU are" with a devious glare. He would like to know exactly WHAT he is supposed to infer from that encounter. If that was her way of being cordial to someone who was being "so nice to her," perhaps you should teach her some manners.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[limner]

Wow, bring out the bitchy. I didn't consult them, they mentioned it before. I hadn't mentioned the rumor that Mike has a problem with Rich because it's a rumor. I inferred from previous incidents that he dislikes Richard, like his not wanting his friends to be friends with Rich, but again, since it was tangential there was really nothing to be done. Now you seem to be confirming it, and again I say RICHARD DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH MIKE. Although if Mike keeps letting those around him, you as well as J and J and even Tommy seems aware, know how much he dislikes Rich, and it keeps coming back to us, maybe he'll develop one. I certainly find it hard to like people who persist in disliking me, so I wouldn't blame Richard. Anyway, I didn't ask, I haven't spoken them since you last responded, I haven't pointed out to them livejournal to involve them, I haven't shared correspondance with them on this, and I'm sorry for obviously sticking some sort of bee in your bonnet. I guess your refusal to rely on things you ACTUALLY know of people instead of things you hear is just a point where you and I will differ. Go ahead and scorn it, I certainly can't fully respect your decision to rely on rumor instead of firsthand knowledge. But I know people are different, and I (and I speak for myself here) believe that different ways of existing are valid, they don't all have to live by mine. Anyway, I'll let her know he's hostile to her, and that you called her a little girl. I certainly have a problem with Mike myself, now, since through you, his apparent designate, have made it clear he looks down on and/or dislike Richard, although the news is not without foreshadowing. If this is inaccurate, perhaps you should get his take on this, his validation of your response, before responding again. I certainly get Rich's opinion, although I speak for myself, to avoid asserting he believes something that he doesn't. And, I now, unlike two seconds ago, have a problem with you. I don't take well to people who despise the ones I love. She'll be there too, and I hope you can keep a civil tongue. While I encourage others to treat each other with respect, she IS my concern, and it thus falls in my realm to demand it. "Teach her some manners" indeed.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[pixeeperfect]

Again...point missed.

Lets clear things up to what they're actually about.

The original entry summary: wasn't sure how you guys felt about us. And Michael thought Leslie had a bad impression of him.

PULL YOUR PANTIES OUT OF THE WAD IN YOUR BUTT AND MOVE ON!!!

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[theshadowsouled]

I think this is an apology. Limner's not so convinced. She's still concerned about all the things you said in the heat of anger. She also thought that "panties, wad, and butt" seemed to still contain aspects of that anger. I thought that the line was an attempt to 'lighten' the mood. It's certainly lighter than the previous! She feels that it's possible that you said some things that you can't take back without actually taking them back. I do agree that issues appear to have been broached that should really be dealt with.

"wasn't sure how you guys felt about us."

Well, I wasn't sure about how Mike felt about me, I had noticed that he'd not really responded to overtures of friendship, but he could have just been busy. I didn't assume anything actually negative. I still don't *know* that he has a problem with me and can't really imagine what any potential problem might be. Leslie had a general good impression of you two overall, at the time. Mindy was under the impression that you two were friends, and also didn't know of any issues that Mike might have with me.

Now I think that you were upset, or in a particularly bad mood, or at least that's the most flattering possibility I can imagine. And I've seen that you can be a lot meaner than I'd previously imagined possible.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[pixeeperfect]

I could not agree with you more, at least about the first part...yes, I was trying to clear the air. Perhaps I should have said we BOTH should pull our panties out of the wad in our butt and move on...once again, my mistake. Just another "common phrase" that Limner is apparently unable to coach me on. It means to calm down and quit with the intensity. I am willing to do just this, in fact, I will whether she does or not.

The reason the problem continues is that she continues with hostility which began the entire argument. I will continue to respond to with the "civility" she has shown me. She tells me about being civil while rudeness still prevails. It astounds me, and yes, when I am astounded at how someone thinks they can be rude to me b/c I am usually quiet, I react with vigor.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[theshadowsouled]

"The reason the problem continues is that she continues with hostility which began the entire argument."

Either more miscommunication or more misunderstanding there. I completely didn't see any hostility or even lightly upset-ness or anything in her initial response, while I did interprete a rather large amount of hostility and upset-ness in your response to that. Things seem to have degenerated from there...

"I will continue to respond to with the "civility" she has shown me. She tells me about being civil while rudeness still prevails."

I really don't see *any* other possible interpretation of this other than that you do plan to continue being 'as civil as she is being to me', and that you think she is being very rude. Which further implies that you did intend your responses to be rude, to be uncivil.

I can't vouch for your intentions, I can only say how your communications are coming across to me. I can, on the other hand, vouch for Limner's intentions, and I can and have stated that she did intend civility. It doesn't seem to me that you are hearing that. It does seem to me that you are interpreting her responses as hostile, and it also seems to me that your own responses are hostile. That being said, I don't know what to attempt to further communication (other than this response, of course). And I don't have any advice to give her that I can think of as to what to try... other than that whatever she is saying does seem to be being interpreted as hostile, and since she's tried several times with approximately the same result, she should probably stop unless her intentions are actually to be mean or some new data comes into play. And, since it seems likely to me that you might be responding in a similiar fashion to my attempts at communication... or at least since I can't determine what she did wrong, I suspect it's likely that my communications will have the same effect. And if they are, I apologize, I certainly do not intend any insult... I'm actively trying to communicate in a way that should be recieved as civil in the actual, non-sarcastic meaning of the term. If I continue to percieve myself as failing, I should take my own advice there and also stop trying. To do anything else would be mean.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[pixeeperfect]

No, too much analyzation. Not enough common sense.

I think the two of you tend to be rather snotty and simply not know it, or a worse case scenario: you know it and then create a whole entire argument against it.

Either way I am going to take Limner's original stance and consider it to be the former and not care if it's the latter.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[limner]

It is useless to deny acceleration of the issues and speak with such hostility at the same time. I consider the original issue dealt with. You actually requested feedback, and I gave it to you, though you disagreed with it. The original response: "We had no problem with you. Leslie had a good impression of Mike." You let your words get away from you when you are upset, and now THAT is the issue at hand. Now I have a problem with you. Among other semi permanent things, you've shown disrespect for my girlfriend. On your side you've apparently been hurt by my use of what I took to be common phrases, and I apologize for any hurt you got from it, through this misunderstanding. My panties, to stick with the theme, do not seem to be the ones actually wadded, since to me that implies a certain amount of excitement. I'm a little mad, and insulted, which you can count as the same thing if you want, but I'm certainly not alone here in wadded panty land. I see we are not friends, but considering what low esteem you hold for both the ones I love, such a friendship did not have a long lifespan anyway. You've clearly gone off the deep end, getting so very upset that you lose all context of the responses your words even allow, and if in a while you make motions of friendship, I'll probably accept them. I know this will be of interest to you, which is why I'm explaining. I will be pleasant, civil, possibly even a little friendly at the holidays. I will attempt not to let a conflict as stupid as ours ruin the holidays of other people, especially in the home of someone uninvolved. If you experience enlightenment in the next few days, and respond without such option-removing hostility to either Richard or myself, I will consider the subject less closed, and be willing to discuss it with you, and maybe repair all this should that be possible. Personal philosophies aside, I'm not demanding you do so, you've asked for closed and closed it shall be. I don't really understand where you are getting your responses from, but if you'd like to bitch me out some more, go ahead. It seems a little odd for you to escalate conflict in these areas around you and then blame others for it. But to set your mind at ease, the answer to "what they're actually about" was all pleasant feelings and impressions.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[pixeeperfect]

No mamn, I did not request feedback. Nor did I choose to escalate the situation. I actually tried to change the subject. I don't care about anything you have been saying except that you disrespected Michael and therefore disrespected me with your use of "common phrases." You may have meant, as Richard stated, that we should move on and let Michael deal with it himself. But you said it rudely, mentioning his need of a therapist or something. I don't care what angle you people twist it to look like, that is rude. It is to the effect: "Go talk to someone who cares"

I originally posted in LJ that I had anxiety about xmas, briefly mentioning you two as a single component involved in this. You asked for clarification, I gave it to you, then trying to change the subject mentioning other problems I am having right now (hence giving less importance to the problem with the two of you). You went "off the deep end" shedding light on your "theories" with what is wrong with our situation, and that you people care not and that Michael should seek help elsewhere until he is humbled enough to speak to you people about it.

That, madam, is the original hostility in which I reacted to with nothing but the same.

LOL. You insult me and my guy initially and don't understand where my hostility came from? I have no need or time to be rude to you or your girl. It was never on my agenda. I simply asked why I might have gotten vibes that were negative from you people, and said she may have been rude to Michael. Sorry for such an extraordinarily outrageous impression.

As far as enlightenment is concerned, if you are going to focus on how I have hurt your pride concerning your pet, you should consider what these "common phrases" as you call them, do to other people and their lovers also. If I detect any sort of hostility, insult or even just belittling (which can be recovered in your original explanation [which I did not ask for] entry) I am not going to nod and continue with a civil tongue with you people as I have in the past. I am thru with that. You will not talk down to us without repercussion, end of story.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[limner]

Ok, whatever. My pet? What the hell is that? I already apologized for using phrases with which you were unfamiliar. I do not apologize for the content. I don't see therapy as a bad thing, that only the crazy go to, or something. That's YOUR prejudice, not mine. I meant actually you by 'therapist' or 'counselor', but didn't want to imply a limit as to whom he was allowed to go to for such counsel. Anyway, I didn't insult him at all, ever. But fine, since you are unable to see past your veil of anger and self righteousness, so be it. I expect you to keep a civil tongue, but I'm not in charge of you, and if you don't I won't hold myself accountable. I will do my best to remain civil, but that really isn't for your benefit, so it doesn't demand reciprocation. Talk down to you my .. foot. (That's also a common phrase, slightly cleaned up..) I'll try to respect that request by not talking to you at all.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[limner]

I am not angry at you, Mindy. Although it is disturbing to know how badly you wish I was.

There will be nothing but niceness...because frankly, its brought a silly smile to my face. I think mostly we communicate differently and it has spurred an argument. EX: I thought you meant first impression when you said firsthand acquaintance, and you thought I had a prejudice because I found your multiple remarks to the effect of "talk to your therapist about it" to be snotty.

I didn't imply therapy=crazy...just that you people didn't care and were voicing your lack of care in a rude manner. Just because something you say offends me hardly means that I am unfamiliar with a phrase...perhaps your crafty and ulterior way of using it, but not the phrase. Your logic sure is reaching. Pet=lover...or were you not "familiar" with that common phrase?

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[theshadowsouled]

Wow.

Hostile much? Well, I assume you must be feeling at least a little touchy. That did seem to be the point of the original post there.

Anyhow, I'm not her, but I'm going to make a few comments anyhow.

"As far as you are concerned?"

A common expression. It seemed to me to be pointing out that, well, that is as far as she is 'concerned' about the topic... which is obviously a little incorrect, as she was concerned enough about your bringing it up to mention it. That is, after all, polite.

"a therapist? Ok, you apparently care too much."
Interestingly you seem to have taken that in what, to me, seems to be the exact opposite direction that had meant it. Communication difficulties do sometimes crop up.

"When I said it was Michael and Richard's "problem" and not ours, i meant it concerned, dealt with, and only included them and not us...my mistake."

Interestingly enough, this seems to me to directly contradict itself. At least when taken in the context that you're referring to: "I have a feeling OUR problem is actually not OUR problem at all "... which implies that you have felt some problem there, although you're guessing that it's mainly outside of yourself. A good thing to note. It's important to know yourself, and to notice when other people's perceptions might be coloring your own. However, it must have been coloring your own at least some for you to have noticed it, which does, indeed, make it your problem... at least until you manage to successfully disconnect from it. Bringing it up was a good second move after realizing it's existence. Deciding (as you seem to be doing) to instead accept it is a personal decision of course. I suppose that it's at least a good thing for you to have realized it as other than your own before deciding to embrace it as your own (as you seem to be doing here).

"Either way, you are not involved. " Not with them (Mike and me), but clearly with you, as you did bring it up. Of course, this reaction of yours seems to simultaneously be telling Limner that you formerly saw this negative impression as other than your own, and that you are now accepting this negative emotion that you formerly saw as outside yourself as one you're taking on as your own.

"Michael doesn't lose any sleep over this issue, and he CERTAINLY does not care enough about it enough to talk to a counselor."

Perhaps not, but you did take some time out of your life to bring it up in the first place, which means that it did concern you some. It's my belief that Limner was trying to say "we can choose to not let that affect us if you want". You did seem to interpret what she said differently than I did, I admit.

"Any issue he has with Richard is between him and his therapist until he decides otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. "

Obviously there lies the unspoken 'or with him and noone' in that expression. It's a pretty common literary expression, actually. If you have an interpersonal problem with someone and you don't choose to bring it up with that person, it's just a personal problem. You can choose to bring it up with a therapist (either professional or just a friend or even girlfriend), or you can try to be your own therapist. But either way an interpersonal problem is, by definition, a problem. At least to the person who so termed it.
(Continued)

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[theshadowsouled]

"There is obviously tension, if there was none, really none (not this explanation you CALL nothing), it seems you might have posted more simply that you don't know what we're talking about."

There's obviously tension somewhere. At the very least within you. However I'm willing to entertain the thought that there is some tension with him as well. At the very least you feel that there is, and you certainly know him better than I do. FYI, I don't actually know what you're talking about. I assume, however, that whatever issue he may have with me he'll either bring up or let die away, or perhaps cherish and hold close to his heart. Either way there's nothing much I can do or say other than to continue to be available and non-hostile. Which I am at the moment, and I try to be. I do know that I've made occasional overtures of friendship towards him, and I know that in general I haven't gotten a response from him. I don't actually know anything else to do on that front.

"This would have sufficed fine instead of a series of indirect and riddled insults."

I can't comment too much here other than to say that Limner did show this to me before she posted it, and asked me to see if it read the way she wanted it to... and having the opportunity to ask her what she was trying to express I can assert that she didn't mean any insult (at least not that she told me), and that I didn't personally perceive any potential insult perceivable. However, as I mentioned above, I acknowledge that communication can be difficult.

"Thank you for all of those, we'll keep them in mind. "

I find this to be an interesting comment. To me it implies extreme hostility, but in the end all it manages to convey to me are implications. Could you be more clear here? Are you keeping in mind your perceptions and asking for clarifications? Are you deciding that the perceived "insults" were real and maliciously intended and preparing to take up arms in some sort of interpersonal hatred feud?

"Oh and one more thing: We are NOT accustomed to rely on "firsthand acquaintances.""

Ha! Well, umm... I perceive this as another potential area of miscommunication. Do you realize that she meant that it was a good thing to rely on "firsthand acquaintances"? And that it was meant to be as opposed to rumor and innuendo?

"He would like to know exactly WHAT he is supposed to infer from that encounter."

Hrmm. Not remembering the encounter, I personally thing that it meant to be a 'significant glance', to indicate recognition. "devious glare strikes me as a paranoid type reaction. Of course, that's because I know the fem in question, and know her expressions better. I don't think I've ever seen her do "devious", and I'm pretty certain she doesn't have such an expression in her facial vocabulary. However, of course, I could be wrong. I'd have to ask her personally.

Of course, no matter what type of "reaction" it is, paranoid or well founded, it's still based on innuendo... that sort of expression being the basis of what innuendo IS.

Re: missed point taken, another shot at point given

[theshadowsouled]

Ooops, continued number three:

Now, I did have an opportunity to talk to her about her impressions of you two (and of everyone else, and of the occasion in general) after you all met that time, and she didn't express to me that her impressions of you or of Mike were negative. Of course, it's possible she could be being 'devious' with me as well, or that I could be lying to you here. I'm not lying, and I don't think she was lying to me. However the little hint of paranoia I perceived makes me wonder what you will believe are the "true intentions" of this communication effort. Personally, I wouldn't bother to lie. I would instead just remain silent. I can't come up with a potential reason for me to be being deceptive in this. However I'm certain that someone truly paranoid could. All communication is, at heart, a two way street. I can't control what you hear. I can only do my personal best to convey my message as clearly as I know how, hope for understanding, and wait for your communication back to see it it seems that I'm being understood.