[ SECRET POST #2693 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2693 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #385.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ], [ 1 - blank image ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[feotakahari]

You've got it backwards--what matters to me more than ANYTHING else is that people understand the meaning of what I'm saying, so that if they disagree with me, they disagree with me, not with a misinterpretation. Which is a problem, because I so often discover after I posted something that seemed perfectly clear to me that other people interpreted it in a way I didn't predict at all. This occasionally happens to me in person, but it never happens quite so dramatically--I can look over a post five times, and edit it twice for wording to make sure it means one thing, and then right after I've posted it, someone responds with something indicating that they interpreted it to mean the exact opposite. The fault must be mine, since this doesn't seem to happen to other folks, but I can never figure out how to prevent it. After a few comments in a row where I got completely misinterpreted, I tend to give up completely and sink into self-condemnation, castigating myself for not being able to communicate clearly enough.

Apparently I was making "wild claims" in an earlier post that I wasn't making in my last post. I'm not exactly certain what those wild claims were--my meaning in my last post was my meaning in the ones before it--but if they weren't what was in my last post, then I assure you that I didn't mean to make them. I know I sound really angry in this post, but I'm just kind of frustrated, and I sincerely apologize if I've caused you some offense.

Edit: Oh God damn it, see what I mean? I'm LITERALLY giving myself a headache trying to figure out how to cut this wall of text down into something more comprehensible to make sure you don't misunderstand me.

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[chardmonster]

It doesn't happen as much in person because in person people, particularly on campus, are under pressure to be polite.

The issue here is that your argument was'nt matching any of your evidence.