Reef Squad

eatbreakfast · Jun 23, 2019

Even though you # 'you are not wanting a debate here' the rest of your wording. Comes across as the opposite. You also said if you are misinterpreting it to feel free to answer. You got an answer here and the other thread where you quoted it.

The perception that the tone changed may be reality or may be perception; or may be related to one factor or a myriad of factors. But picking words and phrases out of threads and posts to frame as the whole of the discussion or problem isn't painting an accurate picture either.

MnFish1 said:
I - If I'm misinterpreting - feel free to answer.

Lastly - If my post was 'very argumentative' - yours above is 'overly defensive'. Why? I didnt report the post - or the person.

You say if you are misinterpreting to feel free to answer, but when someone does answer they are seemingly overdefensive....

MnFish1 · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
Even though you # 'you are not wanting a debate here' the rest of your wording. Comes across as the opposite. You also said if you are misinterpreting it to feel free to answer. You got an answer here and the other thread where you quoted it.

The perception that the tone changed may be reality or may be perception; or may be related to one factor or a myriad of factors. But picking words and phrases out of threads and posts to frame as the whole of the discussion or problem isn't painting an accurate picture either.

You say if you are misinterpreting to feel free to answer, but when someone does answer they are seemingly overdefensive....

I was directing that comment at the person that wrote the original post - he did not answer that I was misinterpreting. You did. Only the person posting knows 'what they were thinking'. Again - with all due respect - you do not know exactly what they were thinking). So - I think we should agree to disagree.

eatbreakfast · Jun 23, 2019

MnFish1 said:
I was directing that comment at the person that wrote the original post - he did not answer that I was misinterpreting. You did. Only the person posting knows 'what they were thinking'. Again - with all due respect - you do not know exactly what they were thinking). So - I think we should agree to disagree.

You're right I don't necassarily know what they were thinking. But you felt it was an example of what is part of the problem that you felt the need to post it elsewhere. That's how I found it in the first place, but then when someone points out that the way you took it was very specific and probably not correct, then you only want their answer. spr1968 has a good history of being helpful, I've witnessed it over the years, so if someone is going to cast aspersions about their tone, you better believe I will defend them.

MnFish1 · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
You're right I don't necassarily know what they were thinking. But you felt it was an example of what is part of the problem that you felt the need to post it elsewhere. That's how I found it in the first place, but then when someone points out that the way you took it was very specific and probably not correct, then you only want their answer. spr1968 has a good history of being helpful, I've witnessed it over the years, so if someone is going to cast aspersions about their tone, you better believe I will defend them.

No one is perfect. Me, you or SP. This is a thread (that coincidentally) was posted within 5 minutes of my forum politics one. The other thread had more to do with the perceived changes in the site and the 'tone'. Thats why I moved that over there - it was not to rub salt in anyones wounds or personally attack them. When I quoted the post in the other thread - I specifically did NOT mention the name because I dont hold it against 'the individual'. The first several posts on this thread were very critical of the RS and the advice given (I do not agree with that AT ALL). I would hope that I've also helped people with my posts in the past - such that you. wouldn't automatically think I was trying to be a jerk by suggesting that he examine what he was saying?

Eggs · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
You're right I don't necassarily know what they were thinking. But you felt it was an example of what is part of the problem that you felt the need to post it elsewhere. That's how I found it in the first place, but then when someone points out that the way you took it was very specific and probably not correct, then you only want their answer. spr1968 has a good history of being helpful, I've witnessed it over the years, so if someone is going to cast aspersions about their tone, you better believe I will defend them.

But what makes the other persons perception of the comment the correct one? That MnFiah1 had perceived the comment incorrectly? He wasn’t the only one. And I also agree that there is more of this going on lately on R2R.
This was mentioned by another member in the other thread, but it almost always seems as though the Staff, Moderator, etc. all “like” each other’s posts and often time ignores any concerns brought up by a member, as you are doing in this case @eatbreakfast.

Perhaps poorly worded, but the context of the RS post did change from the tone of the rest of the thread, perhaps the RS didn’t read through the entire thread. It doesn’t excuse the words used.

SPR1968 · Jun 23, 2019

MnFish1 said:
I was directing that comment at the person that wrote the original post - he did not answer that I was misinterpreting. You did. Only the person posting knows 'what they were thinking'. Again - with all due respect - you do not know exactly what they were thinking). So - I think we should agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, I was making a positive comment, and I’m not about to get into any further argument with you, so don’t take my ‘no replies’ as meaning anything. I responded to a post made by you referring everyone to a thread created by you, post number 92 to be precise.

You have quoted my comments on another thread completely out of context, but that’s what you can do isn’t it.

I spend my time on here trying to help people, for free, I’ve made 5126 posts and 27932 agree with what I’ve said. I help people not argue with them.

Sorry guys, but sometimes I have to speak out, and I apologise to everyone being subjected to this rubbish, again!

Demonic · Jun 23, 2019

flchamp89 said:
People shouldn't make acquiring titles a goal as it will typically lead to disappointment.

While you are right, I still find myself trying to get the banners under the name.

Not sure the glitter fairy is for everyone though...

Eggs · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
You're right I don't necassarily know what they were thinking. But you felt it was an example of what is part of the problem that you felt the need to post it elsewhere. That's how I found it in the first place, but then when someone points out that the way you took it was very specific and probably not correct, then you only want their answer. spr1968 has a good history of being helpful, I've witnessed it over the years, so if someone is going to cast aspersions about their tone, you better believe I will defend them.

Regarding a good history of being helpful, that wasn’t the case with a couple former RS members during the “good bye” threads last weekend. Not rehashing that story here, just pointing out they also contributed a lot and R2R took the correct approach regarding inappropriateness.

eatbreakfast · Jun 23, 2019

Eggs said:
Regarding a good history of being helpful, that wasn’t the case with a couple former RS members during the “good bye” threads last weekend. Not rehashing that story here, just pointing out they also contributed a lot and R2R took the correct approach regarding inappropriateness.

Right, but spr1968's history is drastically different from theirs.

Eggs · Jun 23, 2019

SPR1968 said:
........

You have quoted my comments on another thread completely out of context, but that’s what you can do isn’t it.

........being subjected to this rubbish, again!

I’m glad you clarified your point, but the above words goes back to the same perception problem, it’s disappointing to see this attitude on R2R.

Your post was out of context to this thread, and was perceived negatively.

Eggs · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
Right, but spr1968's history is drastically different from theirs.

Wow, you have the attitude also. @revhtree

I’m not out for trophy points and banners. If I can add to a thread I will. If what I want to add is already mentioned multiple times I’m not going to post to get some brownie points.

And once again, staff, moderators, RS etc all back each other and ignore any member issues.

A few have spoken up as to what has changed with R2R, this is a perfect example.

CMO · Jun 23, 2019

Does anyone else find it funny when people like posts they clearly disagree with?

MnFish1 · Jun 23, 2019

eatbreakfast said:
Right, but spr1968's history is drastically different from theirs.

Like I said before - no one is perfect. Just because someone has posted 10000 helpful posts - doesnt mean that I cant have an opinion about one of them - or part of them that I FEEL is slightly negative. By the way - the recent response from the RS member to me - in context - was IMHO uncalled for - it borders on personal insult - and IMHO - is again part of the problem here. But I'm a big boy - I don't report posts or lock threads, etc.

MnFish1 · Jun 23, 2019

CMO said:
Does anyone else find it funny when people like posts they clearly disagree with?

Its a way of showing respect (to me) - even if I clearly disagree.

DLHDesign · Jun 23, 2019

@Eggs - what is your goal in this thread?
@MnFish1 - what is your goal in this thread?

You both obviously have something you’re trying to get across or achieve. What is that, please? What do you hope to achieve by continuing to post in this thread specifically?