[QUOTE=Oakminster]
I’ll be playing Snoopy to your Red Baron.
[/QUOTE]
Snoopy, of course, always lost. 
[QUOTE=faithfool]
[ul][li]Helpful suggestions are generally seen as permissible. Lecturing never is…[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Did we forget Rule #1?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Snoopy, of course, always lost.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but he got all the chicks, so he really won
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Did we forget Rule #1?
[/QUOTE]
Damn. Busted. I didn’t even remotely catch that. The only thing I’ll say in my defense is that I didn’t number my suggestions and that they’re not rules. So there, ya party pooper. If I wanted my parade rained on, I’d’ve asked you to bring the rubber boots. 
And thank you kayT. I fibbed in the fact that I didn’t necessarily learn all of those in the pit. However, I’ve noticed that when they’re employed, actual dialogue seems to be more frequent and talking past each other less.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Snoopy, of course, always lost.
[/QUOTE]
Not according to the Royal Guardsmen.
You really know how to twist a girl’s emotions. I went from admiration for your grits to pure pristine hatred for your scorn of the SEC to pity for your association with the Big Ten and its math limitations to envy for the creativity of the Big Ten logo. I…think… maybe I like you. Is it okay to say that in the Pit?
Quiddity, it’s not that I disagree with you about kindness. But the Pit serves a good purpose too in its “pollite society aside” atmosphere. Consider letting your defenses down.
I get tired of seeing Liberal’s chain pulled. But so far he will respond if taunted. And there will always be people who want to see the stuffed toy wave his arms, clang the cymbals and make strange noises. I look forward to the day when the chain is broken and Liberal is able to maintain perfect peace.
But that peace has to come from Liberal – not other members of the Pit.
faithfool, your contributions are spot on, as always!
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I pictured a group of black birds picking over something. I guess I could have used crows. But really, that was the image and that’s it.
Well, no, because it’s a question. Open to people saying ‘no, that’s not it’.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.”
[/QUOTE]
NoBODY pissed me off. It was the phenomenon of one person posting and many people piling on him, particularly when the post was innocuous. You wanted me to take names and single people out? Why? If you did it, you did it, if not, not. You don’t need me to explain to you what you did, I’m sure. If you did something. I don’t know. I’m not going to make it a point to set up a ‘shit list’ in my mind - I have enough fun remembering the names of people I have to deal with without adding lists of usernames from a board to keep in mind.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Crotalus]
Could you show us an innocent, innocuous post by Liberal that was ripped to shreds?
[/QUOTE]
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8292437&postcount=19
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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
[/quote]
Incorrect. The thread title was
and the OP asked Lib
Liberal answered here
and all hell broke loose.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Maybe this will help (hopefully)…
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.”
[/QUOTE]
Please explain to me how anyone could be an ‘attention whore’ on a board. It’s words on a screen. Other than people who deliberately begin multiple threads on exceedingly controversial topics and then take the most unpopular positions, (which have another name associated with bridges), how can one do this?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, first of all, the broiling chicken thread wouldn’t be in the Pit
[/QUOTE]
Right. But if I pissed you off and then asked about barbecuing ribs, then…
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Is that a yes, or a no? It was a yes/no question
[/QUOTE]
Oh good lord. Somebody said four per cent was ‘miniscule’. I said no, four per cent is not ‘miniscule’ and made up a number to illustrate what would be considered ‘miniscule’. You have glommed onto that number like a barnacle and then went off on a tanget asking me questions as though I was using it to illustrate the number of people with ADD. I was not and do not intend to follow you down all the rabbit holes you keep wanting me to go down. Your question is irrelevant to the issue that was discussed and will continue to be. So cut. it. out.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Please explain to me how anyone could be an ‘attention whore’ on a board. It’s words on a screen. Other than people who deliberately begin multiple threads on exceedingly controversial topics and then take the most unpopular positions, (which have another name associated with bridges), how can one do this?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s a couple of ways:
-
When a number of people attempt to explain something to you about your behavior and/or style, stubbornly act as if you cannot possibly comprehend what they are talking about and continue to post to defend your own behavior, using the same style and therefore making a bad situation worse. That way, you can come back again and again and again and again, making sure that you remain the center of attention. Because even negative attention is better than no attention, right? Extra points if you post protesting how utterly, utterly tired of it all you are.
-
Having made yourself thoroughly unpopular in one thread that ends only in a mercy-killing, open another thread to bring attention BACK to yourself. Extra points if you make your attention-whoring totally obvious by making your OP completely content-free.
Or, if you have a mirror handy, you could just look in it.
RedFury: I was loving you for this:
[QUOTE=RedFury]
So, did everyone get their IMs, PMs BMs and/or BJs and totally satisfied with whatever the fuck was in them?
[/quote]
And then you said this:
ARGH!!! This English teacher’s eyes are burning!
Quiddity, I find it highly fucking (yeah, I said fucking… it’s because I’m a loopy cunt that way) ironic that you are so wrought about people jumping on **Liberal’s ** “innocuous” posts. I have to ask, did you even read PRR’s Pit OP that caused all this furor? I mean, that is a classic example of someone, arguably clueless about how he sounds, a bit abrasive for sure, but definitely hated and vilified on this board in other fora and threads, is totally piled on. Totally spanked with personal attacks, old grudges, personal bias, and shit relatively unrelated to the topic of the thread, which was derailed into the some of the most bizarre assholery this board has ever seen-- by Liberal.
I don’t see you going to the mattresses for PRR, as you would be if you really cared about off-topic, over the top, and uncalled for personal attacks that lead to posters being alienated from the warm, loving bosom of the SDMB. You confine your defense to Liberal, who acted like a douchebag extraordinaire in that thread. He would have deserved whatever reaction he got for his behavior there alone, forget about whatever other stuff people are holding against him. Stop trying to defend him. It’s just so wrong.
On preview, if this is a topic that we shouldn’t be revisiting, due to thread closings and bygones and all, I won’t pursue it further. Had to point out the irony of QG’s moralistic stance, though. Just had to.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Please explain to me how anyone could be an ‘attention whore’ on a board. It’s words on a screen. Other than people who deliberately begin multiple threads on exceedingly controversial topics and then take the most unpopular positions, (which have another name associated with bridges), how can one do this?
[/QUOTE]
I might be able to better illustrate an attention-whore than I previously didn’t (since obviously you wouldn’t know all the history with START and such), but we’ll see.
Not-an-Attention-Whore Doper: Perhaps lists one time in 7 years that they’ve gotten a promotion/saved the universe/had a beloved one die/underwent invasive anal probing or won the Tri-County Pig Roping competition. An Attention-whore Doper: tells you their first root canal is Friday, their enamel whitening is next Tuesday. Then we have a new puppy over the weekend, a fight with their SO on Sunday that they can’t handle, a pay raise at McDonald’s on Monday morning, a family heirloom dress from their long lost birth mother and finally, a storming off of the board because s/he read something where someone said that “They should lighten up.” All this announced within a week and the latter on at least 4 separate occasions.
Now, it’s true that none of this might mean anything to some, but to others it is tiresome and illicits suggestions of making use of LiveJournal. Combine that with months (or years) of posting in a similar matter and you’ll have the King Attention-Whore of the World (for today anyway). Also, those aren’t hard and fast examples, just goofy stuff in my head. They can be much better or worse as warrants.
Hope that helps. And again, some can deal and this kind of thing doesn’t even phase them, but I’m just trying to provide a visual here that’ll make sense.
[P.S. aside to Zoe: Howdy ma’am! I thank you very much!!]
[QUOTE=faithfool]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Why? Why? If somebody writes a post saying ‘all white women with curly dark hair are morons’, would I think I was being called a moron? No. And if they wrote ‘all white women with curly hair who kick dogs are horrible’ and I didn’t kick dogs, why would I care about what was said? Why would you think you’re in a group if you’re not? Why? And if I did kick dogs, ought I not perhaps reconsider my dog-kicking behaviour? And if fifteen dog-kickers go out in a group to kick dogs, is there a point in naming them all? They have dog hairs on the toes of their shoes - they don’t need to be told they did what they did, right? And the clean-toed among them needn’t even pay mind, need they?
Did I say things had to be snow-white or black as pitch? No. All I said was ‘why is it necessary to attack a person personally just because you dislike the person’?
How is it I ask a question like ‘is motherhood good’ and I’m getting smacked down for asking a question I pretty much expected people to agree with.
Show me the lecture.
Thanktheth.
I just don’t get how what I said and what I asked ended up being interpreted as ‘personal attack’ and ‘lecture’.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Please explain to me how anyone could be an ‘attention whore’ on a board.
[/QUOTE]
What, we should explain mathematics to Stephen Hawking?
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Oh good lord. Somebody said four per cent was ‘miniscule’. I said no, four per cent is not ‘miniscule’ and made up a number to illustrate what would be considered ‘miniscule’. .
[/QUOTE]
[nitpick]
Will you please, PLEASE use the correct spelling: “minuscule”? A very minor point but an exceedingly annoying one to a person whose livelihood is proofreading.
[/nitpick]