I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

You see, spendy, you seem to think your contributions to the evolution threads accomplish something. They don't. If anyone stops to trade posts with you, all that happens is, the topic in question gets lost in the rhetoric. How does that make you relevant enough to be paid heed to?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I do declare that I believe I am the most vilified member of this site on a consistent basis.

oh my goodness.

you may be annoying, but vilified, that's a bit funny.

0 Replies

we all get a turn being vilified spendy dear. I was vilfied during the primaries to the point it permanently damaged some of my A2K relationships.... but now I'm sort of in from the cold. I'm no worse for wear. I can name many who have been more vilified than you and consistently. Perhaps another pint and you'll feel better?

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

I can name many who have been more vilified than you and consistently. Perhaps another pint and you'll feel better?

It is very noticeable to a person with the slightest smidgin of scientific credibility that though you may very well be able to name "many" who have been consistently vilified more than I have been you have taken the precaution not to actually name any of them.

Now, according to the principles of the scientific method, that technique, which we all know and love, is not recommended within earshot of anyone with an IQ above 89.9 who is not wearing incontinence pads. I stress the plural as the stuff in the pharmacy is not up to the job unless the instructions are ignored.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

You see, spendy, you seem to think your contributions to the evolution threads accomplish something. They don't. If anyone stops to trade posts with you, all that happens is, the topic in question gets lost in the rhetoric. How does that make you relevant enough to be paid heed to?

That self-serving load of woffle is posited, as a Niagra tightrope walker is posited on his rope, on the "They don't" assertion for which no proof is offered for the simple reason that there isn't any.

My posts on the evolution threads accomplish what they accomplish. It is not for you Ed. to assert what they do or do not accomplish. It is for you to answer them.

If you can't please don't assume that asserting what you asserted means anything other than that is what you are asserting and is a snow-job to try to hide the fact that you have no answers.

A2Kers will decide what is to be paid heed to. To think they need your guidance is to underestimate them a bit in my opinion.

And it is not "anyone" who stops to trade posts with me. On the threads in question it is a small group of "interested parties." A self-selecting bunch who are attracted to the matter for various reasons who seem to think that it's all cut and dried and that only an idiot would think otherwise due to them having put stuff on Ignore as a habit on finding they could get away with it if they carefully selected their social contacts.

"Anyone" is a devious use of the language. Nobody has pompously announced they have put me on Ignore on any of the other threads I participate in.

2 Replies

@spendius,

that was a might lot of wind...

Feelin' it tonight, eh Spendi?

(this might also be the answer to an earlier question...)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

Feelin' it tonight, eh Spendi?

Yeah-- the pub was "active". Jahangas were jossing sinuously.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

This thread has caused me to rethink some of my ignores. Yes, I have several. Today, I unignored about half of them.

Why? What ideas on this thread made you do that?

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Well dwollie- we all know that ladies can get away with such things. It's a biological imperitive. We have not been discussing threads on which ladies take part for very long, if at all.

It's a sort of ladies withdrawal situation, like in posh dinner parties, when the chaps get down to the port and cigars. Ladies are better off in another room.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Me.
Cjhsa
roxxanne
H2O Man
ramafuchs
rex red

stop crying ya git.

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

I'm laughing BP. I save crying for sad stuff.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:

I think that a person who uses Ignore should leave the argument.

Well, he has indeed left all argument,
as to the person (or people) against whom he has employed the Ignore function.

In my travels, when confronted by a loud, snarling dog,
I feel no duty to bark back at him, nor to engage him
in exegesizing his position. I prefer to ignore him,
or if the degree of his violence justifies, to shoot him
and proceed along my way. (That has not happened.)

Likewise as to some posters who do not offer logical reasoning,
but r content to hurl character assassination. I do not respect them
more than loud dogs.

Quote:

To not listen to the arguments of one's opponents and continually
spout one's own as if there are no other arguments is fatuous.

Agreed; argument is participation in the reasoning process,
which requires freedom of reciprocity. An American jurist
whose name escapes my memory defined argument as:
the piecing together of evidentiary fact, in combination
with the ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric. I like that definition.
Its neat, sweet n to the point.
What u described is not argument; its making a speech (harangue?)

Quote:
The threads to which this part of the discussion relate concern
the future education of the kids of the USA.
Would anybody like to see that argument in the hands of those
who only listen to themselves and those who agree with them.
They are claiming the right to just put their heads down and
bulldoze the door of their choice open without a glance to left or right.

And in doing so they discredit, more, trash,
every principle they claim to stand for.

I imagine that depends on what thay claim to stand for.

Quote:

In personal spats it may be different. I don't know.
Even then it's like shouting in a mirror.

I will confess: I 've never tried that.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

It was the very reasonable sounding posts in which the posters said they can ignore objectionable members without using the feature. I said to myself, "Yeah. These people are not that insufferable, I guess." I think at least one of them has me on ignore anyway.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Nobody "guides" anybody, on that thread or any others. It just stands to reason that when a thread is about food and somebody decides it should be about the sex life of sponges there is a disconnect that cannot be overcome.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Thanks, and fair enough.

That isn't an argument for me...I can always peek if I am interested.

I also use it as s short-term thing to help me cool down if someone has really annoyed me, and I want to behave myself.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I have the ignore on for certain posters just to keep myself from posting mean stuff in the heat of an argument. Same as you, looks like.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Thats another compelling reason in favor of IGNORE. If the offending party is left on and , like set, you just dont peek, you are a better person than I. I have to read the troll post and I sometimes catch myself reacting in print. This entire process begins to steer the thread away from its purposeful landing point and others, who have ignored the same p[erson, become a bit annoyed at me for wasting my time.
Now, without peeking at the ignored post, Im in blissful ignorance of the trolls thoughts and the perp is left singing in the wind even if he addresses me.

Win WIn Id say.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Nah--It's lose/lose I'm afraid.

The above post is posited, again, on self-reassuring assertions which have no meaning in the real world. "Offending party" for example. "Troll". "Steer the thread away". "Purposeful". "Singing in the wind".

Every one just a load of bollocks. All purpose bollocks. Can all be used about anybody as an excuse to shut down opposition. Pure subjectivity and thus anathema to scientific thinking.

Just another pathetic attempt to take the intellectual high ground by simply sticking your head in a soundproof bag. And obviously so.

It just means an incapacity to face arguments for which effemm has no answers and implying that only his answers have validity and here he is undermining the very essence of scientific method.

It's a joke.

0 Replies

Wow. I'm impressed as there are now 6 pages of discussion on the subject of the ignore feature. Pretty amazing!

I might be missing something, but in my mind it's a simple matter - do or don't use this feature as it's your own preference. Why would I care if someone ELSE used it - even as a negative expression? I would hope someone doesn't use it in a negative way on me but not much I can do if they do. And, if they use it negatvely on someone else, same thing there, too. I think no less of someone who uses it than I do of someone who never uses it.

I think I'm glad that it's in the feature set of A2K. I would like to know it's there if I needed it for practical reasons 'cause many times I don't want to see some threads. As for "punishing" with whom I don't agree, I choose to punish them by not participating on a thread with them or just not commenting on their posts. It'all about preference, I guess.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Quote:

Why would I care if someone ELSE used it - even as a negative expression

Because the individual is a product of the collective, because individual behaviour at a2k is strongly influenced by the culture of a2k. The ignore function is part of the culture, it changed how people act here.

You can argue that it is good/bad, but you can't argue that it does not matter unless you fail to understand the individual/collective link.

1 Reply

I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know