Log in

No account? Create an account
What goes around sometimes comes back and hits the fan - One person's lack of compassion does not equal another's comfort.
One person's lack of comprehension does not equal another's consent.
What goes around sometimes comes back and hits the fan
About a week ago I received an invitation to a party on a HUGE mailing list I've been subscribed to for over a decade. It was sent to me by a young woman I don't particularly get along with these days, turtleduck, so I ignored it, as I was nearly certain I would not be welcomed there.

Recently a common friend of ours, agentxs, asked if I was going to her party and I related my feeling of not being welcome. He seemed surprised by my reaction, so I commented that I'd send her a polite note requesting to know her wishes. I did so, simply selecting her announcement to the mailing list I was long subscribed to and hitting "reply".

Today she replied. She wasn't *exactly* "Nasty" but she did indicate that she was "shocked" that I replied to the invitation and that she was pretty sure I was not actually on that mailing list possibly suggesting the invitation was forwarded to me by someone else? Actually her phrasing was very odd, and maybe I'm not reading it correctly, I will quote it here and you can attempt to interpret it and maybe even clarify it if you think you have something to offer.

To be perfectly honest, I was shocked to see that you were forwarding the invitation I made an effort for you not to see (unless you're on suspects, which I really thought you weren't.) Anyhow, I would prefer that you didn't come to this party.

This annoys me, not simply because I have been on the mailing list in question so long and I feel that she should know it by our previous interactions there, but mainly because the reason I know her as well as I do and for so long is that *SHE* RSVP'd to one of *my* parties in April 2002 and sent me a photo of herself and her phone number - We even talked on the phone a couple hours at the time and a couple times over the years since. She never gave me any reason think we had a problem.

So you see, clearly she must think that the "me" she met online, sent the photo to and talked to on the phone, is *not* the same "me" who she's currently having the problem with. I've prepared a reply to her explaining this, not that I think it will actually do any real good. The problems only began occurring after we met in person, and it is my feeling that she dislikes the "in person" me more than she liked the online me.

The first time I met this girl in person was probably only about a year and a half ago at a party. She seemed marginally friendly, I introduced myself and I may or may not have made it perfectly clear to her that we knew eachother from online. Maybe she assumed I was someone else from online she did not like, I'm not sure. I've emailed her twice requesting an explanation as to why she acts so strangely around me, but she's never given me a straight answer.
13 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky
ksatyr From: ksatyr Date: July 17th, 2005 12:25 am (UTC) (Link)
I think, then, it best you not reply. I can only assume that your recent altercations over the LUMSFS livejournal group is still causing friction.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 18th, 2005 03:16 am (UTC) (Link)
Considering you know her a lot better than I do, well ok granted for only the last 18months or so, but still *better* in the present time and closer as well, yes, I'd certainly consider taking your advice in this matter... at least I would were it not for the fact that it was your comments that caused me to even take this matter up with her.

Were it not for your comments last Wednesday apparently hinting I might be or ought to be welcome I would not have even thought to ask her. So if you know her so well, how is it you did not know she was (supposedly) going to any effort to keep this party a secret from me in particular?

As if keeping it a secret would accomplish anything. If this were a high school thing I'd say it were believable but in our age group it seems remarkably silly. It's not like I'd intentionally crash any party I thought I was not welcome at and it seems incredibly juvenile of her to think I would.
From: (Anonymous) Date: July 18th, 2005 12:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not very aware of people arguing or having disagreements with each other for the most part. When I am aware, I tend to think that my friends are mature and eventually get along again, or heal from their arguments quickly and forget (or allow to slip) any comments made in the heat of the moment.
ksatyr From: ksatyr Date: July 18th, 2005 01:00 pm (UTC) (Link)

I was sure I'd logged in.

Very odd. The prior comment was mine.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 19th, 2005 05:53 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: I was sure I'd logged in.

You must stop talking to yourself like that. People will look at you like this 8-). Oh wait, I already do that!
fixx From: fixx Date: July 19th, 2005 05:50 am (UTC) (Link)
That's a good way to be! I too tend to forgive more rapidly than a large part of the population. Holding firmly to grudges against intelligent people seems counterproductive in a world where intelligent people rarely hold firmly to offensive opinions.

Like you I might have assumed theat turtleduck might have forgiven me now that surely everybody has explained to her that I was in fact operating the lumsfs community correctly WRT to my own rules which she kept insisting were wrong, or that I wasn't obeying myself, or that I failed to adhere to her vibe about my intentions... or something.

Given that even she conceded by her very last entry that she might have been mistaken about the purpose of the communty, you'd think she'd consider the countless hours I put into trying to give thoughtful consideration to her bizarre accusations and if not apologize for putting me through all that, then at least forgive me for not taking it even better than I did.
vvalkyri From: vvalkyri Date: July 18th, 2005 06:32 am (UTC) (Link)
Sounds correct. Fixx, it's probably worth rereading some of what you said to and about turtleduck on lumsfs if you need to refresh your memory about why she might not jump at the chance to welcome you into her home.

Also, 2002 is a long time ago, and many people do not sort out their suspects mail from other mail nor really pay attention to headers and who is on what list. Nor do people always pay a lot of attention to who lives where. And someone in grad school who also has a job is going to have a lot less room in her head to bother with such things.

I seriously doubt that turtleduck is multiple (re below), and I seriously doubt that she in any way feels like a scorned lover.

I suppose it's entirely possible that at one point she had a positive interaction with you under one of your non Fixx email or AIM names. *shrug*

Aside from that, this post in general and particularly your below comments will reinforce the perceptions of anyone who sees you as obsessive and vindictive.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 18th, 2005 07:19 am (UTC) (Link)
Not only have I read what I wrote to turtleduck on lumsfs (as recently as earlier today), but I've even put together a compilation of screened entries in an effort to explain some of the more complicated parts of what exactly went down within the LJ-LUMSFS community.

To anyone else reading who wants to know what was said it is available here:

That however has nothing to do with any of this, if *you* read what went down in the LUMSFS community you will realize she entered the community already being catty toward me. If I recall correctly she objected the concept that the community I created was to be restricted only to people who actually showed up for meetings from the start, acting as if I was somehow wrong for placing restrictions on a LJ community I created, which most anyone will agree is pretty silly.

I'm willing to consider the possibility that she ACTUALLY held such a bizarre opinion so strongly that my inability to side with her bizarre opinion and change my mind caused her to act incrementally worse... but that's not my current theory.

My current theory is that she got it in her head somewhere along the line that I am *BAD* and need to be punished, so she took it upon herself to use the LJ-LUMSFS community as a way to psychologically batter me, and it worked pretty incredibly well.

I don't need to read any of this to understand why she might not welcome me into her home *DUH*! I knew that before agentxs addressed me after "Just Desserts", and it was only out of respect for his very odd opinion that I took this socially suicidal action.

Yes 2002 is a long time ago, but if you look over the emails which have been exchanged since it is a pretty nearly uninterrupted flow, maybe only twice a year, but steady, this is where I got it in my head she was a "friend". Regardless, considering ALL of our communications before she ever came to a LUMSFS meeting and several since have stemmed from her post to suspects which I replied to, or from my posts which she replied to, she really ought not be "shocked" that I read a publicly posted party invitation she posted there.

As for obsessive or vindictive.
1) I *am* obsessive by nature. I'm not proud of it, but I like to think I manage it reasonably well.

2) I am not the one being vindictive.

The last thing she wrote to me within the LUMSFS community was that since I had removed her access to post there she would, and I quote (its still there you can read it yourself) "Thank you for letting me know you've put me on moderation, so I can find other methods to disseminate my responses"

She says "responses" but considering *I've* not heard any of her "responses" not even to such simple questions as "what's bugging you", a question I first asked her privately and later publicly, I think she must be talking about some other form of communication.

I'm *fine* with not being invited to parties by people who are cruel to me online and in person and who generally make me uncomfortable. However, I tend to assume that if she honestly believed she'd taken measures to keep her party a secret from me, she must have posted to that effect somewhere to keep her announcements from being forwarded to me. This sounds vindictive in of itself, but I could be wrong, yes she might not have actually done that. She might have told me she was trying to keep it a secret from me simply to be more hurtful, and she's very good at being hurtful, or haven't you read what she wrote on lumsfs?

Me: Vindictive? no. Defensive? yes.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 17th, 2005 06:17 pm (UTC) (Link)

Follow up

Today while reading mail (that I never delete) I discovered something I somehow missed; Not only have I replied to turtleduck's previous announcements of parties as recent as January of this year, suggesting she ought to have known I was on Suspects, but turtleduck replied TWICE to an announcement I made to suspects in June of last year, entitled:

"Freebies, (Gaithersburg MD)"

Which regarded giving away stuff I did not wish to move from that residence at which I'd previously held the party she was unable to attend. In trying to give away stuff, she and I exchanged several email regarding how to get together and transfer stuff to her. In the end we settled on LUMSFS as the meeting location.

Her replies were confusing in that in different emails she at different times suggested I lived in one location or the other, referring to Gaithersburg as "a semi-mythical place for me" (regarding driving there herself) and asking if I was selling the Potomac residence and inquiring into my recent breakup with Teresa as if that would itself explain the relocation I suppose.

It is becomming therefore harder for me to fathom how turtleduck could so treat me as two entirely different people, unless she, like several of my other friends, is ALSO "Multiple". It's okay if she is Multiple; It would certainly explain a lot.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 17th, 2005 09:04 pm (UTC) (Link)


I've now been told by *two* of my lady friends, both of them in an age group of about her age and mine, both experienced and mature, that the comments this turtleduck has been making suggests is or at least feels she is, and I quote, "a scorned lover".

I'd like to clarify, I've never asked turtleduck out on any sort of date, nor has she asked me, we've never kissed, and if we even hugged I have no such recollection. If she feels like a scorned lover I have no explanation for it other than the possibility that she is mistaking me for someone else.
From: (Anonymous) Date: August 6th, 2005 05:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

This wasn't straightforward enough for you?

You've remarked that I've never given you a straight answer about my opinion of you. This is a quote from the Lumsfs exhange you link to above:

"[Fixx] you;re right-I don't particularly like you. I found you to be a bore. However, my opinion of you has changed in the last couple of weeks. Now I find you to be a boring, controlling, hypocritical, paranoid, petty, cowardly ASSHOLE. In addition to classes, one of the reasons I cut back on my LUMSFS attendance was so I didn't have to deal with you. "
I need to add pathetic, vindictive, obsessive and delusional.

The delusional part comes from the "scorned lover" bit- What in heaven's name are you smoking? I've never been, am not and will never ever be attracted to you. Ew! Gross! Ew Ew Ew!!! I'd gladly -with joy in my heart- let the human race go extinct then ever get involved with you.

I've not liked since as long as I've known you. Found you to be a bore from our first telephone conversation. However, I was trying to be polite by not telling you this to your face. Instead, I dropped subtle hints that I wasn't interested any sort of friendship. However, I've recently realized that the only type of subtlety you get is when you're (figuratively) beaten over the head with a tire iron multiple times. I am adjusting my actions accordingly.

So there it is-my opinion of you in the plainest language I can come up. Since we have overlapping social circles, I will continue to civil to you at social gatherings. However, you can considered this a blanket un-invitation to any future party or gathering or event I may throw. Just don't come.

Since our current disagreement was, at heart, because I was trying to keep you informed about things that affected you, I will no longer pass information on to you, no matter how useful it may be you. I do disagree with you strongly about your paranoia about revealing lumsfs locations. There are multiple people who agree with me with this, some of whom have shown their displeasure by no longer attending. You do owe me credit for respecting your wishes by NEVER posting the CURRENT on-going location.

I will be scarce the next few of weeks because of other plans (going out to dinner w/ another friend, vacation). Don't think you've chased me from Lumsfs, because you haven't.

-Turtleduck, who cannot defend herself under her name because she was banned from posting in this journal
fixx From: fixx Date: August 8th, 2005 07:44 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: This wasn't straightforward enough for you?

I banned you from my journal primarily due to your incessant insulting commentary in the community I manage. It seemed a fair bet you'd get around to do ing the same here, and it appears you've fulfilled my expectation of you.

PS: Comments continue to roll in comparing your behavior to that of an estranged lover. Seriously! Personally the comparison upsets me because on average I think my exes treat me better.
From: (Anonymous) Date: August 6th, 2005 05:52 pm (UTC) (Link)

Forgot to add...

I openly admit I'm passive agressive, and I think you are as well. This is probably why we get on each other's nerves so.
13 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky