Talk:Recovered Memory

Two Cents

Okay -- I've been reading the posts that have vaguely been on-topic and I just want to say to everyone involved: Seriously, calm . . . down. I'm all for civil discussions and such (and this one hasn't been too crazy yet), but these things have pratically become almost daily "treats" here at the LGPedia and discussions really need to stop reaching the point of bickering to where it's essentially ridiculous. I personally don't care who is right in the end, I'm just asking everyone to take a deep breath and relax a bit.

That said, reading through the different versions of the notes being discussed, here's my two cents: Note 1) The original version It has been noted that "redSUV51", the name of the mysterious chatter, is an anagram for "Verdus15", likely a reference both to Verdus Pharmaceuticals, where Bree's mother works, as well as to Bree's username lonelygirl15. is not overly redundant and it isn't terribly gramatically wrong. If anything, remove the words "likely a" and just say "refrences to both" as it IS clear that if the anagram is a reference to anything it WOULD be Verdus and lg15.

As for Note 2), IMO, it's just not significant enough to even note, it's that obvious from the video/chat. Finally, I think Note 3) could be better said as The theory that Elizabeth Avery was redSUV51 was later reinforced in the video The Devil Speaks, where she met Gina at the park alone.

alrighty then -- that's my two shinny pennies on the matter :) --Pheon 02:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Look, there's no reason for anyone to take any of this personally. If someone doesn't like your note or disagrees with you or whatever, it's not an attack against you. If people just keep that in mind, I think we would avoid a lot of the problems we have here. I'm not pointing out anything specific here, but (like Pheon said) it looks like it's headed that direction. So let's keep it from going there, okay? Thanks.--Jonpro 02:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Jon, I don't think he's personally attacking me, and even if he was, I wouldn't care. I just think his notes sound terrible, and I don't see why we have to replace perfectly fine sounding, accurate notes with bumpy, repetitive, incomplete versions just because he starts an edit war instead of proving his are better in a discussion.

Pheon, I consider the second note important because, in the past, henchmen have tried to urge girls to take actions for their masters. Gemma tried to give advice and nudge Bree in the right direction in the name of OpAphid, Daniel did the same when he was kidnapped, Claire tried to get to Emma in Porter's name - it wouldn't have been a first that someone else tries to do the convincing. The sudden change in phrasing gave a strong clue that it was not just another Hymn of One guy going "Do the ceremony!", but actually E.A. urging her to come. In addition, "go to the meeting" implies the speaker is a third person that knows about the meeting, which, in turn, strongly indicates a trap, whereas E.A. personally coming to chat supports the assumption she would be alone.

iow, it does make a difference which phrasing is chosen, and, as such, a sudden change in phrasing is, at least in my opinion, noteworthy.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now. the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out. renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence. i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks. i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right. i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego. i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another. flip a coin if you have to. - platy

platy said:

“

”

i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now.

Generic phrasing in an attempt to discredit. Which mistakes?

keep reading

platy said:

“

”

the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out.

Unsourced.

• i'll source myself.

platy said:

“

”

renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence.

I have threatened to banned you because you spammed the pedia. Something you did again by ignoring general procedures and insisting on forcing a disputed edit on the page in an edit war.

• i could claim the same against you, that you are spamming the edit page by reverting MY edits. why are you edits more valuable than mine. further, what administrative rights do you have to threaten users with administrative action?

The fact that I threatened to ban you is not, in itself, an illegitimate act of aggression. If anything, you could attack my reasoning for threatening to ban you.

• it is an act of aggression. you might as well flag my talk page with stfu

However, given that you are lying anyway, that's irrelevant anyway.

In addition, I find it rather hilarious that you are trying to discredit me, while both your talk page as well as Talk:Mexican Mating Machine show quite clearly that this is not the first time you're trying to pull this exact thing, and that you're constantly clashing with the administration over these matters.

• i am not constantly clashing with anybody but you.

platy said:

“

”

i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks.

Invalid. Lacks proof my analogies are not relevant, lacks proof of red herrings and fails to show any "personal attacks".

• analogies have no place in arguments. when i argue against the it has been noted phrase, dodge the issue. and you told me that i have no grasp on the english language. what proof do i need?

platy said:

“

”

i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right.

And that justifies an editing war instead of following common procedure and courtesy?

so let me get it strait... if there is any confusion about your phrasing, it should remain at your phrasing until you admit that you are wrong. which is never? who decides in the end?

platy said:

“

”

i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego.

Untrue and unsourced. In fact, I have shown up multiple times how your writing is lacking in style, as well as how my notes are more accurate.

look above. look below. you display your ego every time you place an editorial adverb in front of your verbs that describe my actions.

platy said:

“

”

i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another. flip a coin if you have to.

Pathetic attempt to get your will without having to actually prove your notes are the better choice.

i would never attach such an adverb to your actions. you've called me pathetic and feeble and stupid before and you keep crying untrue and unsourced!

In addition, learn to use the preview button. Not only are you spamming recent changes and generated dozens of useless revisions, but not knowing when you're done, or being conflicted by the next sentence of your reply is also extremely annoying for anyone else using a page.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

it is a personal attack when you editorialize your verbs with colorful adverbs such as pathetic and feeble and stupid. it not a personal attack but a fact (i should hope it is a fact) that you should know better. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have the education and discipline to formulate a decent argument but you give me no reason to believe.