Thread:Nausiated/@comment-32978104-20171031220110/@comment-4651179-20171118194546

Nausiated wrote: I defended my argument just fine. Another admin agreed and so did a bureaucrat. Anyone else has chosen to "not pick sides". If this was something you wanted to debate with any finality, again, you could have brought it to everyone else to chime in.

If you really defended your argument just fine, you could've done something better than resorting twice to "don't talk to me." Annabell didn't agree with you, for a reason she changed your "typo," in order to help reach a middle ground. You can't possible expect me to believe Nathan's presence influenced your discourse skills when he only popped up after the two instances you tried to force an end to the discussion. Or is this in the similar way you rolled back Invisiblewoman64's edits for expressing their opinion even though they didn't express their opinion until after you rolled back their edits?

Nausiated wrote: Not so much fun when people accuse your tone and intention now is it?

And you expect me to believe you aren't trying to be petty. I can't even say your actions betray your words, your own words betray each other.

The difference here is that anything that could denote your tone and intention came from your own explicit written words. In this case, you're grasping at straws trying to find a subtext which simply isn't there.

Nausiated wrote: Again, this is incredibly ironic. In one paragraph you say I'm assuming your intentions and heaven forbid that, and then in the next you are assuming mine. You choose to interpret what I wrote as belligerent. So it's fine enough when I'm saying something that upsets you, and I tell you that I didn't intend it that way that I should "worry about how it is perceived by others" but when the same is done to you, now there is a problem. Funny how that works.

Like I said above, the way you express yourself and act leaves your intentions more than clear.

You use condescending language, so you're accused of being condescending. You force your opinion on others, close threads, remove comments of people that disagree with you and bluff about contacting VSTF, so you're accused of being a bully.

On the other hand, I'm accused of being ableist because I want to bring attention to your behavior. You do like to jump at coclusions and use false equivalence and it shows.

Nausiated wrote: I've done neither of the sort.

You have.

Nausiated wrote: I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacies of your argument and point out that you are the actual aggressor in this situation.

Do I have to remind you who closed threads, removed replies and threatened to contact Community on unfair grounds?

Nausiated wrote: I also find it insulting that you would assume that a person with mental illness is using it as a crutch to get away with certain behaviors. That sort of mentality is appalling. You've inferred that you yourself have done this makes it all the more disgusting because you're projecting your experience on me.

I'm not assuming that a person with mental illness is doing that. I'm assuming that you are doing that. The fact that you're insisting on referring to yourself as a person with mental illness above all shows how much you're using it as a crutch.

And no, I didn't infer that I've done this. I infered that I learned that it shoulnd't be done. Take my suggestion again, and learn that too.