Thank you, Dopers and (eventually) Pitters!

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Right, exactly. You would respond to my current OP by bringing up other posts I’ve made in other threads in order to attack my character, and why is that not hijacking and thread-shitting?
[/quote]

Perhaps this was unclear, but I would use the quotes to answer the “Please post something that will serve as evidence that you just don’t, for whatever reason, like me very much”, rather than the OP of this thread, which, actually, I’m having trouble understanding. My initial response is that even without a complete understanding, I can still casually point out that it follows your well-established pattern of trying to use poorly-phrased sarcasm to explore why people don’t like you. It’s not really that much of a mystery.

Oh. Would I? I can only suggest you try it and see. It would yield stronger evidence than just assuming the result you want. I’ve already decided you’re an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, but I also like kittens, so I guess you’re not all bad. You didn’t praise kittens or comment on the weather, though, you simply re-established your particular variety of childishness. Did you assume you’d get different results than the last thirty or so times you tried it? If anything, I praise the members of this board for consistency.

Well, that only means you can read. :smiley:

Well, actually, the arguments are fine. It’s all the pointless crap and self-righteousness you throw in that derails almost every thread you touch. If you start a thread with a well-reasoned, calm, sarcasm-free argument for protecting the divide between church and state, I’ll cheerfully support you. Instead, everything is about you and why people don’t like you and what’s their problem with you.

Would anyone who disagreed with whatever point you were trying to make in the OP demonstrate that thread-shitting was their life? What would have been, in your view, a good response?

And my challenge remains, for what it’s worth.

22

I’m trying to have a discussion of how often posting to make a certain point has the effect of providing instead ammunition for the opposition. Rather than fighting ignorance, advocates will nurture it, which is interesting to me. As open-minded as I try to be to new ideas, I often find posts supplying me unwittingly with reinforcement of my own contrary positions, and I applaud Dopers for exposing their positions with as much honesty as they do, even though it usually works contrary to their intentions to do so.

Now, I admit this isn’t too earth-shattering a point to make, and hardly a Pitting at all, except the examples I used were either Pittings or had Pitworthy content in themselves, not to mention the hostility that follows from such fine fellows like you, Brian, or some of your other fellow travelers who see my username and think “Hmmm, what’s that jerk saying this time, I’ll get some snark in somehow…oh, damn, this seems to be about how nice kittens are, and how strange ignorance-fighting can be, oh, well, what the hell, I’ll come up with some thread-shitting nonsense anyway,” which is exactly what you’re doing right now. It’s not much of a point? Fine. Don’t read it. Don’t respond to it. Never darken my door again. Go fuck yourself. But, no, those options would be too easy. Instead you have to barge in here and turn this thread, which basically is not about me at all, and turn into an examination of my character and then proclaim “Here’s that asshole** PRR** again, yakking about himself.” Not enough fucking rolleyes on this planet for the likes of you.

Nothing.

23

But this thread wasn’t about kittens. It was (yet again) a screed about how much of a victim we’re making out of you, and responding to such has been entertaining. And, further, you’re obviously fully aware of this given the very title of this thread. You expect to be pitted for your effort? Honestly, would you have been disappointed if you didn’t get a negative response, or inspire some spin-off Pit threads about you, or something else to reinforce your claimed victimization? I ask again; what would have constituted a good response to this thread in your view, if not (paradoxically) a negative one?

Actually, when I see your name on a new thread, I have to admit it is irresistible because you’re entertaining in the manner of a 15-car pile-up.

24

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’m trying to have a discussion of how often posting to make a certain point has the effect of providing instead ammunition for the opposition. Rather than fighting ignorance, advocates will nurture it, which is interesting to me. As open-minded as I try to be to new ideas, I often find posts supplying me unwittingly with reinforcement of my own contrary positions, and I applaud Dopers for exposing their positions with as much honesty as they do, even though it usually works contrary to their intentions to do so.
[/quote]

Through my own carelessness, I didn’t give this paragraph the reading it deserved and I’ll admit it is a succinct, sarcasm-free and entirely valid premise for a potentially thought-provoking thread and I congratulate you for writing it and any further responses I make will build on this rather than the OP.

It’s true, of course, that everyone responds from his own prejudices, but I’m afraid I can’t quite see how a negative response to a premise somehow reinforces that premise. There can be a mob mentality in which respondents compete with each other to find the most derisive possible response to a new thread. I’ve seen this on other boards and I actually find the SDMB approach far better than most because there is (typically) an effort to be somewhat witty in the process, and also a sufficiently good writer can advance his idea, provided he doesn’t supply the deriders with more ammunition by showing that they’ve succeeded in irritating him. It’s relatively rare, I think, that no-one offers up a constructive response. The check-bouncer’s complaint, though, was pretty immature and I wouldn’t expect much sympathy (except possibly, from an SDMB member who used the thread as a springboard for a general blasting of the banks and capitalism in general, though we don’t seem to have as many of those as we used to).

One key element, though, is that the SDMB is not an academic message-board and the posters are not competing for grants or glory nor held to a professional or academic code of conduct. It is not essential that every response to a controversial thread be a constructive one, nor that every poster who starts a thread is treated as though “clean” of all his previous statements on similar subjects.

25

Interesting. You don’t really have any beliefs or thoughts of your own, do you? The most interting you can be on this board is by being the kiss-ass terrier “dittohead” of “another poster who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back”. Well, I see you are trying to be a jerk all on your own, since the “other poster’s who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back” shit on your nose has nearly all been licked off and you are missing the taste and the abuse. But it’s sad, really. Pitiful. :frowning:

26

Do you ever dismount from your one trick pony PRR? There is no reason to open a pit thread about other pit threads when you can express your contempt for those posters in the original threads. Well, there is a reason, of course, and that’s so you can tell us yet again how much better you are than theists. OK, we got that. We’re all suitably impressed. Feel better?

27

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Interesting. You don’t really have any beliefs or thoughts of your own, do you? The most interting you can be on this board is by being the kiss-ass terrier “dittohead” of “another poster who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back”. Well, I see you are trying to be a jerk all on your own, since the “other poster’s who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back” shit on your nose has nearly all been licked off and you are missing the taste and the abuse. But it’s sad, really. Pitiful. :frowning:
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that for four year **PRR ** managed to post without controversy. Now on one subject he has been involved in some very explosive GD and Pit threads. Is this enough reason to condemn him out of hand and across the ‘board’?

Would his op have been offensive to you if lets say *Idle Thoughts ** posted the same thing? **Idle Thoughts ** has never offended anyone and is generally well liked. He probably would have had mainly non-personnel answers. There may have been much disagreement, but there would not be the rancor this thread is getting as the Op is PRR.

Think about this for a few seconds and tell me if it is wrong.

Jim

28

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
<snip>

**Psuedo ** has now built up a lot of residual bad will. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
He seems to sit around trying to think of new ways to accumulate even more bad will. Jim, read the OP again. How would you describe what you perceive as the intent of the OP?

29

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
He seems to sit around trying to think of new ways to accumulate even more bad will. Jim, read the OP again. How would you describe what you perceive as the intent of the OP?
[/QUOTE]

A fair question as always, but mainly he is besmirching people who bounce checks and see nothing wrong with it and people who are chronically late and see nothing wrong with it. (Gulp I use to be chronically late, why did I fail to lash out against him.) :wink:

On the religious side, he is insulting the religious a little but at the same time admitting that to many he can see where they would consider his aggressive atheism just as ignorant.

[QUOTE=PRR]
I realize that some believers consider that it’s the atheists, and particularly me, who have exposed their ignorance in such threads, but for now I don’t care. It’s all to my point—by arguing their beliefs, posters often provide unexpected evidence for the opposing side to marvel over.
[/QUOTE]

This is far less offensive than many pit threads. Again, if someone like you or I started this same thread, would it be drawing the negative posts as much?

Many posters now have pre-disposition to look for the insult in what PRR posts. Please note I do believe one of his later posts was over the top and I said as much. In response to angry posts, he climbed up on his handy cross. I think his response in this case was silly.

Jim

30

[QUOTE=tdn]
I rape and torture albino kittens, but do I get a mention in your OP? Fuck no!)
[/QUOTE]
To rape kittens… doesn’t that mean you have to have a really little dick?

I’m just asking.
:stuck_out_tongue:

31

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You do realize that for four year **PRR ** managed to post without controversy. Now on one subject he has been involved in some very explosive GD and Pit threads. Is this enough reason to condemn him out of hand and across the ‘board’?

Think about this for a few seconds and tell me if it is wrong.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

No, you make a good point. But it seems like prr’s stint as the "kiss-ass terrier “dittohead” of “another poster who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back” has changed him. He seems now to be more angry and now seems to actively hate those with a different faith than him ( I consider die-hard atheism to be a “faith”). I mean, look at this thread!! :confused:

32

So, how many meta-levels is this thread supposed to be working on? Because I get confused after two or three.

33

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
A fair question as always, but mainly he is besmirching people who bounce checks and see nothing wrong with it and people who are chronically late and see nothing wrong with it. (Gulp I use to be chronically late, why did I fail to lash out against him.) :wink:

On the religious side, he is insulting the religious a little but at the same time admitting that to many he can see where they would consider his aggressive atheism just as ignorant.

This is far less offensive than many pit threads. Again, if someone like you or I started this same thread, would it be drawing the negative posts as much?

Many posters now have pre-disposition to look for the insult in what PRR posts. Please note I do believe one of his later posts was over the top and I said as much. In response to angry posts, he climbed up on his handy cross. I think his response in this case was silly.

Jim
[/QUOTE]
Jim, I agree that many posters have a predisposition to react strongly to Prr’s posts. I think you would agree that to a large degree he has earned that prejudice. In this case, his OP looks to me like a combination of “it’s all about me-ism” and spineless Pitting. He’s essentially pitting whole classes of posters without actually naming them. To me, it looks like another lame Prr attempt at a screed, with no intention other than to provoke.

Tim

34

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
Jim, I agree that many posters have a predisposition to react strongly to Prr’s posts. I think you would agree that to a large degree he has earned that prejudice. In this case, his OP looks to me like a combination of “it’s all about me-ism” and spineless Pitting. He’s essentially pitting whole classes of posters without actually naming them. To me, it looks like another lame Prr attempt at a screed, with no intention other than to provoke.

Tim
[/QUOTE]

Tim,

That seems like a fair view except I do not think PRR has crossed the line considering his long posting record to deserve the prejudice. If the biggest idiot on the dope posts something of interest to me, I will try to read it with an unprejudiced mind. I am not going to name names, but there are several posters who might be worthy of contempt, but there is no sense in giving into the contempt.

This pitting could be seen as spineless or could be seen as insightful. Somehow, I see it as insightful. He is even a little self-depreciating in the original post. YMMV

Jim

35

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Ponder [is] forwarding [an] agenda of responding to anything I post with seething hostility.
[/QUOTE]
Man, oh, man are you ever good at proving my point (“Man, you’re one self-righteous bastard.”) For the record, not only am I not seething with hostility, I am only somewhat amused at your shenanigans. I find it particularly amusing that you took one little statement of mine and decided I had an agenda – any sort of agenda – where you are concerned. Dude, you just aren’t that important.

36

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
No, you make a good point. But it seems like prr’s stint as the "kiss-ass terrier “dittohead” of “another poster who shall not be named as he was just put on hiatus and hopefully won’t come back” has changed him.
[/QUOTE]
He’s back.

37

Oh, c’mon, it’s not rape. Everyone knows the kittens are asking for it.

I did not just say that. Great Og, how I have been corrupted…

Seriously though–I know most people probably don’t care, but someone’s feelings might be really hurt by these attacks. Is there a more constructive way to do this?

38

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
Jim, I agree that many posters have a predisposition to react strongly to Prr’s posts. I think you would agree that to a large degree he has earned that prejudice. In this case, his OP looks to me like a combination of “it’s all about me-ism” and spineless Pitting. He’s essentially pitting whole classes of posters without actually naming them. To me, it looks like another lame Prr attempt at a screed, with no intention other than to provoke.

Tim
[/QUOTE]

You know, we can use the word troll in the pit now.

39

This thread is amounting to a lot of posts about **PRR ** and not so many about bouncing checks and late-itude. PRR’s qualifyer in the title of the OP “(eventually)”, suggests to me that he was expecting this thread to evolve into being about him, and not about the subjects he brought up in the OP. For good meassure, he threw in his favorite subject, theism (hoping to get a rise out of the theists?), and in effect he’s trolling.

40

You are likely right. But a lot of PIT threads turn around to bite the OP in the ass.