Background: after what struck me as a particularly vitriolic exchange between myself, Quatrarius, eightbitsamurai, thenewgreen and others, I had to take a step back and evaluate why I responded so defensively to Q's criticism of my comment. In the wake of this consideration, I sent the following question to lil:

How could I have better dealt with this situation? I've found that when I'm faced with conflict the only way I know how to respond is defensively (or offensively, by actively raising the stakes). I'm not fond of this quality.

galen

lil and I agreed that you all might be interested in our discussion, so here's the rest of it.

lil:

I read through the thread.

Here's how I interpret it.

From what I can tell, you gave a one-word comment.

Q gave what seemed like a criticism --

8bit - tongue-in-cheekily, ramped up Q's criticism. The only way I can read that is that 8-bit was mocking Q for being critical, not mocking you for your one word.

tng - FOR FUN ramped up 8bit's comment and was MOCKING 8bit

Then it all became a discussion of grammar.

You mute someone -- not clear who. Q badges you - ironically?

So before I go any further -- That's how I read it.l

How do you read it.

galen:

My reading:

Me: One-word comment.

Q: Unnecessary criticism.

Me: Biting, sarcastic response.

8bit: Further mocking Q's reaction, in a similar mode.

TNG: Mocking 8bit as we mocked Q.

Q muted me. I responded sardonically, and Q (ironically, probably) badged me.

lil:

> how could I have better dealt with this situation?

Good question. So you see the problem with a defensive reaction (biting sarcastic response). You recognized your own reaction as sarcastic which equals "full of pain." 8bit and tng jump to your defence because they felt your pain. They are empaths in their own ways.

We don't really know what Q meant or why he said what he said. Your defensive feelings will come first and fast, but with practice you can stop yourself from assuming the worst and just ask questions, like "What do you mean?"

You have to wonder: what is his goal by making his comment. The thing is -- we don't know his goal. So you can use a wonderful communication tool called the perception check.

It goes like this:

1. Describe behaviour: "Hey q, when you said "Quality input" I'm wondering whether ...."

2. Suggest one interpretation: "you are criticizing my one-word comment" or

3. Suggest another interpretation: "you wanted to know more about what I mean."

4. Ask for feedback: "What was your goal?"

This response will likely elicit an answer. If the answer is critical and sarcastic, ignore it and move on.

It's called the perception check.

Your goal: Assume you know nothing. When you are feeling irritated by something, just say some version of "what do you mean?"

I'll grant that my reaction to Q's comment was unnecessary, perhaps escalatory. I need to work against the counterproductive responses that I tend to give, and recognize that insensitivity will rear its ugly head throughout my life. I guess I was just expecting more from Hubski.

Oh, and a final irony: Q himself probably won't see this, now that he's muted me.