Seems to me this is built around an assumed meaning in jaharkta's post, in which among other things, she said:
I didn't really come here to discuss. Four different people either PM'ed or emailed asking about this thread.
Red took this to mean:
December 30, 2008, 01:44:43 PM: Vicki states she did not come to the thread (that means her first post) to discuss,
I would not have taken her to mean her first post, but all her posts in principle, and her above quoted post in particular. She says she didn't "really come here to discuss" -
really implying, minority of discussion, and majority of responding as a moderator, ie. despite some discussion her main concern was the way this thread was unfolding.
she says that 4 people complained about the thread - about my spectacle (my posts are not as 'hurtful as I imagine') - and that that forced her interference.
Thus, 48 hours later Vicki gives her explanation about her joining the thread and it is allegedly not because she wanted to tell me something from her own volition, but because of the 'noble cause' of responding to the requests of 4 people.
December 30, 2008, 01:49:38 PM: I ask whether she really got 4 complaints after only two of my posts remained in the thread (With all due respect, it does not sound plausible at all)
December 30, 2008, 01:59:38 PM: Vicki says that maybe only one complaint arrived before her interference (which, as was said, was of rather personal nature and nowhere near of the 'noble cause' she later used to explain her actions)
Yes, that is how I would see it. There is nothing in jaharkta's post to say when she received the PM's.
In other words, no she didn't get 4 PM's before her first post. She got 4 PM's before her above quoted post: post number 42.
There is nothing in her words to say she received the PM's before her first post, and nothing to say "I didn't really come here to discuss" refers to only her first post.
I take that comment to mean she came in all her posts, in part as a participant, but in main as a moderator to respond to what mod's call 'flames', meaning inflammatory remarks, and to respond because not only she found the tone inflammatory, but others had also. That is her job as a moderator. And she stated that motivation clearly in her first two sentences of the 'said' post.
December 30, 2008, 02:01:54 PM: I state that Vicki lies - about her real motives of posting in the thread, lies about her own contribution to giving the thread the quality it has,
Real motives: well that is always a difficult one, but I don't see any indication by her that she is speaking about her real motives.
and she motivated (lied about) her actions with 'noble cause' which for me is particularly hypocritical.
Regardless of her deepest motivations, she is a moderator in RS, and I expect she does see that as a 'noble cause'.
Now, I don't have a shadow of a doubt that I managed to see the thing for what it was and my intent behind this thread was something that neither Vicki nor Lori were able grasp. They responded from their own view, driven by their perception.
That may well be the case, but that is the purpose of a topic - that people put their 'own view, driven by their perception' is precisely what everyone does. That others did not grasp your view and perception Red, may or may not be the case, but there you go - happens to me all the time.
.............
Now I am being very forensic here - I did used to be an Auditor. And it may appear I am giving Red a hard time over some comments that flew back and forth in the heat of debate. After all this is not a court, and people are allowed to make hyperbolic statements, without any requirement they back them up in minute detail.
However, it did seem to me the pressure in this thread was predominately from Red. He did employ affective language in his debate, to which others naturally felt some sense of aggression towards them. This, as someone pointed out, was most curious in a thread about love:
That's another useless outburst of emotion.
However, if you just want to keep expressing some suppressed emotions and cover them with fake thoughts - it is a waste of time.
what exactly are you doing here? Teaching us, poor bastards?
I am still impressed by your zeal to prove your omniscience and omnipotency.
I don't think you are adequate.
Do you know how long is pike's memory? 5 minutes.
Timing is CRUCIAL because you LIE.
This is what we call, playing the man instead of the ball.
Now don't misunderstand me - there are times to apply pressure, and we should all make our arguments as potent as we can. Plus this thread did attempt to get into a meaningful discussion on the subject - I mean there were many good responses.
However it appears to me the main issue kept being sidetracked by unnecessary, vituperative innuendoes. Which is a pity, as the full implication of what 'unconditional' could mean when applied to love remains a realisation still out of reach for most people.
To love someone unconditionally, at face value, implies we love that person no matter what they do or don't do - ie, without conditions.
How many participants of this thread are able to extend and sustain love to everyone involved, despite their 'perceptions' of other's attitudes, motives and behaviour?
And to what extent do you feel this thread demonstrated unconditional love in practice?
