when you pull out the "you're a child, bow down" card, you deny me a conversational path other than "i bow, sir" or "don't tell me what to do, dad" - and then we're both pissed off. if you want an apology from me, say "you pissed me off because this is an issue i care about and it feels like you're dismissing it. what's up with that?" and I'll say "I'm sorry for pissing you off. i didn't do it on purpose and I'll try not to do it again. what part of it made you mad?" and you'll say "all models are wrong, but some are useful. we listen to lies so we can figure out the truth. don't dismiss it because you hate it." put up a bridge and I'll cross it. here's my bridge: I'm sorry for making you mad. when i wrote my post, i had no intention of irritating you and i didn't anticipate it to do so. i respond immaturely to things that i don't like, and at this point, i am so tired of fighting and arguing - i just want to be friends. can we be friends?
That's unfair. There are very few things I work as hard at as avoiding "you're a child, bow down." It drove me crazy when I was young and now that I'm not, I can see why people do it? And there are no good reasons to do it. So I don't. And I didn't. I said: Not you, not me, the book. I didn't bring up The Epoch Times. I didn't link to anything from The Epoch Times. I linked to an org chart created by a then-current research analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency. I would have linked to something newer but there hasn't been - ever since "most favored nation" status was given to China, none of our intelligence agencies have leaked any counterintelligence. 1994 is as current as we can get, but even shit written in 1994 has not really been amended. More importantly, whatever crazy opinions Nick Eftimiades has now, they weren't in evidence then. I could have mentioned Bertil Linter's book, too but it's a lot more speculative (and his distaste for the Chinese is a lot more evident. Would I read something else by Nick Eftimiades? Probably not these days because you're right - dude clearly has an agenda. Wildest thing about this book is it paints a picture of Michael F. Flynn as a competent, level-headed military executive. Do any of us have that picture now? Hell to the no. Would I read Mike Flynn on foreign policy now? Equally no. But if I needed some insights about JSOC from 2004-2007? He'd be on my list at a minimum, particularly if he wrote something prior to coming out of the crazy closet. Thank you for the apology, and thank you for acknowledging that you respond immaturely to things that you don't like. Here's my problem: you didn't like me pointing out that you made me mad. When I did my level best to do so as politely as possible, you got madder. So if I'm just sitting over here chortling about sub radio and you decide the whole thing is shit, I don't know that the onus is on me to figure out the kindest possible way to say "hey did you mean to be so antagonistic." We're friends. That was never unclear. So please do me a favor: wrap your head around the idea that your opinion matters by default.But it's been 30 years and that book hasn't been discredited,
this isn't politeness, this is condescension. question: did you intend for it to be condescending as a response to me pissing you off, or was it unintentional? either way, that's how it reads to me - the same way that you read my opinions as snarky or dismissive. at the end of the day it doesn't matter who says what first, you don't go for the jugular on a friend - and if your friend pokes your eye you don't poke them back, you say "hey man WTF". there's no onus on one side or another to be kind: you just put up with each others' shit, and if you can't do it in the moment, then you fight and apologize later. brother, you made me mad and you still kinda are, but I'm trying to bury this hatchet. that's all i gotFer sure. You cruised around for long enough to find something to snark about. On the other hand, I read that book so long ago that I can say with confidence it's older than you are. Last time I talked to Nick Eftimiades was before The Epoch Times existed so it's not like we're buddies? But it's been 30 years and that book hasn't been discredited, no matter how much snark you mistake for insight.
I intended to call out your snark for the snark that it is. You said it yourself - putting somebody down isn't a good argument and "nick eftia-what's'his'name" is mispronouncing-Kamala-grade shit. Again, not a buddy? But someone polite and interested enough to sit down and answer my questions for an hour back when I was just some bullshit wanna-be screenwriter. So counter-question - how could I have responded to that? I get it - you feel the need to emotionally shitpost between customers but if you crapping all over what I wrote didn't move my needle how would you feel? I'm sorry you took that as condescension? but c'mon: I want you to not be startled when I'm offended at your offensiveness? I'd give you a hug if I could. i respect your opinion greatly and your life experience is so vast and so broad, my liege - do you want me to suck you off about it every time we talk? what's the point?
brother, you made me mad and you still kinda are, but I'm trying to bury this hatchet. that's all i got
how many times and different ways do i have to say that I'm fucking retarded before you leave me alone? don't give me a bullshit non-apology. i have never seen you apologize for being a dickhead for as long as i've been in hubski. you are like a terrier with a rat when somebody gives you disrespect. i didn't fucking give you disrespect. i said something YOU FOUND OFFENSIVE AND WENT NUCLEAR OVER, AS YOU REPEATEDLY DO TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS A HUBSKI MEME THAT YOU MAKE PEOPLE LEAVE THE SITE RATHER THAN DEAL WITH YOU. i apologized for my part in this. i built my bridge. either stop strutting around trying to win the argument or stop pretending you're building your side of the relationship. please just stop. i don't want a hug, man, i want an apology.