The rule you broke is, “don’t be a jerk.”
Remember this?
Harrassing other posters is being a jerk. Your inability to go a day without taunting other posters implies you haven’t learned anything.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I seriously doubt you’re capable of making such a determination about me.
Actually, it does demonstrate such an admission.
The cite itself was in the Pit; the trolling wasn’t limited to there.
Other than the whole “don’t be a jerk” thing, it wasn’t identified.
Actually, I’m not. I pride myself on my integrity. Had you such a quality (integrity), perhaps you would have some inkling of what honesty is.
I am quite familiar with honesty as I practice honestly. You, on the other hand, appear to need a roadmap to discover where it may be.
Yet again you show how low you are.
I’ll restate this slowly so you can understand.
I never admitted to being a troll.
The admission tom cites does not fit the SDMB’s definition of a troll.
You can argue the contrary till you are blue in the face but that won’t make it so.
Asserting my admission is an example of your dishonesty.
Your being a Mormon is an example of your irrationality.
Your not being able to understand any of this makes me think that you not very smart. So sorry.
I don’t post daily dipshit.
True, some of the time you’re suspended.
Cite that I post daily when not suspended.
Well, then, try going an hour without insulting someone. How about starting now?
This is the pit asshole.
So where does this end? Are all heartfelt beliefs equal? Say someone really in truly believes white people are superior to black people. Should we still treat racism with scorn, even though it is a heartfelt part of this person’s life? Say the German from “The Producers”, who had been a household servant type figure in Hitler’s home and had a personal attachment to him, showed up here. He truly believes Hitler was a good guy who got a bad rap. Should we refrain from speaking ill of Hitler in his presence?
I’ll admit I’m making a reductio ad absurdum arguement here, but I have a larger point. I actually agree with most of the sentiment Jodi expressed. I believe the best way to change individual hearts and minds is by first finding the common ground and then working together, respectfully and openly, at some of the areas where you disagree. Then our hypothetical German friend may be receptive to showing him evidence of what Hitler did when he wasn’t lounging about his villa with Eva in the springtime. Ensure our German friend knows we have a common goal, the fair evaluation and undrestanding of Hitler’s character so we can come to an agreement where previously we disagreed. Listen to his evidence for the “Good Hitler” and present, in an objective way, evidence for the “Bad Hitler”. Trust in his own intelligence and reasoning capabilities to sort things out.
This is my preferred way of handling disagreements in person. Step back, eliminate the personal/emotional issues, agree on a common goal, then work together to present your case and listen to theirs. Common understanding is generally possible, although occasionally you just have to agree to disagree. Still, when you remove the emotional aspects, ensure both parties know the ultimate goal of the discussion is to improve both parties lot, it becomes easier to reach consensus. If your philisophy on resolving interpersonal disputes is along these lines, then absolutely you should refrain from insulting the deeply held beliefs, or the objects thereof, of the person you are conversing with.
I’m just not sure that philisophy applies to communication on message boards. I tend to consider discussion here more akin to a debate or trial. Attorneys arguing a case aren’t trying to reach consensus with each other. They can say horrible things about the client of their opponent or their opponent’s positions. What they’re doing is speaking to the silent majority in the room. The judge and jury, and to a lesser extent, the gallery. On at least one occasion tomndebb has expressed a similar sentiment. He said he addresses the rediculous claims of people who probably aren’t at all interested in re-evaluating their position, not for the sake of the other participants in the thread, but for those who are merely reading.
Any given thread on this board has more readers than responders. Often many, many more. The feelings of the other parties in the discussion, and if they believe you to be poite, civil, etc. are simply unimportant when it is the silent majority you’re really addressing. Thus the harsh reality we see every day on this board, throughout the blogosphere, shows like Hannity and Colmes, etc.
It’s the system which creates this environment. Behavior like badchad exhibits is merely a product of said environment. It doesn’t matter, to him, if Polycarp, or tomndebb, or anyone else is hurt by what he says. As long as he believes the silent majority is receiving his message, and finds it impressive, the goal is achieved. I suppose it could be argued that people who manage to remain civil to their opponents AND impress the peanut gallery are the role models to emulate. Given the success of people like Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, and others who specialize in talking about their opponents instead of talking to them or working respectfully with them towards a meaningful consensus, it would be a difficult line to argue though.
It’s a new communications paradigm. Dueling soapboxes, disguised as interpersonal communication. The rules of polite interpersonal communication, including not insulting their mother, just don’t apply here. None of us is speaking to each other, or invested in the conversation per se, we’re all playing to the peanut gallery.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeah. We know who you are. You could add the word speaking if you think we have any doubts.
Yes, it is. I’m not saying you can’t insult other folks here, I’m saying that asserting your lack of jerkishness while insulting other folks is counterproductive.
The speed of your typing has nothing to do with the relevancy of your assertions.
Evidently you did.
It pretty much does. It’s not my fault you’re unable to distinguish that certain concepts have different sets of words to describe those same concepts.
Perhaps you’d benefit from attempting to understand that yourself. I’m not the one freaking out–you are.
Except for the minor quibble that it’s right there for all to see. That makes me not dishonest.
Nope. It makes me a person who has faith in a power greater than myself. There are plenty of people of any number of faiths who are neither dishonest nor irrational just as there are plenty of people without faith who are neither dishonest nor irrational. It’s a sad thing that you are not in their number.
I’m quite capable of understanding honesty. Too bad you’re apparently unable to practice it.
I really don’t think, though, that your dishonesty is your biggest liabilty here. That would have to be your complete inabilty to understand the concept of relevance.
<starts a slow clap for Mtgman>
You get it, mi amigo. 99.99% of the people here don’t get it, but you do.
Zoe,
That’s a great response in post #150. Thanks for the humor.
Fine, then how about you juxtipose for us my response to polycarp, as cited by tom, with the SDMB’s definition of a troll and demonstrate that they are the same. Then I’ll show you where you screwed up.
Oh I think far more than 0.01% of the people get it. tomndebb has flat out stated that he frequently posts for the benefit of the lurker versus the thread participants. I’d hazard a guess that Jodi is doing exactly the same thing and knows damn well that pleas for civility are wasted on badchad. She’s using her line of arguement, playing up the jerkitude of badchad’s behavior, to diminish the credibility any lurkers may give him. None of them seem interested in actually coming to a mutually advantageous consensus. If tomndebb, or Jodi, actually care about badchad’s interpersonal skills I’d be very suprised.
In fact I know of only one or two of our well-known posters/debaters who actually internalize these discussions instead of just trying to ensure their point is clearly made to the audience. Probably the most well known is Liberal. Makes him quite possibly the most tragic figure on the SDMB if you ask me.
Enjoy,
Steven
See there? You almost had a discussion there, a debate. You know, where two people talk back and forth about an issue…
Then you admitted to being not in the slightest interested in what he said. That’s what being a troll/jerk/asshole is.
No it’s called being sure about what I said, why I said it, and what the SDMB’s definition of a troll is. Monty can argue all he wants but he isn’t going to come up with anything, and frankly I doubt he’ll even try. Next time, just for you, I’ll pretend I don’t have the information that I do, and I’ll feign less certainty.
Then why di you ask him the question in the first place. You know you’re right. And not going to listen…
Troll.
I’ll wait until Jodi responds to post #129 before forming an opinion of just what exactly she was doing. Her behavior in this thread seemed very strange to me.