That said, I think those who use the ignore list should go back and check on the ones they ignore from time to time. It’s possible that the behavior that got them on the list isn’t there anymore or wasn’t really there in the first place.
::gives lissener a friendly wave::
Well, if you insist on such absolutist interpretations of my words (genetically human, indeed), then I can see why my posts are giving you troubles. I believe this is the crux (which does not, if you check, mean “sole issue”); you have both implicitly and explicitly taken the position that the ignore feature is used by most to censor opinions unpalatable to them. I, a happy denizen, am attempting to convey to you that there are a number of perfectly healthy reasons unrelated to opinion that might convince me someone is not worth engaging. You are stoutly resisting any such possibility, which is of course your prerogative. It would just be nice if you’d do so by argument, rather than simple denial:
I’m curious as to how I’m supposed to be strongly defensive of something that I have pointed out I do not do. If you have twanged a nerve, it is by being quite gratingly patronising about others’ choices of how they waste their time. Perhaps this is a common failing of bored psychologists; who knows. Re-reading my posts, it is only in the previous one in which I can see myself being remotely fractious, and that was prompted by you essentially accusing me of lying, something to which I rarely take well. Your patronising diagnosis of my behaviour as a simple means of protecting myself from opposing opinions ran contrary to just about everything else I had said, and indicated to me that you’re far more interested in simply projecting your objections to the ignore feature onto whomever is handy. Of the few posters whose posts I routinely skip, about 2 out of the three are (loosely speaking) of a similar ilk to me politically, and of those whose posts I routinely seek out, the majority can be regularly relied upon to present an opposing view to mine; what else would be the point of coming here? Deal with this data how you will. Perhaps, however, if you’re so convinced that I come here to provide myself with a neatly filtered sounding-box for my own opinions, you might consider why I’m here debating with you, since I so clearly disagree with what you say.
This is truly tiresome. You are not listening at all. Yes, I am given to hyperbole and even irony; I find it amuses me, even if not always successful, and most people are capable of dealing with it in the manner intended (namely: not literally). If you persist in extracting the very literal essence of my words (hint: I do not really believe we are beyond help), I’m going to be forced to debate in bullet points, which I detest. I’d appreciate it if you’d extend me the courtesy of actually listening to what I have to say, rather than simply accusing me of being a blind subconscious self-protective censor. It is, as you appear to have noticed, quite annoying.
I myself have already acknowledged that you are right in a sense: the ignore feature does have the potential to be damaging, if misused. It is your insistence that it is being misused that I take issue with, and which you do not seem to want to address. Certainly, a board in which everyone blithely ignored people whose opinions did not jibe with their own would rapidly stagnate and become worthless. However, your own little evidence-gathering expedition here seems to suggest that the average number of people in a user’s ignore list is somewhere around 2, consisting mostly of subsequently-banned trolls. I find this very hard to view as an epidemic of indiscriminate Ignoring (watch out: there was hyperbole there), and am attempting to convey this fact to you. You seem intent on driving your own theory of self-pleasing censorship to the exclusion of what everyone who actually uses this feature is telling you. If I’m wrong about that, great, but you’ve not shown any great indication to take others’ points on board save that of Maureen, whose reasonable post you subsequently twisted to insinuate “health issues” as a secondary reason for the ignore feature.
You stated it as “the” crux. The absolutism was provided entirely by yourself, and I correctly read it as such. No “interpretation” necessary. The word is defined in my Webster’s as 1. A crucial or vital moment; 2. The basic, essential, or central feature; 3. A puzzling problem; 4. A constellation in the Southern Hemisphere.
Def. #2 would appear to fit your intentions best, as evidenced by your use of the article “the” rather than “a.” Stop making it so easy for me, man.
I said that at that point, then openly ammended my view as more data came in.
I, as well, am curious about this.
Oh, come now. The last time I can remember being bored was at the age of 7. I taught myself to transcend it. As for your invoking of my profession, my sense is you’ve already had some encounters with at least a few of us, they saw through you right quick (it ain’t that difficult), and you’ve resented it to this day. Just a guess. True?
Please point out to me where, exactly, I “essentially” accused you of lying. Your paranoia heightens; one sign of boredom.
No one has “diagnosed” you; well, I haven’t, anyway. The term diagnosis has specific meanings in my profession, inappropriate to these boards. I have referred to you as paranoid, just above, but that’s not a diagnosis proper. Still, if the shoe fits…
You “debate” with me, as you term it, because you wrongly intepret something personal to you in what I have posted. You wrongly interpret it in this way because you know, deep in your black little heart, that you are guilty of your own misinterpretation of my comments. Not my fault.
Now, I can really see you in “The Other Chair.” I’ll bet you’ve been there more than a few times, haven’t you, boyo? And that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. One just needs to stick with it.
My mention of “health issues” is in reference to a post by faithfool, right here in this thread. You’re taking this as a reference to Maureen’s posts gives you away yet again. YOU’RE not reading, YOU’RE not paying attention, YOU’RE not listening, and you demonstrate this with unfailing consistency.
Originally Posted by Knowed Out
If you don’t like it, don’t read it. If the poster ticks you off, you no longer have to read their drek anymore.
The only dopers I’ve had on ignore were the comment whores who wanted to pad their post count. They’re gone now.
I don’t want to know.
drmark2000, you asked a question:
You stated your reasons for not doing so.
As with most debates, some people rallied to your cause, and others disagreed. What a surprise!
So what do you do to those who disagree, and explain their reasons? You adopt a patronizing, condescending attitude.
and especially
Yes, you backed off of that last statement slightly. However, to reach that point, you had to purposely ignore every post defending the Ignore List prior. That was intellectual dishonest, and when called on it by Dead Badger, you ratchet up the condensation.
I can see why. You claim to be open to ideas and to want and accept opposing input, but if this thread is any indication, your claims are false. If you don’t see that, then physician (okay, psychologist), “Heal thyself!”, because you are only fooling yourself.
This is really a simple statement. Combine this with the assertions of others and myself that we* do not use Ignore simply to silence dissent. If you do not believe that to be true, call us liars and say so outright. There is probably nothing I could say to convince you otherwise, but at least you’d be honest.
*Not indicative of every user of ignore, only of those who have made that statement about their own use of ignore.
Oh, sweet Jesus, a parse battle (Hint 2, for the terminally hard of thinking: even the definite article and the word “central” do not mean “sole”). Tell you what, dear heart, if you really want a literalist interpretation battle over obscure text, I suggest you join a Joyce appreciation society, and not hoodwink innocent bystanders into thinking that you want an actual conversation. Should you actually wish to canvas opinion, it is considered traditional (nay, polite) to take people’s word on what they mean. On that note: toodle pip, you rather underwhelming oaf.
Addendum: one has never visited a psych{iatr,olog}ist (and harbours no ill-feeling towards either profession in general). One awaits with bated breath the inevitable witticism about how one might be advised to.
drmark2000: I wish I’d noticed you sooner, your level of intellectual honesty would land you in in good company.
Dead Badger: Hey, leave us Joyceans alone! You think we want him?
collapses on the floor laughing
Dead Badger: Hey, leave us Joyceans alone! You think we want him?
[/QUOTE]
Awwwww, and Joyce is my favorite author!
Why? You bored a lot? Sounds like it, even when you’re collapsing in laughter.
A perfect summary of your intellectual integrity.
Witticisms would be inappropriate. Your situation is serious. But you’ll have to deal with it, not I.
I don’t have anyone on my Ignore List, but I tend to ignore the people who act like you, drmark2000. You have you little pet theory, and rather than change it in the face of copious counter-arguments, you have become more patronising, aggressive, and stubborn. That is the type of behavior that is worth ignoring.
Heh, irony so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Want to psychoanalyze me via the internet for making that remark?
I’ve used the ignore list for one person who couldn’t refrain from personal attacks and putting words in my mouth… in just about every thread where we met. Even then, it was a tough choice, because other people were responding to this jerk’s posts, so I still had to read some of that filth anyway. Overall, though, I was able to enjoy the board and those threads a lot more when I could skip the taunting and focus on the honest posters.
On boards where HTML and images are enabled (which is not true here at present), the ignore function can serve a useful purpose if there’s a member who has a persistent habit of posting massive images and/or other huge, distracting content; in fact if you’re still on dialup, it might be essential to your browsing experience in such circumstances.
The other important use of the ignore function is that people use it to score points by saying “I’m putting you on ignore now, lalalala, can’t hear you!” - which action is of course prohibited here.
If you’ve ever used Usenet, the importance of a killfile is obvious. Even in moderated groups there are people who simply will not get with the program in an otherwise perfectly good forum, so rather than having to sift through their blather in the course of a thread it’s easer to plonk the loser and go about your way.
In fact, plonking is more mature than banning because it’s entirely possible that someone, perhaps even the majority, derives pleasure from the person’s postings. I don’t, so I can disappear him from my SDMB without bothering anyone else. Banning is downright childish in comparison*.
*(Which isn’t to say it doesn’t serve a valid role, too: Banning is, or ought to be, the group as a whole deciding that the person is utterly ignorable. The same effect can be achieved with killfiles alone, as is typically done on Usenet, but only if bandwidth is not a concern.)
The SDMB is different from Usenet in that the moderation is more visible than in moderated newsgroups* but otherwise it is similar enough that a killfile works here much the same way it works in, say, comp.lang.asm.x86 (a nice, low-volume moderated group I read).
*(Unmoderated groups are a whole other kettle of fish, but don’t think they’re all unusuable troll dens or spamtraps, either.)
drmark2000 doesn’t have to change his pet theory. He feels that ignoring another poster, under any circumstance, is wrong. Fantastic! I’m not saying he is wrong, only that I feel differently. There is room for both beliefs on the boards. I don’t take issue with drmark2000’s view, only with the condescending attitude given to those who don’t share his view.
Look, I’m not really intending on being condescending. If I’m being perceived as such, by whomever, then I still think that that reflects more upon the perceivers than on me. Some of my questions have been met with palpable insecurity and defensiveness.
I have put forth a question about the validity of the “ignore” options on boards such as these. I stated initially that I didn’t understand the use of it all. Then, some other posts came through from people explaining their own motivations, and I acknowledged the validity of at least some of them, but not all.
The “human frailty” argument doesn’t hold much water with me, but then that’s me. I‘m prey to human frailty (don’t ask), but don’t believe in it as an excuse. It seems unnecessarily small-minded to me, more than anything else. especially in a venue in which there is no physical threat to any of us, so far as I know. It is all a free exchange of ideas. We each pay our dues, and we can say whatever we want. I haven’t yet seen any reason to deny myself access to all of the available information I might receive. Again, that’s just me.
For instance, I don’t agree generally or specifically with the views of Neo-Nazis, nor those of fundamentalist Christians. However, I am intrigued by how they can present their views in ways that, at least on immediate perusal, sound reasonable and logical. I would rather challenge than attack such views, as challenge places the onus on the presenter, and attack reveals insecurity and unsureness on the part of the attacker. How can one so object to a particular point of view unless feeling somehow threatened?
These boards have been of invaluable use to me, simply because, as I have previously stated, there is no inherent inhibition in saying exactly what you want to. I want to hear it all. I guess I could attempt a Dr. Phil thing in my own practice, but I just don’t have the funds to offer people unlimited free therapy and hundreds of dollars of gifts right under their chairs!
No… You don’t sound condescending at all. :rolleyes:
I do not have a dog in this fight, but that statement made me laugh out loud. Seriously.