[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Liberal owned up to having been pretty unpleasant in his time. And I said to him I’d have words with him if ever I saw it.
[/QUOTE]
It is only the fact that I must remain vigilant (in case Commisioner Gordon flashes the mod-signal) that is preventing me from rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.
Hey! I have an idea, why don’t we make this thread all about ME?
Huh? Pretty good, right?
I’ll let you kids think about it while I go lay down…
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
It was, specifically; even if you hate someone, must you attack that person when the person is not behaving badly at that moment.
[/QUOTE]
I know, sheesh. Can you believe those nasty vultures!
[QUOTE=faithfool]
See, maybe this is where one of the breakdowns are. I don’t believe anyone truly cares, in the sense one means in real life, unless that person is their friend. I believe that ‘attention-whore’ is used as a label or shorthand to describe a behavior. In this case, that people feel is annoying. I don’t see it taken much beyond that.
[/quote]
If something’s only annoying then why does it spark nasty name-calling and personal attacking? That looks like anger to me.
Every time I think I’m at the end, there’s more… :eek:
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Hey! I have an idea, why don’t we make this thread all about ME?
[/QUOTE]
You?
Hell, I dunno.
You got $500?
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Admit it. You’re a robot, aren’t you?
“What is this thing you hu-mans call…love?”
[/QUOTE]
It’s the hate bit I don’t get.
I’m afraid the time has come when I must offer this:
[QUOTE=Jodi]
You keep posting these meaningless waste-of-pixel non-responses. I can’t figure it out.
Wait. You . . . you’re a Turing machine, aren’t you? You’re sending random comprehensible but content-free signals to sustain the illusion that you can converse. I can see no other explanation.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a point at which it’s pointless to disagree, as with Contrapuntal, because the person just continues to keep coming back and saying the same thing again and again. So you just say something so they’ll think you agree and quit repeating themselves.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Every time I think I’m at the end, there’s more… :eek:
[/QUOTE]
Omigod! You have to keep posting! You can’t let your fans down now!
[QUOTE=faithfool]
Unfortunately, many people (that I’ve known) really don’t bother to acknowledge the differences and if you specifically ask them, like “How’d faithfool do in that game?,” the response you’d get is “They all suck! Nobody ever tries. I might as well just give up because they’re all so awful and uncoachable.” Even though, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she knew that wasn’t true and you could’ve been the only one to actually do everything right. Or whatever.
[/QUOTE]
It is unfortunate, I agree. Must suck mightily.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
There’s a point at which it’s pointless to disagree, as with Contrapuntal, because the person just continues to keep coming back and saying the same thing again and again. So you just say something so they’ll think you agree and quit repeating themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Yo, Pot. This is Kettle. What up, Dog?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Wow, well, I know I sure hope it doesn’t come to the point of you having words with Liberal!
But thanks for adopting the role of word-haver. We sure did need one around these parts, ma’am.
[/QUOTE]
Good ta know it, pilgrim.
[QUOTE=Frank]
You?
Hell, I dunno.
You got $500?
[/QUOTE]
Lib’s fronting for me.
Surely you can’t refuse now.
Nite, kids.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Oh? And why is that? I’m not here to play tit-for-tat but rather to voice my opinion, as popular and/or unpopular as that might be.
In fact, I thought that was the premise of your whole “argument.” You know, treat everyone equally regardless of their past history.
[/quote]
Quite right.
I gather you’re a married guy so you’ll have to make do with public communication from this whore-of-another-sort.
[QUOTE=Frank]
It is only the fact that I must remain vigilant (in case Commisioner Gordon flashes the mod-signal) that is preventing me from rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.
[/QUOTE]
You’ll look kind of funny without it.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I read all the posts in the thread that I was in and upon which I remarked. There were about ten at that point.
[/QUOTE]
Remember the term linkey-poo.
When you see words that are underlined and in a different colour, there is a good chance that they are links to further posts. When someone makes a post that comments on something to which they link, you can bet your sweet bippy that you should follow the link, and any further links, for those linked posts are as much a part of the discussion as those few in the thread that you read.
In fact, you will find that a great many posts in the pit start with links to threads outside of the pit. That is because one is not supposed to go after someone in a non-pit forum, for that would de-rail non-pit threads. Instead, one takes the complaint to the SDMB comlaint desk – the pit.
Commenting in a thread – particularly a pit thread based entirely on a link to a non-pit thread – without reading the underlying links is a bit like judging a book by its cover.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Omigod! You have to keep posting! You can’t let your fans down now!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, both of them would be heartbroken.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
If something’s only annoying then why does it spark nasty name-calling and personal attacking? That looks like anger to me.
[/QUOTE]
But see, it really doesn’t matter about the cause. If someone is motivated, for whatever reason, to launch a personal attack, you’re probably not going to convince them that their actions should be otherwise because they don’t believe that’s true. However, I will say that if someone actually stalks another (similar to what’s transpired with badchad and poly), that it’s usually, but not always, due to a series of events. In the instance of those that pop up periodically to just go “You fuckin’ jerk!” or whatever, they won’t probably even be in the church to hear the sermon because they know exactly why they feel compelled to do that and the responsibility lies with the other person. Sometimes having a shared bad history shouldn’t be ignored. Most other times though, one would hope it could be left behind to deal on a case-by-case basis.
You know, it might be a good idea for you to lay at all the questions Dopers have asked you together. Then, instead of us all trying to figure this out from our end, we can have more illumination from yours. For example, the subject of hate keeps coming up. So I’d think a great question to put on the list would be: “Who specifically hates Liberal?” and then let’s all look at the answer, with cites obviously making more helpful. Does that sound copacetic? After that, it should be smooth sailing, full steam ahead.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
There’s a point at which it’s pointless to disagree, as with Contrapuntal, because the person just continues to keep coming back and saying the same thing again and again. So you just say something so they’ll think you agree and quit repeating themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Nah. I’m still thinking Turing machine. Because, see, if you wanted to say something to make people think you agree with them, you’d go with something like, oh, I don’t know: “I see” or “I agree” or “I get it.” Not just mouth-noises, not just meaningless blah blah. Besides, nothing seems to get you to shut up and quit repeating yourself again and again; why expect behavior from others you can’t achieve yourself?
And that’s it. I’m gone. Thanks to the folks who enlightened and entertained. I learned from the bashers, too.
You can close the thread or stay and play but I’m done. faithfool has given me some interesting things to think about and that’s what I’ll do. Now someone start up the chorus and everybody hold hands…
Kum
bay
a…