The general response and reaction I get to most of my posts in most of the threads I post in: entirely normal, unremarkable and comparable to the majority.
Which may be true in most cases, with the glaring exception of when there’s any insinuation that you are not correct in something that you have posted, in which case that could just be down to whether people feel that they have the time and energy to get into a pissing match with you. (In my humble.)
Nah, not wacky at all. Actually a very expected response.
But whether or not many feel that way about me … or think anything about me at all … is not the issue of this thread. If true (if many tell me so, I’d have to consider the possibility as likely, and would seriously look at my posting style), it informs naught on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement as is relevant to this thread.
i disagree.
i actually don’t mind the mods handling warnings on a case by case scenario. i do tend to think this warning would not have been handed out if it had been anyone else, but i’m ok with that. like others have pointed out, the general rule of thumb is don’t be a jerk. when a poster does so, i don’t think it’s a bad thing for the mods to be a little harder on them. rather than writing a master’s thesis length post about why you’re right and everyone else is wrong (often people who have specific and pertinent knowledge about the topic at hand) perhaps you should take some of the warnings as a sign to reconsider some of your approaches to posting. like this protest, for example. you got a warning, deal.
And there’s almost certainly a key difference between us: I don’t assess the value of opinions based on the number of people who hold them, positive or negative, about me or about anything.History right up to the present is fairly bursting with instances in which huge numbers of people agreed on all kinds of things, and that didn’t make those things right, or good, or better, or even true, merely widely agreed upon.
Instead, I assess the value of opinions based on who holds them. The opinion of one person I respect is worth a more than the opinions of a hundred people I don’t.
And you’re certainly entitled, but my guess would be that you don’t actually visit the majority of the threads I post in, because it’s a fact.
i’ve read quite a few of your threads. it’s how i formed my opinion of you as a poster so, nice try with the brushoff. next!
and…are you actually saying your assessment of yourself as not having “a generally unlikable posting style” is fact? i think you’ve outdone yourself with that one. it’s your opinion. many others have the opposite opinion, myself included. why is your opinion fact?
I think Liberal was our most “wacky” horror story of an auto-didactic, but it seems sometimes that you are a close second, Stoid. One of the perils of learning a complicated subject on your own is that there’s no one to say “Whoa, way off”, so you can get trapped going down a long rabbit hole of “truth”. I think that’s why some people think you have such an abrasive style at times - you go so far down the rabbit hole before you post here, when someone says “Whoa, way off” they must be a total screw up and/or jerk to disagree with you.
YMMV
Seems to me it’s more a matter of opinion than it is a matter of fact.
While I appreciate that you’re not inclined to take to heart that many people seem to find your posting style abrasive, I think that in a case like this all you CAN do in terms of assessing it is to take others’ opinions into consideration. A posting style is only measurable in terms of how other people react to it. History is indeed filled with examples of people agreeing on things that were “wrong.” Either objectively wrong about some fact, such as believing the sun traveled around the earth, or morally wrong such as believing that it’s OK to commit genocide. But a personal opinion regarding whether or not a person is abrasive can’t be “wrong,” there is no objective measure or logic guiding it. Therefore, it makes no sense to base your own assessment of the value of the opinion on your respect for those who hold it…because since it’s a visceral thing, a person could be smart and upstanding in every way, they could agree 100% with whatever it is you’re saying, and yet they could still have a negative reaction to your style. And it has to follow that if many people independently come up with the same opinion, based on nothing more than their own visceral reaction, there’s probably a reason.
I think if I said “You are an idiotic poster” in GD I would get a warning.
You and I have had this conversation before, so I’ll just quote from your own cite in this thread again (starts at #251 for those who wish to skip right to it):
The majority of people on this board think that you behavior here is rude and abrasive, therefore it is, by definition, rude and abrasive. You’ve said you don’t care what most people think, which is your privilege, but you don’t get to say “it’s a fact” that you don’t have a “generally unlikable” posting style when the majority* says you do.
*To cut your pseudo-lawyering off at the pass: I’m aware that a literal majority of the members of this board have not all posted their opinions of your posting style, but the majority of those who have chosen to post to this thread agree that you tend to be rude and abrasive.
This analysis doesn’t include people who’ve completely stopped responding to the posts you author.
Also, I didn’t say you create antagonism everywhere you go. I said IF that is what the mods think of you (which I think at least **tomndebb **does, based on the assessment of you as “a bit of an abrasive/borderline disruptive poster”), then they should make a rule against it if they want to action you for it. Abrasiveness, like dumbness, is not against any board rules I know of.
The rule is in place: don’t be a jerk. Abrasive/borderline disruptive behavior is jerkish, yes?
You, yourself, have said that vitriolic pit threads have been created about you. That seems to be data disputing this fact. In addition you have said that you choose to not read those pit threads. How can you be so confident in others’ opinion of you if you choose to ignore the threads that are, by design, an expression of the negative opinion? I think the data you are choosing to include in your self analysis are skewed.
Actually I think it is true for most of us, that we don’t care much about the opinions of those who we disrespect, and care more about those whose opinions we do respect. Thing is that many of us have a default position to respect others’ opinions*, even when we disagree; your default seems to be to active disrespect … especially of, but not restricted to, those who do not bow to the certainty of your truths. That comes through loud and clear.
Again, just my opinion, and as neither my opinion, or I gather, any one else’s here, are ones that you respect (other when those opinions are regarding your correctness), I recognize that such will have little impact. Hundreds of other posters (and mods) could tell you that your posting style is often irritating and abrasive and since those who tell you something other than agreement with those items you are certain of automatically are not among those who you respect, you don’t, and probably won’t ever, care. I get that.
And 'nuff said.
*Mind you there are a handful of posters here who I actively disrespect, but they are a distinct minority.
This is a classic fallacy engaged in by supporters of health woo and half-baked theories in general. “Science wuz wrong before; therefore my beliefs carry weight”.
We hear this in the climate change debate, from AIDS denialists, antifluoridation and antivaccine activists and many others.
But one’s particular case is not helped by errors that anyone else may have committed in the past; it rises or falls on its own merits. If you’re going up against a strong consensus based on solid evidence, you need good evidence of your own, possibly even extraordinarily good evidence (to support extraordinary explanations).
Based on past encounters, I think you need to take a closer look at those whose opinions you respect.
I guess this seems pretty straightforward to me. If you call someone a name, however mild, with negative qualities, however mild, you’ve insulted them, however mild–and you’ve broken the rules, however mild. At that point, the mods have a variety of responses at their disposal. If you don’t want them to turn to their arsenal, don’t break a rule, however mildly.
Also, I came across some words of wisdom yesterday:
That was rather harsh-- could you put it a little more mildly?
You can get a warning for insinuating some unnamed person is an idiot. No, I am not kidding.
You would be an expert on that, what with your mod-sanctioned Pit blog, and all… :rolleyes:
Why, Mods, why???
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: