I hate one-sided conversations

[lydy]

I don't particularly like being yelled at, either. But, you know, into every life a little yelling must fall. What I have very little tolerance for is being hectored and being unable to respond. I put up with as a child because, you know, child. And at work, of course, one allows one's boss to yell at one, and if one is smart one normally just listens. But in personal relationships? Even strange, crazy, toxic ones? My toloerance for it is less and less as time goes by.

So, you know, I got this as a LJ message from Louie:

markiv1111 (from 75.72.194.152)

September 26 2013, 01:00:27 Local Edited: September 26 2013, 01:19:15 Local link Collapse Delete Freeze Screen Track Edit
Lydy responded to a post I had made ;my very first ever post in LJ back in August or early Sept. 2012. when it was all the rage to harass me for posting there, even though Nate had given me his express permission. Her post began:

" You know, Louie, every time I try to like you, even a little bit, you post something like this, and I get mad all over again."

It was my first ever LJ post, I think, , and both that fact plus the bizarre concept of 'trying to like' somebody made her stand out as a person who doesn't consider her choice of words before she publishes them here. Trying to get along, I can see, but liking comes from affinity, and that should be effortless and natural.

I can guaran-damn-tee you that she is not making herself any easier for me to like, and I did consider getting to know her better just because Nate seems to care to about her. Her sententious ramblings and detailed analysis of my behavior at the MinnStf meeting on last Sat. was so patronizing, so uncalled for, and so inaccurate that I found it laughable at first. But the implications that she is willing to get this kind of picky icky detail at a time when things are so utterly difficult already blows my mind.

I have had more than enough from her. She will be banned soon. Either that or I will decide that the signal to noise ratio is all wrong and just stop reading and posting completely.

have done nothing wrong; I was a model of good behavior, and I get this crap from her? Just because she can, and I find that hateful. My beef about Nate's behavior at the meeting was a legitimate one, between Nate and I, and she should keep her snout out of it, as she was part of the problem, not a neutral observer.

****

I would respond to her in the same fashion, except that she's blocked me. Which, you know, is fine. It's just that I don't particularly like being in a position where I can't respond if I want to.

While I have many different thoughts about this latest oddness, here are my top two:

1) This might be mildly concerning if I thought that she had sent it to someone whose good opinion I value. However, as far as I know, we don't have any mutual friends left. So, kinda not worried.

2) If she thinks that what I posted about the Mnstf meeting was a detailed analysis, she understands neither the word detailed nor the word analysis.

Comments

[lydy.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'll just stick to the two things that leave me most curious. The first is, what verbal sleight of hand have I attempted? I had thought I was writing in a fairly straight forward and factual fashion.

My second thought is in response to this: "That's one of the weird things about LJ. People put things up and there's no way of knowing whether they speak truth, or convey useful information unless you really know the source." How does that distinguish LJ from any other form of communication?

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

In person, you freakin' harridan, you can look someone in the eye and judge the veracity of their utterances. You for instance reek of pretense and have the posture of utter fiction; the same with your semi-husband. Talking person to person; there's no substitute for the face time.

I am, and always have been a better than average judge of character. You creeped me out from the first time I ever met you.

This form of wordifying allows people like you to sit back and spew venom and lies, puffery and pure unadulterated malodorous flup without having to look me in the eye. I dare you to meet with me again, Lydy. I see you; I really see you, and you can't handle that, can you?

Party on, don't let me spoil your fun.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

This delusion about being able to tell if somebody is lying by looking them "in the eye" is admittedly somewhat common -- but the fact that it was not true was a truism of mystery books at least 70 years ago. It's not like it's news!

[lydy.livejournal.com]

You looked me in the eye, I told you the truth, and you called me a liar. Your lie detecting ability is sub-par.

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

LIke your ha'-spouse, you will argue with the wind, wouldn't you, lydy.

If this is a contest to see who runs out of words first, I will win.

If it's about truth, you can't even play, because you lack the ability to tell the real from the imaginary.

I generally have never gone for purposely hurting people, but you seem to want to hear this things from me, and who am I to deprive you.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

Sorry to disappoint you, but you aren't hurting me. You are amusing me. The various unlikely lies that you have told about several of my friends, not to mention the fantasies that you appear to have about me, are very surreal and sometime entertaining. I have a hard time imagining anyone less likely to be a Scientologist than Carol, but there you go.