Actually, rereading what I just wrote I find that I couldn’t disagree with myself more.
So apparently it turns out that I am a fucking idiot. With a headache.
I think it would be best if you just ignored me. Scylla is right. And Lord knows you won’t hear me say that very often 
pan
kabbes, I think you should start another thread if you’re going to slag yourself off like that. Public self-abuse is never very attractive (unless she’s really attrac… err… I didn’t mean to say that).
yes, it would be very nice if everyone would admit when they’ve overreacted or were wrong. (and, don’t think I don’t remember the time I got you to admit that you were wrong and I was right ).
And, we’d sure like it if everybody treated everybody else with respect. It’s certainly possible to politely and respectfully disagree with others. and of course, we should aspire to this. And, I like to think that I try (and have even defended folks I disagree with, in some cases quite publically disagreeing with posters closer to my ideological stance. )
however, to expect that all will do so is to wish for the stars.
Ooh, ooh! Me next!
SPOOFE, I’ve taken a few hundred thousand deep breaths, and I’ve decided you’re not a total jerk after all.
minty, that’s just hyperventilation. 
Um, while we’re all here I’d like to apologize to Maeglin for pissing him/her off about a year and a half ago-- I didn’t mean for you to take what I said about Columbia U.'s recruitment literature personally-- I just felt like it wasn’t my scene from a very rural west coast point of view. Nothing personal.
I’d also try to come to terms with that guy who was always so passionately explosive about performance art-- the guy that studied under Chris Burden, but I think he might have gotten banned, I seem to recall. Or I’m conflating posters.
Have I pissed anyone else off? Perhaps Coldfire of Kaese with my unceasing dumb questions about the low coutnries?
Coldie, how would you react to a man who equated the Holocaust to abortions?
I agree with the OP, Scylla. It really does take a pretty big person to allow someone in an argument some “wiggle room.” Part of what I find attractive/nice about my friends is that most of them make it really easy for me to say that I was wrong - and I’m much more likely to admit it and apologize because of that. I try to do this, too - but I, too, sometimes have a bad habit of beating things into the ground if I know I am right. Sheesh, that’s a nasty habit I have to work on. Thank you for the reminder, Scylla.
Tibs.
I’d ask them if they were on crack.
Why?
[POINTLESS HIJACK]
You know, fluoxetine (Prozac[sup]TM[/sup]), blocks the pharmacological action of codeine… So you may as well stick to plain ol’ acetomenophine-- or morphine, if that’s what you’re after.
[/POINTLESS HIJACK]
Bravo, Scylla.
You know why people get involved in these trainwrecks?
Because they feel good. OK, maybe not good, but there is a crazy emotional rush associated with the feeling of righteous fury, and it is attractive.
In this particular case, the people don’t want olive branches. As an example, in the original thread I worked my butt off trying to come up with posts that gave all people involved the wiggle room to preserve their dignity, and was completely ignored. At least at that point, they wanted to fight. Who are we to deny them their amusements? At this point, it’s best just to bow out.
See, here’s Manda Jo offering the plaster cast of face-saving, and
–okay, I’ve beat that one to death.
I agree: I think when folks get their hackles up, fighting becomes a lot easier than conceding a point. Even when it makes you feel miserable to fight, it’s very difficult to look for reconciliation on any terms but a full surrender from your opponent.
I know that when I was engaged in a recent trainwreck (and thank sweet Jesus that’s over with), once I got really involved, I found it virtually impossible to stop myself from continuing. Even though I knew it was making me miserable.
We’re funny creatures, some of us.
Daniel
Scylla,
I enjoyed your OP very much.
I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion around here to many posters but I would hope that your OP could be applied to December as well. I’ve seen pile on upon pile on toward this man and I just wish sometimes people could stick to the issue rather than call him an asshole all the time. I have defended him more than once because he has always been kind to me, apologized on occasion when something came out differently from how he meant it, and is consistent with his beliefs, however unpopular they may be.
I think that sometimes we are all guilty of forgetting that there are people behind these screen names. There is no reason why people have to be attacked personally just because their opinions are unpopular. I would be interested to know if anyone agrees with me or if I am in an extreme minority.
Well, better an idiot that gets to fuck, than a plain idiot, I suppose…
Well, as far as december goes-I don’t think he’s an asshole. However, I do think he’s a troll and a weasel and sometimes he defends people who are morally bankrupt, as far as I’m concerned. (Pinochet, Ashcroft, etc).
I give even odds that I’ll be crawling in here having to apologize again for something in 24 hours.
Well, maybe not completely.
I was having trouble figuring out the OP. Was Opalcat interested in non-leather but nice books purely for their exterior appearance on the mantle piece? Or was she wondering what to do if there was a book she really liked, but it was only available in paperback, cloth or leather, none of which she found acceptable?
So flowbark tries to clarify. He tries to be polite, although he suspects that his decorative tastes may vary from that of Opal’s. Flowbark is misunderstood: Opal believes that flowbark is belittling to her Vege POV as an aesthetic one.
In the next post, flowbark briefly muses about the misunderstanding, then tries to steer the thread back to the original topic. (Difficult, because I still wasn’t entirely clear on what was being discussed.)
Anyways, keeping those musings brief, I attempt to make a distinction between consequential ethics (as represented by those who don’t eat meat because of its harmful effects on animals or those who don’t buy books with non-recycled paper because of their harmful effects on habitat) and nonconsequential ethics.
Examples of nonconsequential ethics might be a small individual investor who eschews investing in defense stocks, not because of the effects of such an action (negligible) but because he or she doesn’t want to take blood money. I’m not defending that; but I do maintain that it’s a legitimate POV. Another example might be if an animal rights activist decides not to borrow a fur coat from a friend. Sure, wearing it may do little direct harm. But there are principles involved.
As an aside, I note that consequentialists can typically point to indirect effects to justify all manner of ethical conclusions.
Mesuspects that Opal thought I was belittling the idea of basing an ethical stance on such a revulsion. Actually I wasn’t (FTR); as indicated above, I have no problem with nonconsequential ethics. So she drove the point home, using an extreme but unfortunate example. Which I wish she didn’t use, for various reasons.
And all heck broke loose.
Sorry about that. Maybe I should have inserted more detail between 2 “hijack” indicators.
Let it rest, flowbark, let it rest.
[nighty night]
I may have overstated my sentiments above, but I wanted to show the context in which Opal made her unfortunate comparison. Myself being part of that context.
Note the wide gap between what I was trying to allude to and my actual quote.
Um…er…so can I post without you accusing me of following you around?
With these sorts of threads, I have a great temptation to point out that the reason people get into these sort of fights is that while I am a reasonable, utterly logical poster, practically everyone else is a raving lunatic who is incapable of acknowledging any point that doesn’t agree with their position, and that these sort of things would stop if people would just recognize my absolute moral authority and unerring ability to take the position that is actually correct. But then I remember that practically everyone else feels the same way about themselves, and they feel just as justified in their beliefs as I do in mine. Saying that I am right is ultimately redundant and unproductive, and so I will not say that [sub]even though I am, of course[/sub].
Okay, it looks like I’m not as good at resisting temptation as I’d like.
You made some very good points in your OP, Scylla.
Manda Jo: I feel bad about ignoring you in the other thread. I couldn’t think of any way of saying “I think you’re wrong” in a way that as polite as you had been.