The journey from there to here

Unfortunately, due to the blacklisting, I'm forced to reply to a question asked of me through my own blog. I will do so.

Here is the text of the question:

You are having a heated argument with an acquaintance, a disagreement of sorts, suddenly party A says "hey you hurt my feelings" Party B' Says no I did not!

I always thought it was up to the party that had his feelings hurt to decide if they were hurt or not.

How can anyone say "I did not hurt your feelings" when Party A made it very clear indeed they were hurt.

Who's decision is it to decide about hurt feelings? The one that claims there feelings were hurt or insulted or the other party in this case party B who is NOT INSIDE Party A head, who does not feel what Party A felt?

When someone tells me I hurt them I might not understand why they are hurt or insulted, but then again I am not in that persons head and I do not have a clue how that person feels except for what they tell me. I apologize even if I do not understand what's the big deal, It must have been a big deal or else why would Party A say he was hurt or insulted?

If asked to apologize you can do one of two things, apologize if you think the other person is worth keeping around, or not apologize even knowing you might have this person annoyed enough to kick you to the curb. It all seems very black and white to me. What say you folks?

First of all, in my estimation, talk is cheap. An apology is nothing more than asking permission to be an asshat. It's cheap and degrading.

Secondly, I do not apologize if I do not mean it. Ever.

Third, I do not respond to DEMANDS for an apology.

You demand an apology, then sit on your throne decrying me because I don't give it to you, yet you do not consider, for a second, that the statements you made are, to me, as offensive, or more so, than anything I could have said to you. Furthermore, when someone else states the EXACT SAME THING I SAID, in different words, you thank them for changing your viewpoint, while you throw me onto your blacklist.

I could go over the reasons why your comments offended me, but I have already done so. No need to rehash. In fact, this article wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact I am answering a question directly. I am done with it.

You either accept me as I am, or you don't. Either way, I'm cool with it. I will certainly miss your presence, but an acquaintance based on lies is less valuable than no acquaintance at all. I am who I am, you are who you are, and apparently YOU (not I) have deemed those two personalities incompatible.

I wish you the best of luck in life.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 02, 2006

PS, Where was MY apology, and why are you so high and mighty as to demand that YOUR feelings matter where mine don't?

This is MUCH more appropriate for private conversation. If you wish to continue this, my email address is on my sidebar.

on Jun 02, 2006
Hey, I demand an apology! You hurt my feelings! I'm not sure why, but I just know you have, so you owe me buddy. Gib apology now! Either that, or send me a link to all ur pr0n to make things right.

{ sorry if I'm making light of a bad situation, but really what else is to be done? Hopefully you'll work things out along the way }
on Jun 02, 2006
LOL!

{ sorry if I'm making light of a bad situation, but really what else is to be done? Hopefully you'll work things out along the way }


I hope so, too. But I'm OK with either outcome, really.

I could write volumes explaining why I feel so passionately on this issue that I refuse to issue an apology, but I'm not going to throw high octane fuel on the fire. Suffice it to say, I have my reasons.
on Jun 02, 2006
Hasn't this happened before between you two?

Maybe its best to just avoid each other.
on Jun 02, 2006

The thing is, Tova, I don't mind debate. I have nothing against him. He's not even on my blacklist.

Now, he MAY have found himself on the blacklist if he tried to access my comments for all of about fifteen seconds the other day before I thought about it and realized the offense really wasn't blacklist worthy. But I don't have anything against him whatsoever.

But I am who I am, regardless, and I do expect friends to understand that.

on Jun 02, 2006

What's cheap or demeaning about that?

Nothing. But an apology would assume I was in any way sorry for what I said. I'm not, and I refuse to pretend to be. I have VERY good reasons for my position, some of which you know well.

on Jun 02, 2006

One other note: I never claimed not to have hurt the individual's feelings. I claimed not to be sorry for a single word I said, and I'm not. I have no choice but to believe him that his feelings were hurt, as he says, but I would wager a fair sum that there are millions of patriots throughout history who were equally hurt by his assertion that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper". In fact, with that single statement, he not only hurt my feelings, but belittled the actions of so many of my ancestors, including my grandfather, who nearly died in WWI defending that "piece of paper". What he said to me goes FAR deeper than a personal insult; it is an insult to every American who has ever died in defense of this country.

on Jun 02, 2006
I just used gentler language because I care for the man.


I didn't use gentler language for one reason, LW: because I have spent literally hundreds of hours studying the Constitution and learning it to prepare to work as an activist for families affected by violations of it, and because my family has had to live in virtual exile because of violations of it, and I'm sick of it. What he did was the equivalent of slapping me in the face, then demanding an apology when I struck back.

I care for the man, too, but not enough to compromise who I am.
on Jun 02, 2006

This is stupid. The individual in question is not blacklisted from my blog; he can reply here, but he chooses not to. I have pointed out my email link on the sidebar, which can be used, but he chooses not to. I hoped there would be a way to reconcile this, but barring my bending over and kissing his ass, it isn't going to happen.

This is juvenile, and infantile, and I want no part of it. If you choose to live in hate, mod, so be it. I'm through with it.

on Jun 02, 2006
And, by the way, I only WROTE this article because I cannot reply on your blog. Blacklisting someone isn't very conducive to reconciliation, now, is it?
on Jun 02, 2006
Peace.
on Jun 02, 2006
I have to agree with LW Gid, I thought you were a bit harsh with your response too. I didn't 'say' anything about it at the time because I was rush-replying and I wanted to see how it would pan out. As Whip said, Elie did apologise for his original stance. So, yes you feel strongly about your point, I understand that totally, however, some of the things that were said might not sound bad to you but they actually came out a bit harsh (and I was trying to find the blog to go over what I remembered). At any rate, it's not what you say but how you say it, I'm sure you would agree were the shoe on the other foot.
on Jun 02, 2006
As Whip said, Elie did apologise for his original stance.


Elie apologized for his original stance, he did NOT apologize for the offense to me, and he did NOT apologize for trivializing the Constitution by calling it "just a piece of paper". Was I harsh? Not in the least. The Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our government, and if it is trivialized as "just a piece of paper", then essentially ALL of our freedoms are meaningless.

Patrick Henry stated "Give me Liberty or give me death!" Was he being harsh? Not in the least; he was stating his uncompromising allegiance to the principles of liberty. We admire these men, we idolize them, and then we accuse modern day defenders of the Constitution of being "harsh" when they use the same rhetoric.

As I said before, Elie threw the first blow. Elie continues to keep this alive by blacklisting me from his thread, posting attacks that I can't counter, and then accusing me of not letting the matter drop when I respond on my blog because I have nowhere else to respond. He stands behind his personality, making petty excuses about how HE has the right to be upset, but he refuses to grant that right to someone else. I want to let the issue drop, frankly, but I will not do so at the expense of my dignity. He has made it clear that, barring bending over and kissing his ass, there will BE no reconciliation, and I have made it clear that I will not be kissing his ass. What more is there to discuss, really?

I have JUST as valid reasons for being pissed off as Elie does, forever, perhaps even more. But somehow everyone's looking at me as if I were the bad guy.
on Jun 02, 2006

And why does it escape EVERYONE'S attention that I have REPEATEDLY offered him the means to discuss this privately and he has not done so? He's making this a public battle for a very clear reason, and, frankly, that has me having even LESS respect for him.

I'll try to go light on the articles this week so you can pass me in points, Mod. After all, that's all that matters, isn't it?

on Jun 03, 2006
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Friday, June 02, 2006And why does it escape EVERYONE'S attention that I have REPEATEDLY offered him the means to discuss this privately and he has not done so? He's making this a public battle for a very clear reason, and, frankly, that has me having even LESS respect for him.I'll try to go light on the articles this week so you can pass me in points, Mod. After all, that's all that matters, isn't it


that was a cheap shot gid, I expect better from you.

I am sorry about the statement I made about the Constitution, but you should have known That is not even close to how I feel about the constitution. I was having a fear filled day and wrote an article that if I was thinking clearly I would never have written.


written 9:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight savings time.
2 Pages1 2