Comments on: The Rules of Engagement http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rules-of-engagement live life like you mean it... Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:58:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jason http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-659 Jason Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:39:08 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-659 Speaking as someone who's known Jeri for well over the last decade - you know, as opposed to somebody who's held that much vitriol toward her from almost 20 years ago - I'd say that Jeri is probably one of the happiest people I know. She's not angry. I really can't recall her being angry. Occasionally she'll post about irritating things that occur - and good things and great things and unfortunate things - but she always writes from her point of view. And she's allowed. She's also not angry at you nor did she respond to you in anger. She responded with humor, something you'd realize if you knew her TODAY as opposed to two decades ago. She took your point as that of an uninformed and unknowledgeable observer and responded to you. She's still not angry even though you've repeatedly lashed out at her. In fact, we're currently chuckling about this entire thread. The REAL fact is that you are someone she has not talked to since 1992 (or earlier) and rather than say "hello" have chosen to make an appearance in her life by attacking her point of view and calling her out. So really, my guess is that any unbiased reader is probably sitting back and wondering what the hell your problem is. I know *I* am. Speaking as someone who’s known Jeri for well over the last decade – you know, as opposed to somebody who’s held that much vitriol toward her from almost 20 years ago – I’d say that Jeri is probably one of the happiest people I know. She’s not angry. I really can’t recall her being angry. Occasionally she’ll post about irritating things that occur – and good things and great things and unfortunate things – but she always writes from her point of view. And she’s allowed. She’s also not angry at you nor did she respond to you in anger. She responded with humor, something you’d realize if you knew her TODAY as opposed to two decades ago. She took your point as that of an uninformed and unknowledgeable observer and responded to you. She’s still not angry even though you’ve repeatedly lashed out at her. In fact, we’re currently chuckling about this entire thread.

The REAL fact is that you are someone she has not talked to since 1992 (or earlier) and rather than say “hello” have chosen to make an appearance in her life by attacking her point of view and calling her out. So really, my guess is that any unbiased reader is probably sitting back and wondering what the hell your problem is. I know *I* am.

]]> By: nom de plume http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-658 nom de plume Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:30:05 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-658 Cut to the quick, am I! Serieux, I have tried to disagree without being disagreeable. It's been a long time since Bandoleras tryouts -- oh, next subject (I've given you a BIG hint, Jer Grrl) -- and I was wondering whether this blog persona was another of your alters. Apparently. I mean, lash out and accusatory? me? No, you're the one who has lashed out. Also, it is obvious to any unbiased reader that I am not the angry one in this discourse (such as it is). You are. Simply reread our interactions without all the mental side commentary that colors your reality differently than the RoW. You'll then see that you have escalated the anger, the angst with each iteration. Here at the end ... yes, I shall fade away only to return as "rire aux éclats" should you call upon me ... I wish that our disagreement about your post had not degraded to being about your anger over being unable to control and dominate -- the blog thread or me. Cut to the quick, am I! Serieux, I have tried to disagree without being disagreeable. It’s been a long time since Bandoleras tryouts — oh, next subject (I’ve given you a BIG hint, Jer Grrl) — and I was wondering whether this blog persona was another of your alters. Apparently.

I mean, lash out and accusatory? me? No, you’re the one who has lashed out.

Also, it is obvious to any unbiased reader that I am not the angry one in this discourse (such as it is). You are. Simply reread our interactions without all the mental side commentary that colors your reality differently than the RoW. You’ll then see that you have escalated the anger, the angst with each iteration.

Here at the end … yes, I shall fade away only to return as “rire aux éclats” should you call upon me … I wish that our disagreement about your post had not degraded to being about your anger over being unable to control and dominate — the blog thread or me.

]]> By: Jeri http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-656 Jeri Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:27:49 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-656 Oh no, I wasn't threatening you. I am just point blank calling you a coward. But that's your right since I allow anonymous postings here. I was just letting you know that anonymous is only so anonymous out here on the internet. You're welcome to comment here and be as accusatory to me and as disagreeable with me as you like. It doesn't bother me a bit. It is pretty obvious I've struck a nerve. You're also welcome to lash out at me since well, I invite comments. And that warmth was from the laughter over here. You've kind of made our day. You're our first angry commentor (or is it commenter?). We took a vote about giving you a prize but then decided that giving you this little forum to be angsty and spread your misery was probably prize enough. So congratulations and thanks for posting! Oh no, I wasn’t threatening you. I am just point blank calling you a coward. But that’s your right since I allow anonymous postings here. I was just letting you know that anonymous is only so anonymous out here on the internet.

You’re welcome to comment here and be as accusatory to me and as disagreeable with me as you like. It doesn’t bother me a bit. It is pretty obvious I’ve struck a nerve. You’re also welcome to lash out at me since well, I invite comments. And that warmth was from the laughter over here. You’ve kind of made our day. You’re our first angry commentor (or is it commenter?). We took a vote about giving you a prize but then decided that giving you this little forum to be angsty and spread your misery was probably prize enough. So congratulations and thanks for posting!

]]> By: nom de plume http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-655 nom de plume Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:31:53 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-655 I appreciate the warmth of your regards -- I feel the heat -- even through that thick skin, such as you purport it to be. I never suggested that anything you've posted, or will post, is not your right to do. It is your blog after all. However, you post and invite replies. I've replied with my own observations and opinion. Isn't that what you intended? All I've said is that the email is merely a semi-coherent (versus irrational), nearly desperate and obviously ineffective attempt to get you to change your mind. Irritating? yes, but your post was an over reaction, IMHO. As a result of our disagreement, you're preaching ... and chiding my anonymity, the very foundation of webizenicity ... and mildly threatening me with IP address exposure simply because we disagree? Is this the beginning of another over reaction??? Don't misunderstand: we are in total agreement that it is your right to over react as much as you want. TTFN. I appreciate the warmth of your regards — I feel the heat — even through that thick skin, such as you purport it to be.

I never suggested that anything you’ve posted, or will post, is not your right to do. It is your blog after all. However, you post and invite replies. I’ve replied with my own observations and opinion. Isn’t that what you intended?

All I’ve said is that the email is merely a semi-coherent (versus irrational), nearly desperate and obviously ineffective attempt to get you to change your mind. Irritating? yes, but your post was an over reaction, IMHO.

As a result of our disagreement, you’re preaching … and chiding my anonymity, the very foundation of webizenicity … and mildly threatening me with IP address exposure simply because we disagree? Is this the beginning of another over reaction??? Don’t misunderstand: we are in total agreement that it is your right to over react as much as you want. TTFN.

]]> By: Jeri http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Jeri Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:55:49 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-653 I am very sorry that this woman's irrational response and my refusal to simply take it has struck a nerve with you. I am sorry you feel that my response is lame. I have an incredibly thick skin. Posting something that irritated me - and has irritated others - on my own website is my right. Please do not commend me; I don't do what I do for commendation or thanks. I do expect for grown up people to stand up and take accounting for their mistakes instead of treating others like crap when they screw up and don't get their way. It's called being an adult. I'm very sorry you don't get that. I'm sorry you feel the need to hide behind an anonymous email address and name. However, we capture your IP around here so you're not that anonymous. Sorry about that too. Anything else I've missed? If so, feel free to take it up with me personally. You know.. as an adult. Warmest regards, Jeri I am very sorry that this woman’s irrational response and my refusal to simply take it has struck a nerve with you. I am sorry you feel that my response is lame. I have an incredibly thick skin. Posting something that irritated me – and has irritated others – on my own website is my right. Please do not commend me; I don’t do what I do for commendation or thanks. I do expect for grown up people to stand up and take accounting for their mistakes instead of treating others like crap when they screw up and don’t get their way. It’s called being an adult. I’m very sorry you don’t get that. I’m sorry you feel the need to hide behind an anonymous email address and name. However, we capture your IP around here so you’re not that anonymous. Sorry about that too.

Anything else I’ve missed? If so, feel free to take it up with me personally. You know.. as an adult.

Warmest regards,
Jeri

]]> By: nom de plume http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-651 nom de plume Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:53:41 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-651 OK, you made it apparent that your history with this mom is the mass behind the vituperative momentum of your post. I didn't say that you said she was abusive; I merely made the observation that she wasn't. We're in violent agreement on this point. I agree also that her email was not especially coherent and her arguments not convincing -- like I said, she appeared to be trying to hit (randomly?) a button that would change your mind -- and so she was pushy, didn't take your "no, with nice explanation" as final and thus, she was irritating. But rude? over the top? Accusatory? Now, I've received rude, accusatory and over the top communications during my life to date and I suggest this: thicken your skin if that email was, in your mind, as you have posted. I reiterate my opinion that your post was an over reaction to "the" email. If there was a history that magnified her statements in the email, you shoulda provided that in your line by line exposition of the email rather than holding it is reserve until faced with an opposing view. And, proclaiming that your opinion is backed by the opinions of "others" -- well, that is seriously lame. I commend you for your contributions to the school and I am certain that a thousand slights, criticisms and other annoyances collect while you go about contributing to the kids. And I hope that this vent cleared out the detritus. One thing is certain: If you keep the ink wet for two or more years before venting, I'd really hate to be on your fecal roster. OK, you made it apparent that your history with this mom is the mass behind the vituperative momentum of your post. I didn’t say that you said she was abusive; I merely made the observation that she wasn’t. We’re in violent agreement on this point.

I agree also that her email was not especially coherent and her arguments not convincing — like I said, she appeared to be trying to hit (randomly?) a button that would change your mind — and so she was pushy, didn’t take your “no, with nice explanation” as final and thus, she was irritating. But rude? over the top? Accusatory? Now, I’ve received rude, accusatory and over the top communications during my life to date and I suggest this: thicken your skin if that email was, in your mind, as you have posted.

I reiterate my opinion that your post was an over reaction to “the” email. If there was a history that magnified her statements in the email, you shoulda provided that in your line by line exposition of the email rather than holding it is reserve until faced with an opposing view. And, proclaiming that your opinion is backed by the opinions of “others” — well, that is seriously lame.

I commend you for your contributions to the school and I am certain that a thousand slights, criticisms and other annoyances collect while you go about contributing to the kids. And I hope that this vent cleared out the detritus. One thing is certain: If you keep the ink wet for two or more years before venting, I’d really hate to be on your fecal roster.

]]> By: Jeri http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-646 Jeri Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:54:30 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-646 Nom de plume hm? Nice touch. Anyway to your points: 1) spelling error. My bad. Not a Duke thing. 2) I never said she was being abusive. Irrational - yes. Disrespectful - yes. Accusatory - yes. Abusive - nope. And she did lash out. I explained myself once. She tried to come back and make her mistake my problem. She's done this before. She'll do it again. She's an unpleasant person. This is one of MANY unpleasant communications I and/or others have had with her. I appreciate your opinion - and recognize you might be the person in question - but the reply was rude and over the top. This is an opinion shared by people who know her and have read her email and people who don't know and read the above. So while I recognize your right to a opinion, I don't share it. Thanks for writing in! Nom de plume hm? Nice touch.

Anyway to your points:

1) spelling error. My bad. Not a Duke thing.
2) I never said she was being abusive. Irrational – yes. Disrespectful – yes. Accusatory – yes. Abusive – nope.

And she did lash out. I explained myself once. She tried to come back and make her mistake my problem. She’s done this before. She’ll do it again. She’s an unpleasant person. This is one of MANY unpleasant communications I and/or others have had with her. I appreciate your opinion – and recognize you might be the person in question – but the reply was rude and over the top. This is an opinion shared by people who know her and have read her email and people who don’t know and read the above. So while I recognize your right to a opinion, I don’t share it.

Thanks for writing in!

]]> By: nom de plume http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-644 nom de plume Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:49:19 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-644 I don't want to make a spectacle, versus a spectical (probably a Dukie thang), here, but the over reaction is entirely yours. Yes, the mom was trying to hit as many of your buttons as she could in an attempt to right her own error. An error that, as you probably know, being the introspective, eruditious mom that you are, was going to impact her child. Don't we all want to keep our children from being disappointed? No, you were not wrong to be fair to the other stakeholders and deny the mother her request. However, the mother was NOT abusive. She did not lash out as you portray. Your reaction is a thin skinned over reaction. I don’t want to make a spectacle, versus a spectical (probably a Dukie thang), here, but the over reaction is entirely yours. Yes, the mom was trying to hit as many of your buttons as she could in an attempt to right her own error. An error that, as you probably know, being the introspective, eruditious mom that you are, was going to impact her child. Don’t we all want to keep our children from being disappointed?

No, you were not wrong to be fair to the other stakeholders and deny the mother her request. However, the mother was NOT abusive. She did not lash out as you portray. Your reaction is a thin skinned over reaction.

]]> By: Jeri http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Jeri Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:12:50 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-499 Thank you, Jacqui! I confess I'm looking forward to the day when I don't need to volunteer this much to support the theater arts programs in Drue's school. That said, I enjoy the time with Drue and her peers now while I'm able to do it. :-) And do nit pick on the grammar! Shall we just pretend I said "I don't usually" as opposed to that whole "usually never" business? ;) Thank you, Jacqui! I confess I’m looking forward to the day when I don’t need to volunteer this much to support the theater arts programs in Drue’s school. That said, I enjoy the time with Drue and her peers now while I’m able to do it. :-)

And do nit pick on the grammar! Shall we just pretend I said “I don’t usually” as opposed to that whole “usually never” business? ;)

]]> By: Jacqui http://www.lifeinflux.com/2010/01/25/the-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-498 Jacqui Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:55:32 +0000 http://www.lifeinflux.com/?p=589#comment-498 First off, you are amazing to have put in over 500 hours for Drue's school! That alone with a job is amazing, no less starting your own business. I have to say that you are exactly right in your attitude towards such complaints, you did the work so you set the rules, and I suspect they are the same rules throughout the school. While I am no great speller or grammarian, I do have to nit pick your "I usually never", bad grammar but quite an effective attention getter; I put it down to the stress of the moment. You go girl! First off, you are amazing to have put in over 500 hours for Drue’s school! That alone with a job is amazing, no less starting your own business. I have to say that you are exactly right in your attitude towards such complaints, you did the work so you set the rules, and I suspect they are the same rules throughout the school.
While I am no great speller or grammarian, I do have to nit pick your “I usually never”, bad grammar but quite an effective attention getter; I put it down to the stress of the moment. You go girl!

]]>