Motives called into quesiton in A&A

jank

At the moment it appears to be impossible for me to discuss anything in the A&A forum without certain posters questioning my 'secret' motives. It seems that whenever I have a general opinion or a specific opinion on a subject matter then my sincerity is directly called into question, accusations are labelled against me that are not true, I tried to clarify the situation and then I receive a moderation warning to stop posting in this "style" or you will be banned.
The latest such incident happened on the Tuam Babies thread where I have jumped in and out of the discussion. My last post was a reply to Gordon who raised a good point about strong opinions being shaped by personal experience.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90786772&postcount=1541

I thought this was a good and relevant point, where people think that their own perception is actual reality for everyone else and overall context gets lost. He was talking with a poster who both experienced life in the UAE and unsurprisingly have a strong opinion about human rights abuses carried out there which was a little bit off topic. He also mentioned Irish Society and I replied with this.. (this discussion was a little off topic)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90805952&postcount=419
(Post has been moved from the other thread!)

It was my own personal general take on the attitudes of Irish people and how in general we are not the most positive bunch in the world given our history, climate and culture where we are not shy to give out about things.
My aim in this post was not to have a sly dig at people, or a set of people or posters who contribute to the thread in general, or trivialise the subject matter at hand. It was just a simple opinion and if people wanted to discuss those central points I raised I would have gladly discussed it.

However, some posters and a moderator took this post as some sort of afront, where by I was somehow 'excusing' the RCC of responsibility of its sorry and stained history in this country and where in general I was calling people 'begruders' (have never used that term on that forum) and was engaging in 'fist-waving'.

I clarified my statement that this was not the case at all, no secret agenda was at play, no side swipe was intended and that I was not making light of any situation.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90808640&postcount=424
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90808640&postcount=425

This happened before in this thread where I opened up about my own personal experience of being born in a Mother and Baby home, a home that has been heavily mentioned in the media negatively the past week.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90699846&postcount=960

In this post I mentioned among other things my own experience, my birth mothers experience, my experience with the nuns and so on. I also mentioned that these current stories coming out will of course garner the ears of the media at the expense of any good stories coming out of such homes.
That is the way the press and society works, which I acknowledged.

However, again this post seemed to annoy some people. For my trouble of opening up on this forum, I was subtly mocked for not being raped and abused in this institution.
Of course then, even in this post where I opened up, my motive was called into question.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90700138&postcount=968

I clarified with this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90701130&postcount=984
This post was thanked by the poster and moderator in question, and I thought from then on it that my posts would be taken at face value, not by 'reading between the lines' and interpreting things I have not actually said, convey or mean.

However, here I am feeling that I cannot even express the simplest idea or opinion even those that are not really controversial, taboo or insulting.

I feel the some posters and a moderator are singling me out for criticism where by I have to continuously clarify myself. They had no problem with the subtle mockery of rape yet my own opinion is then scrutinised constantly.
I have been repeatingly belittled by 'never writing posts worth reading' yet the same poster and moderator has previously thanked my for posts I have written.

All I am asking for is a fair go, a clean slate where I do not have to engage in constant battles to clarify my points of view and my motives are not subject to some court of public opinion.
I am also asking the moderator to back off and stop treating me in a way that is tantamount to subtle but effective bullying on their part.

Overheal

Being objective here,

Where do you get

I was subtly mocked for not being raped and abused in this institution

from

Ce n'est pas la vie.

While a few are probably not, most people are, in good faith, trying to come to a balanced understanding of what happened. It does not do anybody, or any perspective on this tragedy, any good when you tar people with the same "you're all dreadful" brush that you say others are using.

??? <found it below, but you ought to link the correct posts so I know what you're referring to >

Bearing in mind Robindch thanked your open honest post (as did I)

And then if you misinterpreted anything ? you clarified, and Robindch also thanked that post as well. So you were having a constructive conversation?

I did find these posts by a regular user that you must be talking about

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90699961&postcount=964

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90700571&postcount=976

and Robindch steps in shortly thereafter with an on-thread warning http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90700685&postcount=980 (sorry for duplicate reports rob!)

another user seemed to be genuinely more interested in your circumstances and you took the matter off thread to PM and thats also more than fair.

you got a rebuttal in on the subject also, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90726431&postcount=1132 and it appeared to settle.

your conversational points have been supported by other mods on the forum also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90726557&postcount=1137 (rightly so, objectivity yay)

other posts support you on the forum also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90730973&postcount=1158

Rob later cleans up an unspecified number of posts that seemed to attack your style of posting? (see the heirarchy image I posted on the other A&A feedback thread) http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90810065&postcount=1635

If nothing else that's a moderator that seems supportive of the fact that you have valid things to say and actually goes about both helping you carve a bit of breathing space in the forum (warnings and deleted posts to/from others users respectively) and at the same time is engaging in discussion with you constructively to help drive the discussion and - importantly - the mutual understanding. Because while I cannot see the deleted posts apparently a lot of posters take guff with how you post and the moderator here honestly seems like they want to help you weave yourself into the conversation better so everyone is on the same page without trampling on your opinions. For a second I thought they were gonna let the rape comment go but no, the on-thread warning stopped the diatribe. You have posts thanked (in the segment of the thread I read to look into this) by 2 of the 3 A&A mods that have made posts in that thread (though only those 2 were in the discussion within the time-frame of these posts). Of those mods Robindch has been by far the most active there and does appear to support you and support/thank your contributions.

You know from US Politics I didn't magically become great at communicating with people, it's definitely a skill that gets developed during discussions. If you are getting burnt out from it though, I suggest you take a break. I for one engage in far, far less of the types of discussions I used to love fleshing out a few years ago because well mostly I just have a lot less time on my hands now compared to then and I don't have the motivation/energy to dive in to those threads anymore.

Turtwig

The problem with posting on any fora is not what your opinion is but what it appears to be. No matter how well we think we structured our words in a posts others may read it differently to how we worded it. In this regard whether we like it or not our posting history can go against us.

All too often what can only be constituted, to be questionable remarks and opinions on threads for which there is little or no relevance are made by you. It ain't cool. Great, you feel the need to make a point but most of the time posters are left scratching their heads wondering "why the f**k is he making that point here?". All too often your posts which may indeed be intended to be 'simple opinions' come across as unspecified groups bashing and irrelevant. You're the poster who spawns the highest proportion of thread spin-offs that I can remember and all because you pick out one statement here, completely disproportionate the meaning of it, and then harp on about some other serious topic that's somehow being negated by discussing the, often times serious, thread topic at hand. It's whataboutery and it's not cool. It peeves posters. It also poisons your own reputation. Every so often when you make a post that is borderline people will assume that's over the line. I don't think that's fair or just but it's how people work.

Now, robin's choice of wording could have been better, and your intention this time, or indeed every time, may have been different, but to us it appears like you're just going sweeping a brush at an unspecified group like it's a valid opinion. It's an opinion but one you don't need to make over and over and over. It's really exhausting and if I didn't know better I'd assume it was somewhat intentional - you get a rise or dig out of posters because of it. This is a case where the problem is more your own style of posting than it is the attitudes of others. Though, I do agree, that sometimes the reactions to your posts is over the top and inappropriate.

Before calling for a 'fair go' I suggest you examine your own posts with a fine tooth comb. People who call your motives into question are doing so because 99% of the time all you do is contradict some statement - and being a contrarian is the easiest position in the world to adopt. It's also bloody annoying when there's little else added.

To put it bluntly, the moderator you criticise most is the one reason you're still allowed to post in the forum. It may sound odd, or weird given the lack of personal animosity between you at times, but he's been a lot fairer than you give him credit for. A&A is an incredibly lenient forum and to put it politely we tolerate you for those 1% of posts that are actually well worth the read. Please, though, now that we've started this thread have a reflection on the rest of your posts. The majority of the posts you make are just unnecessary. Quality; not quantity. You don't have a right to any opinions, but you do have the courtesy of being allowed to express them. Please, work on how you express them or someday you won't be posting in this forum any more.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

If nothing else that's a moderator that seems supportive of the fact that you have valid things to say and actually goes about both helping you carve a bit of breathing space in the forum (warnings and deleted posts to/from others users respectively) and at the same time is engaging in discussion with you constructively to help drive the discussion and - importantly - the mutual understanding.

My last post I did try and clarify much like the previous ones, yet I have not been taken for my word and have been personally attacked for this. I have no problem arguing a point of view, but if a poster is perpetually switching hats from being 'a poster' to being 'a moderator' then it is impossible to engage constructively and mutually.

Overheal wrote: »

For a second I thought they were gonna let the rape comment go but no, the on-thread warning stopped the diatribe.

Yes a general warning was given, however notice that Robindch only specifically responded to my post and not those others. That is fine, but it shows a ready eagerness to question and scrutinize me more thoroughly. He(?) took personal issue with the fact that I was somehow trivializing this topic (which I obviously wasn't) and I clarified my statement which he subsequently thanked. Grand , lets move...

Yet then, he wastes no time then when I post a week later to come to the exact same conclusion, giving no benefit of doubt and ask me "Do I ever write something worth reading" This to me clearly says that my opinion is not wanted however, valid or not it is. Also notice that nobody attempt's to refute the actual key central points of that specific post, instead they prefer to cast aspersions on my motives and language. Playing the man, rather then the ball so to speak.

Overheal wrote: »

You have posts thanked (in the segment of the thread I read to look into this) by 2 of the 3 A&A mods that have made posts in that thread (though only those 2 were in the discussion within the time-frame of these posts). Of those mods Robindch has been by far the most active there and does appear to support you and support/thank your contributions.

If Robindch supports my posting there by telling me "can't you post anything worth reading? Can't you change your tune for just one topic?" in a thread where I told everyone that I was born in a Mother and Baby home and relayed my own personal experiences, than I would hate to see him actually being un-supportive of my contributions.

I don't think belittling someone opinions especially given my own close personal experience with this topic could be called supportive or creating an environment that causes healthy robust discussion.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Now, robin's choice of wording could have been better, and your intention this time, or indeed every time, may have been different, but to us it appears like you're just going sweeping a brush at an unspecified group like it's a valid opinion. It's an opinion but one you don't need to make over and over and over. It's really exhausting and if I didn't know better I'd assume it was somewhat intentional - you get a rise or dig out of posters because of it. This is a case where the problem is more your own style of posting than it is the attitudes of others. Though, I do agree, that sometimes the reactions to your posts is over the top and inappropriate.

On the last point here, well at least you acknowledge this but I have never seen anyone been called out for this.

Turtwig wrote: »

Before calling for a 'fair go' I suggest you examine your own posts with a fine tooth comb. People who call your motives into question are doing so because 99% of the time all you do is contradict some statement - and being a contrarian is the easiest position in the world to adopt. It's also bloody annoying when there's little else added.

In fairness, it is more nuanced than that. If someone posts a falsehood then it is wrong to point that out? For example, if one pointed out that the earth is 6,000 years old then people would not hesitate to call them out for it, yet if one equates Dev's Ireland to Stalinist Russia well, that is just being contrarian and should not be challenged?

It seems acceptable to be a contrarian for some topics but not others. Most people know my personal economic, social and political beliefs so it is unfair in my opinion to cast me in the role of the perpetual devils advocate.

Turtwig wrote: »

The majority of the posts you make are just unnecessary. Quality; not quantity. You don't have a right to any opinions, but you do have the courtesy of being allowed to express them. Please, work on how you express them or someday you won't be posting in this forum any more.

I have taken a step back in regards posting in A&A recently and have actually consciously tried to post better quality posts, hence my contribution about Bessberough, yet even then I feel no matter what contribution I make I still have to tirelessly defend and clarify myself from posters who read into my posts things I do not say or mean. E.g. Apparently I called everyone in A&A/boards.ie/Ireland a begrudger, yet never to my knowledge used that word in that forum and struggle to think if I ever used it ever on boards.ie.
On Bessberough it self I had to clarify even that post. That is what I feel I am up against.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

If Robindch supports my posting there by telling me "can't you post anything worth reading? Can't you change your tune for just one topic?" in a thread where I told everyone that I was born in a Mother and Baby home and relayed my own personal experiences, than I would hate to see him actually being un-supportive of my contributions.

I don't think belittling someone opinions especially given my own close personal experience with this topic could be called supportive or creating an environment that causes healthy robust discussion.

OK, I am getting confused between the Tuam thread and the A&A Feedback thread.

I don't think your contribution to the Tuam thread is at fault/call here.

However speaking of the post you did leave in the feedback thread and Robindch did comment on, it is fair game to criticize - anyone - for the type of post that paints any situation with a wide brush:

jank wrote: »

This is a key point. Most people on this forum are Irish and have a certain mindset (not wholly positive) when it comes to Ireland, its history, society and culture. It then helps perpetuate a certain narrative about the country that tends to feed into a negative feedback loop about the place. Add in the Irish way of being judgmental, insecure and insincere then we have a nice recipe making it socially acceptable and OK to hate the place because of anything from Bono, the RCC, the weather, to Enda Kenny... We seem to be happiest as a country when there is some crisis of some sort to fix. We seem to revel in negativity as we have to atone for some perpetual sin of well, being Irish. Don't get me wrong other nationalities give out but we are the Brazil in World Cups at giving out.

And let's level Jank, the above quote is in stark contrast to the message you're conveying in the Tuam thread. In the Tuam thread you want Objectivity and fairness and to highlight that not all experiences are equal. You want to convey that your experience was OK while others did experience atrocity so don't white wash the entire organization with the same color (not to belittle the atrocity as we all agree)... yet you post things like the above that paint Irish and the posters of said forum with a pretty wide brush yourself and give a majority of the people mentioned the same label as loving to 'give out' etc. and therefore put in more consolidated terms: "begrudgery"

The mods make a valid point that your posting is self-contradictory. To move on I think it only fair you acknowledge that the attitude quoted above needs to stop and you need to give the people around you just as much objectivity as you want them all to give to this particular situation (...except do it all the time). It's irrelevant that you include yourself in your stereotype of the Irish people, the point is many posters will not identify themselves within your narrative.

Turtwig

That "world cup" post was originally made in the tuam thread.

Overheal

Turtwig wrote: »

That "world cup" post was originally made in the tuam thread.

yeah and the moving posts around has got me VERY confused and now it's late and its Leg Day (my quads ;_: ) and I've had my evening beer and you're making things very hard on me trying to follow this! (Translation: yeah I deleted my first reply) :pac:

Turtwig

If it makes it any clearer practically all the posts in the feedback thread in the past day were moved from the tuam one.

Overheal

going off timestamps now

Dave!

OP do you think there may be anything in your posting history which would make posters in that forum doubt your sincerity or assume that you're being disingenuous in your posts? Taking this example on its own might make it come across in a particular way; taking it in the context of one's general posting manner might give a different impression.

Disclosure: I have not read your post fully, as it is very long, and I am very lazy.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

OK, I am getting confused between the Tuam thread and the A&A Feedback thread.

I don't think your contribution to the Tuam thread is at fault/call here.

However speaking of the post you did leave in the feedback thread and Robindch did comment on, it is fair game to criticize - anyone - for the type of post that paints any situation with a wide brush:

That post could be viewed like that but I did clarify that this was not the case nor the intention which I had hoped would have settled the matter but alas not.

Also, it is not as if huge generalizations are made in that forum about people/groups/political parties anyway. Massive generalizations are made for example in the "Half-baked Republican Fruitcakes" thread where all types of people are lumped in together, ridiculed and mocked (teabaggers etc.)

E.g.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90770373&postcount=1399
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90733696&postcount=855
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=81227574

Now I am not here if discuss each and every point of view or the merit of every thread in A&A but if I am being held to one standard then surely everyone should be held to the same standard? Examples above show huge generalisations which by and large are let go and not challenged. The standards the mods walk past are the same standards they accept.

Overheal wrote: »

And let's level Jank, the above quote is in stark contrast to the message you're conveying in the Tuam thread. In the Tuam thread you want Objectivity and fairness and to highlight that not all experiences are equal. You want to convey that your experience was OK while others did experience atrocity so don't white wash the entire organization with the same color (not to belittle the atrocity as we all agree)

Yes, and even then I had to defend this position. Constantly defending and clarifying basic opinions is lends one to think that these opinions are not welcomed regardless of the content.

Overheal wrote: »

... yet you post things like the above that paint Irish and the posters of said forum with a pretty wide brush yourself and give a majority of the people mentioned the same label as loving to 'give out' etc. and therefore put in more consolidated terms: "begrudgery"

I have never used that word but it now seems to be the default way to describe my posting style. How can I begrude an opinion on an internet chat forum?

Overheal wrote: »

The mods make a valid point that your posting is self-contradictory. To move on I think it only fair you acknowledge that the attitude quoted above needs to stop and you need to give the people around you just as much objectivity as you want them all to give to this particular situation (...except do it all the time). It's irrelevant that you include yourself in your stereotype of the Irish people, the point is many posters will not identify themselves within your narrative.

If people have an issue with my posts then by all means refute and debate them rather then trying to shoot down the messenger.

To elaborate my point that seems to be central to this...

I was actually trying to draw a correlating line about today and yesterday. There was a reason why we shipped 1,000's of 'fallen' women off to Church run institutions in a way to hide mistakes, secrets and sin. Ireland back then was a very judgmental place (everyone agrees on that it seems) and unfortunately there is still a level of judgement in Irish Society which concerns many things.

When I talked about the insincerity of the people, I meant that Irish people in general just did not or do not talk about such matters. Gordon made a similar point in one of this posts prior to the one I responded to. Many a secret has died that was never told. We are great at chat but we don't seem to talk about anything too serious and especially personal stuff. Again, direct correlation between yesterday and today.

When I mentioned a certain negativity that prevails our national psyche again I was drawing a correlation between now and then. Irish Catholicism was very Calvinist in its outlook, where suffering, poverty, simple living was the main attitude of the nation. However, there is a certain masochism to this. Today we can draw similar correlation with the latest economic crisis where people freely express their opinion that they want out of this 'dump', where people like Eamon Dunphy can go on the most popular TV program of the nation, call it a dump and get a welcoming cheer and round of applause. This just would not happen in other countries.

These traits on our national character is in some way explaining how and why so many people went into these institutions up until recently and how so many secrets are still surrounding us waiting one day to emerge and how our fatalistic and cynical attitude perpetuated a lack of change to stop the status quo

Granted looking now I see where the language could have been different and changed to be more amenable. It was not meant to be a "your all whingers, so this topic doesn't matter, STFU..." type of post, far from it and I apologise if that was how it was taken up. You honestly think that was my intention seeing my own personal involvement into these events?

The central point (which I have elaborated here) of my post in question I think is a strong one which I think makes an interesting discussion and it still does not excuse a mod telling me that I "never post anything worth reading".

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

OP do you think there may be anything in your posting history which would make posters in that forum doubt your sincerity or assume that you're being disingenuous in your posts? Taking this example on its own might make it come across in a particular way; taking it in the context of one's general posting manner might give a different impression.

This is relevant.

There's no doubt, jank, that your historical relationship with A&A influences how people read your posts. This is apparant in Robindch's comment regarding this post of yours, which I think he shouldn't have made. Clearly there was history behind his comment, which is relevant sometimes, but given that you had opened up with some honest, relevant posts in that thread, probably should have earned you some credit.

I've dipped in and out of the Tuam thread, and I've read your OP here and looked at the posts you've quoted, and I don't feel (barring the above) that you've been treated badly, at least by the moderators.

I think the poster - who is clearly very emotional about the subjext - who posted this in response to you was out of line, and might have been given a proper slap. I also think the people who thanked that post should rethink that "thanks" and maybe read your post in isolation of your history in A&A. I understand your upset here - you have a legitimate grievance, albeit with a non-regular who got carried away.

Lastly, regarding your post about the Irish. You post a generalisation about the people of a country, in a forum filled with people from that country and you're going to get resistance. That's a banker. I also find that post at odds with your plea to not generalise that all mother & baby homes were pits of despair!

It's hard to ditch baggage. If you are looking for different treatment in A&A the mods (and I) can entertain a 'new leaf' all round. It'll be up to you win over the forum in general, though.

robindch

Apologies. I only found out about this thread from bluewolf's reference to it in the A+A feedback and have only had a chance to reply to it now.

Dades wrote: »

This is apparant in Robindch's comment regarding this post of yours, which I think he shouldn't have made. Clearly there was history behind his comment, which is relevant sometimes, but given that you had opened up with some honest, relevant posts in that thread, probably should have earned you some credit.

Yep, in my immediate response, I should have recalled that jank had made an excellent post on the topic of the Besborough home seven days previously.

My apologies for forgetting this - while I try as best I can, I can't recall every post made by every poster. Having remembered it (or having had it pointed out, can't recall), I made sure to acknowledge this post in this longer reply made a few hours later - I'm not sure that this second post has been noticed.

Dades wrote: »

I think the poster - who is clearly very emotional about the subjext - who posted this in response to you was out of line, and might have been given a proper slap.

In the context of a poster who had posted in the forum only twice before and who therefore had no reputation one way or the other, I'm inclined to disagree. Particularly in the context of somebody who's claiming direct experience of a disturbing topic. Having spoken with some people who've come out of these homes, and again, given the claim of direct experience - I think it's fair to extend some leniency on a first post.

In any case, I posted this general in-thread warning 45 minutes after drumswan's sarcastic post and this seems to have helped keep him/her in line until he insulted another poster the following day and was carded for it.

As regards jank's posting in A+A - well, if he can keep up the standard reached in the Bessborough post, he and his posts will be very welcome indeed.