Coid's Crowing Conundrum of a Canticle of Crookedly Random Banter #185

[LaZodiac]

BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF IT IS PERFECTION!

Go read Good Omens. I will forgive every other thing you have ever done (not that I can actually think of anything), but if you do not read this book, so help me gods, Bast Halfcrescent will break the fourth wall in a terrible way.

ION: Where's Cobra? He hasn't posted much on RB, has he?

I'm gonna need more details of that!

I've read Good Omens, I'm just not sure what you mean.

Cobra's been busy with stuff.

[MoonCat]

I'm gonna need more details of that!

I've read Good Omens, I'm just not sure what you mean.

Cobra's been busy with stuff.

How am I supposed to encapsulateure perfection in a written work for you? I know what, go watch all of Death Note, for the sole purpose of reading A Babel Braid.That's not the one I'm referring to, but that one is just as perfectly awesomely aweosme. PERFECT!

sacjgcbkjznnlkbczlncbn CAAST! THE CAST! THEY COULD BE THE CAST!

Kay.

[LaZodiac]

How am I supposed to encapsulateure perfection in a written work for you? I know what, go watch all of Death Note, for the sole purpose of reading A Babel Braid.That's not the one I'm referring to, but that one is just as perfectly awesomely aweosme. PERFECT!

sacjgcbkjznnlkbczlncbn CAAST! THE CAST! THEY COULD BE THE CAST!

Kay.

Aaah. I was kind of asking for details, but ok. I'll consider it.

Aaah, again. I didn't recognize the names as actors, is all.

I'd ask you to get online so we could talk, but I'm going to bed. Have a good night everybody~

[Elemental]

Goodnight! Sleep well! Don't let the bedbugs conspire against you and instigate a revolution against your wise and benevolent rule!

Perfect fanfiction.

The kind of perfection in which the setting finally makes complete and utter sense?

[Teddy]

The entire thing has to be read in context with the earlier posts, otherwise the whole thing would make no sense. Case in point: "this adds more credibility to the theory", the theory which was presented in the earlier posts and restated there. Even if you were to read it without reading any prior posts, the wording shows that there were earlier relevant posts that must be considered.

I read them all in sequence, but didn't go back to reread earlier posts, instead choosing to go by my memory of previous ones when contemplating the ones following. As I said, I already had an idea of what your theory was, and it was good enough to fit perfectly into context, but not accurate enough to not lead to misconceptions. The fault is on my side, but it was an honest mistake that stems from how different persons percieve the same object or event differently, and the way you usually go about reading on a forum (left to right, top to bottom, earlier page to latter and without going back unless something doesn't make sense).

Clueless to the possibility, not clueless to the "facts". She didn't notice, then kept denying, that there was even a possibility.

Or more clued to the situation than anyone else around these parts, which also could be a reason for vehemoth denial.

There are ways to call someone clueless as an insult, but clueless to matters of friendship and affection almost never mean that. It is often said in an endearing manner, even.

Indeed, and I do not in any way doubt that those were your intentions, but I didn't see it this way at first.

Ultimately, what concerns me the most, was not that you misinterpreted it the first time (miscommunications happen all the time, even on things that are absolutely crystal clear), but that you further pushed it a second time after explanation.

That's because even after your first explanation, I didn't understand what you meant, because your explanation didn't actually explain very much. I was still going by the idea that "theory" was refering to what I though was your theory, and the following sentence in your previous post being an enumeration of premises, which is why I pressed the point. The misconceptions weren't solved until your following post.

Goodnight, Teddifer.

I am contacting the budgie agent in your area: here is his portrait. He will be carrying a pink plum blossom so you know he is not an imposter.

Spoiler

Show

*budgieee :3*

His clear and gentle tweeting will soothe and replenish your taxed mind while you rest [he likes scratches on the top of his head and sunflower seeds].

Ahh, I was well asleep by his arrival, but since I feel mostly soothed and replenished, I do in no way doubt he did a good job.

I owe some replies to my esteemed dialogists, but I cannot bear to read the last few pages back until my own head is a little less tender.

Take your time, life holds nothing for those who won't slow down and catch their breath.

Accursed inclement weather.
We lost power last night, and I don't know how to change the microwave from pounds to kilograms!

Also, I have art that I wanted to finish yesterday, and there's another storm coming. Everything is very damp at the moment...

Still, it gave me an excuse to light candles and read by them.

Reading by the candle light is the best. I silently hope for the power to go out this Christmas too, so I can repeat this proceedure from last year. Sadly, this upcoming Christmas won't be celebrated out of town, so neither the likelyhood nor the cosiness of such an event is going to be especially high...

[Elemental]

Reading by the candle light is the best. I silently hope for the power to go out this Christmas too, so I can repeat this proceedure from last year. Sadly, this upcoming Christmas won't be celebrated out of town, so neither the likelyhood nor the cosiness of such an event is going to be especially high...

Indeed. Candlelight just has that quality to it that compact fluorescent tubes can't match. It must be the colour and how it shifts...

[Rawhide]

I read them all in sequence, but didn't go back to reread earlier posts, instead choosing to go by my memory of previous ones when contemplating the ones following. As I said, I already had an idea of what your theory was, and it was good enough to fit perfectly into context, but not accurate enough to not lead to misconceptions. The fault is on my side, but it was an honest mistake that stems from how different persons percieve the same object or event differently, and the way you usually go about reading on a forum (left to right, top to bottom, earlier page to latter and without going back unless something doesn't make sense).

There is always room to misinterpret anything. Absolutely nothing can be 100% guaranteed to be understood perfectly by anyone.

Pro tip: If someone says they have made something clear, it's a good time to go back and see the ways that they have made it clear, and understand what they meant. It is not the time to continue to argue that they meant something they didn't.

And a) you don't need to read back to know that the line needs to be considered in context, plus b) even more happened after the quoted post but before your reply.

Or more clued to the situation than anyone else around these parts, which also could be a reason for vehemoth denial.

(Psst. That would be vehement. )

MoonCat hasn't exactly shown herself to be all that clued on... Not here and not previously. Plus, if you'll notice, we were talking about the possibility, not a certainty, and it was the mere possibility that was denied so extremely (indeed, the mere possibility that anybody, at all, would so much as give her a second glance was also denied).

Indeed, and I do not in any way doubt that those were your intentions, but I didn't see it this way at first.

Well, you should start to. In general, that is the way it will be used on matters of relationships (from friendships to romances).

That's because even after your first explanation, I didn't understand what you meant, because your explanation didn't actually explain very much. I was still going by the idea that "theory" was refering to what I though was your theory, and the following sentence in your previous post being an enumeration of premises, which is why I pressed the point. The misconceptions weren't solved until your following post.

If someone says that something was said as a possibility, it means that it was said as a possibility. It does not mean that it was said as fact, and it does not mean that you come back and tell them that they meant it as a statement of fact, when they have just said that they didn't.

[Teddy]

There is always room to misinterpret anything. Absolutely nothing can be 100% guaranteed to be understood perfectly by anyone.

Pro tip: If someone says they have made something clear, it's a good time to go back and see the ways that they have made it clear, and understand what they meant. It is not the time to continue to argue that they meant something they didn't.

And a) you don't need to read back to know that the line needs to be considered in context, plus b) even more happened after the quoted post but before your reply.

I did consider the line in context, but what was clear to you wasn't clear to me, and what I still thought you said wasn't what you actually were saying. You basically brought up nothing explanatory in earlier posts and intentionally used short, cryptic statements to try and bring your point across. On those premises, it's very easy to get a partially flawed image (especially in the details) from that even when you think you do get it.

Also, what you posted inbetween didn't contradict my idea enough to actually make me challenge it by the time I read those.

(Psst. That would be vehement. )

Oh, thanks.

MoonCat hasn't exactly shown herself to be all that clued on... Not here and not previously. Plus, if you'll notice, we were talking about the possibility, not a certainty, and it was the mere possibility that was denied so extremely (indeed, the mere possibility that anybody, at all, would so much as give her a second glance was also denied).

Your ability to properly explain a situation correlates to your own ability to understand it, sure, but not strictly so. It's possible (and in this situation, I'd even dare to say probable) that Moonie holds critical but hard-to-explain facts about the situation she never told us, but based her own analysis on.

Well, you should start to. In general, that is the way it will be used on matters of relationships (from friendships to romances).

Start to doubt your intentions?

I think you may possibly have missed the double negation (if you count "doubt" as a negation) in my post...

If someone says that something was said as a possibility, it means that it was said as a possibility. It does not mean that it was said as fact, and it does not mean that you come back and tell them that they meant it as a statement of fact, when they have just said that they didn't.

I thought you had missinterpretted me (which in one sense you had, but not in the way I was thinking), so I clarified my points. I thought you were talking about one thing and I another, while we actually were talking about the same thing. It just took a while before you had clarified it enough for me to realise that. Before that, my continued pressings were completely justified from my own flawed perspective. It was only the perspective that was wrong.

[Rawhide]

I did consider the line in context, but what was clear to you wasn't clear to me, and what I still thought you said wasn't what you actually were saying. You basically brought up nothing explanatory in earlier posts and intentionally used short, cryptic statements to try and bring your point across. On those premises, it's very easy to get a partially flawed image (especially in the details) from that even when you think you do get it.

Short, cryptic statements? If you're talking about the posts before, they were hints in the hope that MoonCat would work it out for herself. Then the post you quoted specifically stated that it was a theory and reiterated the whole theory for clarity.

Also, what you posted inbetween didn't contradict my idea enough to actually make me challenge it by the time I read those.

It used the words "highly likely" to describe what you described as "a statement of fact".

Your ability to properly explain a situation correlates to your own ability to understand it, sure, but not strictly so. It's possible (and in this situation, I'd even dare to say probable) that Moonie holds critical but hard-to-explain facts about the situation she never told us, but based her own analysis on.

I would state that there is absolutely no way to know exactly what the guy is thinking, short of asking him, but even that is not true. If MoonCat were to ask him, he could very well freeze up and deny it.

Start to doubt your intentions?

I think you may possibly have missed the double negation (if you count "doubt" as a negation) in my post...

Start to see it as said positively, not negatively, in the first instance.

I thought you had missinterpretted me (which in one sense you had, but not in the way I was thinking), so I clarified my points. I thought you were talking about one thing and I another, while we actually were talking about the same thing. It just took a while before you had clarified it enough for me to realise that. Before that, my continued pressings were completely justified from my own flawed perspective. It was only the perspective that was wrong.

I said that at absolutely no time was anything said as a statement as fact, and you cannot get any clearer than that. You then came back at me and said it was, despite what I had just said. It's ok to say "oh, I seem to have misunderstood, could you please clarify this bit", it's not advisable to come back at someone and say they meant something that they have just said they didn't.

[Teddy]

Start to see it as said positively, not negatively, in the first instance.

I already do. As I said, I don't doubt your intentions, but what I know now is not what I first thought. My views have changed, and I'm trying, but apparently failing, to express that.

I said that at absolutely no time was anything said as a statement as fact, and you cannot get any clearer than that. You then came back at me and said it was, despite what I had just said. It's ok to say "oh, I seem to have misunderstood, could you please clarify this bit", it's not advisable to come back at someone and say they meant something that they have just said they didn't.

Look, I think it's becoming exceedingly clear that you don't understand what the situation looked like in my eyes to start with, probably because I haven't described it adequately enough. I'm not up to going into any in depth analysis right now, and I need to get a walk, but what's critical to know is that at first, I didn't know that I had misunderstood you, and I thought that you had misunderstood me. I appreciate that you're trying to educate me in how to make a discussion less error-prone, but if someone had told me these things during the discussion as it were, they just wouldn't have made any sense in my ears, because they don't fit into the situation as I percieved it back then.

[Rawhide]

I already do. As I said, I don't doubt your intentions, but what I know now is not what I first thought. My views have changed, and I'm trying, but apparently failing, to express that.

Never said that you didn't, just pointing out that you should.

Look, I think it's becoming exceedingly clear that you don't understand what the situation looked like in my eyes to start with, probably because I haven't described it adequately enough. I'm not up to going into any in depth analysis right now, and I need to get a walk, but what's critical to know is that at first, I didn't know that I had misunderstood you, and I thought that you had misunderstood me.

An important thing to note is that you started the meta-discussion side of it off with a tone implying that I wasn't clear enough, therefore it was my fault that you misunderstood. And you haven't said anything to reverse that stance. Misunderstandings happen, regardless of how clear you have been. It's important to resolve them, rather than argue about them.

And, even if you think someone has misunderstood you, it is still not advisable to insist that they have done the exact opposite of what they have just said they have done. Approach it from an angle of trying to resolve a misunderstanding, not to simply contradict what they have said.

I appreciate that you're trying to educate me in how to make a discussion less error-prone, but if someone had told me these things during the discussion as it were, they just wouldn't have made any sense in my ears, because they don't fit into the situation as I percieved it back then.

And yes, this is an important part to remember. I'm not telling you off, but breaking down where things were misinterpreted and how they can be better interpreted.

[Teddy]

Never said that you didn't, just pointing out that you should.

Saying that I should start doing something implies that I haven't already done so... Based on the huge heap of misunderstandings we've already gathered beneath our feet, I suggest we both stay away from redundant suggestions before we're back together on the same page.

An important thing to note is that you started the meta-discussion side of it off with a tone implying that I wasn't clear enough, therefore it was my fault that you misunderstood. And you haven't said anything to reverse that stance. Misunderstandings happen, regardless of how clear you have been. It's important to resolve them, rather than argue about them.

I tried to point out exactly why I reached the erroneous conclusion, because I felt like what I thought was your tone was implying that it was all my fault that I misunderstood you, and I tried to make it clear that while, yes, it's my responsibility to get things right (could probably have stressed this more thoroughly), things weren't quite as clear as you were telling me that they were. I guess we both feel wrongly accused by eachother despite that not being the case...

Also, please don't tell me that that was my tone, since text doesn't carry tone to start with. Any tone you read it with is completely inside your own head, and while it may be soundly based on the content of the text, it's still your interpretation of my intentions, not my actual intentions. I'm trying to make a clear distinction between your intentions and my perceptions, so it would be nice if you returned the favour.

Please don't take any of what I've written as condescending or agressive, even if it may sound as such to you, because those are honestly not my intentions. I like having intentions put in my words just as much as I think you like having words put in your mouth (i.e. I don't like it at all). It's okay to have a unflattering perception of me, and I'll be more than happy if you point it out so I can clarify and rectify myself based on what I don't like of it, but please don't tell me what I'm thinking, because it honestly hurts my feelings.

And, even if you think someone has misunderstood you, it is still not advisable to insist that they have done the exact opposite of what they have just said they have done. Approach it from an angle of trying to resolve a misunderstanding, not to simply contradict what they have said.

I tried by clarifying myself, which is the way to go when someone misunderstands you, and it did ultimately succeed after all, seeing how your reply to it was what was required for me to make me understand you. I honestly can't see any better ways to do it, really.

I could've flat out told you that you don't understand me, but that doesn't solve anything, really, seeing how it doesn't clarify anything. I could have let you clarify yourself before I did, true, but I didn't know you'd take it this badly if I went first...

Yes, I could have tried to be more smooth about it, but in the end, the only way to resolve a misunderstanding is for each part to clarify themselves, and that's what we did, really.

Still, I'm sorry if you feel like I've put words in your mouth and wrongly accused you of beeing decidedly unclear.

And yes, this is an important part to remember. I'm not telling you off, but breaking down where things were misinterpreted and how they can be better interpreted.

And I'm trying to do the same, really. Either we see things differently, or we've just been talking past eachother for the last few hours without realising it (probably both). I suppose that's the nature of Internet discussions, or discussions in general, really. I try to fight it, but yeah, I suppose I still have a long way to go...

It seems at least like we're reaching a conclusion, aren't we? That's at least better than the average.

[Rawhide]

Saying that I should start doing something implies that I haven't already done so...

It implies nothing more than that it's a good thing to do.

Also, please don't tell me that that was my tone, since text doesn't carry tone to start with. Any tone you read it with is completely inside your own head, and while it may be soundly based on the content of the text, it's still your interpretation of my intentions, not my actual intentions. I'm trying to make a clear distinction between your intentions and my perceptions, so it would be nice if you returned the favour.

Yes, tone. Tone is the correct term to use here. Tone is used in this sense to mean something akin to "vibe", "atmosphere" or "feeling", as in definition 4: "The general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people."

Consider it a more metaphorical use of the word, it doesn't mean the literal sound heard, and applies in textual mediums.

I could've flat out told you that you don't understand me, but that doesn't solve anything, really, seeing how it doesn't clarify anything. I could have let you clarify yourself before I did, true, but I didn't know you'd take it this badly if I went first...

Yes, I could have tried to be more smooth about it, but in the end, the only way to resolve a misunderstanding is for each part to clarify themselves, and that's what we did, really.

And what is wrong with "I think there has been a misunderstanding, what do you mean by this bit?" or "I think there has been a misunderstanding, what do you mean by this bit, because I read it to mean [this]?"?

(deliberate punctuation "error" is deliberate for clarity)

It's not that you sought clarification, it's that the wording said "this is the way it is", not "there might be a misunderstanding".

[LaZodiac]

....this day, man. This day.

Wake up, kinda hurting all over. From all the shoveling. Mom's refusing to wake up so we can't go get the Wii U, so I'm kind of annoyed.

It's snowing so fiercely we almost can't open our door.

This day, man.

[Mynxae]

....this day, man. This day.

Wake up, kinda hurting all over. From all the shoveling. Mom's refusing to wake up so we can't go get the Wii U, so I'm kind of annoyed.

It's snowing so fiercely we almost can't open our door.

This day, man.

Not sure what's worse.

Your snowstorm.

Or the really bad superstorms south-east QLD (Aus) has been getting lately. Sky's been exploding for a few days now.

[Mutant Sheep]

....this day, man. This day.

Wake up, kinda hurting all over. From all the shoveling. Mom's refusing to wake up so we can't go get the Wii U, so I'm kind of annoyed.
This day, man.

Wii U is OUT? AUGH BLARGLE WHY MUST I FEEL LIKE WAITING FOR CHRISTMAS/PRICES GO DOWN IS BETTER IDEA?

Read this as "Wake up, kinda hung all over".

I AGREE. SLEEPY.

[MoonCat]

Augh, I got about nine hours of sleep last night, none of which were restful, because I started having one of the dreams that gets me really involved, but completely tired.

Lucid dreaming. I got to be doing a standup comedy performance and then I started babbling about flags to the whole audience, which had a lot of my classmates in it.

It was awesome!

[enderlord99]

Not sure what's worse.

Your snowstorm.

Or the really bad superstorms south-east QLD (Aus) has been getting lately. Sky's been exploding for a few days now.

What about Sandy?

[Mynxae]

What about Sandy?

I was only comparing the snowstorm and lightning storms here.. Not Sandy.

[Coidzor]

What about Sandy?

Sandy's still going? I thought it'd finally died.

[LaZodiac]

Augh, I got about nine hours of sleep last night, none of which were restful, because I started having one of the dreams that gets me really involved, but completely tired.

Lucid dreaming. I got to be doing a standup comedy performance and then I started babbling about flags to the whole audience, which had a lot of my classmates in it.

It was awesome!

Oh man, Moony! You're a dreamwalker! I've never had a lucid dream before, you've gotta get online some time and tell me about the expierance!

[enderlord99]

Sandy's still going? I thought it'd finally died.

I don't know. I haven't been paying attention to the news.

[Teddy]

It implies nothing more than that it's a good thing to do.

I disagree, but I doubt we're going to get any further than this. In the future, could you please just refrain from telling me to start doing things you know I already do, because I don't want any more confusion than I've already had...

Yes, tone. Tone is the correct term to use here. Tone is used in this sense to mean something akin to "vibe", "atmosphere" or "feeling", as in definition 4: "The general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people."

Consider it a more metaphorical use of the word, it doesn't mean the literal sound heard, and applies in textual mediums.

Even when it's metaphorical, at least make it clear that it is your perception, and not everyone's. I don't like having subjective ideas being delivered as if they were objective, and especially not when they concern me directly. I can deal with the former, but the latter hurt me personally.

And what is wrong with "I think there has been a misunderstanding, what do you mean by this bit?" or "I think there has been a misunderstanding, what do you mean by this bit, because I read it to mean [this]?"?

(deliberate punctuation "error" is deliberate for clarity)

It's not that you sought clarification, it's that the wording said "this is the way it is", not "there might be a misunderstanding".

Yes, as I said, I could have said it better, and I'm sorry for not trying harder to.

Now, I feel obliged, however, to point out that you haven't said anything in a similar way to this either, so I wonder, did you never realise that you made no sense in my ears back for a good while there, or did you just go on about it in the same way I did, focusing on explaining yourself rather than attacking the core issue?

Take the "tone" part, for example. You just said what my tone was without first asking me what tone I'd intended when writing. Perhaps not on the same level, or even fully comparable, to what I said, but still. It's always fine to tell others how to be considerate if you go about it in a good way, but when you in the same post manage to hurt my feelings and tell me how to be considerate to you, well, I feel unjustly treated.

I can understand if it was an honest mistake, but please. I hate to ask for it, but... an apology would go a long way to help me feel better...

[LaZodiac]

Hey Teddy, you know how you like snow and love it and stuff? You should come up here. We, in less then half a day, snowed so hard it's up to my waist in some places. Thankfully THOSE places aren't where I have to shovel, the places where I shovel only go mid calf.

[Mutant Sheep]

Hey Teddy, you know how you like snow and love it and stuff? You should come up here. We, in less then half a day, snowed so hard it's up to my waist in some places. Thankfully THOSE places aren't where I have to shovel, the places where I shovel only go mid calf.

Remember, this isn't your average American sized snow. This is tall Lala snow, from Canada. This is like, taller-than-Moon- kind of snow.

Edit:Oh, so you're SHORTER than Lala's waist, then? Good to know.

[MoonCat]

Oi! I don't come up to LaLa's waist!

[enderlord99]

Oi! I don't come up to LaLa's waist!

That's largely irrelevant, because "Cat" is not the same as "-"

Wait... What?

[Mutant Sheep]

Oi! I don't come up to LaLa's waist!

So you're SHORTER than Lala's waist?

That's largely irrelevant, because "Cat" is not the same as "-"

Wait... What?

Huh wha? Who sayed cat wha I CONFUSED AGAN SOMEONE WITH A GRASP OF INGLIS COME SAVE ME.

[Heliomance]

Well, he's male, so that leaves... That one Pond guy, Captain Jack, and a chemistry teacher as I recall.

You forgot Wilfred Mott! How could you forget Wilfred Mott?!

[Teddy]

Hey Teddy, you know how you like snow and love it and stuff? You should come up here. We, in less then half a day, snowed so hard it's up to my waist in some places. Thankfully THOSE places aren't where I have to shovel, the places where I shovel only go mid calf.

...
*wishes he had snow*
*wishes he had an airplane with snow landing equipment*