(Originally posted in this thread, but starting a new thread rather than continuing the hijack. Thanks to kaylasdad99 for the suggestion.)
Liberal, if you don’t mind continuing this hijack for a bit, I have a couple of questions for you. I’m actually genuinely curious about your posting habits.
Are you aware that (for some people, anyway) you have a tendency to come across as being pretentious and argumentative?
Do you have any particular theories on why you’re perceived that way? (I’m not referencing just the post I’ve quoted above, of course.)
Do you care whether you’re perceived as being pretentious etc.? Why or why not?
So who is the intended audience for your posts?
You’ve commented that your posting style tends to get a lot of negative reactions from other posters. Have you considered trying to modify your style to ameliorate this?
If not, what do you get out of continuing to post in this manner?
I do in some instances. I care when a person whom I respect perceives me in that way, because then I believe that the concern is genuine. But when it is the same few over and over who complain about me as though it were their obsession, then my concern is not about what they perceive but about the perceptions that they are creating with their repetitious mantras. If people say something over and over, it can take on the appearance of legitimacy. You know, follow through is everything. Were I to have a fan club that followed all my posts with, “Great point, Liberal! I think I understand that you’re saying so-and-so,” then my reputation would be of a great contributor. Instead, there are a handful of people — always the same ones — who seem to make a point of dropping in whenever I post, drawing attention to me, and then declaring that I am drawing attention to myself. What I have always asked is, why can’t I post what I think and it be left at that? If EddyTeddyFreddy or Excalibre or Desmostylus pops in to quote me and hiss at me for what I’ve said, how is it that I am the one drawing the attention when I respond. After all, a response indicates a prior communication. And now I have a mod on my ass. Veb has joined the wagon train, and taunts me whenever the opportunity arises. There are some people who drop in from time to time to express some measure of support, and I am grateful to them. I even have e-mails forwarded by administrators from people who, for obvious reasons, don’t post their support, but offer it privately. (It is not expedient to jump into the low side of a pile-on.) But the attacks are just standard fare. I’m accused of hijacking when I respond, of having a martyr complex when I complain, and of being argumentative when I defend myself. Perhaps if you walked in my moccasins a mile or two, you’d understand how it looks different from where I sit than from where you sit.
Anyone who cares to listen.
I not only have considered it, I’ve tried it.
Will I be accused of nitpicking if I point out that that is not what you asked originally? That originally you asked whether I understood that “for some people”, I come across that way? And that now you are asking what I get out of posting that way, as though their perceptions are the default truth? There is a difference. I express myself in the best way I know how. You have the choice of what tone to read it in.
Do my responses satisfy you? Do you have follow-up questions?
You could always consider the possibility that if people say something over and over, it is legitimate. My opinion of you was never formed by a perception of legitimacy created by the opinions of others, but by reading you.
Maybe not. This thread seems oddly familiar. We just went through something like this with Lib in the “fire the judges” thread in the Pit. Lib made an off hand comment that wasn’t clear to several people and IMO they jumped all over him even after it was explained.
There are several contributers here in the SDMB that can easily get over my head. Lib is one. I haven’t found any of them to be pretentious. Can anyone be more specific about what they mean by pretentious?
How can that post possibly be left at that? You have accused the board at large that they would be happy if the Bible were desecrated. That amounts to calling all Dopers (or at least the ones that posted in that thread) of being hypocrites and big enough assholes to take pleasure in the pain of others. Thems fightin’ words.
After this post ETF says:
Which you latter comment on as:
Well what exactly did you expect? You insulted everyone in that thread for no reason and were told to “get stuffed”. Seems like an apt response to an unprovoked insult to me.
Liberal, in this post, what did you mean by the following?
This is an open invitation to pile on you in a thread that had nothing to do with you at all. Did you do this because you simply enjoy the attention? You clearly asked people to talk about you instead of the OP. I for one think it was rather rude to try to stop the OP from getting his questions answered - especially since the thread was not a pile-on but just an exchange of opinions. (Being the Pit, those opinions were uncensored, but they were hardly one-sided.)
Did you have a goal in posting this except to turn the thread into a chance to talk about yourself? Because I simply cannot imagine another purpose in what you did.
Exalibre provided what amounts to the biggest example of how self-involved Liberal is.
He is the most highly-skilled and successful hijacker on the board, especially since he’d managed to find a formula that is largely mod-proof.
I don’t really enjoy beating up on Liberal. He’s come to my defense more than once when others were piling up on me, and we agree on much when it comes to philosophy. He’s also pretty damn smart (although it’s a mystery to my why some consider him to be a greater type of genius than the average here. There are many smart people on the board; he is not particularly exceptional.)
But, damn! he is an awfully self-centered hijacking frustrating SOB a lot of the time. And I just think that that’s his nature and can’t possibly change.
No, it isn’t! I never noticed until recently, but you really do seem to have reading comprehension problems. He merely made a cognitive statement of expectation based on long and difficult experience. He said he expected a pile-on; he did not say he wanted one or was encouraging one.
To say he was attention-whoring or “inviting” a pile-on in the quote you posted merely shows your own anti-Lib prejudice. You’re seeing things that simply aren’t there.
No, he provoked a pile-on in that thread. He deliberately did so, and now he’s getting what he wanted. You see, that’s what attention whores do. They run out onto the stage, bend over and flash their ass, and then pretend they don’t like when people throw tomatoes at them. They also revel in the adulation of their sympathizers. Negative attention. Positive attention. It doesn’t matter.
A cognitive statement? What in the hell? What Lib posted may be a lot of things, including perfectly innocent, but cognitive* ain’t it.
(Actually, it was kind of funny what he posted. I laughed at its over-the-topness, and then laughed at the reactions I knew would follow.)
If his experience has been so long and difficult here, why does he continue to bless us with his presence? Really, the victim-maytr act is getting old. If his experience here has been difficult, he has only himself to blame.
I’m not anti-Lib in the least. I don’t stalk him and wait to attack him at every turn. I enjoy his saner, more intelligent posts and often come away with a morsel of food for thought. But COME ON! How was what he said NOT deliberately provocative? You’d have to be blind to defend something as blatant as that, Starving Artist.
You can be a friend without being an sycophantic puppy, you know.
Oh, dear . . . an insult (one you’d no doubt claim was nothing but an objective observation) from the likes of Starving Artist. Actually, this is a nice change from when I’d inadvertently posted something you agreed with and you became effusive in your respect for my thought and intelligence. I see you define intelligence as “agreeing with Starving Artist.” I suspect most dictionaries lack your definition.
He posted with the explicit intention of causing a pile-on so that IAMBIC would not be subject to one. Giraffe mocked his false nobility quite well - I’m clearly not the only one who read it that way.
At any rate, I asked a question - what was his intention of posting what he posted? He stated that his post would cause a pile-on, deflecting attention from IAMBIC. What was his purpose in doing that? I resorted to my interpretation because no other possibility appeared to me. So pray tell - why did he incite a discussion of his own antics - again, he acknowledged that it would be the inevitable result of his action - at the expense of IAMBIC’s thread?
monstro, the problem I’ve noticed is that if one frequently disagrees with Lib, he immediately puts them on his “list” of people who have a vendetta against him.
I guess I’m next.
Sad thing is, he can be really interesting, but like Aldebaran, I hate interacting with him, because I never know how the hell he’ll react.
I still consider myself new to the board so I’ll refrain from making a judgement call about LIb.
I do have a couple of questions. If you’re so certain of him being am attention ho then why do you respond the way you do?
This may be just the way the board goes but I’ve noticed that some love to have anyone make a statement that is poorly worded or contain any error so they can jump all over it. Anyone else have that experience?
Yeah, after Lib left for awhile (and for some time before, in fact) we had managed to speak with relative civility - he was even saying nice things about me. Then I had the temerity to very, very gently and politely disagree with him on the workings of the brain in a Pit thread, and suddenly he turned on me. Like a dog who’d been beaten or something. Right before my disagreement, he’d posted a compliment completely out of the blue.
I’d almost feel hurt if his sudden burst of hatred hadn’t been completely unwarranted. As it is, I can only conclude that when people disagree, he sometimes responds with relative grace but sometimes becomes enraged. He’s still enraged at me, as you can see from his post in this thread. I wonder if he’ll try kissing my ass some more a few weeks from now.
Lib can be flippant, and even too flippant; a lot of long-time posters, myself certainly included, do the same. And certainly he takes a number of positons that range from unpopular to downright unique.
But none of them merit the pathological hatred that people like desmo have for him. I actually respect him a lot more because of his patience in dealing with the mountain of shit people dump on him for the crime of being an unapologetic freethinking individual.
