"Ad hominem" and other Dopers' posts

When you’re reading a post by a particular Doper, is your opinion of that post influenced by other posts by that person? For example: Suppose I have a disagreement with a certain person in GD. Then I read a post of his in GQ. Even though that post makes perfect sense to me, I’m a little skeptical of it, based on our previous disagreement.

*"This person is presenting certain facts, and seems to know what he’s talking about . . . but wait, I remember he’s a Fundie / Republican / homophobe / whatever . . . so perhaps I shouldn’t accept this so quickly.

*I’m not referring to actual nut-jobs, but merely people whose views on a given issue don’t coincide with my own . . . and I may mistrust them in general.

Does this happen to you?

All the time, in both good and bad ways. But I also take into account that some posters are radically different people in different forums. For example, I doubt very much that I could tolerate the Der Trihs of GD IRL for more than a picosecond, but I would truly love to spend a few hours or days with the Der Trihs of CS talking SF, since we seem to like all the same books and movies. But I have no problem accepting cooking advice from a gun-grabber, or talking booze with a Republican, or such as that.

Of course. Probably more in a positive than negative way, though. For example, if I like Poster X from interactions in the Game Room or MPSIMS then I’ll probably have a positive bias for stuff that they post in GQ or GD.

For people that are almost always liberal or conservative in the extreme then it just gives me a cautionary filter for what they post in those fora, but I’m probably more lenient should they pop up somewhere else.

A poster has to be pretty obvious for me to remember who is who. The names are familiar, but I don’t usually remember particular personalities unless they’ve intruded into my consciousness a lot. Like, I know that Exapno Mapcase knows everything about movies, but I couldn’t tell you his political leanings. Shodan is a conservative, right?

So, not a whole lot.

Not really. I usually read through the posts fairly quickly without looking to see who wrote what. Only if something stands out do I look at who was posting and start backtracking.

Same here.

To some extent. It has to be pretty extreme, though.

For example, several years ago I posted about an unfortunate situation and oversight on my part. One particular poster and former member of the Advisory Board started a fight about it and accused me of several things that were completely inaccurate, including an allegation that I’d committed a felony.

I tried to keep the high road and factually refuted him point by point with relevant citations, but he just got more and more extreme and ranting, to the point that he finally stormed out of the discussion with, “You’re wrong and I don’t care if you die.”

So, yeah, after that, even if I see a post from him that says kittens and yellow Lab puppies are cute I take it with an entire margarita load of salt.

Well, the biggest argument I got into in my first year on SDMB was with Otto. (He won.) I had sort of ill feelings toward him for a while, but then found we have some similar interests & tastes. So then I started sympathizing with him in CS threads.

I’ve been pretty annoyed at Der Trihs at points for having a monolithic view of the religious, but lately we end up on the same side of political discussions a lot. (This is arguably because I’ve started condemning the whole right for the attitudes of a few leaders, when as a former Republican, I should know better.)

It’d probably be best if I didn’t connect someone in one thread to someone in another thread, as I do get posters with similar names confused.

More like the other way 'round. I usually don’t look at the poster’s name outside of the MMP unless I want to reply to the post, but there’s posts that make me go “waitaminute, is that (poster)?” - both people I like and people I don’t.

There are some people on these boards that I hold an extreme antipathy to, but some of whos posts I have found logical and well informed, also some of whos I have found very funny(When they have been intentionally amusing I mean) but I would never tell them in case they thought that I was arse creeping.

There are also some posters who I really,really didn’t like after my early experiences of them when I first joined SDMB but who are now virtually friends.

I know that the O.P. doesn’t actually apply to myself as I realise that I am universally loved,worshipped even, by all on these boards.

But even if this wasn’t the case the O.P. STILL wouldn’t apply to me as I am always right in everything I say, so that even if I was more hated then the Sherrif of Nottingham my enemies would still have to conceed to my omniscience.

But my inherent modesty precludes me continuing with this post.

Well, this shows one advantage to having a really lousy memory. I couldn’t tell you what other posters opinions are, outside of the current thread. I can remember details of what they do, what they like, who their family is - but their political, idealogical, and religious views just don’t stick with me.

So, I like y’all, because I can’t remember that you don’t like me! :slight_smile:

Now that I’ve actually reached a point where I can remember who posters are (only took me about two and a half years!) yes, I do tend to view their posts in the context of their identity, both good and bad.

There are a handful of people who’s ideas I take with a pinch of salt because of who they are, but there are far more people who I will sit up and pay attention to when they post.

One particular poster went from “okay guy” to “total fucking idiot” in a very short space of time recently due to us crossing swords in a few threads, but that’s an extreme case.