Why? I specifically was talking about personal attacks and insults, not criticism of what he did.
I swear on whatever one is supposed to swear on that I had nobody in mind particularly. I saw one attack and then another few and that’s when I got fed up.
Um, as several dozen people pointed out to me, it is the Pit. So behaviour and people cannot be pitted generally, but telling an individual that she is, for instance, a ‘fucking liar’ is copacetic? Boy you guys sure do things in a different way from other boards.
How? How do printed words have a ‘tone’? Isn’t it just that people who maybe feel they are guilty of something get defensive?
A ‘blind attack’??? I just said it seemed odd to me that ‘um’ should be so wrought with meaning. I don’t understand what you people call an ‘attack’ because none of the things that you seem to think constitute ‘attack’ fit any definition of ‘attack’ I ever knew.
Well, my dear, I’m glad you reside in my brain and know my mind. :rolleyes:
There are few things I hate more than people who tell other people what the latter thinks.
I tell you I had nobody specific in mind, which is true. If you choose to disbelieve, that is your issue. But do not presume you know what I think.
I was not referring to ‘several posters as yet unnamed’. :rolleyes: I said ‘some people did bad stuff’ and left it to ‘some people’ to see whether they felt they did the bad stuff or not.
Look. I understand that Liberal has gotten backs up, and he himself admitted he’d been mean at times. Fine. So people don’t like him. Fine. Nonetheless, the point of all this, again, is how is it ok to rip a person’s innocent, innocuous post to shreds just because you dislike the person? And how is it decent to rip the person apart? Attack the sin, but not the sinner.
Say I hate you (I don’t, but let’s pretend.). You post a post on the best way to broil a chicken wing. I drop into the thread and eviscerate you personally for being an attention-whore and a bitch, etc. How is that fair or reasonable when all you’ve done is exist and type in a post about broiling chicken?
I will avoid the parsing and answer in general. Vulture was insulting. The post you made left it open as an insult to everyone that was pitting Lib. You spent a lot of the thread saying we should be kinder to each other, but opened with a general insult. Either have fun and insult or do not insult and stay on the high ground. That was the point of my advice, I see where I failed to make that clear.
As far as tone. “Isn’t it just that people who maybe feel they are guilty of something get defensive?” This sentence rather intended or not is a great example of how you have a condescending tone. Maybe you do not see it or hear it, but I think most posters would.
Well, that’s a little passive-aggressive, don’t you think? If I piss someone off enough to make them rant, the least they could do is let me know it was me, and what it was that I did. Then I might have a reason to think about it and apologize if I think it was warranted. Otherwise, I don’t see why I should spend 10 seconds trying to figure out if I was the one who was “bad.”
I’d much rather leave my examination of conscience for the confessional, if you don’t mind.
Like **Oakminster ** did to **Redfury ** earlier in this thread? Or **Liberal ** did to **PRR ** in PRR’s pit thread *thank you * or like happens quite often on the board.
Actually I have to agree with you on this one. Jumping into a thread to slam someone for an unrelated reason is pretty bad. It is juvenile and as an example **Oakminster ** was told as much in this thread by several posters. I believe he even apologized and then got attacked some more. So goes the pit.
In the thread in question, Liberal’s posts THERE might have seemed inocuous, but the subject matter was about Liberal’s behavior in the previous thread, which was hotly contentious and had just gone down a couple of days before, at the most. This was not a situation where Liberal did something else 3 years ago that pissed someone off, and now they are dredging it up in a completely unrelated context.
Well, first of all, the broiling chicken thread wouldn’t be in the Pit, so no matter how much you hate me, you would not be allowed to call names in that thread. Secondly, as I pointed out above, this particular thread was directly related to something Liberal had done in another, recent Pit thread…NOT an inocuous, unrelated topic. See the difference?
Another point I should have made is that one of the things that Liberal seems to get called out on time and time again is this charge of “attention-whoring.” This charge, by it’s very nature, is one that is an observation of a pattern of behavior, in this case, over several years. I have not been around long enough to observe this as a pattern, myself, so I don’t know if it’s legitimate in his case. But if someone else perceives that it is, and also perceives that the post in question is another legitimate example of it, then I don’t see the problem with pointing it out. It may seem out of place to you, because you have not been around long enough to observe a possible pattern, either. But that doesn’t mean it might not be obvious to someone else.
This is how you operate. You scream that you said it was an ANALOGY, and when shown that to be false, you fail to acknowledge it. You claim that it had something to do with ‘miniscule,’ and when shown that to be false, you simply repeat your answer louder. When asked to show the actual post that responded to my actual post, you demur. When asked a direct question, you answer a different question.
If my record is stuck, it is because, try as I might, I cannot get you own up to your own words.
[ul]
[li]When talking to a group of people, using declarative words like always and never; inclusive words like everyone and group; and authoritative words without benefit of a disclaimer about it being your own experience/observation/whatever, usually encourages others to take that at face value. The broad brush strokes tend to make them feel equally targeted with whoever you’re really talking about and most don’t appreciate attempts to avoid responsibility for this sort of behavior and aversion to correct it.[/li][li]If one has a problem with a particular aspect of life here in the pit, then one must be studiously careful in not doing anything that could be considered its counterpart. For example, if “personal attacks” are bad, so is judging. :)[/li][li]Helpful suggestions are generally seen as permissible. Lecturing never is. Since we’re all adults here, no one should feel led to tell another what to do or say. That’s what we have the administration for (if necessary).[/li][li]As in other parts of life, if you wish to bring a message and possible convert someone to your reasoning, it’s usually more possible with polite recourse rather than making whoever defensive. One makes them consider your proposition, the other just pissed off.[/li][li]Even in the pit, direct answers to direct questions are the only correct way to handle discussions. Now you’re obviously not obligated, but it helps to make your stance clearer and shows respect for the other party. Furthermore, cites (for lack of a better word) are even more conciliatory to anyone’s approach. For example, if someone requests “Exactly where did anyone say they hate Liberal or specifically that anyone else should?”, it is only proper that a response be given including (if possible) a straightforward yes or no, followed by a link to an example. That firmly backs up your assertion and eradicates others from lashing out at a blanket decree (IE: “I’m not going to hate Liberal just because everyone says I must!” – paraphrased of course).[/ul] [/li]
And thus endeth all I knoweth about how things worketh here in the pit. Hope that’ll help anyone at all and if not, it at least makes me feel like I got my money’s worth after reading through the thread that spawned this one and its 427 off-shoots. Thanketh ye for thou timeth. Oh, and feel free to sift for the good or ignore if you wish, I’m truly just trying to help as I have no horse in this fight.
[P.S. I’ve no idea why I’ve fallen into talking really bad fake Will-like English. I suppose because it amuseth me much at this moment in timeth. Sorryeth.]
I have to admit that I’ve enjoyed your posts immensely. . . perhaps too much. . . in a perverse way.
Whenever I see your posts, I picture your words exploding the irony meter in a big ball of flames. As the shards of molten metal are raining down on your head, you look up and go. . . WHAT?
And it cracks me up every time. The whole cluelessness is absolutely the funniest thing.
But when I was enjoying it earlier, I had the feeling that you were in on the joke. Given your responses to this thread, I’m beginning to wonder. And if you’re not in on it, that makes me a little concerned. . . not so much for the SDMB because these are pretty smart folk and probably could spot invalidating passive-aggressive behavior. But I’m wondering if you try to get away with this stuff in real life as well. Because that’s dangerous. To you and the people around you.
There’s a book called “Nasty People: How to Stop Being Hurt by them Without Becoming One of Them” by Jay Carter. It’s about the techniques people use to invalidate others. Here are some of the methods of the invalidators: uncertainty, projection, generalization, judgment, manipulation, sneak attack, double message, cutting communication, “building you up, cutting you down,” and the double bind.
You’ve used every technique here and in the punctuality thread except the “building you up, cutting you down” one as far as I can tell.
Now if you’re aware of all of this and are just playing on a message board, no problem. I’m sure that the people here will know it soon enough if that’s the case. But if you’re using this stuff in real life, please be careful–that’s some very damaging stuff. The author of the book claims that many people lives have been ruined by these forms of communication. And I’d have to agree. If the way you’re posting and the way you behave to people in real life is the same, please consider checking out the book. It could be helpful.
You did that on purpose, didn’t you? And I was beginning to really like you. Well, not really like you, that’d just be… weird.
Anyway: for crimes against contractions of the phrase “You are”, the International Court of Grammatical But Possibly Awkward Sentences sentences you to write out one hundred times, “You’re your own sock.”
Try reading Edgard Allen Poe followed by followed by MarkTwain and tell us if you don’t find a difference in tone between the two of them. Or try elucidator and Bricker for a closer to home comparison.
BTW, I’ve bumped heads with Lib practically since I became a Doper. No doubt he didn’t know me from Adam back then – not that it mattered, that wasn’t/isn’t the point of this lair. We’ve called each other names that aren’t even in the dictionary – pretty sure neither one of us either gives a shit or holds a grudge.
Far too many things more important in life than a dull Kumbayah MB. Sometimes calling a MF a MF is simply a great way to let out some steam – beyond the fact that they sometimes really are MFs.
Gotta a lot of learning to do before you come preach to the choir, little lady. This board’s been doing just fine for close to eight years without your preaching and will continue to do so no matter how many scrolls you write on the matter. The “matter” of course, being The Pit. Hell of a place; wouldn’t change a damn thing about it.
Pick your battles. You ain’t gonna win this one.
Lay down and think about it.
PS-And BTW, I’m not “defensive” about shit. OTOH, just in case you haven’t noticed my “tone” I’m being rather offensive towards your patronizing ways.
Excellent point RedFury about Twain and Poe. I’d been trying to think of a decent example for “attention whore,” but the best thing I could seem to come up with is what START. People always suspicious about whether or not his posting style mirrored reality and once when I thread became too hot, he dropped out and started another proclaiming the death of his brother. Now I have no idea if that was true or not, but given his history and the timing, it appears that it likely wasn’t.
However, that’s not nearly as cool as two literary giants. Damn, I’m just too SDMB myopic.
A ‘blind attack’??? I just said it seemed odd to me that ‘um’ should be so wrought with meaning. I don’t understand what you people call an ‘attack’ because none of the things that you seem to think constitute ‘attack’ fit any definition of ‘attack’ I ever knew.
