I don’t get up in arms and protest that I didn’t intend to step on their toes and that there was nothing malicious about it — of course that’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that I caused an injury, however slight.

I also don’t blame the person for feeling pain when I stepped on them. It’s not their fault they were there; they have just as much right to be there as I, and just because I didn’t happen to see things from their point of view when I was walking doesn’t mean that their point of view is invalid or shouldn’t be considered, just that I wasn’t aware of it until they yelped.

And sometimes their yelps of pain, being surprised ones, take a tone of accusation at first. I don’t take offense to that; it’s easy when one is surprised and hurt to suspect that malice is intended, even when it’s not. Usually after some apologies and expression of concern, the person I stepped on understand that what happened was an accident on my part and that I am genuinely concerned about their well-being. We exchange mutual pleasantries and move on.

That’s probably what should have happened here, but it appears that it didn’t. For that reason, I probably won’t be back to visit Cute Overload — I really don’t want to interact with people who say things like “walk somewhere else, you’re not welcome here” when they’ve trod on someone accidentally. The first trodding on may have been accidentally, but this post is quite clearly stomping on someone’s toes on purpose. It seems to me to be juvenile and rude and unnecessary. Just because you aren’t face to face with the person who’s toes you injured doesn’t mean you have license to go on without apologizing, or to claim that their toes weren’t actually trod upon at all, and it was all in their head.

[This is what I'm saying. Thank you. - Ed.]

You, ma’am, *Caused* absoLUTEly NO chaos. I feel quite comfy in emphasizing this to you. Your statements seemed to me to be particularly calm, well-considered & rational. Everybody above had lots of detail in their descriptions. Your responses — and also those from KittyAdventures — seemed to me, to be especially cool & worded in civil, even pleasant demeanor, while expressing a difference of position in the best of “supposedly democratic” dialogue (meaning TWO or three-way discussion, by specific definintion).

Please have a lovely evening & a lovely Sunday, everybody.
(Unless some peeps out there, really don’t want to live in a white picket fence & feel frustrated with my hopes for a gentler tomorrow. I’m sure that such types are out there)

Good day.

I said good day!

[Hasn't been half bad, actually. Thanks, and you too - Ed.]

*Sorry, Niecy.

KatieZientek, you say that snark creates more snark, yet you seem to take no responsibility for the snark you yourself dispense. The editors didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to treat some posters with something less than rose petals. It’s in direct response to posts like yours. So you’re right. Snark creates snark. Your snark creates theirs. Your snark creates mine. Behold KatieZientek, Creator of Snark. Look upon her works, ye mighty, and despair.

You wonder how a cute animal site can create so much drama. Have you read your own posts, in this very thread? They come off as snide, self-righteous, and agressive even to Bet, who has been nothing but kind and considerate to you. But you want to hold the editors to a higher standard? You want them to respond to your antics with hugs and cookies? Puh-lease. You even admit you’re not as whiny and annoying (really smug and nasty) in real life. But you decided to bless us with it instead. Jeepers, thanks.

In fact, you are so bound and determined to be as nasty as possible over some freakin’ animal photos that I have a hard time believing your beliefs are real. I have a firm suspicion that you are nothing but a troll. Well, congratulations. You created drama, much to your “wonderment.” You can now move on to a forum dedicated to diabetic grandmothers who knit sweaters out of cat hair and accuse them of communism.

[Enough already. You think you sound any more reasonable? - Ed.]