Dex, we're very unclear

in this thread , you opine that I’m starting a personal-insults war in Cafe Society. To the contrary, I’m fighting ignorance in a gentle and reasonable manner. If I were to post, for example, “In the movie The Philadelphia Story, the character of C. K. Dexter Haven is an impoverished goat-felcher,” I might expect someone to point out the errors I’ve made. If that person were to add, as I did there, that my assertions made almost no sense and that I had some work to do in cinema studies, I’m not sure why you would feel compelled to admonish that person for starting a personal-insults war. How is one to deal with blatent displays of ignorance if not to correct them in clear and firm (yet civil) tones?

I’d appreciate any elucidation to your official moderator’s warning you might add, since I view my options now as simply never again correcting anyone in Cafe Society, or risking your terrible wrath.

I’m not Dex, but my guess is that the issue is you basically said, “I know why you’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you, so just be quiet about it.” Not the most friendly nor helpful.

Are you serious? You were extremely rude there, and you were rude about something debatable, pretending that it’s not debatable.

I moderate a D&D messageboard, and I have to deal with this sort of rudeness all the time. Drives me nutso.

Daniel

Technically, no, you didn’t fight ignorance, you just pointed it out and said that if Biffy wanted to stay after school, you’d be glad to educate him.

In response to which he snapped and called you names. So, you didn’t start the name-calling, but you did something to earn it, which is just as bad, all things considered.

You were being a dick, prr.

Mod smackdown deserved and well played. That was some Pitworthy snark there. Dex dun real good, I reckon.

Hah hah, ya dork.
Real men play White Wolf games. :wink:

Beg to differ.

I pointed out that he was entirely wrong (on a factual basis, LHOD) and would be glad to elaborate in a separate thread, since I didn’t think hijacking the thread we were in would be considerate. I also noted, perfectly correctly, that I suspected Biffy was about as interested in getting instruction in this subject as he was in getting a carbolic-acid enema (which might have done him some good).

I just read the thread and yes, pseudotriton ruber ruber, you were a jerk in it. If you didn’t want to hijack the thread, you could’ve provided a link or two and offered your email if he had further questions. Instead, you preferred to argue from authority. You should know better than that.

BTW, being a published poet doesn’t mean dick. I’ve seen some really lousy poetry that’s been published.

Here is your very first post, from what I can see:

This is not:

Then he says

And you come back with a couple of paras of info, and then this:

(bolding mine) That bolded sentence would put anyone’s back up.

Then he comes back, saying he doesn’t you are being unhelpful, and adds “stuff it”, which is why he got scolded, presumably. He then goes on to explain why he thinks some of the things he does, which is as it should be, and you then answer:

You think that was polite and well-mannered? I’d hate to see you when you were rude!

Biffy may have been 100% wrong, and you 100% right, but even your first post was condescending, forget about the second one.

What really pisses me off about your conduct was saying Biffy was wrong, without even bothering to tell us the correct meter. You’re so smart, put YOUR meter up there for everyone to see and critique. Fight a little ignorance, whydontcha?

Don’t give me the “not the right thread” crap. A claim was made that this was a mistake, you claim it wasn’t a mistake, it’s the perfect time for a quick diversion to clarify it and we all learn a little bit.

Cite?
Daniel

Just read it also, prr, and I’m afraid to say this just isn’t going your way. Even allowing that you were 100% correct, you were still rude and condescending. Particularly with “… when you’re ready to learn, you’ll learn. You’re not ready.” Dude, how many tin-foil hat conspiracists have we seen in this place with that attitude? Either back up your claim, or shut the hell up.

:confused:
That’s exactly what I said in the first place, except your version has a much snootier, pretentious air to it, which makes sense, given the years of experience as a published author.

Thanks for confirming my opinion, I guess.

Did you, in fact, correct him? I suppose there is a sense of the verb “correct” that means “tell someone that they don’t understand something and that they make little sense”, but I think it usually means actually explaining the error and what the correct thing is. If you feel the need to correct someone, you might try actually telling them what is correct. You might also try being polite, which you were not.

Eartha Kitt? Is that you?

pseuditrion, you were a tad high-handed in that exchange. Using that kind of tone, along with not explaining what you meant, really took most of the value out of the post. If someone posts something incorrect, you should correct it. If the individual doesn’t want to learn (which was more asserted than established) there are still the other 49,999 posters on this board. If he’s made an error, correct it. If he eats stupid food for breakfast, just say so.

-saoirse

technically, your colleague.

For example, here’s a way that prr could have responded

Actually, iambic pentameter can be subtler and more varied than this. Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be, that is the question” is one of the best-known passages of iambic pentameter, but the emphasis is not placed as “to BE or NOT to BE, that IS the QUEST[ion].” e.e. cummings writes

pity this busy monster, manunkind

which is emphasized as:

PITy this BUsy MONster, MANunKIND

and yet it’s iambic pentameter. The term is loosely applied as far as the iambs are concerned.

Therefore, in the passage,
“Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eye…”

the emphasis may be read as,

or LIKE STOUT corTEZ, when with EAgle EYE

although it may scan equally well with CORtez instead.

Daniel
(who did just learn something about iambic pentameter, thanks to prr but not thanks to his superciliousness)

This? Is awesome.

but who clearly learned nothing about coding. Sheesh! One of these days I’ll use the preview button habitually; my coding has sucked lately.

“Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eye…”

Let’s see how that looks.

Daniel

William Shatner, is that you?

Stop it, I thought we weren’t supposed to laugh at Pit threads!