Quentin, the problem is that I was not trying to use you as a weapon. Please re-read the text of my post, and you will find that there is NOTHING about my wording which implies I was asking for weapons, name-calling, or snideness.
But I did find a different personality on AIM - a person who was not calling anybody names. Silly me, I should have known that wouldn't last. And don't go back to making sexist remarks, either; if you thought women and/or specifically I were so lacking in linguistic talents, you should never have asked for my advice on your writing. After all, your vocabulary (and willingness to show it off) is so much larger than mine, what else could I possibly have to offer? Why would anyone ever want to say in words of one syllable what they can say in words of ten syllables instead? What nonsense I'm spouting; there's no excuse for anyone ever using any word of less than twenty syllables. Thanks so much for educating my tiny little female brain on that.
What are you talking about? Where I am I being sexist now?
You know, you don't notice it, but you have a thing for thinking people are always talking down to you. I don't get it. You have to know how much I appreciate you, but nothing is enough. I don't understand what is behind that, but I keep seeing the pattern occur over and over again. I think you mis-read and mis-understood me. When it came to linguistics, I was referring to the guy who responded to you attempting to use his background in linguistics to validate himself and silence you -- not to say that you were stupid and inferior. That is your interpretation. But I find it is most always the interpretation you reach for first and I don't understand it. I mean, people do call people stupid, but it seems that you expect every male to do that and make no difference. There is some inferiority complex going on here and if I can help you, I would love to do so because you shouldn't feel that way -- seriously. And I am not covering my as because you know I am not that way. But you completely mis-read me, personalized something, and forgot the specifics of what was going and reacted in kind (reaction formation... it is one of my favorite terms/concepts).
You feel I was being condescending and snide and "name-calling" -- I do not. That is a difference of opinion, not saying that you are wrong or something. I don't agree. Yes, it can be just that simple. I don't want to start arguing with you again -- especially over something like this which I know is not based on _me_, but is based on something within you which isn't being satisfied.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2002-01-04 10:26 am
no subject
But I did find a different personality on AIM - a person who was not calling anybody names. Silly me, I should have known that wouldn't last. And don't go back to making sexist remarks, either; if you thought women and/or specifically I were so lacking in linguistic talents, you should never have asked for my advice on your writing. After all, your vocabulary (and willingness to show it off) is so much larger than mine, what else could I possibly have to offer? Why would anyone ever want to say in words of one syllable what they can say in words of ten syllables instead? What nonsense I'm spouting; there's no excuse for anyone ever using any word of less than twenty syllables. Thanks so much for educating my tiny little female brain on that.
Re:
What are you talking about? Where I am I being sexist now?
You know, you don't notice it, but you have a thing for thinking people are always talking down to you. I don't get it. You have to know how much I appreciate you, but nothing is enough. I don't understand what is behind that, but I keep seeing the pattern occur over and over again. I think you mis-read and mis-understood me. When it came to linguistics, I was referring to the guy who responded to you attempting to use his background in linguistics to validate himself and silence you -- not to say that you were stupid and inferior. That is your interpretation. But I find it is most always the interpretation you reach for first and I don't understand it. I mean, people do call people stupid, but it seems that you expect every male to do that and make no difference. There is some inferiority complex going on here and if I can help you, I would love to do so because you shouldn't feel that way -- seriously. And I am not covering my as because you know I am not that way. But you completely mis-read me, personalized something, and forgot the specifics of what was going and reacted in kind (reaction formation... it is one of my favorite terms/concepts).
You feel I was being condescending and snide and "name-calling" -- I do not. That is a difference of opinion, not saying that you are wrong or something. I don't agree. Yes, it can be just that simple. I don't want to start arguing with you again -- especially over something like this which I know is not based on _me_, but is based on something within you which isn't being satisfied.
I am not the enemy.
*hugs*
Q
no subject
don't press it.
thank you.
::calms down::
no subject