Cool by me. If you’re the sort of person who thinks Waverly’s petty, sniping complaints have merit, fthen your respect wasn’t worth much to begin with.
If Waverly wanted to get me to reconsider my posts, he could have tried a more constructiive approach. Instead, from his very first post, he went on the offensive, replete with personal insults. I’ll listen to constructive criticism, but I’m damned if I’'m going to back down in the face of Waverly’s posts.
And shall I pull up a handful of your old posts and demand that you defend them, Wring?
You’ve pretty much helped prove the veracity of Waverly’s concerns right in the this thread, what with the backhanded swipe at the worth of my respect, and the unsubstantiated dismissal of Waverly’s OP. Thanks, you’ve done more to clear up the issue for me than Waverly ever could have.
Still no attempt to explain why it’s ok for you to ‘generalize,’ but not for others to ‘stereotype,’ even though they are essentially the same thing?
If I made a statement like “All blank are/do/feel blank” feel free.
you used a rhetorical device. I don’t believe for a minute that you believe that:
and
it was a rhetorical device. But, you got called on it. and instead of admitting that you were exaggerating for the sake of the point, you got all huffy.
I won’t guarentee that I’ve never gotten huffy, or screwed up (I believe that Izzy has a list of my screw ups), but fuck, when you get called on it, own up to it.
this kind of response is really childish (IMHO), and once again(IMHO), serves to lower folks opinions of you.
What childish drek, Gobear. First off, you were being called on your attitude and habit weaving a single thread of fact into a tapestry of insulting generalizations – this isn’t a critique of random postings. You are the one who choose to attempt to wheedle out of individual statements first with verbal knot-making, then with claims of having support, and now with a statement that you stand by what you said but don’t wish to offer support.
If one can’t use posts to demonstrate you have an annoying habit, than what should we do, say so without offering support – oh, wait, I guess that would be ok with you.
If you want things explained to you calmly and with more care, consider entering threads the same way.
Can I have my pearl back please?
Thanks,
Steven
I agree with this. I like gobear, even though I suspect that he (when he wastes a millisecond to think of me ;)) doesn’t necessarily think I do.
The reason for this is when I get fed up with some of his “sweeping generalizations” and call him on it (this has almost always been in regard to his low opinion of religion) he almost immediately starts in with lines such as, “Go ahead and feel free to hate me, yosemitebabe, I know you already do.” or, “I know you hate me anyway, look how hateful you are being to me” (just general paraphrases here).
I never have understood why he does that. I don’t hate him, I never did, I think he’s a cool guy most of the time and he’s made many well-reasoned posts that have won my heart. But he can be so quick to get ultra-melodramatic with the “go ahead and HATE ME” bulllshit. It’s a puzzle why he does this.
I think it’s way over the top and does not reflect anything I’ve actually written in my posts. My gosh–one can disagree strongly with someone without hating them with a white-hot intensity of a thousand suns! Come on!
So that’s all I had to say about this. Yes, gobear can be abrasive, and yes, like others here, I do find it incredulous that he won’t even attempt to find cites to back up his statements. But more than that, I wanted to state that I LIKE HIM. I am stating this in a relatively cool and collected manner; I am not currently engaging on any debate with him and haven’t for a long time. But I want to remind him that that the next time (if there is a next time) that I (or anyone else) butts heads with him, (especially about religion) it does not automatically mean that we hate him. So please, dear gobear, don’t trot that old melodramatic device so quickly next time, because I’ll simply link you to this post and gently remind you that that dog won’t hunt.
Of course, it’s a rhetorical device, and nobody but a fool like Waverly would take it for gospel truth. But here’s the thing, I’ll admit it to you because you posted in a respectful, albeit chiding, manner. Sure, I need to get spanked sometimes and I’ll even admit I’m wrong when I’m busted, but here’s the thing. . .
I’ll be chided, scolded, shamed, and corrected, but what I will never do is give in to bullying and personal attacks. Ever.
Frankly, I think I owe Bright N’Shiny an apology for my comments because I did go overboard in that thread, but I’m not going to do it now because that would be giving in to this fucking asshole. (Ah, it feels sooo goood to swear now that I’m away from work.)
If Waverly had said, "Hate to Pit you Gobear, but hey, you went way overboard and here’s why. . " I’d have hung my head and apologized. But when this clueless fuck decides to launch a thread filled not with facts but with personal insult, he gets the back of my hand and rightly so.
And YosemiteBabe, I do apologize for thinking you didn’t like me. I’m sorry for any hurt I may have caused, and I will remember this thread.
Waverly and Hamlet, on the other hand, can eat cat shit.
So you owe a 3rd party an apology, but won’t offer it in order to spite me? How very adult of you.
snort Back of your hand? Better take a longer back swing next time, bruiser.
So you’re wrong, but because I didn’t kiss your ring when telling you so, you won’t admit it. I think I just lost the remaining respect I had for you. Again, if you want to be approached differently, try not coming across as a jackass. My job isn’t to coddle you and stroke your sense of self worth; however is someone comes accross as pleasant, I do hope they find I’m pleasant in return.
It’s a common theme around here that folks will back themselves into a verbal corner, and won’t budge unless the person points it out respectively, in an almost ‘awww shucks, surely you don’t mean’ manner. Joe Cool used the same tactic.
seems to me (I could be wrong) - but, seems to me that you didn’t let him get away with it.
Doesn’t it?
The OP had some thought put into it. It wasn’t just one of those rants born out of the heat of the moment. Foolish isn’t something I associate with the OP or with Waverly as a poster. I feel myself agreeing with certain points raised by the OP.
I hope you won’t instruct me to eat shit for that, gobear.
To be more precise, it’s cat shit we’re eating. You know, just to be accurate.
Well, Wring, if you feel it necessary to compare me to Joe_Cool, so be it. I don’t think it’s just, but what do I know?
Waverly, what you fail to understand is that my opinion of my actions is what matters, not yours. I do what I think is right, not what you or anyone else thinks is right. What truly pisses me off is that nobody has called you on your deliberate, purposeful, lying distortions of my posts. I already pointed out that you have attributed things I didn’t say, and mischaracterized what I did say.
I’m supposed to read 10 dead threads in which I posted a long time ago, remember the exact comments each person made and the context in which they were made, and provide relevant cites to back up everythinbg i said. Why should I go to all that trouble on Waverly’s say so? I have other plans for my evening than jumping to his whistle.
And no, I’m not mad at you, Monstro. You’re all right. I’m mad at Waverly and Hamlet for thinking character assassination is a worthwhile debate tactic.
Joe_Cool would ignor poster’s comments unless they’d voiced them respectively. I believe lots of folks gave him shit for that. You might not have been among them, but I highly suspect that you were.
Please explain how that is different than your post on the prior page.
Well, Gobear, I think I adequately addressed any specific accusations of mischaracterization. That might be why there hasn’t been an outcry.
You don’t have to examine your actions on my account. It’s your life. However, once again I will point out that what I’m critical of is your habit of making unfair generalizations. The individual posts only serve as illustrations. You are the one who thinks it is necessary to debate each one, and you were only asked for cites after doing so.
Perhaps what you can do instead is look at their tone, the types of reactions they elicit, and ponder whether that is how you really want to portray yourself. Just for fun try to think how you’d react if the topic was homosexuality, and someone else made similar comments.
Character assassination? Well… I suggest you document where that occured and report it to a mod poste haste.
Fair enough, I suppose.
Why on Earth would they care if my character is being impugned?
But why are they unfair characterizations? You object to my statement that Germans were the architects of the Holocaust? Weren’t they? You clearly don’t believe that the German nation was complicit; why didn’t the Germans defy the racial laws like the Dutch and the Danes did? Why did they post “Juden Verboten” signs in their shop windows? Why did they turn their backs on the Jewish colleagues and neighbors as they were rounded up and shipped off to the death camps? Who staffed the camps, organized the transport, built the crematoria, used slave labor in their factories? Please explain how that generalization is unfair.
And to answer Autz’s question abotu stereotypers and generalizations:
Stereotypes reduce a group to one or two false characteristics: gays are effeminate, blacks are dishonest, Mexicans are lazy, Jews are greedy, and so on. A generalization, OTOH, is a statement that is roughly descriptive of a group, but is not necessarily true of each member of that group, e.g. Americans are fatter than any other nationality. Is it true about every American? No. Does it describe the preponderance of the population? Yes. Merely pointing to one skinny American does not disprove the statement about the group in general.
[And to answer Autz’s question abotu stereotypers and generalizations:
Stereotypes reduce a group to one or two false characteristics: gays are effeminate, blacks are dishonest, Mexicans are lazy, Jews are greedy, and so on. A generalization, OTOH, is a statement that is roughly descriptive of a group, but is not necessarily true of each member of that group, e.g. Americans are fatter than any other nationality. Is it true about every American? No. Does it describe the preponderance of the population? Yes. Merely pointing to one skinny American does not disprove the statement about the group in general. **
[/QUOTE]
So if some one points out that, for example, out of the millions and millions of Muslims, there are some who have joined AlQ and are terrorists, then that would be an unfair stereotype, right? just checking.