Please tell me why you think I'm an asshole.

[lissener]

*I* don't think of myself as an asshole. I think of someone who's not as good as getting my tone across in typing as in speaking, and I'm someone who has a short temper sometimes and who sometimes posts, quickly, things I come to regret in time. I have a great deal of confidence in my own critical judgment, and will sometimes defend to the death things that really don't need to be defended to the death. And I'm someone whose default tone of communication, in real life, is sardonic and cynical sarcasm; I am too much in the habit of trying to sound clever rather than communicate simply and clearly. Obviously, this constellation of traits (positive and negative) have combined to undermine my credibility in this forum.

So please, educate me about my board persona.

[GaWd]

I don't think you're an asshole. In fact, you and I agree on most subjects in the pit. I do, however, feel that you need to learn when to walk around the block and keep your mouth(or fingers) silent at times. Unfortunately, this is one of those times.

Sam

[Munch]

You aren't an asshole. But you can be one, in spades. You quite often don't know when to quit, and you can seldom see the line in the sand that you cross numerous times.

[malkavia]

I think that you are an asshole for picking on poor, defenseless Liberal.

*darts eyes back and forth*

Aw, who'm I kidding, I think you're rad and only hate you for saying the things that I either wish I'd thought of first or flat out don't have the balls to say.

[lissener]

You aren't an asshole. But you can be one, in spades. You quite often don't know when to quit, and you can seldom see the line in the sand that you cross numerous times.
Well, yes, I agree with both accusations. I'm interested in specifics, if you have the inclination.

[Lobsang]

I posted a thread virtually identical to this and it got closed within about 5 replies.


I can't remember a time I've thought bad of you lissener but then again you and I have probably never had a conversation together or posted in more than a few of the same threads.

[Miller]

I used to think you were an asshole, but I don't any more. I do think you have an unreasonably thin skin, and a tin ear for how your tone comes across in print. But also I think you're basically a pretty good guy, plenty smart, and overall an asset to the boards. I also think opening this thread, especially after just getting told off by a mod in your pitting of Liberal, was a really bad move. If I were you, I'd ask the mods to close both of them and take breather from the boards for a little while. It'd be a shame to lose you.

[Lord Ashtar]

From your other Pit thread: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=265487)

...I'll withdraw for now.
This was followed up by three more posts in barely 10 minutes. I realize you admitted in your OP that had a tendency to post too quickly sometimes, I just think that this is a good example of that.

I know you and I have clashed a few times (although you probably don't remember). The only thing I could suggest would be to be patient.

[lissener]

"for now" meant "until the namecalling dies down and someone has something substantive to respond to.

[Apos]

Pitting someone else, and then pitting yourself in short order. That's not a good sign.

[Lord Ashtar]

"for now" meant "until the namecalling dies down and someone has something substantive to respond to.

Then why did you respond three more times? You're not just trying to pad your post count, are you?

[lissener]

Pitting someone else, and then pitting yourself in short order. . . .. . . or taking the hint and giving a hijack its own room.

[Odesio]

So please, educate me about my board persona.

You might want to review several of the Cafe threads about movies and pay particular attention to the ones that include Starship Troopers or Showgirls. You have a habit of appearing hostile whenever someone disagrees with you about certain subjects.

Marc

[lissener]

Then why did you respond three more times? You're not just trying to pad your post count, are you?
. . . because the namecalling had died down and there was something substantive to respond to.

[Orual]

You might want to review several of the Cafe threads about movies and pay particular attention to the ones that include Starship Troopers or Showgirls. You have a habit of appearing hostile whenever someone disagrees with you about certain subjects.

Marc

Ditto this. I'm sure it isn't intentional, but you come across like you think that people who don't agree with you are less intelligent than you.

[lissener]

You might want to review several of the Cafe threads about movies and pay particular attention to the ones that include Starship Troopers or Showgirls. You have a habit of appearing hostile whenever someone disagrees with you about certain subjects.

Marc
I've reviewed the threads, many times. Please be specific, if you're so inclined.

[lissener]

Ditto this. I'm sure it isn't intentional, but you come across like you think that people who don't agree with you are less intelligent than you.
See, it's the "come across" part that I really can't get a handle on. That's never what I mean to express, but people still read that into my posts with alarming frequency. I'd great appreciate specific quotes.

[Ferret Herder]

. . . because the namecalling had died down and there was something substantive to respond to.
Perhaps simply waiting for another decent post to come along would have sufficed, instead of having to declare your decision to wait what turned out to be not very long at all?

[SPOOFE]

I think it comes down to suspicion, that is, I think (based solely on observing your own behavior here) that you develop an automatic suspicion against people that disagree with you or clash with you in some way, be it politics or art or whatever. This would probably result in you being more hostile toward them, probably totally unconsciously. I'd suggest that you go back and re-read some of your posts with this in mind, maybe identify a pattern of yours that would give this impression.

'Course, take anything I say with a grain of salt, since I can only guess based on the few posts of your'n that I happen to notice. Although I do hope to be helpful, and certainly don't want you to feel like an asshole.

[Exgineer]

For what it's worth, there are some truly colossal assholes on this board.

In my opinion, you are far from the worst offender. You can be enormously irritating sometimes, but you're not the worst by any stretch of the imagination.

[lissener]

Perhaps simply waiting for another decent post to come along would have sufficed, instead of having to declare your decision to wait what turned out to be not very long at all?
Noted.

[Weirddave]

Umm... Remember the advice you gave me in an IM a few weeks ago? Seems you should perhaos take that to heart for yourself.

[lissener]

I think it comes down to suspicion, that is, I think (based solely on observing your own behavior here) that you develop an automatic suspicion against people that disagree with you or clash with you in some way, be it politics or art or whatever. This would probably result in you being more hostile toward them, probably totally unconsciously. I'd suggest that you go back and re-read some of your posts with this in mind, maybe identify a pattern of yours that would give this impression.

'Course, take anything I say with a grain of salt, since I can only guess based on the few posts of your'n that I happen to notice. Although I do hope to be helpful, and certainly don't want you to feel like an asshole.Dude, I feel like I made it clear that that's the impression. Believe me, I've gone back and read plenty of my posts trying to figure this out. Again, I'd appreciate specific quotes if you feel the inclination.

[lissener]

. . . You can be enormously irritating sometimes. . . .Again, specifics?

[lissener]

Umm... Remember the advice you gave me in an IM a few weeks ago? Seems you should perhaos take that to heart for yourself.
Well, no one has given me anything specific to apologize for, and I feel like I've made a general apology. But that feels kinda hollow.

[Morbo]

See, it's the "come across" part that I really can't get a handle on. That's never what I mean to express, but people still read that into my posts with alarming frequency. I'd great appreciate specific quotes.

How about this: A Cafe Society thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246986) entitled "Unenjoyably Pretentious Movies" in which several people posted about movies they found pretentious. The examples included Lost Highway, Pi, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover, Altered States, etc. Your first post to this lively thread was

Man, you poor poor people.

97% of the movies mentioned above are good movies worth the effort.

Not every movie can be Princess Bride or Little Nicky.

Of course this hijacked the thread for a few pages while we all called you a jerk for "pitying" us our meager intellect and insinuating were were the types of moviegoers that like crap like "Little Nicky." Finally you started in on your whole "I didn't mean it like that" schtick that you've included in your OP.

-------------------------------------

Or this: So indignant at Reeder's "one-thread about Bush" policy, you started this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245416) thread, in which you more or less insulted everyone who starts a Pit thread on a topic that you deem unworthy to show that Reeder's many,many Pit threads have just as much right to be there. Then, apparently unsatisfied with that effort, you started this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245732) one three days later. In the latter you even refused to acknowledge that you were in any way parodying what you deemed to be silly Pit threads, nor your larger point about Reeder's one-thread rule. Can you honestly say that you don't "come across" as an asshole in these threads?

-------------------------------------

And of course there's my first encounter with you: Manhattan is a fuckwad, and Microsoft can suck my dick (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182484) in which, knowing full well that I was an MS employee, threw in comments like these:
It tickles me no end, however, that Microsofties get so defensive and bothered and pouty: "I won't even talk to you until you say something nice about my boss."

Fuck that.

I may post an anti-MS thread every once in a while just to see the softies come out to squeal in defense.

The first sentence was patently untrue, since I did try to help you in your original GQ thread, and all I said that could be construed as pouty was that I agreed with Cerowyn that the best way to get an answer to a GQ question about my product doesn't include using the word "Microsuck."

The third sentence was pure trolling, which resulted in Manhattan warning (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3389460#post3389460) you that if you ever posted in a technical thread again, you'd be banned. Your response to Manhattan's warning - your direct response (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3392291#post3392291) to a Mod warning: Eat me you squeaky fuck.

You know as well as I do that I had no intention of trolling in GQ, any more than I wished literal death on Bill Gates. I’ve been posting to this board for over three years and any infraction I’ve ever committed have been minor, unintentional, and debatable.

To pounce on such a thin excuse (a sarcastic mock threat—in the Pit—merely to goad the easily goadable; a mock threat made all the more threatening by use of the powerful qualifier “may”) in order to preemptively censor me is pathetic, you tiny minded loser.

So I’m effectively banned fro GQ? Search my postings asshole. I’ve steered largely clear of GQ since it became clear to me that you lie awake nights quivering in a delicious agony of anticipation, contemplating your next opportunity to be a rude little fucker to me, or some other hapless victim of your sad little drunken whimperings.

I insulted no individual Doper. I complained, in the process of asking a question, about a product. Until you have a forum completely free of any such sentiments—where no one ever asks a question about a subject that has upset them—where no one ever injects any emotion or opinion into their questions—until then, you’re a hypocritical asshole.

And the ’Softies who took offense at my post should have taken me to the Pit—or reported the thread to a moderator and waited for them to make the call—rather than highjacked my GQ post to debate my “tone.” Which is more childish: posting a question that included some emotional background of the history of frustration that led me to ask the question, even framed hyperbolically as it was, or popping into the thread just to say, “Well, I know the answer to your question, but I’m not gonna tell ya until you swear fealty to my boss; yelp yelp, nyah nyah.”

Shouldn’t a less immoderate moderator have more properly asked THEM to take it to the Pit? Whose behavior was more against GQ policy, Manny, you hypocritical fuck?

Aside from these quotes, there's plenty of you treating everyone like a fool for not recognizing your "obvious hyperbole" as well as plenty more insinuating that if I took anything personally out of that thread, I had "issues." How you can possibly believe that you did not "come across" as an asshole in that thread is beyond me.

Re-read Miller's post again - it's more or less how I know feel about you. I'm not so myopic that I can't get over that MS thread - everybody says things in the heat of the moment. But it made me remember your name, and when I see you doing it again and again - well, what would you have us do - print out this OP so that when you do it again we can remind ourselves that you don't really mean to come across as an asshole? Or how about just reel it in a little, or throw in a "this is hyperbole" in there somewhere? (And not a "hey morons this is obviously hyperbole")

[Miller]

You want some specifics, so here they are. I'd rather not get into this specific fight again. I'm more than happy to consider it water under the bridge if you are. But since you want to know, this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=222557) thread is the one where I first started to really consider you an asshole.

Well, Wumpus, what "gold" Cervaise and I, and others, have mined from Verhoeven's work is definitely there; we're not making it up. (Most of my own theories about his work were confirmed by subsequent viewings with director's commentary.) So it's possible that if you watched his films with some effort and attention, you'd see what's there too. That you don't doesn't really bother me, personally, but it doesn't make me wrong.

This comes across as very condescending. By not directly adressing Wumpus's arguments, you seem to be saying, "It's there because I say it is, and I know lots about movies, so that should be good enough for you." It an Appeal to Authority with yourself as the authority. That's pretty arrogant.

As far as "dishonestly" limiting the discussion, that's unfair. This isn't a survey or a vote. If you come to this discussion with the position that his work is empty, that there is nothing to see there, then obviously you don't see what I--and a growing number of others--DO see there. To continue making a case that there's nothing there, when others are interested in discussing what IS there, is rude.

This comes across as whiney. You posted a topic to a debating forum, and then complain when the other side of the debate shows up. This is not something that's going to earn you a whole lot of credibility points. I don't care what you're debating, you can't expect (let alone demand) that certain viewpoints not participate. And if you're going to champion an underdog like Verhoeven, you've got to expect a lot of opposition. If you don't want a lot of opposition, don't take up the standard for an unpopular opinion.

Since the alternative is you drowning out all other discussion with your righteous indignation over the blasphemy, I'll take you up on that.

Start a thread trashing it, if you want to; or debating its merits. That's not the purpose of this thread. To take you at your word, it would seem that having a thoughtful discussion about Verhoeven would be literally impossible here; anyone can just come crashing in and go "It's CRAP!" "It's BLASPHEMY!"

So I appreciate your offer to take your heckling elswhere.

This was directed at me, personally, and I resent the hell out of it. It's a blatant mispreresentation of my arguments in that thread, which had been made in good faith and with an interest in hearing the opposite viewpoint.

The Pit Thread that was spawned by that thread was not exactly your shining moment, either. There were plenty of people in that one who were more than happy to tell you why they thought you were an asshole, if you're up to re-reading it.

[Atticus Finch]

lissener Why do you think I'm an asshole?
someone else Well, the pitting yourself thing is pretty annoying.
a wiser voice Hey, relax, Lissener.
lissener No, I think it's justified. What's your problem with me?
someone else Well, you're a bit irritating...
a wiser voice Chill out, Lissener.
lissener When am I irritating?
someone else Well, there were those threads in Cafe Society involving x, y, z.
a wiser voice Take a breather, Lissener.
lissener When were those?
someone else And there was that other time you were irritating
lissener I want specifics!

[Mauvaise]

I think it comes down to suspicion, that is, I think (based solely on observing your own behavior here) that you develop an automatic suspicion against people that disagree with you or clash with you in some way, be it politics or art or whatever.

I think that stems from the fact that lissener seems to take any such disagreement as a direct insult against him rather than just a differing opinion.

I refer you to Eve's
Mullholland Drive thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264841&page=2) wherein he explains that someone saying they think a movie he likes is crap, or has no redeeming qualities is akin to calling him a liar or delusional. He can be quite insulting when "defending" himself against said non-attack.

[Casey1505]

I'm pretty neutral about you. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I disagree with you. The same thing could be said about anyone else on this board. It's not meant as an insult, but in a community as large as SDMB, you aren't going to see eye to eye with everyone every time.

That being said, threads such as this have a tendency to push fence-straddlers off to the unfavorable side.

You would do well to ask that this thread be closed, pull the plug on your PC, and enjoy the weekend.

Missteps appear to be forgiven quite easily around here, and past "faults" do not seem to be held against someone if a "change" is made.

[Exgineer]

Again, specifics?
I'm reluctant to do this, because I unfairly* jumped Zebra's shit for something similar, but since you asked...

You have a truly irritating habit of talking down to people. You tend to formulate your opening arguments as if anyone who disagrees with you must be mentally deficient, and you continue the discussion in the same manner.

Again, I want to emphasize that you aren't the worst offender in this area. There are posters here who are much, much worse about this. I can't even go into Great Debates any more, because inside of fifteen minutes I want to reach through the screen and push somebody's face in. Not because I disagree with their positions, necessarily, but because they're just so damned obnoxious.

Some people, of any political stripe, just don't seem to understand that there is room for political differences between intelligent people, and conduct themselves accordingly. Instead I see a lot of "you must be too stupid to understand." It's not stated outright, but it's implied. I can't stand sneering from anybody.

I know how smart I am. I know what it took for me to get a masters degree in engineering. I remember how I had to pick up basic economics and accounting principles on the fly in order to do my job. I get irritated when some dumb 18-year-old twit passing out flyers feels compelled to lecture me about my need to "educate" myself.

I get doubly irritated because I get it from both ends of the political spectrum. The "liberals" think I'm a Nazi Bush-stooge, and the "conservatives" think I'm an evil, baby-murdering communist. They're both complete fucking idiots, who conform to their respective ideologies with religious fervor, and can't be swayed by facts. Keep your "truth," give me the facts and I'll decide where the truth lies for me.

I guess what irritates me the most is that I see a lot more of this smug supriority from the left, and I'm really afraid that you jerks are underestimating the opposition. I see a lot of statements along the lines of "liberals are smarter and better educated than conservatives" and the complacency disturbs me.

You might want to do a little research; the results will surprise you. A lot of your opponents are a hell of a lot smarter and better informed than you are.

*The guy was just making a harmless joke. I was really pissy that day.

[leander]

Here's the problem as I see it -- if you want to pit Lib, then go after any one of the multitude of kooky things the guy does on an almost daily basis. It's not like there's nothing to work with there. ;)

The name thing is only a small and rather unimportant indicator of the overall nasty/drive-by/manipulative/crazy/attention-whoring/browbeating/self-important creature we call Libera-whatever.

In short, get a better rant. Cause you're right about one thing -- there are plenty of folks who think Lib is the all-time SDMB asshole title-holder, and with very good reason.

But remember, people have formed this opinion because of the crazy shit he has said -- and continues to say almost daily -- so there's really no need to remind folks of his past behavior. He buries his own reputation with every new fuck-up. And oddly, despite numerous friendly words of advice, the weird times just keep on rollin'...

[Interrobang!?]

Hey, lissener. I've been on the fence about whether or not to reply to this thread, but what the hey.

Let me start out by making one thing clear: I do not think you're an asshole. I like you.

But I can kind of see why you irritate the hell out of some people.

Dooku gave a pretty good overview of one way in which you have done so. But I'm going to try and explain a different reason, one that I get the impression confuses you.

A quote from your conversation with Miller in Eve's Mulholland Drive thread: Bottomlineish, but not the whole story; just a note on tone and reception: "It's crap!" is meant to be insulting; it's an insulting sentiment in insulting language. I understand what you're saying here. (At least, I think I do.) But the thing is, it's annoying to people when someone else doesn't just react to what they say, but tells them what they meant when they said it. (It's one thing to say, hey, I think that's insulting, and another to say, you're insulting me. Artistic interpretation applies to casual driveby messageboard comments, too.)

If someone says "That was crap!" (feel free to substitute "That suxx!" or "Oh, that was awful!" or whatever absolute statement you like) about a work of art you like, there are two general ways you can respond:

1) "You're insulting me by calling [Good Film X] crap. It's absolutist and insulting."

2) "Really? What didn't you like about it?"

Some people say "that was crap" and really mean, "in my opinion, [Good Film X] was a waste of time." Some people say "that was crap" and mean "there can be no argument about the inherent lack of merit in [Good Film X]." Thing is, you can't tell the difference unless you respect them enough to ask. Don't put words in their mouth or attitudes in their head. Don't ignore their message by nitpicking the way they choose to express it. Many people are irritated by that. Leads to testiness and bad feelings. It's like correcting someone's grammar rather than responding to their argument -- trust me, that's infuriating.

Option 2 -- the request for clarification -- quickly helps you determine whether or not your conversational partner is really interested in discussing the merits or lack thereof of a film, or if they're just interested in spouting off. And on a message board, a lot of people are just going to be spouting off. And that's okay. It's not an insult to you, to anyone else who liked the film, to the film itself, or its makers. (Even if it is an insult, so what? Let it go. Life's too short to get huffy about perceived slights.)

Now, I'm just a guy who holds his tongue more often that he posts and doesn't get involved in big GD-style rumbles. Maybe I'm too timid. But I'd like to see you stick around, and I think to do that you really have to accept that most people here don't wish you ill.

One rule of thumb on a mailing list I'm on may serve you well: once you've made a point, don't revisit it more than twice. Make an argument, respond to your critics once or twice, then accept that you've said what you can and let it go. You'll be happier, the fires get a chance to die down, and you've made what positive impact you can without coming across as a jerk. The SDMB may require more than 3 posts, but not really that many more, I don't think, unless there's real dialogue.

Anyway, that's my $1.08 and counting, I think. One more thing: if "obvious hyperbole" is getting you into trouble, as Dooku notes, don't just label it. Cut it out. Try to post without it. Challenge yourself to rid your SDMB writing of the rhetorical flourishes that get you into trouble. Be dryer than you feel is necessary, and see where that gets you.

I really would hate to see you go.

[Chefguy]

Hey, I have nothing against most posters, including you. But my short term memory isn't so hot.

I do know that postings, like emails and any other words that are written by anyone but professional authors, rarely convey tone unless accompanied by ranting or other obvious emotion. Therefore, one has to be very careful that what one writes cannot be taken a different way. If there is no other way to express it, then a disclaimer may be in order to make sure your intent is clear.

Most (but certainly not all) of my problem posts have been because I thought I was being funny and someone took it the wrong way. As much as I dislike the emoticons, and relish a good turn of phrase, I've found that sometimes it's necessary to insert one of the little bastards, particularly if I'm in a hurry.

Hopefully, this has been constructive for you.

[Exgineer]

Hell, Chefguy, I'm not a professional author, but I can avoid obvious pitfalls.

I'm an engineer by training, and I managed to avoid mandatory English writing classes in school by passing an entrance exam, which in retrospect may not have been a good thing. Written English is most definitely not my preferred mode of communication, and yet I somehow manage to get by here.

I'm not buying the "lack of clarity" excuse.

[Miller]

Interobang!? is wise. Heed him.

[silenus]

Basically what Miller and Lobsang said. We don't post on the same threads much, and when we do, it is usually just offering up information to someone. But I remember the Verhoven threads. Gotta stand with Miller here. But you have usually been polite and funny to me, and not assholish at all. Take a break for the weekend. Get out and enjoy the rain. Then come back and realize that movies don't matter. We can disagree about a movie and not have to care. :D

[pepperlandgirl]

FWIW, I don't think you're an asshole. You used to annoy me, and then somewhere along the way, I found myself looking forward to your posts. Especially in Cafe Society. You seem to get under a lot of people's skin, and I can understand that, but I always find you well informed and educated on the subject matter your discussing. Further, I understand your frustration, and though you do have a "tin ear" for tone, I don't think you're out of line.

I do agree with those that said you may want to have both threads closed and take a step back for a bit. And that the next time you pit Lib, post links to all the places he acts like an asshole. We like cites here at the SDMB. They won't be hard to find.

[herownself]

One rule of thumb on a mailing list I'm on may serve you well: once you've made a point, don't revisit it more than twice. Make an argument, respond to your critics once or twice, then accept that you've said what you can and let it go. You'll be happier, the fires get a chance to die down, and you've made what positive impact you can without coming across as a jerk. The SDMB may require more than 3 posts, but not really that many more, I don't think, unless there's real dialogue.

You know that I don't think you're an asshole, but I think you need to seriously consider tatooing this on the inside of your eyelids. Seriously. Really seriously, as in not kidding.

[Bryan Ekers]

Like my mama always told me, asshole is as asshole does.

Of course, I never did know what the hell that meant.

Oooh, chocolate....

[Blackclaw]

Anyone that thinks Verhoven is a good director is an asshole.

Well, not really. But as has been noted, you seem to think anyone that disagrees with your point of view on something as trivial as Verhoven is a stupid putz. You are not really interested in listening to anyone with a different opinion than your own. I think this is the first one of your thread's I have posted in for a year or so because quite frankly, there's no point in doing so. You aren't interested.

And Verhoven really does suck.

[CandidGamera]

I think you and I have the same problem.

We're stubborn, we're sarcastic, and we're all-too-often defensive.

None of which affects the relative merits of our posts, but it does lead to ever-escalating conflicts of more and more aggressive tone.

I don't get my dander up about many subjects, so it doesn't happen so often with me.. Michael Moore and Issues of Etiquette are two hot-buttons, and I've had to threaten my fingers with breakage to keep out of the PETA threads.

But you and I did get into it once in one of the aforementioned "pretentious art movie" threads - though ultimately, I think we resolved that nicely.

The problem was, as others have mentioned, your choice of words suggests that you brook no disagreement. Someone who disagrees with you is portrayed as an 'attacker' or as 'lazy' or as having "bad" taste in movies. Even the suggestion that someone else "put more effort" into a movie.. simply because you yourself did so, can be insulting.. perhaps they've already put more effort in. Perhaps they've seen all the elements you have, but find them valueless in their opinion.

While Mulholland Drive has a lot of cinematic elements that can be objectively identified, labelled, catalogued - the result of those elements as a whole, and the meaning behind them - are subject to interpretation. Just as a for-example.

[lissener]

. . . it's annoying to people when someone else doesn't just react to what they say, but tells them what they meant when they said it. . . . Don't put words in their mouth or attitudes in their head. Don't ignore their message by nitpicking the way they choose to express it. . . . This is obviously good advice--like the rest of your post--but FWIW, to simultaneously defend myself and agree wholeheartedly, that's exactly what I feel like when someone says I calling them lazy or stupid: that they're putting words in my mouth and telling me what I mean, rather than what I actually said. My problem is largely, I think, here on this board, one of perception over intention. Not to say that it's not my fault; consensus speaks louder than words. But ninety-nine percent of the time, it seems to me, that people bristle at what they perceive behind my words, rather than the words themselves. Again, my fault, because I usually think I'm clever enough to communicate on more than one level, and often mean to imply something--usually with a humorous intent, cept when I'm really pissed off (and then it's still humorous, ridicule-like)--and hoping that everyone will interpret my "layers" exactly as I intend them too is pretty arrogant on the face of it, unless you're James Joyce or Kate Bush. Anyway, this is meant more as an elucidation and agreement, and not so much as a defense.

Miller, I did become very angry in that Verhoeven thread, which on rereading still seems mercilessly and maliciously hijacked by arrogant nosethumbers--a serious discussion is quite literally impossible on these boards because no matter how civil you are, you WILL be shouted down and hounded closed by Heinlein fans--but my first polite request that the raspberries be, please, saved for a different thread followed such drivebys as "[RikWriter:] Verhoeven is a talentless hack who isn't worth considering, much less reconsidering." My initial responses to you were as considered and measured as your own initial contributions. But when people started trumpeting that they had every right to shout down the debate because it was a public board, and my polite request was dishonestly portrayed as my dictating the content of the thread, rather than a simple friendly appeal--not a demand--well yeah, I lost it. Of the regrettable things I've done on this boards, that's near the top. I still feel emotionally justified, but I did not handle it right.

Which brings me to the whole bristling at my suggesting a little effort thing; Verhoeven naysayers, for example, interpreting that as an accusation of laziness (putting words in my mouth). As I mentioned recently in another thread, all I mean by that is: this film required a lot of effort on my part to reach the understanding, such as it is, that I'm trying to explain. That a concerted effort might be more revealing than a cursory glance. There's nothing at all arrogant, condescending, or accusatory in that. At ALL. It took more work than most films for me; maybe more work on your part would be rewarding. I never suggest that, having seen it once, you SHOULDA GOT IT, and you're stupid if you didn't. NEVER. Again, my fault because the response is not unique to any one person.

Dooku, I thought I had acknowledged that calling Microsofties names if I expected their help was stupid. If not, I apologize. In any case, it never occurred to me that a 'Softie would respond; I was picturing legions of people like me who were equally frustrated and had found workarounds to the problem that was frustrating me. In my work with a Seattle radio station, I have come in contact with many, many 'Softies, and have never had any kind of prejudice toward any particular individual. I'm sure that if I met BillG, I'd have a more personal regard for him than I do now. The frustration I expressed was with the collective monolith known as Microsoft (or, in Seattle, as The Evil Empire). Still, it was inappropriate for GQ. My reaction to Manhattan had its own history: it seemed pretty clear to me that he was singling me out for petty bully type treatment; he's a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be. :p

And come on, I was really proud of this piece of writing. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245732)

[Albert Rose]

And Verhoven really does suck.Really? What don't you like about him?


:D

[Lamar Mundane]

Is this the right room for an argument?

[Blackclaw]

Really? What don't you like about him?


:D


Um.. his use of camera angles!

Seriously, I ain't going down that path again. I think lissener's biggest fault in that thread was in the thread title. By labeling it "Reconsidering Verhoven" it sounded like an open invitation for us Verhoven haters to come into the thread so lissener could try to convince us of the error of our ways. It was also falsely hoped that perhaps lissener would reconsider his own views of the director. A debate was to be expected but apparently that wasn't what lissener wanted. He wanted a Verhoven fan thread not a debate on the merits of the director. These mismatched expectations lead to more animosity than one would expect to find in a film thread. It was this thread that made me decide to steer clear of all lissener threads in the future because I figured he wasn't interested in things posters with dissenting views had to say anyway so why waste his or my time?

Perhaps a clearer understanding of what he wants in his OP could help. He is also guilty, as others have pointed out, of not letting something go. But as I'm grumbling about a fucking ancient thread he started, you're not going to see me give him any grief on that point!

I really don't have a problem with lissener thinking Verhoven is great. He's just wrong.

[Nametag]

I'm someone who has a short temper sometimes and who sometimes posts, quickly, things I come to regret in time. I have a great deal of confidence in my own critical judgment, and will sometimes defend to the death things that really don't need to be defended to the death. And I'm someone whose default tone of communication, in real life, is sardonic and cynical sarcasm; I am too much in the habit of trying to sound clever rather than communicate simply and clearly.Pretty much the definition of an asshole:

1) Sarcasm is DEFINED as "biting irony." You can't be sarcastic without hurting people. Hurting people on purpose is BEING an asshole;

2) Carrying on an argument when everyone else just wants to drop it and agree to disagree is BEING an asshole -- there's not a non-asshole way to do it;

3) Losing your temper one in a while is OK; doing it routinely is BEING an asshole.

You apparently expect people not to mind; you apparently think that if the thought of being an asshole isn't foremost in your mind, if you're not making an extra effort to be especially obnoxious, then you're not being an asshole. WRONG! If you have adopted, as your normal mode of expression, language and manners that annoy, irritate, and even hurt other people, then you're being an asshole, regardless of your intentions. If you do it constantly, then you're not just BEING an asshole, you ARE an asshole. I'm not going to crunch the numbers to find out which you are.

The good news is that you can repair your reputation; you just need to shut up for a while, make some nice, informative, helpful posts, and stay out of GD, IMHO, and the Pit entirely. Then people will just say "Lissener can be a real asshole" (which is an improvement), and then "Lissener used to be kind of an asshole."

Don't let it get you down; I was a REAL asshole when I first got here, and now I think it's nearly a year since I got warned by a Mod. It just takes time. And there are plenty of assholes I like and respect (most of the time). Collounsbury, for example (and look how he ended up :dubious: ).

P.S.
Looking (on preview) at the Verhoeven post, that's part of the problem right there. If you don't see that you are responsible for ALL of the logical corollaries of your statements, you'll just have to take everyone's word for it. When you say "I arrived at this position by making an effort when watching the film," it's hard NOT to take that as "All it takes to agree with me is some effort when looking at the film," which is the same thing as "You don't agree with me because you're lazy." If P, then Q; not-Q, therefore not-P. One may question the definition of lazy as "unwilling to make an effort," but I think it works for most people (and is obviously working for those who found your argument insulting).

[Chefguy]

Hell, Chefguy, I'm not a professional author, but I can avoid obvious pitfalls.

I'm an engineer by training, and I managed to avoid mandatory English writing classes in school by passing an entrance exam, which in retrospect may not have been a good thing. Written English is most definitely not my preferred mode of communication, and yet I somehow manage to get by here.

I'm not buying the "lack of clarity" excuse.


Well, now this is a good example of what I was talking about. Writing is only part of the problem. Reading is the other part. If you read my post carefully (or even casually, in my opinion), you would see that I'm not offering a defense, only advice that may be helpful. I'm not asking you or anyone else to "buy" anything. I was speaking directly to Lissener.

Now I could choose to see your posting as both defensive and argumentative, and engage in a pointless bickering session, but I choose instead to think you misunderstood my intent and aren't trying to pick a fight.

[Mal Adroit]

lissener, my friend! Let me weigh in on the "definitely don't think you're an asshole" side of the survey. You and I got into a fairly unpleasant scrap some time ago. . . about The Birds, I think it was. . .and I'm fairly certain that any snide or condescending behavior on your part wasn't simply answered by my own, but quite possibly prompted by my own. But I think you're close to the answer regarding people's hostile reactions when you speak of what you mean to express and the tone people think they're picking up.
My guess is that 80% of the dogfights you get into here wouldn't remotely occur in a face-to-face exhange, the Internet, sadly, only serving to filter much of the half-joking or (possibly?) "winking" aspect to many of your comments.

For instance, the example someone cited above in the Pretentious Movies thread. I would've taken your what's-wrong-with-you-people type reply as simple ribbing, the kind friends exchange all the time. ("Michael Bay a visionary, what are you, on crack?" That kinda thing.) Obviously, others here. . . didn't pick that up.

I also believe -what, do I have no work to do today?- that your past conflicts make people ready to pounce the moment they detect sarcasm or anything droll creeping into a post of yours: "Right- go ahead jerkweed, post something snide. Whomp, there it is!" So I think other folks, from time to time, could take a breath and measure what they're reading a little more closely, too. This way we can all grow. HAHAHAHA. No, seriously. :dubious:

[Morbo]

Dooku, I thought I had acknowledged that calling Microsofties names if I expected their help was stupid. If not, I apologize. In any case, it never occurred to me that a 'Softie would respond; I was picturing legions of people like me who were equally frustrated and had found workarounds to the problem that was frustrating me. In my work with a Seattle radio station, I have come in contact with many, many 'Softies, and have never had any kind of prejudice toward any particular individual. I'm sure that if I met BillG, I'd have a more personal regard for him than I do now. The frustration I expressed was with the collective monolith known as Microsoft (or, in Seattle, as The Evil Empire). Still, it was inappropriate for GQ. My reaction to Manhattan had its own history: it seemed pretty clear to me that he was singling me out for petty bully type treatment; he's a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be.

Apology accepted and understood, and good on you. I hope most Dopers agree with me that as long as we can recognize when we have misspoken and can take responsibility for our occasional misdeeds, all can be forgiven.

I certainly have with you, and look forward to seeing you around Cafe Society.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Because when you're confronted with strong evidence that you're factually wrong in an argument, you turn around and accuse your opponents of being morally equivalent to racists and antisemites (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5051183). I didn't have much of an opinion about you before this thread, but Jesus Christ, that's some assholery right there.

Daniel

[Sisyphus' Stone]

I wonder if starting a vanity thread with a question in the negative qualifies as assholery in and of itself? Maybe a topic for debate at some future juncture when protocols for posting plainly posit posturing poseurs (is the plosive repetition overdone, ya think?).

[Miller]

Miller, I did become very angry in that Verhoeven thread, which on rereading still seems mercilessly and maliciously hijacked by arrogant nosethumbers--a serious discussion is quite literally impossible on these boards because no matter how civil you are, you WILL be shouted down and hounded closed by Heinlein fans-

But that is so not what was happening in that thread! You had a polite discussion going! It wasn't until you got upset about people bringing up Heinlein and demanding that people not post that it went to pieces. Instead of (and I apologize for the insulting term, but I think it's apt) pouting about people comparing the movie to the book, you could have just explained why you don't think it's a valid criticism. Or you could have just ignored them! There were plenty of people in the thread who were criticizing the movie on it's own merits, you could have simply addressed all your posts to them.

-but my first polite request that the raspberries be, please, saved for a different thread followed such drivebys as "[RikWriter:] Verhoeven is a talentless hack who isn't worth considering, much less reconsidering." My initial responses to you were as considered and measured as your own initial contributions.

There were precisely two such driveby's: RikWriter's and Diane's. That's out of a total of seventy-eight posts. That's hardly being "shouted down." Hell, I wish I'd had that sort of ratio of content-to-drive-by when Lost in Translation was the film du jour. And, Jesus, it's not even like they were posted by anyone worth noticing in the first place. 99% of RikWriter's posts are drive-bys like that. The man hasn't yet made a worthwhile post in Cafe Society. Just ignore him: he's not worth the blood pressure. Or, if you can't, Pit him. I might even help. But lashing out like that at people who have been participating in good faith because you've been annoyed by one or two assholes is, itself, assholish.

But when people started trumpeting that they had every right to shout down the debate because it was a public board, and my polite request was dishonestly portrayed as my dictating the content of the thread, rather than a simple friendly appeal--not a demand--well yeah, I lost it. Of the regrettable things I've done on this boards, that's near the top. I still feel emotionally justified, but I did not handle it right.

Even keeping in mind your stated intent, going back and looking at those posts, I can't interpret them as either friendly or polite. I'm not honestly sure that it would be possible to phrase a request like that in a way that was not rude: the request itself is pretty insulting.

Which brings me to the whole bristling at my suggesting a little effort thing; Verhoeven naysayers, for example, interpreting that as an accusation of laziness (putting words in my mouth). As I mentioned recently in another thread, all I mean by that is: this film required a lot of effort on my part to reach the understanding, such as it is, that I'm trying to explain. That a concerted effort might be more revealing than a cursory glance. There's nothing at all arrogant, condescending, or accusatory in that. At ALL. It took more work than most films for me; maybe more work on your part would be rewarding. I never suggest that, having seen it once, you SHOULDA GOT IT, and you're stupid if you didn't. NEVER. Again, my fault because the response is not unique to any one person.

It's not that this is necessarily wrong, it's just not really the sort of thing you should say in a polite debate. If someone is taking the time to debate you, I think the proper courtesy is to assume that they've put as much effort into the film as you have. Even if you're 100% certain they haven't, you shouldn't come out and say so unless you're looking to be antagonistic, becuase there's really not any other way to take a comment like that. No matter how politely worded and well-intentioned, it's still very patronizing.

[1010011010]

I usually don't pay any attention to who writes what beyond the extent that I'm repling to them or I'm actively engaged in a back and forth with them. Once the conversation ends, they drift back into the crowd. It's very rare that someone catches my notice often enough that I will develop any opinion about them, good or bad.

I have no opinion about Liberal.

On the other boards I've regularly visited or moderated, lissner would be banned for stalking and harrassment.

[lissener]

Because when you're confronted with strong evidence that you're factually wrong in an argument, you turn around and accuse your opponents of being morally equivalent to racists and antisemites (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5051183). I didn't have much of an opinion about you before this thread, but Jesus Christ, that's some assholery right there.

Daniel
I didn't make a moral parallel; I tried to show how the "scientific" parallel would be unacceptable in a different context.

[lissener]

But that is so not what was happening in that thread! You had a polite discussion going! It wasn't until you got upset about people bringing up Heinlein and demanding that people not post that it went to pieces. Instead of (and I apologize for the insulting term, but I think it's apt) pouting about people comparing the movie to the book, you could have just explained why you don't think it's a valid criticism. Or you could have just ignored them! There were plenty of people in the thread who were criticizing the movie on it's own merits, you could have simply addressed all your posts to them.The title "Verhoeven Reconsidered" was intended to communicate this: "Verhoeven is universally reviled. Let's reconsider him without that prejudice, and give him the benefit of the doubt, as a thought experiment, and see if we can find something positive in his films. I'll start, because after a lot of effort, I feel like I've dug out some nuggets." TOTALLY unclear, I agree, which is why I tried to clarify during the thread, that I KNOW the consensus is negative. Let's take that as a given--we've certainly all heard it before--and examine these new interpretations." As I continued to try to lay those out, I felt like I was constantly being distracted by having to rehash old arguments about why he's such a hack. I felt like I was being dragged underwater by tiny nipping fish while I was trying to signal a passing freighter for help. Again, I should have just ignored the people who weren't having any of the conversation I was trying to have, but I thought that THAT would lead to charges of elitism.
It's not that this is necessarily wrong, it's just not really the sort of thing you should say in a polite debate. If someone is taking the time to debate you, I think the proper courtesy is to assume that they've put as much effort into the film as you have. Even if you're 100% certain they haven't, you shouldn't come out and say so unless you're looking to be antagonistic, becuase there's really not any other way to take a comment like that. No matter how politely worded and well-intentioned, it's still very patronizing.This utterly, utterly baffles me. I will write it on a postit and hot glue it to my monitor, but every time I remember to use this rule, I will feel like I'm being patronizing and treating you like a child, by being so, so careful only to say things you'll feel stroked to hear.

[Orual]

This utterly, utterly baffles me. I will write it on a postit and hot glue it to my monitor, but every time I remember to use this rule, I will feel like I'm being patronizing and treating you like a child, by being so, so careful only to say things you'll feel stroked to hear.

THIS!!!! Read this over again, and if you can honestly not see how utterly condescending that sounds, then I think that there's just not much hope for you.

That said, there are plenty of people on this board who act like anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, you're hardly the worst offender.

[Miller]

The title "Verhoeven Reconsidered" was intended to communicate this: "Verhoeven is universally reviled. Let's reconsider him without that prejudice, and give him the benefit of the doubt, as a thought experiment, and see if we can find something positive in his films. I'll start, because after a lot of effort, I feel like I've dug out some nuggets." TOTALLY unclear, I agree, which is why I tried to clarify during the thread, that I KNOW the consensus is negative. Let's take that as a given--we've certainly all heard it before--and examine these new interpretations." As I continued to try to lay those out, I felt like I was constantly being distracted by having to rehash old arguments about why he's such a hack. I felt like I was being dragged underwater by tiny nipping fish while I was trying to signal a passing freighter for help. Again, I should have just ignored the people who weren't having any of the conversation I was trying to have, but I thought that THAT would lead to charges of elitism.

I appreciate the intent, but I don't think it's possible to have so narrowly focused a debate on these boards. The SDMB is too general purpose for such specialized debates to exsist in a totally air-tight enviroment. There are two principles here that make this impossible. The first is that a multiplicity of viewpoints is always a good thing. This is why the OP isn't allowed to dictate who gets to post to the thread. The second is that debates should be allowed to grow organically, even if this eventually leads to something far removed from the OP. This is why hijacking a thread isn't against board rules. It can be kind of annoying when it happens while you're still interested in the original subject, but shit happens. It's part of the culture of the boards. If you don't like it, start your own board. (But don't stop posting here if you do. And send me the url of the new board; I promise I'll behave.)

This utterly, utterly baffles me. I will write it on a postit and hot glue it to my monitor, but every time I remember to use this rule, I will feel like I'm being patronizing and treating you like a child, by being so, so careful only to say things you'll feel stroked to hear.

I think Orual's right. This might be exactly where you're having problems. I'm not asking you to be patronizing, I'm asking you to be respectful. Your comment about needing to spend more time studying the film is disrespectful because it's a personal criticism. It's mild, it's even contructive, but above all, it's uninvited, and that's what really gets people's backs up. A grosser example would be criticizing the diet of an overweight co-worker. Your advice might be correct, and it might be well intentioned, but it's inappropriate to offer it without being asked first. Now, obviously, telling someone to watch Starship Troopers again isn't nearly as bad, but it still crosses the same line, even if it's by an inch and not a mile. Now, some people can get away with it: Cervaise said almost the same thing in your Verhoeven thread, but he's a very talented writer, and (unfair as it may be) a pretty popular poster. With your reputation, and with your problems in communicating tone, you should probably stay away from making any sort of personal comments at all, unless it's unambiguously a compliment or insult.

And maybe not so many of the latter, while you're at it.

[lissener]

THIS!!!! Read this over again, and if you can honestly not see how utterly condescending that sounds, then I think that there's just not much hope for you.My point is: to ME that feels more patronising. To let a statement like "It's crap!" stand because if I follow up with an inquiry about the efforts that led to that conclusion, might cause them to feel insulted, seems very, very patronizing to me.

[Guinastasia]

lissener, if you're not going to take our advice, when we tell you WHY you have been perceived as an asshole in the past, why even fucking BOTHER?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I didn't make a moral parallel; I tried to show how the "scientific" parallel would be unacceptable in a different context.

Hey, you asked; not my fault you don't like the answer. It was obscenely offensive, and you knew it when you typed it. Pretending otherwise puts you in the same boat as bodswood.

Daniel

[jackelope]

lissener, if you're not going to take our advice, when we tell you WHY you have been perceived as an asshole in the past, why even fucking BOTHER?Word.

A lot of people are putting a lot of thought into their posts here, lissener; they're trying to be helpful because in the OP, you seemed to be sincerely asking for input. But now, instead of listening to them, you're getting defensive and trying to justify yourself.

There's nothing wrong with opening a thread called "Please tell me why you think I'm an asshole," as long as you really mean it. Please take the advice here in the spirit in which it's being presented; folks really are trying to help.

Personally, I didn't think you were an asshole before opening this thread; I recognize your username, and I think you recommended that Don McKellar film Last Night (which was a sweet little piece of chamber music) to me, but beyond that I wasn't sure who this "lissener" person was.

Until someone brought up the Verhoeven thread.

[Odesio]

This utterly, utterly baffles me. I will write it on a postit and hot glue it to my monitor, but every time I remember to use this rule, I will feel like I'm being patronizing and treating you like a child, by being so, so careful only to say things you'll feel stroked to hear.

Gee, I wonder why so many people think you're an asshole? :smack:


Marc

[Odesio]

My point is: to ME that feels more patronising. To let a statement like "It's crap!" stand because if I follow up with an inquiry about the efforts that led to that conclusion, might cause them to feel insulted, seems very, very patronizing to me.

Try asking "why specifically did you think it was crap?" instead of telling someone they should study the film more.

Marc

[Odesio]

There's a pretty obnoxious fella in the role playing club I used to belong to. He would swear, make rude noises, and never had a nice thing to say about anything. His obnoxious behavior alienates other members of the club to the point where many of them don't wish to participate in any game he's involved with. When he asks why some people don't like him we make it clear to him why. He knows exactly why people don't like him but he makes excuses about not being able to change. In reality he just doesn't care to change.

Lissener, I suspect you know why people think you're an asshole. If you really want to change you'll change. Otherwise I expect it'll be business as usual.

Marc

[RickJay]

lissener, if I can offer a word of advice.

As you go through life, you may find it useful to ask people for honest advice or feedback about you. You have done so with the OP of this thread. If someone offers you such feedback,

SHUT THE HELL UP!

The only appropriate response to someone explaining why they are dissatisfied with your behaviour is "Thank you for your response. I will consider what you have said." The instant you start to even partially negate someone's feedback, most people will assume you were never interested in hearing it anbd simply want to argue your side again.

Don't justify, dodge, rationalize and argue. Smile, thank the person, and walk away. If you follow my advice you will benefit. Trust me.

[Lute Skywatcher]

The only appropriate response to someone explaining why they are dissatisfied with your behaviour is "Thank you for your response. I will consider what you have said." The instant you start to even partially negate someone's feedback, most people will assume you were never interested in hearing it anbd simply want to argue your side again.

Don't justify, dodge, rationalize and argue. Smile, thank the person, and walk away. If you follow my advice you will benefit. Trust me.This would work in other discussions as well. The one in the thread linked in the top of the page, for example.

[yosemite]

This would work in other discussions as well. The one in the thread linked in the top of the page, for example.
Hell, this works for everything.

When I was a fledgling artist, I asked an older, more experienced friend to give me critiques on my artwork. When she pointed out some flaw in my work, I always had an excuse. Usually I would start out with, "Well, I meant it to look like this . . . " Or, "Well, I was trying to do this . . . "

That may have all been true, but it didn't change the fact that I very likely hadn't succeeded in doing what I "meant" to do or what I was "trying" to do. No one really gives a shit if you "tried" to do something, if you failed at it and the end result sucks or is giving everyone the wrong impression. My friend told me that, straight out, and gave me this simple bit of advice: "Never explain with, 'Well, I meant to do this.'" Sure, sometimes that rule needs to be broken and it doesn't apply to every situation, but honestly—it applies to more situations than we care to admit. Including, I believe, this one.

And even if your critic is way off base, the best thing to do (if you solicited their advice) is to thank them and then privately disregard their advice. But frankly, I believe that all of us are more apt to believe that most of our critics are off base, when in fact, few are. The human ego is an amazing thing. We just don't want to accept it. But as we mature, we usually learn to suck it up and take it. Especially if we solicit the advice. And particularly if the advice given is given with some measure of clarity, which, I believe, is the case here.

[jackelope]

Well said, yosemite. One point of yours I'd expand a bit:But frankly, I believe that all of us are more apt to believe that most of our critics are off base, when in fact, few are. The human ego is an amazing thing.I think you're about half right. Half of the world (myself included) tends to dismiss critics with a "you just don't understand"; the other half instinctively believes that any criticism they receive is deserved and then some.

Neither of these, obviously, is terribly helpful. I try to take a balanced approach to criticsm, but damn, that's hard to do.

[Jodi]

Just a couple comments:

1. You appear from your OP to have a very good grasp on why people might think you're an asshole. I'm not 100% sure why, being that self-aware, you'd want specific examples of when you've been an asshole, but apparently you do.

2. Having elicited those examples and opinions, you then appear not to ponder them so much as to attempt to refute them. IOW, you appear to not really be trying to learn why people might think you're an asshole, so much as trying to prove that you're not really an asshole. Perfectly natural, of course, but, as others have already said, when you solicit feedback, your response should be something like "thank you," not something like "you're wrong!" This is true even if the feedback is IYO 100% pure unadulterated crap, because, crap or not, you literally asked for it. Ideally, the good advice you take and the bad advice you dismiss, but you don't argue with any of it, because you requested it.

I don't understand why anybody would ask "why do you think I'm an asshole"? on a messageboard. Masochism, I guess. I'd poke my eye out before doing that. Why? Because some people might actually answer, god forbid. But having embarked on what must have seemed to you to be a worthwhile exercise, I think you need to accept and digest whatever you're given, without argument. Like I said, if you think it's crap, ignore it, but don't argue with it.

In short, I guess I don't understand why, having perceptively spotted your own posting failings, you don't just try to NOT do those things. That seems to me to be a lot easier and more productive than this exercise in flagellation. FWIW.

[lissener]

Further miscommunication:

Of course I'm pondering all the responses, and taking all the constructive advice into careful and deep consideration.

At the same time, almost all of the examples given have been due to initial communication on my part. I was merely taking this opportunity, when people bring up things that have offended them in the past, to try clarify where I was coming from, since I failed to make that clear in the first place. I don't mean it to be defensive; I mean it to be an apology with footnotes.

[lissener]

Further miscommunication:

Of course I'm pondering all the responses, and taking all the constructive advice into careful and deep consideration.

At the same time, almost all of the examples given have been due to initial communication on my part. I was merely taking this opportunity, when people bring up things that have offended them in the past, to try clarify where I was coming from, since I failed to make that clear in the first place. I don't mean it to be defensive; I mean it to be an apology with footnotes.

There have been a couple of examples where I've felt strongly enough about the vast gap between what I meant and what was communicated (comparing dog breeding to human eugenics, a parallel I feel very strongly about) that I may have come off as very defensive indeed. Nonetheless I've striven to be entirely honest in this thread, and all my reactions are as close as I'm able to come to explaining exactly "where I'm at."

Thanks again for the constructive input.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Thanks again for the constructive input.[Rex Harrison]By George, I think he's got it![/RH]

Now let's see if he can keep it. :)

[lissener]

A further clarification I feel is missing:

Though, in my defensiveness, I was focusing on where people were "incorrect" about my intended communication, I do understand that it's my responsibility to own the end result of that communication, and not just to cling to my intentions and ignore those results. So while I'm clarifying/defending, I'm also absorbing all of these opinions as to how my communications have been received, mistakenly or not, and processing what I've learned about how people understand what I try to say, so I can try to own that part of this give and take process as well.

[Liberal]

Do you believe that your and my relationship is repairable?

[lissener]

Do you believe that your and my relationship is repairable?
As things stand? No. I can only say that in situations where I feel that MY changing can make a difference; not if the party needs to change too, since I have no control over that. I can accept my responsibility in the state of our relationship, but not yours. And frankly you seem just to unstable and mean to give a shit.

[Liberal]

I can see why you would think that. I'm not sure what I can do about the appearance of instability, but I'll at least try to do something about the appearance of meanness. Thanks for giving me a thoughtful reply.