• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

NOMINATION RESCINDED davedawgbg . misunderstanding??? (edit)
1 1

56 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, TeeDub said:

A quick follow up for those following...

 

I once again contacted @davedawgbg since my last comment here, this time attempting a less inflammatory tone, and hoping to resolve this issue in a more amicable manner.  I suggested that if he returned the money then we could simply acknowledge this as a deal gone awry in which two boardies both could have handled themselves better, I'd remove the nomination, and we could go our separate ways.  @davedawgbg concurred.  

He refunded my money the next business day.  The funds are still pending, but as soon as they clear then I'll remove the nomination as agreed and claim the issue between us resolved.   

Thanks to all who gave their feedback here.  I would encourage @davedawgbg to step in here and give his side.  As a long time boardie, who it seems has not had problems with others here before, I do not want to see someone's rep tarnished over a singe issue.  

I would like to acknowledge, as @thehumantorch correctly, fairly and respectfully pointed out, that my initial reaction to the issue should have been less angry and reactionary.  Perhaps this all could have been avoided, so apologies for my own culpability here.   I took davedawg's deleted PM, and terse "Deadline past without acknowledgement, response or payment." PM, quite personally.  Then I willfully used a harsh and demanding tone in an attempt to "hit back".  Also, my title line in this post that asked "misunderstanding? clown? or jerk?" was a personal shot at @davedawgbg and it was juvenile and uncalled for.  It was intended to anger him.  And it worked.  

Anyhow, a lot was handled badly here on what should have a been a very smooth transaction.   I should have checked my ego and my temper.  My bad.

thanks again to all y'all for your input here.  

:whatthe:

 

Genuinely surprising (in the best possible way) considering how this started and the trajectory it took.  I should have responded sooner but every time I tried it was extraordinarily difficult not to take what could be construed as a hostile or condescending tone no matter how factually accurate, and the highlighted portion of self-realization above perfectly embodies why I continually relented as I felt it was only going to further inflame the matter.  I'm not saying that was the right thing to do but it is what I did.  Had I not, I don't know we would have gotten here, and if we still would have I think it would have taken a lot longer than it did.

 

With all that in mind I purposely kept it to the PM's in an attempt to facilitate diffusion and quell the potential for public fervor that would further feed into the animosity.  Unfortunately even my attempt to rise above it and allow an opportunity to walk this back out of the virtual arena of a public contest failed.  I fell right into the trap of the venomous tone I told myself I was too good to get sucked into, essentially threatening exposure with all the eloquence of a drunken frat boy.  Pair that with the fact that whatever I message was sent invariably ended up in the public view I knew I'd be incapable of maintaining etiquette and objectivity and ultimately sacrifice reasonable responses for the satisfaction of the visceral take down.  An early draft of a reply had a biting exposition to what the "P" in "PM" stood for and how the poster had convinced himself that word somehow had a different definition to him than literally anyone else, EVER (because clearly such comments would have elevated the discourse (tsk)).  Again, we have not discussed this privately (no pun intended and the irony of me using this word based on my previous sentence is not lost on me), but this portion is shocking to me because it eerily involves almost every point I would have hit on in any retort so I am ultimately pleased I restrained myself.

 

I also held confidence in the community to notice many of these inconsistencies whether they commented publicly or not, and this reference belies that confidence to help swing appropriate temperament even in emotional exchanges.  This is not to pass off any responsibility but I think I've been pretty clear thus far why I avoided this.

 

I'll give an better exposition maybe tomorrow or Friday now that I know I can put all this in a retrospective narrative rather than one of accusatory justification or retaliatory personal insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, davedawgbg said:

:whatthe:

 

Genuinely surprising (in the best possible way) considering how this started and the trajectory it took.  I should have responded sooner but every time I tried it was extraordinarily difficult not to take what could be construed as a hostile or condescending tone no matter how factually accurate, and the highlighted portion of self-realization above perfectly embodies why I continually relented as I felt it was only going to further inflame the matter.  I'm not saying that was the right thing to do but it is what I did.  Had I not, I don't know we would have gotten here, and if we still would have I think it would have taken a lot longer than it did.

 

With all that in mind I purposely kept it to the PM's in an attempt to facilitate diffusion and quell the potential for public fervor that would further feed into the animosity.  Unfortunately even my attempt to rise above it and allow an opportunity to walk this back out of the virtual arena of a public contest failed.  I fell right into the trap of the venomous tone I told myself I was too good to get sucked into, essentially threatening exposure with all the eloquence of a drunken frat boy.  Pair that with the fact that whatever I message was sent invariably ended up in the public view I knew I'd be incapable of maintaining etiquette and objectivity and ultimately sacrifice reasonable responses for the satisfaction of the visceral take down.  An early draft of a reply had a biting exposition to what the "P" in "PM" stood for and how the poster had convinced himself that word somehow had a different definition to him than literally anyone else, EVER (because clearly such comments would have elevated the discourse (tsk)).  Again, we have not discussed this privately (no pun intended and the irony of me using this word based on my previous sentence is not lost on me), but this portion is shocking to me because it eerily involves almost every point I would have hit on in any retort so I am ultimately pleased I restrained myself.

 

I also held confidence in the community to notice many of these inconsistencies whether they commented publicly or not, and this reference belies that confidence to help swing appropriate temperament even in emotional exchanges.  This is not to pass off any responsibility but I think I've been pretty clear thus far why I avoided this.

 

I'll give an better exposition maybe tomorrow or Friday now that I know I can put all this in a retrospective narrative rather than one of accusatory justification or retaliatory personal insults.

 

"I also held confidence in the community to notice many of these inconsistencies whether they commented publicly or not, and this reference belies that confidence to help swing appropriate temperament even in emotional exchanges.  This is not to pass off any responsibility but I think I've been pretty clear thus far why I avoided this."

 

Whoa brother.  You can pump the brakes on that.  I NEVER LIED AND THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES IN ANYTHING IVE SAID.  Nothing hidden, removed, or held back.  I've been completely transparent through the entire transaction.  You're not exactly an innocent lamb in this deal yourself.  So maybe consider that I did have a legitimate gripe when with you, before you go throwing around that "self-realization" thing at me again. 

Edited by TeeDub
grammatical error when to "with you"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'll give an better exposition maybe tomorrow or Friday now that I know I can put all this in a retrospective narrative rather than one of accusatory justification or retaliatory personal insults."

"accusitory justification", are you serious with that?  I apologized for the rude way in which I went about this dispute, but the dispute itself of the holding of the funds was legit.

"restrospective narrative"  I'll look forward to that.  what more is to be narrated.  Every communication and action between us has been seen/read.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TeeDub said:

 

"I also held confidence in the community to notice many of these inconsistencies whether they commented publicly or not, and this reference belies that confidence to help swing appropriate temperament even in emotional exchanges.  This is not to pass off any responsibility but I think I've been pretty clear thus far why I avoided this."

 

Whoa brother.  You can pump the brakes on that.  I NEVER LIED AND THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES IN ANYTHING IVE SAID.  Nothing hidden, removed, or held back.  I've been completely transparent through the entire transaction.  You're not exactly an innocent lamb in this deal yourself.  So maybe consider that I did have a legitimate gripe when with you, before you go throwing around that "self-realization" thing at me again. 

:facepalm:

 

Not at all what I'm talking about, it was actually very complimentary to you about everything you were admitting.  Referencing other members politely pointing things out as well as you talking about how you were lobbing personal insults and intentionally trying to make me angry while simultaneously talking about how you felt you were being treated in a hostile manner.  It was incredibly self-aware and contrite and you were quite appreciative of the input from others.

 

This is why

26 minutes ago, davedawgbg said:

I'll give an better exposition maybe tomorrow or Friday now that I know I can put all this in a retrospective narrative rather than one of accusatory justification or retaliatory personal insults.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see what we have here is two type As that don't like to back down.  I don't like you because I find you to be rude and condescending.  That's just the way I feel.  How about we leave it at that, for me.  I'll walk away and we can never speak again.  I won't say another word about you, here or anywhere.   You can have the last word here and I'll leave it at that, no response.  I gave you the opportunity to say your peace, so know i'll leave you with your closing. 

My complaint is officially removed (pending PP refund, which I fully believe will of course clear, jus saying in case)

Refund in full from @davedawgbg cleared, issue resolved for me.  

Edited by TeeDub
1) grammer to to "two" 2) PAYMENT REFUNDED, added note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own experience with both boardies has always been positive. I know from unfortunate experience how sentiments can become inflamed in these kinds of matters and cause someone to speak out in a manner they normally would not. Myself, I think things will pass given time, and once other boardies let this thread drop. These things derail, as happened here, and threads get bumped when they would better be left to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when people get a little overly verbose (which I saw in both parties last few posts here), what they're TRYING to say can get a little lost. I think if you both chill, you'll see that you're both fine. Bad transaction. Heated words. Apologies all around. Walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1