[Alchemyst]

Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.

There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.

Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.

Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.

EDIT:
Also, I don't believe, contacting me to say "Until you get your head out of your a** and actually pay enough attention to people to read both what they're saying and WHO THEY F-ING ARE, which likely equals never, please be so kind not to contact me again." (censored of course) is a very good welcoming to these forums by you. It was a simple mistake that I explained stems from me being used to the formatting of the other forums I frequent.

A simple, "Hey, you actually confused my brother's post with mine. You might want to pay attention to that." would have been a great way to both inform me that I made a mistake and make me feel foolish without resorting to such foul discussion and raging.

[ZeConster]

Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.

Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.

Apparently you did (or at least implied it), in a PM response to a PM by him trying to explain precisely that you'd confused who said what? EDIT: given that his angry PM was apparently a response to your PM response to his initial PM, you're only posting part of the conversation, quite possibly misrepresenting things.
PS: is it necessary to double-post all the time? You can just edit your post, you know.

[Alchemyst]

Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.

Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.

Apparently you did (or at least implied it), in a PM response to a PM by him trying to explain precisely that you'd confused who said what?
PS: is it necessary to double-post all the time? You can just edit your post, you know.

Yes I did (notice edits all over my posts), however when replying people tend to not go back and read the edited parts.

Also in his message he never said that I had confused who said what. He stated, and I quote, "I never expressed anything of the sort. I kindly request you detract that false allegation from the public forum," and promptly posted every post he had made. Still confused I replied with the quote from you believing it was him and he was just leaving it out. As I still believed it was him I wasn't staring at the name. As I explained to him I'm more accustomed to other forum formatting and usually identify by signatures since in cases like WoTC and GITPG the names are smaller and 9/10 people have one of the default profile pictures (only a few actually have a unique identifiable one). At least on those forums no one gets so angry when you confuse people. They just laugh and everyone moves on.

EDIT:
As shown in the snippet from my previous post, his reply to mine was extremely hostile and insulting. Supposedly I purposely accused him of having two accounts in order to debunk his posts, accused him of lying to my face, and that my arguments hold absolutely no merit. All of this because I confused a single post. I never stated anything there. All I did was mix up one post. I've never seen anyone blow up so much at such a small mistake in all my years.

Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid.
Could it have been fixed with a simple sentence to explain that I was confused with who said what instead of blowing up with a very hostile and hate filled 3 paragraph PM? Yes and it should not have been handled the way it was.

[ZeConster]

Also in his message he never said that I had confused who said what. He stated, and I quote, "I never expressed anything of the sort. I kindly request you detract that false allegation from the public forum," and promptly posted every post he had made. Still confused I replied with the quote from you believing it was him and he was just leaving it out. As I still believed it was him I wasn't staring at the name. As I explained to him I'm more accustomed to other forum formatting and usually identify by signatures since in cases like WoTC and GITPG the names are smaller and 9/10 people have one of the default profile pictures (only a few actually have a unique identifiable one). At least on those forums no one gets so angry when you confuse people. They just laugh and everyone moves on.

On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short. Considering he apparently quoted every post he made in the topic to you, to prove the statement you believed to be his wasn't amongst them, a significant part of the blame lies with you for replying with my quote without double-checking, which led him to an actually quite expectable conclusion that you were deliberately doing so and implying that he controls both his account and mine - in other words, from his point of view, your response seemed to be a malicious act, not an ignorant one.

EDIT: It wasn't "a small mistake" - you REPEATED your incorrect statement after he provided you with what should have been more than enough to clear up the confusion, clearly giving the impression you did exactly this:

purposely accused him of having two accounts (...) accused him of lying to my face

In that context, his reply, while still very hostile, isn't nearly as unexpected as you seem to think it was, since it was in response to what he believed to be a malicious and false accusation.

EDIT 2:

Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid.
Could it have been fixed with a simple sentence to explain that I was confused with who said what instead of blowing up with a very hostile and hate filled 3 paragraph PM? Yes and it should not have been handled the way it was.

Could it have been fixed if you'd put just a little more thought into the meaning of his PM before replying the way you did (like "wait, if he quotes a whole bunch of stuff, and the thing I think he said isn't amongst them, maybe he didn't actually say that") and then checking the usernames? Yes.
While he shouldn't have blown up at you the way he did, it is disingenuous for you to act like he didn't provide you with enough information to realize your mistake prior to his outburst.

[Alchemyst]

On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short.

Thanks to a PM or two from other members viewing this topic it seems it's quite the opposite about who gives whom crap without proper cause. I understand a short fuse, but when someone's apparently sitting on a nuke, you should probably step back and make it a bit longer of one.

Considering he apparently quoted every post he made in the topic to you, to prove the statement you believed to be his wasn't amongst them, a significant part of the blame lies with you for replying with my quote without double-checking, which led him to an actually quite expectable conclusion that you were deliberately doing so and implying that he controls both his account and mine - in other words, from his point of view, your response seemed to be a malicious act, not an ignorant one.

EDIT: It wasn't "a small mistake" - you REPEATED your incorrect statement after he provided you with what should have been more than enough to clear up the confusion, clearly giving the impression you did exactly this:

purposely accused him of having two accounts (...) accused him of lying to my face

In that context, his reply, while still very hostile, isn't nearly as unexpected as you seem to think it was, since it was in response to what he believed to be a malicious and false accusation.

I never said it was unexpected. Knowing I was wrong and looking back I would fully expect someone to reply and correct me. However, no matter the situation the hostility that I was met with both unwarranted and unneeded.
Repeated or not it's still a very SIMPLE mistake with a very simple solution.

EDIT 2:
Could it have been fixed if you'd put just a little more thought into the meaning of his PM before replying the way you did (like "wait, if he quotes a whole bunch of stuff, and the thing I think he said isn't amongst them, maybe he didn't actually say that") and then checking the usernames? Yes.
While he shouldn't have blown up at you the way he did, it is disingenuous for you to act like he didn't provide you with enough information to realize your mistake prior to his outburst.

I have already fully admitted that fact. However, that's no excuse for his response. Also, the main difference is that I had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but I didn't know it while on the other hand he had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.

[ZeConster]

On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short.

Thanks to a PM or two from other members viewing this topic it seems it's quite the opposite about who gives whom crap without proper cause. I understand a short fuse, but when someone's apparently sitting on a nuke, you should probably step back and make it a bit longer of one.

I didn't accuse YOU of giving him crap without proper cause. I stated that there are OTHER people who give him crap without proper cause, which is why his fuse is so short.

I have already fully admitted that fact. However, that's no excuse for his response. Also, the main difference is that I had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but I didn't know it while on the other hand he had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.

You haven't, actually. All your posts so far claim that you made the mistake once and he failed to correct you properly, even though he provided you with what should have been enough information to realize your mistake and you still made the mistake again. He shared the information needed to end the discussion peacefully, and you (accidentally, apparently) ignored it, leading him to think that you "had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.".
He tried to use the "very simple solution", and it is your response to that attempt that set him off, not the mistake itself. So while there is no excuse for his response, there's no excuse for yours either, especially since you continue to misrepresent the situation by placing the blame for you making the mistake twice solely with him. Him blowing up at you doesn't reduce your share of the responsibility for causing the misunderstanding.

[Alchemyst]

I didn't accuse YOU of giving him crap without proper cause. I stated that there are OTHER people who give him crap without proper cause, which is why his fuse is so short.

I've been informed that this is a common occurrence with him. I was not talking about this situation but the others I have not been involved in.

You haven't, actually. All your posts so far claim that you made the mistake once and he failed to correct you properly, even though he provided you with what should have been enough information to realize your mistake and you still made the mistake again.

"Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid."
I admitted I SHOULD have caught it. That's my fault. I've admitted that.

He shared the information needed to end the discussion peacefully, and you (accidentally, apparently) ignored it, leading him to think that you "had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.".
He tried to use the "very simple solution", and it is your response to that attempt that set him off, not the mistake itself. So while there is no excuse for his response, there's no excuse for yours either, especially since you continue to misrepresent the situation by placing the blame for you making the mistake twice with him.

His attempt was a bunch of posts and requesting me to retract my 'accusation.' Which I was unaware was one.

Again, he could have explained that the post I quoted wasn't his and ended it there, but he didn't because he blew up. Even if he said, "Are you F-ING stupid? That's my brother not me!" that would have been warranted, albeit hostile. The 3 paragraph rage message and insults? No not at all. I don't understand what you're defending.

I admitted I was wrong and apologized.
He has not. He's not had the chance being offline but again thanks to the PMs of others, and your stance on defending his 'short fuse' I doubt he ever will.


This topic is extremely derailed by this point.

[ZeConster]

His attempt was a bunch of posts and requesting me to retract my 'accusation.' Which I was unaware was one.

Again, he could have explained that the post I quoted wasn't his and ended it there, but he didn't because he blew up. Even if he said, "Are you F-ING stupid? That's my brother not me!" that would have been warranted, albeit hostile. The 3 paragraph rage message and insults? No not at all. I don't understand what you're defending.

I'm "defending" against you downplaying the fact that he tried to explain the situation to you (and therefore making it seem like the timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael blows up", when the actual timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up"). In my opinion, you are heavily downplaying your share of the 'blame' in the third step, and portraying him as someone who is angered by tiny little things when the thing he was angered by was actually quite big. He was angrier than he had a right to be, but contrary to what your posts seem to imply, he had a right to be angry.

I admitted I was wrong and apologized.
He has not. He's not had the chance being offline but again thanks to the PMs of others, and your stance on defending his 'short fuse' I doubt he ever will.

I haven't really defended his "short fuse", I have simply explained that he has one. Plus your apology is imcomplete, since you're not admitting to being as wrong as you really were. Every one of your apologies have basically accused him of not just blowing up, but blowing up without trying to clear up the misunderstanding first. Your last one even accused him of being the one who had been provided with the information needed to clear up the misunderstanding, when it was you.
EDIT: Let me make this extra clear: he had no reason to think the reason you still contributed my post to him was that you hadn't understood his attempt to explain he didn't say what you thought he said.
EDIT 2: In fact, what you're saying seems to boil down to that he should've assumed you made the same mistake twice in a row despite him notifying you of the fact that you made a mistake (EDIT 3: and keeping in mind that he had no knowledge of your prior experiences which led you to make the mistake, and therefore no real reason to assume it even was a mistake on your end). I find this unreasonable of you - not nearly as unreasonable as his response was over the top, but FAR more unreasonable than you say it is. And as long as you keep denying this, I will continue arguing against your denial.

[Alchemyst]

I'm "defending" against you downplaying the fact that he tried to explain the situation to you (and therefore making it seem like the timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael blows up", when the actual timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up").

It's exactly ("you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up")
I'm not saying it isn't that. What I'm saying is the information was just him saying he didn't say that. When he could have just clearly stated that I was confusing the names. The fact that he blew up at all is what is sad and very immature.

The first line of his PM, "So just to be clear on the matter: You are accusing me of using two separate forum accounts for Jekyll&Hyde posts and my brother being nothing but a fiction of my imagination? If you truly believe that, I suggest you contact FastJack. It's bound to be against the ToS to be active on two accounts here."

If he had just sent that I would have responded confused by what he meant and I'm sure he would have informed me, I would have seen the huge mistake, apologized, and moved on." Instead he turned that into a question he didn't care for me to answer (as shown by the following three paragraphs of him wrongly assuming my intentions) and blew up.

In my opinion, you are heavily downplaying your share of the 'blame' in the third step, and portraying him as someone who is angered by tiny little things when the thing he was angered by was actually quite big. He was angrier than he had a right to be, but contrary to what your posts seem to imply, he had a right to be angry.

Again, I have clearly stated he had a right to be angry. However, he wasn't just angry he was rage-filled, insulting, and hostile.

You are the one saying he has a short fuse (quick to temper). Which is obviously true and I won't agrue.

I haven't really defended his "short fuse", I have simply explained that he has one. Plus your apology is imcomplete, since you're not admitting to being as wrong as you really were. Every one of your apologies have basically accused him of not just blowing up, but blowing up without trying to clear up the misunderstanding first. Your last one even accused him of being the one who had been provided with the information needed to clear up the misunderstanding, when it was you.

My apology is complete. I am apologizing for what I had control over. You don't have to accept it, not that I'm apologizing to you anyways, and neither does he. That's your choice to turn down but there it is.
He did blow up without clearing up the misunderstanding first. He's second PM even asked me to clarify what I was accusing him of! HOWEVER, he did not send it to see what I said, he blew up in that message before giving me a chance to answer said PM.

I'm not accusing him of anything! What is with you two and your constant screams of 'accusations?' He wasn't provided with any information, HE HAD IT ALL ALONG!

[Top Dog]

Guys, at this point continuing this debate seem pointless. As far as I can see, both sides misinterpreted the other's posts, and both sides posted things that could be interpreted as hostile, whether they were intended as such or not. And that all means that at this point it really doesn't mattered who started it all, and as we all know people can get a bit overheated and post hostile things when they get fired up. At this point the discussion won't continue meaningfully anyway - just let this post sit and all calm down for a while.

[Alchemyst]

EDIT: Let me make this extra clear: he had no reason to think the reason you still contributed my post to him was that you hadn't understood his attempt to explain he didn't say what you thought he said.
EDIT 2: In fact, what you're saying seems to boil down to that he should've assumed you made the same mistake twice in a row despite him notifying you of the fact that you made a mistake (EDIT 3: and keeping in mind that he had no knowledge of your prior experiences which led you to make the mistake, and therefore no real reason to assume it even was a mistake on your end). I find this unreasonable of you - not nearly as unreasonable as his response was over the top, but FAR more unreasonable than you say it is. And as long as you keep denying this, I will continue arguing against your denial.

Because, ahem, HE DIDN'T GIVE ME THE CHANCE AFTER ASKING ME TO CLARIFY! He just blew up!

Do whatever you want but I'm going to take the advice of the others and just leave this topic entirely. It's not worth it especially considering I've been warned that he does this all the time that he,

also tends to make personal attacks against other posters and is somehow able to spin being called on it into an attack on him.

I'm done, no reason to continue. I honestly look forward to joining you in real discussions not related to your bother in the future, but as far as this goes it's asinine to continue. Say whatever you want. I won't be commenting further on this topic.

[ZeConster]

I'm not saying it isn't that. What I'm saying is the information was just him saying he didn't say that. When he could have just clearly stated that I was confusing the names. The fact that he blew up at all is what is sad and very immature.

But the information (a full list of every post he had made in the topic) should have been enough for you to realize your mistake, and you are denying this. Plus if he initially assumed you were accusing him, instead of assuming you were confusing me with him, that explains why he might give you all his posts and say "this is all I said" instead of simply saying "you're confusing my brother with me".

My apology is complete. I am apologizing for what I had control over.

But you had control over more than you say you had. Therefore it is incomplete.

I'm not accusing him of anything! What is with you two and your constant screams of 'accusations?' He wasn't provided with any information, HE HAD IT ALL ALONG!

No, he didn't. How could he have the "information" that you were simply being mistaken when you responded to him giving you every post he had made with a post he didn't make? IT WASN'T THERE. Your response only served as MORE evidence to him that you were not simply mistaken! There's no reason for him to assume you wouldn't check the name in a quote before sending it to him!

also tends to make personal attacks against other posters and is somehow able to spin being called on it into an attack on him.

I could spin remarks like this right back around at some other people, who tend to strawman his arguments, repeat this several times in a single topic, then when he gets visibly aggravated after explaining each time that what they say he argued wasn't what he actually argued, say "but they're all valid interpretations of your posts! why are you so angry? I don't understand".

I honestly look forward to joining you in real discussions not related to your bother in the future

And I'm perfectly willing to join you in real discussions as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your actions and statements, instead of using the fact that someone overreacts as a way to shift the blame.



EDIT: Where did your other medkit topic go? I wanted to post some numbers in it, but couldn't find it anymore.

[FastJack]

Some good arguments, then some not-so-good. Thread's locked