This is terrible news...
... Let the wooing commence.
lol
It's aggravating that you keep trying to lump us into one person, and it is all about you. There's plenty of others on here you could argue that I haven't disagreed with, but that isn't the current convenience. The narc image is real, as this is what you do. You aren't "picking on" her either, you're butting heads, and every time that it goes on my credibility goes down a peg if I feel like participating from you trying to sell this bullshit time and time again with the same applying towards her should it be shoe on the other foot, or even when we don't stand in for the other from you bringing up how unexpected that that is. It invalidates that I'd have an opinion like this of you despite the sheer number of things that it took to have it build into this. I'm tired of it, my patience is worn down from it, I'm done having this be your way of excusing what's going on.
Your credibility and forum image must mean so much to you. I see you put one hella effort into attacking the other guy's credibility and forum image while he remains unphased. Lol! I have also been given the impression of you and TheCrow acting synergically -> building momentum off each other's posts. I disagree that emotional bias has much to do with it; it resembles a strategical alliance meant to boost up your position within the community. Partly it worked partly it failed from being too obvious. But one thing is clear - you two are waaaaay more power hungry than you let on ; - )
It's closer to, if how I'm seen is going to be affected, then it better be because of something I did, purely on the merits of what I've said or done. "By association" is a very annoying pet peeve, as it ignores the person in favor of stereotypes, makes room to make excuses outside of the person simply because of a quality. If Flanderizes them into said association instead of blowing more fun aspects out of proportion.
It's a forced attempt to paint someone into a caricature instead of the full narrative, affecting credibility and putting words into others mouths in ways that can try to push the defensive where it doesn't belong. Being lumped is extremely annoying as then suddenly anything that is done from said lumping ends up reflecting on me, or anything I was ready to do that others might not have been will be reflected on those lumped with me. It pushes a bullshit group responsibility when we'd both rather be treated separately. I argue fairly well as myself, I can argue the points of things outside of my framework, but when I'm stuck having what another said being foisted on me as "S/he said it, therefor you said it" or "Your clique said this, therefor you believe it", it builds a strawman.
She makes the point well enough herself for why it's annoying and gets little done:
TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post
As separately as you could? You admitted that you were lumping us together more than once. You said we were basically the same person and therefore you would respond to us as such. You would come at me with things TC said as if I said them, you came at him with things I said as if he did. When our thoughts on the matter aligned, you would accuse us of wingmanning. When they didn't, you would accuse of contradicting ourselves. One time you angrily PMed me about something he said while I wasn't even online. It took me ages just to calm you to a point that you could acknowledge that I wasn't the one who insulted you. And now you have the gall (or perhaps just the obliviousness) to tell me not to "give you the lumped together thing"?
Seriously, he'd do this. At least saying how annoying it is now will have it be done more tongue in cheek later. It's worth the admission of aggravation to be able to have this as a future point of reference if/when it keeps happening.
Turncoat stated: source post
It's closer to, if how I'm seen is going to be affected, then it better be because of something I did, purely on the merits of what I've said or done. "By association" is a very annoying pet peeve, as it ignores the person in favor of stereotypes, makes room to make excuses outside of the person simply because of a quality. If Flanderizes them into said association instead of blowing more fun aspects out of proportion.
It's a forced attempt to paint someone into a caricature instead of the full narrative, affecting credibility and putting words into others mouths in ways that can try to push the defensive where it doesn't belong. Being lumped is extremely annoying as then suddenly anything that is done from said lumping ends up reflecting on me, or anything I was ready to do that others might not have been will be reflected on those lumped with me.
I made my stance clear on this point while you keep going on about being lumped together:
Edvard stated: source post
This doesn't invalidate your opinions, I'm sure you just say what's on your mind and it's your right. It would be ridiculous for anyone to expect either of you to shut up.
Edvard stated: source post
Calm down Turn, my post wasn't as hostile or invalidating as you must have perceived it. It wasn't about me either, despite your own attempts to discredit my points by pushing this narc image onto me.
Again: This is not to invalidate your opinions inside or outside "SC battles". It's fine you two have similar opinions. It's fine that all disagreements are probably discussed in private since sure as hell I don't see them on the forum. You two are distinct people and both of you have all the right to say whatever you want. I merely explained why you two give the impression of ganging up.
Not only I believe this^, but almost always I quote the exact paragraph I reply to in arguments. Quoted you when I replied to you, quoted Crow when I replied to her, and my answers were on point and kept your points "separated" in the huge majority of cases. I don't see your "lumping up" as pronounced as you make it to be.
Yeah I've had 1-2 memory glitches by not remembering who said what in ass longs debates and one of you always made sure to point out my mistake, as Crow just did earlier in this thread. I admitted my mistake each time this happened. But since by your admission you two agreed with what the other said anyway, I don't see what's so flanderizing (had to google this) and caricaturing(?) and discrediting about it. I'd get it if you got associated with arguments and opinions you disagree with, but in this case it makes no sense to be this aggravated. If however you didn't agree with what the other said, but turned a blind eye nevertheless and continued to focus on opposing a third party, then you can't deny the bias and complicity it betrays.
Seriously, he'd do this. At least saying how annoying it is now will have it be done more tongue in cheek later. It's worth the admission of aggravation to be able to have this as a future point of reference if/when it keeps happening.
Your aggravation with me and your pet peeve of being lumped together with Crow are different issues, yet you spent a large part of this discussion attacking my character rabidly and even bringing up months old shit to paint me as some sort of two faced egomaniac. That was unnecessary imo.