I wrote this earlier, but here it is in my window so I never sent it.
Yes, X gives as good as she gets, but it would never come to that if outside agitators didn't swarm to the scene and inflame matters. At least I don't think it would. Since it always happens, though, there's no way to know for sure.
You know that X thinks, explicitly, that the net is a place for bad behavior? (Not only bad behavior, let it be understood!) That she defends being an attack dog in theory and has defended it in practice, even when the (psychological) attack was knowingly carried out by a person of whose behavior she says she disapproves, against a 'friend' of hers with PTSD? That she has acknowledged hounding people herself? That she has posted that she enjoys being mean on SI? That she has acknowledged that fairness does not concern her?
This is the person whose behavior you rationalize by blaming it on "outside agitators"?
Tell me precisely how I should engage X and I'll be happy to give it a try. I was, yesterday, posting quite civilly on an issue of substance after having posted little recently, when she made a sarcastic personal dig, the "crusade" one. Was that because I'm an outside agitator, or what? |
