I Vant To Be Alone

[xenophon41]

from Jodi:
I pretty clearly asked for a “general opinion,” and so everyone holding an opinion on the issue has the right to air it. Unless your asking, who the hell are any of us to have opinions?

Not at all. Opinions are wonderful. Everyone has 'em. I love it when we all whip 'em out for viewing.

I’m just rather amazed to hear that all those opinions about personal requests between posters are more meaningful than opinions regarding general board behavior. If one wishes to measure one’s responses to personal requests against community standards, shouldn’t one appeal to those standards when measuring one’s actions in the broader case as well? If not, why not? What am I missing?

from Scylla:
Rather than read anything inot it, I offered a compromise, which was immediately rebuffed.

Could that be because your compromise offer was “don’t post to my threads either and, oh by the way, don’t post to any thread on any of your favorite subjects”?

Really, Scylla, you coulda just said “I don’t think it’s a reasonable request; no thanks.” Why play games?

from Milossarian:
I personally don’t think that there is a preexisting animosity, in the real case upon which this hypothetical is based.

Thanks for sharing your valuable opinion. I’m not sure what you think “preexisting” means in this case, but to clarify, it means “existing before the request was made.”

[wring]

Well Jodi it was a great attempt at making it about the situation and not about the specifics, but I’m getting the feeling I aught to be offering up “Programs, git yer programs he-yer, kant tell the playerz witout yer programs”.

On the OP. It’s a public message board. We’re supposed to keep our responses to individual threads (and not, say “well, in this thread here you failed to say you were wrong, so I can assume that you’ll dodge it again” for example), but that’s a pretty tall order as well.

For examples, using names - tomndeb - generally recognized as knowing what the hell he’s talking about, probably gets the response ‘cite?’ fewer times than others. WildestBill I don’t think there was a single thread where folks **didn’t ** challenge his statements.

So, there will be a certain amount of history. I got the impression from the situation you referenced, tho’ that the issue wasn’t necessarily facts/supporting etc as it was a sense on the one person’s part that the issue was personal. I felt the ‘counter offer’ was disingenious at best (don’t post in our two favorite topics), but realisitically speaking there was no real comprimise available - yea, don’t post in threads I start, but how the hell do you determine who gets to post in other threads?

So, it was an unrealistic request, an unrealistic response. No surprise.

At any given point in time, some poster or another can be awarded my ‘temporary biggest pain in the ass’ award - but the award often changes designees. If some one is getting personal, I’ll point it out. Otherwise, shrug, attack the post, not the poster.

Milo - um. While at times I will point out issues etc of a post that I basically agree with (but think is poorly defended), but that’s a rarity- 'cause it’s not really my job ya know? May I ask - how many of Wildest Bill’s did you poke holes in? And actually, it’s a telling feature, IMHO, when there’s a thread started by an arch conservative, and the liberals are circling, and there’s only one or two conservatives defending? perhaps 'cause it’s OP was inherently offensive? Hmmmm??

[Scylla]

xeno:

Really, Scylla, you coulda just said “I don’t think it’s a reasonable request; no thanks.” Why play games?

I think I’ve been pretty reasonable in letting you examine and pick apart my motivations, but I’m really not answerable to you, and I don’t like the tendency you have to ask questions in the form of an accusation that I then have to defend myself from.

“When did you stop beating your wife?”
I’ll answer this one final time, and then my motivations are none of your business. You’re free to speculate of course, but I’ll no longer offer you the courtesy of an explanation in this area.

Instead of psychoanalyzing my posts you’ll actually need to respond to their substance if you wish to engage me in debate. I think this little penchant for psychoanalysis is one of the ways things get heated, personal, and unpleasant.
I thought my answer was the optimal one because:

1. I suspected the purpose of the question wasn’t sincere, but maipulative in it’s phrasing, suggesting that I would be a bad or cruel person if I didn’t comply. In that sense it’s a trap if I say “Yes” I have to censor my activities. If I say “no” I’m cruel as the question was defined. I didn’t like the either or implication with which the question was phrased.

2. #1 may be wrong, and may be a simple sincere request. I have no wish to cause somebody pain, or inflict myself on them unnecessarily. If this is indeed the case, and the person is begging me to comply, I would feel genuinely bad if I didn’t offer a viable solution. If that person felt so strongly about it, surely they would be willing to work towards a mutually satisfactory compromise. Seeing that they weren’t, I feel that #1 is a safe bet.

3. I thought the request wasn’t particularly reasonable in that it required me to censor my actions because of another person’s personal preferance. There were other viable alternatives that person could have taken for their own benefit that didn’t involve me, and that it is proper that that person takes those actions for their own benefit before they involve me.

I had hoped that offering a compromise would show how the request was onerous and unreasonable without being hostile, and that it might be a good starting point towards mutual civility.

4. I was willing to live by that agreement.
   I hope that answers your question. If it doesn’t, I’m sorry but I won’t be engaged in any more interrogation. I sincerely think you should attend to your own motivations.

[gobear]

May I ask - how many of Wildest Bill’s did you poke holes in? And actually, it’s a telling feature, IMHO, when there’s a thread started by an arch conservative, and the liberals are circling, and there’s only one or two conservatives defending? perhaps 'cause it’s OP was inherently offensive?

I certainly called WB on his reactionary nonsense, and anyone who has read my posts knows I swing to the right.
I have butted heads with bothe conservatives and liberals here, and I like to think I have been consistent on calling nonsense by its name.

In re the OP, in generic terms, no poster can realistically think that he/she can post without having the content challenged. If we all just talk to people who agree with us, then the Chicago Reader might as well just pull the plug on the SDMB. The purpose of this board is to fight ignorance through reasoned (an sometimes not-so-reasoned debate), not to be a mutual admiration society.

In re the specifics of the Pit debate that spawned this, Poster A’s idea of debate resembles an activity best performed with Astroglide and Kleenex[supTM[/sup]. Her posts are usually a mixture of propaganda and half-truths. When challenged on the facts, she acts high-minded and above-it-all, dodging all debate, but responding readily to her sycophants. she wants Poster B to ignore her because she can’t handle intelligent opposition.

[Milossarian]

wring:

**May I ask - how many of Wildest Bill’s did you poke holes in?

**
Are you comparing me, or the things I think, to Wildest Bill, wring? That may be one of the worst insults ever hurled my way here.

But if your point is what I think it is, point conceded. I generally steered away from WB threads because I thought he was a reactionary troll who didn’t himself believe the crap he was posting. I guess I shouldn’t assume you or others agree so closely with Poster A, by your silence.

Too often, though, it appears to me that this poster waits to be bailed out by her ideological cohorts.

xeno:

**Thanks for sharing your valuable opinion. I’m not sure what you think “preexisting” means in this case, but to clarify, it means “existing before the request was made.”

**
Gee xeno. That post was kind of snarky. Do you have a “preexisting animosity” toward me that motivated it?

Scylla:

**Milo:

While I really do appreciate the support I think Jodi was smart to keep the OP generic.

If you come out and say “Poster B is a rotten poopy head!”

Then someone else will just show up and say “Liar! Poster B is the best. Poster A is the Poopy head!”

Then it’s all “you’re a poopy head.” “No, you are.” and then all intelligent conversation stops, and all the thoughtful posters go elsewhere.

I really think we’ve had enough of that, and I truly don’t want to be anybody’s enemy.

**
But I wasn’t saying anyone was just a “rotten poopy-head.” I was giving examples of this board-user’s methodologies, that made her request to be ignored ludicrous.

And I thought I just got done saying I’ll post when, where, and how I please, within the confines of the rules of this moderated message board.

Why don’t you just ignore me?

[wring]

Originally posted by gobear *
**
I certainly called WB on his reactionary nonsense, and anyone who has read my posts knows I swing to the right.
I have butted heads with bothe conservatives and liberals here, and I like to think I have been consistent on calling nonsense by its name.*

The question was specifically directed towards Milo who seemed to be chastizing liberals for not calling out errors made by other liberals. I believe that I have posted quite a few ‘I may be a liberal but geez can you please stop helping???’ posts myself. I could be mistaken, but I don’t generally recall Milo posting to correct other conservatives’, so was questioning why he’d be the one to point the finger figuratively in this manner here.

added on preview - nope, Milo I wasn’t comparing your views to WB’s (and I agree I dont’ think he really believed most of what he posted) you got it right in your next paragraph.

Yes, there are times that I’m counting the lines on the ceiling. Sometimes, I feel my silence would say more. (obviously not often, given my post count )

(to add clarification - I got what you were doing Scylla - like I said, an unreasonable request and an unreasonable response)

[xenophon41]

Milo:
Gee xeno. That post was kind of snarky. Do you have a “preexisting animosity” toward me that motivated it?

Well, we do have a preexisting animosity; although nowhere near the level which exists between the two actual posters in question. Kinda proves my point, no?

Scylla: See wring’s comment in the preceding post. She and I have the same understanding of your “compromise”. It wasn’t a comment on your motivations, my esteemed fellow poster; it was a comment on your modus operandi. Which neither required psychoanalysis nor constituted an interrogation.

Thanks for your explanation, though.

[Scylla]

Scylla: See wring’s comment in the preceding post. She and I have the same understanding of your “compromise”. It wasn’t a comment on your motivations, my esteemed fellow poster; it was a comment on your modus operandi. Which neither required psychoanalysis nor constituted an interrogation.

So when did you stop beating your wife?

[Scylla]

Well, we do have a preexisting animosity; although nowhere near the level which exists between the two actual posters in question. Kinda proves my point, no?

For perhaps the 88th time, I do not have any &%$^&@!! animosity!***

Seeing as you made such a big deal about bookmarking and remembering this the last time I said it I don’t think its unreasonable to expect you to get this right.

**** (There’s that intentional irony again.)

[Milossarian]

xeno:

quote:

Milo:
Gee xeno. That post was kind of snarky. Do you have a “preexisting animosity” toward me that motivated it?

Well, we do have a preexisting animosity; although nowhere near the level which exists between the two actual posters in question. Kinda proves my point, no?

Actually, I wasn’t aware that we did. But it’s good to know.

You rat-fink.

Perhaps I’m splitting too fine a hair, but I don’t think Scylla has a preexisting animosity toward this poster, in the sense that I think of that phrase. Animosity is a pretty strong word.

Is ideological difference a preexisting animosity? What if someone’s posts consistently have fallible or unsupportable logic. Should another person feel reluctant to address that if they want to, if they find themselves frequently in that role with a particular poster? I don’t think so. YMMV.

I’ll willingly concede I (and no doubt a lot of people) have something akin to preexisting animosity toward particular posting/debating styles, and ideological stances on certain positions. Right back at me, I’m sure.

That’s what makes the world go 'round here! (Unless it gets negative and a little hot, and then it’s what makes The Pit go 'round.)

What characterizes this as beyond the preexisting animosity a Christian may have for an athiest’s points of view? Or an evolutionist to a creationist’s views; a pro-hunter to an anti-hunter?

It seems to me that the only difference is one person’s willingness to vigorously engage another person’s assertions on a regular and continual basis.

Plugging your ears and going “la-la” when you are called on your own assertions in your own threads, in a forum made for debate, is childish, cowardly and inappropriate.

[Jodi]

Milo, Gobear, Everyone –

I intentionally made the question as hypothetical as possible because I very specifically didn’t want to talk about anyone in particular. I did not intend this question to provoke an attack on anyone, and I don’t think Poster B would thank me for raising a question that merely serves as a vehicle for people to get a few swift kicks in. That was never my intent. Therefore, if you have problems with the pseudonymous Poster B, please air them elsewhere.

XENO –

I’m just rather amazed to hear that all those opinions about personal requests between posters are more meaningful than opinions regarding general board behavior.

To my mind, it’s the difference between “Please don’t be sarcastic to me” (one individual asks another) and “Thou shalt not be sarcastic” (saith the Board Lords). I don’t think anyone has the right to set forth what is acceptable “general board behavior” except the mods and admins. But I certainly can ask people if they think one individual’s request of another is reasonable and ought to be honored. That has nothing to do with broader Board questions, nor have I asked anyone to agree with my position, or to agree to be bound by it.

If one wishes to measure one’s responses to personal requests against community standards, shouldn’t one appeal to those standards when measuring one’s actions in the broader case as well?

The difference is that (a) I am not trying to set out how the community must or should react to this situation as a proactive thing, I’m merely inquiring what the prevailing opinion is on reasonableness; and (b) I am not measuring my personal response with an eye towards obtaining community “approval,” which I firmly believe neither I nor anyone else needs (so long as I am on-topic, civil, and obeying the rules).

I just knew that if the request were made of me then my answer would be “no,” and I wondered if others would think it out of line to turn down what on its face appears to be a reasonable request.

[bordelond]

To all conservatives, liibertarians, liberals – and myself (I can always use a reminder):

What is going on here?

Why are so many people taking stuff so seriously? Indeed, taking it personally?

Give me one good reason a GD thread HAS to end up in the Pit?

I hate to break it to everybody, but the world is full of people who don’t see the world as you do. Get used to it.

Disagreement doesn’t have to get personal. That only happens if YOU allow it to – regardless of what the other person does or did.

If a person resorts to personal insult against you in a GD thread, then IMHO, you have automatically won the debate. Congratulations! So if “they started it (wah!)”, take the high road. Cut that person loose for the life of that specific thread and move on.

I’d advise everybody to keep to themselves personal feelings about their debating adversaries. It’s below the belt in GD anyway, and does nothing to further one’s debate. Stick to this rule, bite your tongue, and let any fools that may be out there show themselves for what they are.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
** I don’t think Poster B would thank me for raising a question that merely serves as a vehicle for people to get a few swift kicks in. That was never my intent. . **

Oh well, too late. :rolleyes: What a shock.

*Originally posted by bordelond *
**
If a person resorts to personal insult against you in a GD thread, then IMHO, you have automatically won the debate. Congratulations! **

Excellent news! That means I pretty much ** always ** win! Cool beans!

** Cut that person loose for the life of that specific thread and move on.**

Done! [sub](Over and over and over again…)[/sub]

** I’d advise everybody to keep to themselves personal feelings about their debating adversaries. It’s below the belt in GD anyway, and does nothing to further one’s debate. Stick to this rule, bite your tongue, and let any fools that may be out there show themselves for what they are. **

Advice to live by, as I always have. I came dangerously close to abandoning it for a moment there, but you stopped me, bordelond. Thanks!
Poster B

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
In fact, posters that lean to an ideology supported by this poster frequently disappoint me, in that they are largely silent when she makes outrageous and unsupportable claims, then refuses to answer questions about them or back them up in any other way. While she’s doing this, she does continue to respond in these threads to any cheerleading or support that “her side” gives her.

I would, since I’m mostly on that political spectrum that that person is coming from, but unfortunately, I’m one of the “ignoreees” since I have called said poster on said poster’s actions. Also, I have been accused of stalking said poster with nasty comments, or something to that effect.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**

*Originally posted by Jodi *
** I don’t think Poster B would thank me for raising a question that merely serves as a vehicle for people to get a few swift kicks in. That was never my intent. . **

Oh well, too late. :rolleyes: What a shock.

**

Yes. I would agree that that is unfortunate that the reasonable parameters of the OP were not respected. I wish that hadn’t happened.

**

** I’d advise everybody to keep to themselves personal feelings about their debating adversaries. It’s below the belt in GD anyway, and does nothing to further one’s debate. Stick to this rule, bite your tongue, and let any fools that may be out there show themselves for what they are. **

Advice to live by, as I always have. I came dangerously close to abandoning it for a moment there, but you stopped me, bordelond. Thanks!
Poster B **

Unfortunately that is a falsehood. For example, in a recent pit thread, though you did not make a direct insult, you endorsed the highly insulting and personal OP. You flat out said that they were your own feelings, as well.

Such a stated endorsement and seconding of such insults is the exact same as making those insults yourself.

There is no distinction among reasonable and honest people.

You were not attacked by me when you made that endorsement.

You struck first, and without provocation, and carried your animosity towards me from previous threads into that one.

The shield of noble silence you use to ignore me is not noble if you choose to attack from behind its security, as you have. Nor is this the first time you’ve done so.

Nor are you living by Bordelond’s words as you claim. You are, in fact, lying.

Now, you and some may construe this post as an attack, and blame me. That’s your choice. It’s not. I’m debating your statements, and you are making an unreasonable assumption if you believe I am going to allow you to perpetuate falsehoods in matters that concern me without challenging them.

[scotth]

[CLAPPING]
Well done, Scylla.
[/CLAPPING]

[Muffin]

Penguins.

[erislover]

There is no good reason that one shouldn’t be able to ask one person to ignore the other person. I would wonder, exactly, why such a request was made, but apart from that I think it is a perfectly reasonable request without referencing specifics.

Certainly, if one poster has an ability to request such a method of interaction, the other poster has the ability to deny it, and then the original poster must then face the issue him/herself: why am I asking someone to ignore me, when I could just ignore them (something I obviously have control over)?

Practical, effective, efficient, simple. Can’t ask for a better plan, IMO.

[Jodi]

Sigh. Would a moderator please close this thread? Thanks.

[Zenster]

Posting to GD automatically implies that you must be ready for opposing viewpoints. If you are not, or you request others to avoid doing so, you are a moron.