Friday, July 29, 2011

so lame to see you leave, and to know that you believe it's over

Just when I think I've finally resolved the [Insect] situation, it crops up again.

To wit, this comment (thankfully left on the right entry!):
you have not had the courage to publish what I wrote in my previous comment! This is for me a great win! So I have understand very well what you are really and I think I will make too much advertise at this your "quality"! ^ ^

Goodbye sweet! ;)

[Dilapidated] Reigns
I really hate when people can't read. Or track down the right entry in the first place.

But, just to tie everything up in one entry...Ms. [Insect], you responded originally to this entry when you should have responded to this entry; then you got confused when I didn't publish your reply to the proper entry, because you'd gotten confused and replied to the wrong one.

This, by the way, is not my fault. That's all on you for forgetting which entry you were replying to in the first place. I am not accountable for stupidity.

But just to make things absolutely clear for you:

This is the direct link to your first comment (sent, again, to the WRONG ENTRY.)

This, on the other hand, is your bitchy retort comment--on the RIGHT entry!--because I didn't publish your comment on the right entry--because YOU SENT IT TO THE WRONG ONE.

Wau, I hope everything is clear now. Anything else? Do let me know, I'm all ears.


Winter said...

I was going to read all that, with rapt fascination, but I got bored and stopped.

From what I DID read, I think she's yet another person unhappy that you used her name in connection with a "generally negative" (mocking whatever) post in your apparently well-read blog.

Maybe it's time to trot out the olf find-replace function when dealing with quoting people, and give them humorous nicknames rather than including their actual names in your posts?

Just saying.. "naming names" does seem to causing you more drama of late. How much of this would have been avoided if you'd replaced her name with "Cryptic Engigmatica"? (or just good old "Random Person"?)

I try to avoid naming names, because then it just stirs up a lot of he said she said, and privacy nonsense, when my whole reason for posting was to just discuss the BUH emotions I was feeling. Invariably when I name names, someone with an axe to grind will go out of their way to bring that post to the named person's attention.

I have a feeling that may be what;s going on for you recently.

Emilly Orr said...

Well, I was thinking of replacing every instance of her name with "Dilapidated Infestation", but there's that one screen shot that shows the nothing after the Blogger version of her name.

Maybe if I just take that shot out...

winter said...

maybe.. I was just thinking more of as a general policy when writing "buh?" posts, changing the names preemptively might be a good way to avoid this sort of thing.

Not sure what to say when naming names is particularly key to the issue (like with that hunt drama that I didn't read all of). Anonymizing that sort of thing may not be appropriate.

it's of course your blog, to do with as you please.

Emilly Orr said...

Oh, I understand, but you're not wrong. I've been thinking on these lines for the past several posts, but then I backslide.


Ms. Bookmite wasn't a backsliding, per se, because I originally blogged about her--briefly--five months ago and she's only just getting around to complaining now.

But yeah. Since it's obviously becoming A Thing for some reason, I'm going to try to be better about keeping names out of it when I can.

Anonymous said...

I've always been sort of impressed that you post names. It's bold and does cause extra drama when people come to defend themselves. I don't link my blogs and forum posts to my in game avatar for this reason. If everything was linked to me and I had to deal with people I didn't like I would just censor myself. I have no desire to deal with people who want to get nasty about what I have to say. Even though your comments are often snarky they are also valid and fair. They aren't sugar coated with social politeness and people won't like that. But it makes a good read and if anyone still thinks they can say something online and thinks they have some right to not have it freely posted I guess it's a good lesson. I don't think anything would be lost by removing the names, except for the extra drama it causes. Though when it comes to shop names, groups and "known" people it's more interesting to have the name. But random people noone would recognize it doesn't matter much one way or the other. Depends how much trouble it causes you personally cause it can be quite amusing to read.

Emilly Orr said...

I do have a sense of social politeness, but I think most of the time I keep it safely boxed up underneath the loose floorboard in the disused back room. That having been said, though, it's obviously an ethical line for me--not the posting of chat, because I'm absolutely clear on that, but the fact that without actual names, that tie to actual official logs, it feels fabricated, and without any redeeming value (social or otherwise).

I still may go through and re-create Miss Dilapidated, but as of now, I haven't, because it would require retroactively changing entries. Which I can do, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Emilly Orr said...

And per her request, she's now been quite thoroughly anonymized, even down to removing her comments.

Whatever, drama princess, are we all happy now? Honestly.