Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:29 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Many of these moderators have been doing this job for a long time
...you seem to think that's a feature. It isn't, it's a bug.
  #52  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:01 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
5. The ignore function is there for a reason. If you truly think another poster is only here to troll, by all means use it. It'll make your life less stressful.
The ignore function is not supposed to be a enabler for trolls and jerks. According to the rules, they are to be warned and then banned if they keep it up. Nothing in the rules says that the rest of us have to put trolls on ignore and let them keep trolling. That's contrary to every pronouncement the mods and admins have made for the 20-year life of the Board.

I'm stunned to read a mod saying this.
  #53  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:04 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The ignore function is not supposed to be a enabler for trolls and jerks. According to the rules, they are to be warned and then banned if they keep it up. Nothing in the rules says that the rest of us have to put trolls on ignore and let them keep trolling. That's contrary to every pronouncement the mods and admins have made for the 20-year life of the Board.

I'm stunned to read a mod saying this.
Agree. +1. Thumbs up. etc.
  #54  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:14 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
No, you know who's empowering them? The mod who's too lazy to do his damn job and actually admonish the people who are getting out of line, and instead threatens a blanket punishment for everyone, including the people who are following the rules and are just trying to have a civilized discussion.
Agreed. And it's especially egregious when it's very likely that the entire purpose of the hijacks and the goading and the poor behaviour is to get everyone to stop talking about the topic.

So the moderation threat simply accomplishes what the rule-breaker is trying to do.

How do you think this is going to work in future when the poor behaviour has just been rewarded with exactly what the rule breaker wants?

Woooo hoooo! Open season on derailing threads that you don't like!
  #55  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:32 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
No, I absolutely meant it. I reserve the right to close threads and to declare a 'no fly' list for a day or so. Done it before and may do it again.
That's certainly a choice.

Last edited by Inner Stickler; 10-18-2019 at 11:32 AM.
  #56  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:33 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,820
I wonder if it'd be helpful to examine a particular (in my mind, a particularly egregious) example of the sort of distorted argumentation that does not appear to be in good faith, and that can upend an otherwise reasonable discussion.

One poster, in an attempt to claim that the whistleblower's report was partisan, provides this quote:
Quote:
"... the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate..."
There's no link and no attribution, so it's not easy to figure out what the context is.

Well, I guess it's easy if you Google the words, in which case you'll find the full quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intelligence Community's Inspector General
Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
To my eyes at least, this quoting is fundamentally and deliberately dishonest. The phrase out of context has a meaning that's almost diametrically opposite of the full sentence.

Yes, an argument like this can be subjected to criticism. But when a poster repeatedly engages in this sort of behavior, I'm not sure it's fair to sanction the people who get frustrated with them more than you sanction the person engaging in the initial behavior.

If you think this behavior isn't dishonest, sure, we should talk about that. But if you agree that it's dishonest, I'm not clear why it should be allowed.
  #57  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:50 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I wonder if it'd be helpful to examine a particular (in my mind, a particularly egregious) example of the sort of distorted argumentation that does not appear to be in good faith, and that can upend an otherwise reasonable discussion.

One poster, in an attempt to claim that the whistleblower's report was partisan, provides this quote:

There's no link and no attribution, so it's not easy to figure out what the context is.

Well, I guess it's easy if you Google the words, in which case you'll find the full quote:

To my eyes at least, this quoting is fundamentally and deliberately dishonest. The phrase out of context has a meaning that's almost diametrically opposite of the full sentence.

Yes, an argument like this can be subjected to criticism. But when a poster repeatedly engages in this sort of behavior, I'm not sure it's fair to sanction the people who get frustrated with them more than you sanction the person engaging in the initial behavior.

If you think this behavior isn't dishonest, sure, we should talk about that. But if you agree that it's dishonest, I'm not clear why it should be allowed.
I saw this report and did not think it merited moderation. It did get reported by multiple people and I read through the sequence multiple times to make sure I felt comfortable with my evaluation. To elaborate a bit on the reasoning for lack of action, here was how I saw the sequence of events:
  1. Assertion that Inspector General's actions were not partisan
  2. Rebuttal with partial quote stating that there was some indicia of arguable political bias, i.e. partisanship
  3. Posting of full quote that provided context that the ICIG's determination was not changed by the above mentioned indicia of arguable political bias

The way I interpreted it was that the original assertion did not hinge on whether the existence of bias impacted the ICIG's assessment. The original assertion was whether any such partisanship existed at all. The snipped quote identified that there may have been some indicia of arguable political bias, i.e. partisanship. So while the full quote that you provided offered more context and allows the reader to make their own assessment on the merits and relevance, when we're talking in the context of rule violation I didn't think it crossed the line into bad faith. The response I viewed as pedantic and not much value add for sure, but not necessarily a violation.
  #58  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:57 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
5. The ignore function is there for a reason. If you truly think another poster is only here to troll, by all means use it. It'll make your life less stressful.
My "ignore" function seems to have a slight malfunction. While I am blocked from seeing the blockee's initial post, that post is still seen by me when it is quoted by others, and when that post is quoted or responded to by others the thread remains hijacked.
  #59  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:12 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
My "ignore" function seems to have a slight malfunction. While I am blocked from seeing the blockee's initial post, that post is still seen by me when it is quoted by others, and when that post is quoted or responded to by others the thread remains hijacked.

True but it does help. The one person I had on ignore has since left but it was easy for me to basically skip any reply he got quoted in as "so much further nonsense". It isn't a total ignore but more like a hammer to help wack those moles.
  #60  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:13 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
How do you think this is going to work in future when the poor behaviour has just been rewarded with exactly what the rule breaker wants?
Welcome to the Terrkrahoma School of Debate.
  #61  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:23 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,787
I want to address the term “sealioning” and whether it is “real” or “manufactured”. As was pointed out earlier, the term came from a meme derived from a comic strip, the strip in question can be seen here:
Wondermark by David Malki

The context of that comic was that it was created in the midst of the “GamerGate” controversy in 2014. Without getting into too many details as to what GamerGate involved (Google it if you are curious and unfamiliar), a tactic that was alleged in online debates on the topic was a form of harassment that involved frequent and unceasingly repeated demands from one person to another to provide evidence and answer questions. In the midst of this the harasser declares repeatedly that they are only trying to make sure the facts are clarified and when the target inevitably becomes hostile, the harasser claims that they have been polite and accuse the victim of rudeness.

The term “sealioning” was borrowed from that strip, as the behavior displayed by the sealion in the comic was identical to what was being observed in those online discussions. So it has been a term popularized over the past five years, and while clearly a neologism it seems to be an accepted part of internet slang.

When questioning the legitimacy of the term, recall that the term “spam” was a reference to a Monty Python sketch where the word “spam” was repeated over and over in a British diner. It too was a meme that came about as a way to describe observed online behavior. Even “trolling” is itself originally an online meme, though one of a less-certain etymology. These terms which were as “manufactured” as sealioning have become accepted enough to appear in reputable English dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc.).
  #62  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
No, I absolutely meant it. I reserve the right to close threads and to declare a 'no fly' list for a day or so. Done it before and may do it again.

It's not something I bring up lightly. It mostly comes when I receive multiple reports on a thread from both sides, look at things and realize the thread has broken down in such a way that neither side is listening to each other.
....
Altho the issue is important, I dropped out of the thread because of exactly what JC is saying. Of course, several people would take me dropping out if a plus, no doubt.
  #63  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:47 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
We certainly have our share of "armchair quarterbacks"
I thought that was one of the major purposes of this subforum: to offer opinions about the moderation whilst not actually being a moderator.

I do appreciate that the moderators know more about these things than I do, and will keep an open mind when they do or do not explain their actions. I also recognize that moderation does affect me, either directly or indirectly, so I do not feel ashamed for having an opinion.

~Max
  #64  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I saw this report and did not think it merited moderation. It did get reported by multiple people and I read through the sequence multiple times to make sure I felt comfortable with my evaluation. To elaborate a bit on the reasoning for lack of action, here was how I saw the sequence of events:
  1. Assertion that Inspector General's actions were not partisan
  2. Rebuttal with partial quote stating that there was some indicia of arguable political bias, i.e. partisanship
  3. Posting of full quote that provided context that the ICIG's determination was not changed by the above mentioned indicia of arguable political bias

The way I interpreted it was that the original assertion did not hinge on whether the existence of bias impacted the ICIG's assessment. The original assertion was whether any such partisanship existed at all. The snipped quote identified that there may have been some indicia of arguable political bias, i.e. partisanship. So while the full quote that you provided offered more context and allows the reader to make their own assessment on the merits and relevance, when we're talking in the context of rule violation I didn't think it crossed the line into bad faith. The response I viewed as pedantic and not much value add for sure, but not necessarily a violation.
I appreciate this response. It certainly seems bad faith to me, but I can see how you're interpreting it, and won't report anything that falls beneath this measure.

Given that, I'm not sure I see much moderatable sea-lioning in that thread. I still think the whole-group punishment is a very unwise idea, and the threat was unnecessary and overly aggressive, but will drop the sea-lioning complaint.
  #65  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:50 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
My "ignore" function seems to have a slight malfunction. While I am blocked from seeing the blockee's initial post, that post is still seen by me when it is quoted by others, and when that post is quoted or responded to by others the thread remains hijacked.
That's not a problem with the Ignore function. It is an issue with your scroll wheel.

I know that heterodox thought causes a disturbance in the Force. Calm you must be.

Ignore, or don't ignore - there is no Try.

Regards,
Obi-wan Shodan
  #66  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:10 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,233
I'm going to weigh in here with my humble opinion, FWIW. In short, I respectfully disagree with the moderation on this, but I'd like to explain why.

I sometimes get the impression that it isn't adequately recognized that the only value this board has -- the ONLY value -- comes from the contributions made by a sizeable minority of active posters who provide thoughtful commentary and information. From that standpoint, it seems to me that it's counterproductive to threaten the entire community with officious school-marmish dictates like "I'm going to shut down this whole thread if you don't behave" as if dealing with a roomful of unruly first-graders. After all, the only expectations we have of first-graders is for them to shut up and be nice and maybe try to learn something. But these posters are mostly intelligent adults, and they're not just an important part of the board, they ARE the board, and their opinions its lifeblood and currency. The thread that might be unceremoniously shut down may be one in which they've invested a lot of time and intellectual energy. Such moderator dictates seem to imply a complete disregard for that investment or its fundamental value to the board. We deserve better than that, in my view.

The second thing I believe one should glean from the value of the community contributors is that whenever possible it's more important to address the disrupters who are the root cause of problems than it is to sanction the posters who react to them. It's pretty easy to moderate against users who may be superficially rude or use bad words, but a lot harder to address those who contrive to act within the letter of the rules yet are the underlying root cause of many of the disruptions, whether it's sealioning, simple trolling, or any other kind of bad-faith posting by those who apparently don't care about having a serious discussion.

I realize this is very hard to do while maintaining fairness to everyone. But I find it discouraging when it's seemingly not even attempted, and what we get instead is a kind of hair-trigger over-reaction that threatens to sweep away the entirety of a valuable discussion simply as an easy way to deal with the bickering of a few.
  #67  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:30 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm going to weigh in here with my humble opinion, FWIW. In short, I respectfully disagree with the moderation on this, but I'd like to explain why.

I sometimes get the impression that it isn't adequately recognized that the only value this board has -- the ONLY value -- comes from the contributions made by a sizeable minority of active posters who provide thoughtful commentary and information. From that standpoint, it seems to me that it's counterproductive to threaten the entire community with officious school-marmish dictates like "I'm going to shut down this whole thread if you don't behave" as if dealing with a roomful of unruly first-graders. After all, the only expectations we have of first-graders is for them to shut up and be nice and maybe try to learn something. But these posters are mostly intelligent adults, and they're not just an important part of the board, they ARE the board, and their opinions its lifeblood and currency. The thread that might be unceremoniously shut down may be one in which they've invested a lot of time and intellectual energy. Such moderator dictates seem to imply a complete disregard for that investment or its fundamental value to the board. We deserve better than that, in my view.

The second thing I believe one should glean from the value of the community contributors is that whenever possible it's more important to address the disrupters who are the root cause of problems than it is to sanction the posters who react to them. It's pretty easy to moderate against users who may be superficially rude or use bad words, but a lot harder to address those who contrive to act within the letter of the rules yet are the underlying root cause of many of the disruptions, whether it's sealioning, simple trolling, or any other kind of bad-faith posting by those who apparently don't care about having a serious discussion.

I realize this is very hard to do while maintaining fairness to everyone. But I find it discouraging when it's seemingly not even attempted, and what we get instead is a kind of hair-trigger over-reaction that threatens to sweep away the entirety of a valuable discussion simply as an easy way to deal with the bickering of a few.
Hear, hear!
  #68  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:07 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,864
Well said, wolfpup.

Mods, heed and act.

Last edited by Exapno Mapcase; 10-18-2019 at 08:08 PM.
  #69  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's not a problem with the Ignore function. It is an issue with your scroll wheel.

I know that heterodox thought causes a disturbance in the Force. Calm you must be.

Ignore, or don't ignore - there is no Try.

Regards,
Obi-wan Shodan
Hold on, you're not saying that I can just scroll past things I don't want to read, are you?

Last edited by manson1972; 10-18-2019 at 09:00 PM.
  #70  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:46 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm going to weigh in here with my humble opinion, FWIW. In short, I respectfully disagree with the moderation on this, but I'd like to explain why.

I sometimes get the impression that it isn't adequately recognized that the only value this board has -- the ONLY value -- comes from the contributions made by a sizeable minority of active posters who provide thoughtful commentary and information. From that standpoint, it seems to me that it's counterproductive to threaten the entire community with officious school-marmish dictates like "I'm going to shut down this whole thread if you don't behave" as if dealing with a roomful of unruly first-graders. After all, the only expectations we have of first-graders is for them to shut up and be nice and maybe try to learn something. But these posters are mostly intelligent adults, and they're not just an important part of the board, they ARE the board, and their opinions its lifeblood and currency. The thread that might be unceremoniously shut down may be one in which they've invested a lot of time and intellectual energy. Such moderator dictates seem to imply a complete disregard for that investment or its fundamental value to the board. We deserve better than that, in my view.

The second thing I believe one should glean from the value of the community contributors is that whenever possible it's more important to address the disrupters who are the root cause of problems than it is to sanction the posters who react to them. It's pretty easy to moderate against users who may be superficially rude or use bad words, but a lot harder to address those who contrive to act within the letter of the rules yet are the underlying root cause of many of the disruptions, whether it's sealioning, simple trolling, or any other kind of bad-faith posting by those who apparently don't care about having a serious discussion.

I realize this is very hard to do while maintaining fairness to everyone. But I find it discouraging when it's seemingly not even attempted, and what we get instead is a kind of hair-trigger over-reaction that threatens to sweep away the entirety of a valuable discussion simply as an easy way to deal with the bickering of a few.
Testify!

And saying "just Pit those who you disagree with" doesn't work with many of our Usual Suspects, as they refuse to engage there - thus escaping the only sanction the board members can exact against them. Not coincidentally, I assume.
  #71  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:50 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Testify!

And saying "just Pit those who you disagree with" doesn't work with many of our Usual Suspects, as they refuse to engage there - thus escaping the only sanction the board members can exact against them. Not coincidentally, I assume.
Why must you sanction those you disagree with? What’s the point of using social coercion for apparent uniformity of thought?
  #72  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:56 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Why must you sanction those you disagree with? What’s the point of using social coercion for apparent uniformity of thought?
A fair point, and I should withdraw that, and say instead "sanction those who argue only in bad faith". That's really what I meant, but I phrased it wrong. Mea culpa.
  #73  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:13 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
A fair point, and I should withdraw that, and say instead "sanction those who argue only in bad faith". That's really what I meant, but I phrased it wrong. Mea culpa.
How do you determine if someone is "arguing in bad faith"?
  #74  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post

And saying "just Pit those who you disagree with" doesn't work with many of our Usual Suspects, as they refuse to engage there - thus escaping the only sanction the board members can exact against them. Not coincidentally, I assume.
Hardly a sanction.
  #75  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:33 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
And saying "just Pit those who you disagree with" doesn't work with many of our Usual Suspects, as they refuse to engage there - thus escaping the only sanction the board members can exact against them
I just don't agree with this concept. You shouldn't have the expectation of sanctioning anyone. That's the administration's job, not yours.

Someone acting like a dipshit? Go to the Pit and call them out as a dipshit. Vent, rant, garner sympathy( or not ). That's what the Pit is for. But no one owes you or should owe you their participation in their own roasting. I would frankly suggest that participating in a thread where you are being pitted is probably counter-productive much of the time and I'd generally recommend people not bother.

In fact I think I've made that exact suggestion in the past to people having sociability issues here on the board. Whining that no one loves you? Well, step number one is to stop digging a deeper hole in whatever Pit thread you're wallowing in. Sit silent, take your most likely deserved lumps and move on. That would be pretty shitty advice if there was a cultural expectation that you had to respond to your pittings . IMHO such an expectation didn't used to exist here and it shouldn't now.

Frustrated the target of your ire won't come by and get called shitty to their face? Tough luck. Vent and move on.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 10-18-2019 at 11:36 PM.
  #76  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:39 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
I just don't agree with this concept. You shouldn't have the expectation of sanctioning anyone. That's the administration's job, not yours.

Someone acting like a dipshit? Go to the Pit and call them out as a dipshit. Vent, rant, garner sympathy( or not ). That's what the Pit is for. But no one owes you or should owe you their participation in their own roasting. I would frankly suggest that participating in a thread where you are being pitted is probably counter-productive much of the time and I'd generally recommend people not bother.

In fact I think I've made that exact suggestion in the past to people having sociability issues here on the board. Whining that no one loves you? Well, step number one is to stop digging a deeper hole in whatever Pit thread you're wallowing in. Sit silent, take your most likely deserved lumps and move on. That would be pretty shitty advice if there was a cultural expectation that you had to respond to your pittings . IMHO such an expectation didn't used to exist here and it shouldn't now.

Frustrated the target of your ire won't come by and get called shitty to their face? Tough luck. Vent and move on.
Good advice, I suppose.

Heh. Remembering what my dear old Auntie once told me - paraphrased:
"If you're sure you're right, but a lot of people tell you you're wrong, you should maybe rethink your position."
  #77  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:43 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Heh. Remembering what my dear old Auntie once told me - paraphrased:
"If you're sure you're right, but a lot of people tell you you're wrong, you should maybe rethink your position."
Eh, you should be more stubborn and Pit me for being disagreeable .

I do sympathize with the frustration, really. I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 10-18-2019 at 11:43 PM.
  #78  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:52 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Eh, you should be more stubborn and Pit me for being disagreeable .

I do sympathize with the frustration, really. I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation.
...and it's just a message board. The "winner" doesn't gain Ultimate Power, the "loser" doesn't get condemned to an eternity on the Small World Ride at Disney.
In fact, viewing it as anything more than an exchange of ideas is probably ludicrous, at the poster level. Those who argue in bad faith can be modded, and (hopefully) will be.
  #79  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:00 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
... Frustrated the target of your ire won't come by and get called shitty to their face? Tough luck. Vent and move on.
My thoughts exactly.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017