Sometimes people post before they realize the outcome of what they had to say came out wrong. But that’s okay this is but a message board water off the back. Albeit one I am paying for so I believe my 15$ input is just as valid as anyone elses regardless of time here.
And I am in turn being polite erm I went off half cocked one time, I was right but expressed myself in a very poor manner, since that time I have read what I typed twice, never for spelling or grammar just for intent.
No manipulation intended. It was an honest question. You used to be an interesting poster, with a uniquely off-kilter point of view. Lately you’ve just become oblique and pointlessly combative. I don’t know what happened, but I’d welcome a return to original form.
Interesting, I asked him something similar, but he chose not to respond. I’ve never seen this side of him before, can you link to another recent thread like you described?
Jim
Woah there Tom, hostile? I have only been hostile in the PIT, once I got out of line in GD, but not enough to garner a warning just a “keep it in line” which was deserving. This board is not a civil place, by no means is it civil. Not even in GQ where it should be kept civil, there is an allowance for snarky replies using the “Well Cecil does it” approach.
Now if you want act like a dick my reply will be to a dick, you want to act like a civil person, I will reply like a civil person.
I was operating on the assumption people were following your dry “<basso profundo>” lead. But that, admittedly (like trolling accusations) was just a guess. Though you don’t moderate the Pit, I would hope you would remind others who (may have) followed your lead to lay-off on the “liar” insinuations until evidence shows otherwise.
His past history aside, as a poster (as opposed to a staffer) of this board who rarely shrinks (n.p.i.) from posting their opinion in an unofficial capacity, do you feel drmark200’s thread in question was (1) deliberate trolling (2) rises to the level of requiring further disciplinary action?
OK, Guin, I’m terminally stupid. I just prefer a world where the pit is a place you can be offensive. Trolling is such a subjective thing, and fuck, who does it really hurt? I guess I’m not threatened by pit trolls. I don’t know 'em when I see 'em, and I don’t really care. Subjective shit bothers me. That’s just me.
That “rate” is necessarily going to be less than the percent of marriages that end in divorce, right? As soon as somebody gets divorced twice, they’ve added to the second rate but not the first. Unless the sentence is poorly worded, and they meant counting events instead of people.
drmark said 50% of marriages end in divorce. I didn’t check it, but I’ve heard it before. Even if he’s wrong, you admit the rate is (or was) greater than 41%, and I wouldn’t consider his posit trolling - I believe he believed that number.
I also got comments that he pitted people who got married, rather than marriage. I admit I do not see the distinction there that makes one valid and the other out of bounds.
I have noticed how you post to point out some supposed infraction by another while committing the same in your own post. You’ve done this a number of times. Seems sadistic to me.
What, I missed a drmark thread? I’m crushed.
So pit that person. Or report the posts. I personally think you should be able to call that person a troll if that’s what you see them doing, but that’s my opinion and it’s been done to death. Enough posters who’ve been members for several years have been banned in the past couple months to disprove what you’re saying.
It’s difficult to “enlighten the shitheads” who are bound and determined to not be enlightened. For example: above, What Exit pointed out to you that just about everyone has been responding to you politely and trying to be informative, that you’re not being piled on, it’s just your perception. You took that information, thought about it, and agreed there was some merit to it. If more than one person tells me that I’m behaving like a flaming cunt, I’m going to realize that the fault probably isn’t with them, and I should curb back on the bile and maybe take a break til I calm down. Both normal responses. DrMark the incredible nihilist not doesn’t do that. People have attempted to inform him that he’s coming off as a passive aggressive shitheel, ranging from polite to confrontational, and he then accuses the person pointing this out as having some personality flaw. Intentional disconnect. He refuses to accept any fault may lie with him, and phrases his responses as vaguely as possible and for maximum provocation, so if a poster finds it offensive, he can claims miscommunication (on that person’s part, of course).
drmark, I posted a series of questions here. Would you mind responding to at least the first three, please?
Hey, look! A clinical psychologist who doesn’t know what “sadism” means! That’s something you don’t see every day!
I did not even post any numbers to bumble, here.
First, I’d like to apologize because it appears that my link to the entire article doesn’t work. Sorry about that. I’m not sure why.
My comments were essentially nitpicking. The 50% figure is in the air, it’s everywhere, and it’s wrong. It’s based on a comparison of marriages and divorces in the same year, and that is simply not a proper method for calculating the divorce rate. The 50% figure was mentioned in the OP and disputed by other posters with cites, and then you repeated it, and my nitpicking reflex kicked in.
Marriage versus people who marry, same thing, picking nits.
None of what I said was intended to demonstrate that the OP constituted trolling. I thought it was poorly written and lame-brained, but not offensive. As others have said, there’s a pattern of deliberately (IMO) provocative posts for this guy, which I think was demonstrated in that thread, not in the OP, that has drmark2000 constantly flirting with mod action. Sorry for the nit-picking.
Of course not. Trunk pisses many off and he’s still here.
One did, yes.
PhD. Pure and plain.
You thinks I’m a gonna tells you this things? Ridiculous! I have stated the truth, and that is enough.
Wouldn’t you like to know?
What you call ignorance is, in fact, a sweeping knowledge and incandescent understanding of the issues at hand that simply dwarfs your intellect. You want to twiddle away on details, pretending that symptoms are the issues themselves, rather than mere manifestations of the more fundamental problems existing on a deeper level. I shoot deeper, and hit deeper.
I ain’t one of them, bud. Legit degree, legit experience. That’s me. Pisses you off, doesn’t it?
Look, sign up for one of those inane seminars we’re constantly being goaded to attend, and pretend that that guy sure knows what it’s all about. Get a few CEU’s and pat yourself on the back. Discuss Russell Barkley’s grrrrreeeeaaaat works and pretend that he revealed some profound truth in determining (using thousands of children as guinea pigs) that amphetamines cause short-term improvement in attention. Oh, and also that the side effects aren’t all that bad. And that behavioral interventions don’t make any significant difference compared to those of a healthy dose of speed, now in increasingly sophisticated delivery systems.
IF you’re a clinical psychologist, then you know as well as I do that there is little in the process all the way to getting licensed that isn’t just a hazing ritual. No clinical value whatsoever. Direct experience does count for something, however. I have scads of that.
Why not?
I’ll tell you why not! Because then there will all of this harping on the “dr” instead of on whatever issues you raise. This is a defense, an avoidance, by people who cannot bear to face down The Truth.
I am not sure how or why I should put aside his history.
Given his history, I viewed his thread as trolling.* Closing the thread with a warning was, in my opinion, sufficient disciplinary action. (Other staffers may disagree.)
Thank you, that is a perfect example of the kind of post I have seen you make multiple times that shows what a grade A conceited jerk you really are.
Jim
I’ve been warned for asking if someone was trolling or just being dense. That was years ago and I think it’s my only warning.
Really? I would have characterized your posts in this thread as hostile. They are not rude. They are not uncivil. They are certainly not out of line for SDMB contribution. However, you have accused the staff and some undefined portion of the TM as operating strictly on a basis of popularity, threatened to withhold your renewal, and called the suggestion that drmark2000 be banned “bullshit.” Now, you may or may not be correct in your opinions, but I would still characterize those sort of comments as “hostile.” I did not mean to imply that you were out of line in your hostility. In fact, the specific point was that regardless of your views toward other opinions (and, perhaps, either or both the rules or the staff), you were, indeed, behaving in a way that would do nothing to jeopardize your continued participation from the perspective of the staff.
Why do you think this would be the case? Are you often convinced that people are angry at you?
And I just want to take this moment to thank everyone (and I do mean that) who has contributed to this thread. It has been great to hear again from posters who I haven’t heard from in a long time, and pretty much figured had engaged in the most disreputable practice of placing me on their ignore list. My faith in humanity is slightly renewed.
I just wish I had the time to respond to all of you individually, but this blanket laudation will have to do. I am, after all, a busy man.