Well, in reference to the last post, Irene called me out by name, so I’m going to respond here. Let’s begin, shall we?
So I got quite a few comments about people thinking that the previous post was them. Where in the hell did it say a specific persons name? Most notably, Manny and Pete, I NEVER said it was Carrie. And although it may seem that I am writing about her, you don’t really know, do you? When was the last time either of you had a conversation with me to know that it was beyond a reasonable doubt her? Surely, she has to be the only person in my life that could evoke me to write such a statement.
Oooh… plausible deniability, very good attempt. The coward’s way out. But it’s not going to fly here… we’ll get to that point in a minute. I do want to make the point that this is not Texas Justice or the Supreme Court there’s no “reasonable doubt” standard of proof to live up to. Maybe Irene would like to go full-disclosure on us so we know it wasn’t about Carrie instead of just saying “Well, maybe it wasn’t!”
Either way, though, doesn’t matter. Continuing on…
Let’s see the person had to:
A)complain about living in the real world No one in the world but Carrie complains about the real world I’m sure. No one else I know can have summer jobs and complain about that.
Least of all Irene, but this is a fair point. It’s granted. But makes no difference.
I was frustrated with Carrie? Yes and no. Was this post specifically towards her? No.
Of course not, because then she’d have to take responsibility for her words as opposed to hiding behind “might have beens”.
It’s not like any of you know who I’ve interacted with this past weekend besides Carrie. Not to mention, she cancelled[sic] on me on THURSDAY. If it was just towards her, wouldn’t the post be a little sooner than later? I had a long weekend and encountered a lot of people who led me to write this past post. Did anyone consider that I have three roommates that recently graduated and are transitioning into this real world? It couldn’t have been one of them, I’m sure. I only live with them and spend oh, all day with them, that can’t be a source of conflict.
That’s a good point. A forward, up front person would have made this an issue much sooner. That person would also have named the source of their irritation or, heaven forbid, just gone directly to that person. But we’re not talking about a direct way of dealing with a problem, we’re talking about passive aggression… and a passive aggressive person would, in fact, wait a few days (stewing the whole time, mind you) to give themselves a little more plausible deniability. Is this really what happened? I honestly have no idea, but it’s just as likely as her proposed scenario.
And also it’s impossible that I got cancelled[sic] on for another engagement other than that one, huh? Well, it happened. So before all of you come running to defend Carrie, maybe one of you should have talked to me and even made sure that it was her.
At the end of the argument, though, she’s committed a very fatal error: she assumed that our posts required her post to be about Carrie. In other words, she very blatantly the committed the same logical error that she believes we committed: false premise. Only problem, here, is that neither of our posts required Carrie to be within 500 feet of the argument.
Essentially, Manny and I’s argument was: “If you’ve never been to the real world, and have no real stress in your life, quit busting people’s nuts who do and need to vent every so often.” Especially if just a few days ago you, yourself, had a little mental breakdown on your livejornal.
Now… where was Carrie mentioned in there? Nowhere. Carrie’s assumed presence may have been a catalyst for the posts, I’m not going to deny that (I said as much in the last one) but it was not a required element of my (or Manny’s) arguments to even the slightest degree.
Though you do have to admire the attempt to divert attention away from herself and back onto me, Manny, and Carrie… failed though the attempt was. At the end of the day, this whole argument is really about whether or not Irene has any standing to criticize people who are actually living in the real world from her position of comfort in her college bubble. Does she have the right? Of course she does… but that doesn’t mean it’s justified.
…we now return you to your really bad strawman argument, already in progress.
One thing I noticed is the presence of typo’s in your post…you must have been typing very fast and therefore been very irritated…love it.
Of course, my assumption could be false. It may have been, maybe not, but since we are not on Texas Justice, we don’t have to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, so if it so happens that my above commented assumption was false, I will gladly hide behind ye ol’ “I was totally being sarcastic dude” preface.