I think Foxfyre hates me....

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon, take a look at Parados' post - where s/he uses the modifier "I think". That's a good way to let people know you're expressing an opinion.

Grrr! In my opinion, it is absolutely wrong that you scoop me all the time!

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Writing a thread designed to single out and ridicule a specific member, on the other hand, does, if that was your intention.

Since you don't know what my intention was how can you make a judgment? I see it hasn't stopped you. I think your intention was to ridicule me by claiming an intention on my part that I didn't intend.

That would make your posts inappropriate under the vague standard you have set for others.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You could always ignore the thread; that seems to be the new A2K way.

And vote it down please. This kind of thread isn't going to be censored by the admins but I for one would really appreciate it if the community helped do so.

Starting a thread for personal attacks against a member is not cool.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's a matter of placing a threshold. There shouldn't be a rule for everything, but there do have to be some rules. Members can't be overly sensitive, nor should the rules accommodate excess sensitivity, but there do have to be some rules, and every behavior shouldn't be tolerated no matter how improper.

Brandon -- whatever your problem is, I suspect you're either telling it to the wrong people or expressing it in the wrong terms.

Is your problem that you don't like that Parados started a thread critical of Foxfyre? If so, you're free to ignore the thread. Or, if you want to take a stand, you could write, "I don't like it when people start threads to put down other members here". On the merits, I would actually feel the same way as you do. More importantly though, framing it in terms of preferences puts you on solid ground procedure-wise. You are not an authority on A2K's Terms of Service. Nor on questions of Right and Wrong. You are, however, an authority on what you like and dislike. Feel free to express it!

Is your problem that Parados's thread violates the Terms of Service? If so, I recommend that you hit the "Report" button at the top of the thread's initial post, explain to the moderators which term of service you think has been violated, and tell them what you want them to do about it.

Is your problem that A2K's Terms of Service are lacking a clause that should be in in there, and that this thread would violate? If so, I suggest that you go to the very bottom of this page, hit the "contact us" link, and petition The Powers That Be on A2K for redress of your grievances. I'm sure The Powers will be happy to consider your request.

But I doubt you will get anywhere with your self-confident talk about the absolute right and wrong of what people post here. Your demonstrated competence in the matter is no greater than ours. Hence, I would be surprised if people in this community accepted you as authority on absolute rights and wrongs.

I wish you luck in pursuing the changes you desire.

When I or any member says "x is unethical," its simply his opinion unless he takes the further step of asserting that his opinion has some higher status, which I haven't done or even hinted at. Actually, I believe that everyone has an obligation to condemn things they think are ethically wrong, and I think that making a post to ridicule one specific member is wrong. Actually, all you're really doing with this claptrap argument is changing the subject.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Writing a thread designed to single out and ridicule a specific member, on the other hand, does, if that was your intention.

Since you don't know what my intention was how can you make a judgment? I see it hasn't stopped you. I think your intention was to ridicule me by claiming an intention on my part that I didn't intend.

That would make your posts inappropriate under the vague standard you have set for others.

Nonsense. You started a post to ridicule one member. Unless your intention was very different from the way it looks, that was wrong. Dance around it all you like.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Nonsense.

Yes, that is a good term. You claim you don't know my intent but go on to claim based on my intent I am wrong. You are the one dancing to the music you insist on playing. You just happen to be out of tune and tripping over your feet but are too obsessed to see that.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

If I had started an "I think Dys hates me..." thread, it probably would have played out much the same way for the first few posts and you wouldn't have thought it mean spirited. In my opinion it isn't until Finn's "You deserve to be hated" that it gets nasty or personal and then it isn't directed at Foxfyre at all.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If I had started an "I think Dys hates me..." thread, it probably would have played out much the same way for the first few posts and you wouldn't have thought it mean spirited. In my opinion it isn't until Finn's "You deserve to be hated" that it gets nasty or personal and then it isn't directed at Foxfyre at all.

If your intention in starting the post was friendly, then my criticism doesn't apply to you.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Why would it violate the User Agreement?

Because, as brandon has pointed out, you've started this thread with the intent of personally ridiculing another member.

Stop the disingenuous nonsense parados.

The title of your thread clearly reflects that you don't take Foxfyre seriously or are you trying to sell us on the idea that it actually bothers you that she has placed you on "ignore?"

While it didn't work out as I believe you expected, you were inviting other members to join you in ridiculing her.

Any alternative explanation casts you as a mewling twit on the verge of tears, and we all know that's not how you see yourself.

I'm not sure why, but the A2K Left has chosen Foxfyre as their favorite "whipping boy," (notwithstanding the gender conflict). There may very well be any number of reasons why you might disagree with her, but considering the number of noxious self-described right wingers in this forum who actually engage in virtually mindless and vitriolic rants, to set upon Foxfyre smacks too much of a tribe of middle-schoolers picking on someone they think they can easily bully. Sexist even.

And spare me the bleating concerning the unusual times when she feels pressed to respond in kind to scurrilous attacks.

This is yet another example of what I find the most disappointing about A2K. This too prevalent tendency of members (mostly on the Left) to merge into bitchy unions focused on attacking and ridiculing a lone member, whether that lone member be Foxyfyre, okie or even genovese. Do you really need to run in a pack or can't you take someone on one on one?

And all this from the Sweetness and Light Left who love everyone, and despise the Right for their meanness.

Do you who worship irony appreciate its presence here?

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

For what it is worth Finn.

You don't deserve to be hated.

It's not worth much because I couldn't care less whether or not someone on A2K hated me.

Perfect though. I'm to be scolded for suggesting parados "deserves to be hated," because, of course, I'm a mean right-winger, while you remain silent as respects your confrere's attempts to snipe at and bully Foxfyre.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

life's rough eh

See if you can remember this comment.

I assure you I will help you to do so.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You could always ignore the thread; that seems to be the new A2K way.

And vote it down please. This kind of thread isn't going to be censored by the admins but I for one would really appreciate it if the community helped do so.

Starting a thread for personal attacks against a member is not cool.

You don't have to censor it, you've called it what it is, and that should make an impression on some of these folks.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Do you really need to run in a pack or can't you take someone on one on one?

There is no cabal, it's just a predominantly left-leaning community right now. The lefties outnumber the righties on a2k so it's only natural that righties will be outnumbered. And then the law of fail comes into effect:

Anil Dash wrote:

Once a web community has decided to dislike a person, topic, or idea, the conversation will shift from criticizing the idea to become a competition about who can be most scathing in their condemnation

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Why would it violate the User Agreement?

Because, as brandon has pointed out, you've started this thread with the intent of personally ridiculing another member.

Stop the disingenuous nonsense parados.

Disingenuous nonsense?
Speaking of such, could you kindly quote the terms of service you think I violated?

The first post of this thread and it's title hardly violate the terms of service as they are written.I hardly think I libeled or defamed Foxfyre and without that, there isn't much else in the TOS to claim I violated.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

This is yet another example of what I find the most disappointing about A2K. This too prevalent tendency of members (mostly on the Left) to merge into bitchy unions focused on attacking and ridiculing a lone member, whether that lone member be Foxyfyre, okie or even genovese. Do you really need to run in a pack or can't you take someone on one on one?

And all this from the Sweetness and Light Left who love everyone, and despise the Right for their meanness.

That's funny - again, I seem to instinctively overlook the political leanings of the people who've posted negatively toward Foxfyre (on this thread) because what strikes me is that it always seems to be people from the same continent who like to engage in this stuff- and I guess then I could expand that to mean it's Americans and the impetus is politics - but it's not only people from the United States.

You don't ever notice any of the Brits, Europeans or Australians participating in this sort of thing- even if they seem to communicate politically liberal sympathies. Why do you think that is?
I was thinking about it last night - and I'm sincerely curious....

(For myself - although I often disagree with Foxfyre elementally on political issues - I understand that we seem to want the same things for people - we just disagree on how to go about getting them. I think she's a goodhearted person and I would feel bad if she hated me - I don't think she hates anyone easily).

1 Reply

@aidan,

The quote I included was from Finn - I just clicked on Parados' post to reply.

1 Reply

@aidan,

And I'm replying on this thread, which I swore to myself I would ignore - because this is the second time in a week that 'liberals' have been accused and negatively grouped together as 'meanspirited' or 'dishonest' and I don't think that those are liberal traits at all - I think those are individual personality traits.

And my theory that it has more to do with the continent doesn't absolve me either, on a group basis - I myself am American- so I'm not posting just to automatically cut myself out of the group that participates by the fact of my nationality.

But I do think it's an interesting phenomenon.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

[

Robert Gentel wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Do you really need to run in a pack or can't you take someone on one on one?

There is no cabal, it's just a predominantly left-leaning community right now. The lefties outnumber the righties on a2k so it's only natural that righties will be outnumbered. And then the law of fail comes into effect:

Anil Dash wrote:
Once a web community has decided to dislike a person, topic, or idea, the conversation will shift from criticizing the idea to become a competition about who can be most scathing in their condemnation

Anil Dash is one smart cookie.

Actually, Robert, I never suggested that there was a "cabal." As I'm sure you appreciate, "pack" behavior is something quite different from the consciously formulated behavior of a "cabal."

I might, marginally, have more respect for cabal behavior as it suggests intent. Pack behavior, on the other hand, implies relinquishing reason to instinct.

In the end, genetically induced Pack Behavior might be far more pure than intentional Cabal Behavior, but I happen to appreciate the promise that humans can diverge from genetic programming.

Of course it remains to be seen whether or not it is a corrupted promise. I'm not quite sure that given the manner in which humanity has chosen to exercise its independence from instinct is evidence that such independence is a good thing.

Certainly it should be, but Adam and Eve proved that humanity is not necessarily equipped to make the most of paradise.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Why would it violate the User Agreement?

Because, as brandon has pointed out, you've started this thread with the intent of personally ridiculing another member.

Stop the disingenuous nonsense parados.

Disingenuous nonsense?
Speaking of such, could you kindly quote the terms of service you think I violated?

The first post of this thread and it's title hardly violate the terms of service as they are written.I hardly think I libeled or defamed Foxfyre and without that, there isn't much else in the TOS to claim I violated.

And yet more disingenuous nonsense.

Do you really need to be quoted chapter and verse of the TOS to accept that you, with malice aforethought, started a thread to ridicule a fellow member?

Whether or not you violated the letter of the TOS law is something I have no energy to prove, so let's assume you did not. You did, however, violate the spirit of the TOS whether or not you will admit it.

At least have the balls to admit that you have no use for Foxfyre and wanted to trash her.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

And I'm replying on this thread, which I swore to myself I would ignore - because this is the second time in a week that 'liberals' have been accused and negatively grouped together as 'meanspirited' or 'dishonest' and I don't think that those are liberal traits at all - I think those are individual personality traits.

And my theory that it has more to do with the continent doesn't absolve me either, on a group basis - I myself am American- so I'm not posting just to automatically cut myself out of the group that participates by the fact of my nationality.

But I do think it's an interesting phenomenon.

I always am heartily amused by the comment that goes:

"I swore I would not respond to this thread but..."

Since you have responded to the thread you "swore" you would ignore, why is it important for us to know that you are, ostensibly, a reluctant poster?

Meanness or dishonesty can hardly be classified as "liberal," or "conservative" 'traits. They can be characterized as the predominate traits of many of the liberals on A2K, because you are right that these are personality traits, and they happen to be the common personality traits of many A2K liberals who have chosen Foxfyre as their favorite target.

2 Replies

I think Foxfyre hates me....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know