ROBERT: WHAT ABOUT DEFENSIVE OFF TOPIC POSTING?

Forums: able2know, a2k, Topic Etiquette
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Robert,
Last nite, I answered a post (hereinbelow set forth)
that had negative implications against me,
tho I was not mentioned by name.

I sought to explain, by way of vindication of my position,
tho this entailed going off topic. Much vitriolic ad hominem acrimony ensued,
when someone, in essence, accused me of what amounts to MALICE
in killing threads and to be as irritating as possible in the process.
This amounts accusation of intentional sadism.

It seems to me that, morally, if someone wishes to answer
a direct or indirect remark about him, then some degree
of going off topic is reasonable for this purpose.
I confess that I was rong in getting into juvenile militia warfare
in Burma; that was too remote from the thread.
I regret a deviation to that extent. I got caught up in the moment.

I don 't mean that explanatory, defensive posting
shoud be carried out to the extent
of killing the thread by the off topic venture.

I usually endeavor to remain on topic,
tho I am not a rigid fanatic about it.

Will u reveal your views on this point ?

David

http://able2know.org/topic/136591-12#post-3770155
Previous • Post: # 3,770,155 • Next

dyslexia

1 Reply Quote report Sun 27 Sep, 2009 10:12 am
Re: OmSigDAVID(Post 3770149)

Quote:

I imagine that people make erroneous decisions at all ages.

Yes, there are even thoseadults that suggest that 7 yr olds should carry firearms.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 2,467 • Replies: 40

@OmSigDAVID,

There's no simple yardstick for this kind of thing. If you take defense of yourself for that kind of thing too far it becomes self-defeating and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In my opinion, the best thing you can do is politely say that you aren't intentionally disrupting the threads and then try to leave it at that. Otherwise you may well be disrupting the thread by insisting that you aren't intentionally so.

You might be right about the intention, but that doesn't change the effect, which is what most people are going to ultimately care about.

So when you were accused of disrupting threads, what I recommend as an emotionally intelligent response would have been something like this (of course, you can add your own voice to the sentiment and make it sound a lot less lame):

"I didn't realize I was disrupting the thread for some, sorry if anyone feels that way. I'll try my best not to, but please forgive me in advance if I unintentionally do so for you in the future."

It is not just a response that does less to disrupt the thread, it is a response that is more effective at making your case that it is not intentional than getting angry about it and continuing the discussion about it.

Sometimes it doesn't matter as much who started it as who isn't willing to let it go.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

dave, you are not going to like this, but are intelligent enough to take it the right way, i think.

the other day, dys started a thread that had some, but very little gun conversation. after it had run it's course, i tagged it with GUNS, just to see how long it would take for you to find it and use it for your personal mission.

(i won't reveal how long it did not take)

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Ahh the ole obsession about the obsession about guns gig.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

you the guy without a glass house, rob?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

No, what's your point? The case in question involved anger at David's obsession with guns, and that others are just as obsessed with bringing it out is a big part of it.

David does talk about guns too much, and so do the people who like to incessantly rib him about it. Both are helping to turn non-gun topics into gun topics.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

none really, just making sure you followed my thinking.

I did not go back and partake, just observed.

i like dave, too. i think he knows that.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Last nite, I answered a post (hereinbelow set forth)

I'm very sorry if this offends you, David, but Dang It, that "hereinbelow set forth" bit was so darned cute!

Almost as cute as a Kitten! Oh wait, not THAT cute.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It seems to me that, morally, if someone wishes to answer
a direct or indirect remark about him, then some degree
of going off topic is reasonable for this purpose.

If the shoe fits David, it doesn't mean you have to react like someone just shoved it 3 feet up your rectum.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

No, what's your point? The case in question involved anger at David's obsession with guns,
and that others are just as obsessed with bringing it out is a big part of it.

David does talk about guns too much, and so do the people who like to incessantly rib him about it.
Both are helping to turn non-gun topics into gun topics.

I agree with all of your quoted observations.
I might have a touch of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
For many years, I was obsessed with a particular young lady.

Before June of 2008, I manifested my obsession to a much greater extent,
on as many fora as possible including this forum and Abuzz before it, calling
radio stations, writing letters to the editors, distributing my legal research
in some articles that I have written. That 's no longer necessary.

Since June 2008, I estimate that my posting in support of freedom of self defense
has reduced by probably more than 80% because that was obviated by the USSC,
which vindicated the historical principles of my position, but when people ask me about it,
or offer comments about the subject, I am not reticent,
tho I am cognizant of the propriety of remaining on topic.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
It seems to me that, morally, if someone wishes to answer
a direct or indirect remark about him, then some degree
of going off topic is reasonable for this purpose.

If the shoe fits David, it doesn't mean you have to react
like someone just shoved it 3 feet up your rectum.

What degree of response is appropriate
is a personal decision that each citizen must make
when confronted by those circumstances.
Not everyone sees everything the same way.

David

1 Reply

@BorisKitten,

BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:
Last nite, I answered a post (hereinbelow set forth)

I'm very sorry if this offends you, David, but Dang It,
that "hereinbelow set forth" bit was so darned cute!

Almost as cute as a Kitten! Oh wait, not THAT cute.

I might advise u to begin a Kitten SIG,
but that woud be going off topic
(as woud be saying that I used to have cats).

David

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

dave, you are not going to like this, but are intelligent enough to take it the right way, i think.

the other day, dys started a thread that had some, but very little gun conversation. after it had run it's course, i tagged it with GUNS, just to see how long it would take for you to find it and use it for your personal mission.

(i won't reveal how long it did not take)

I have no problem with that.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

What degree of response is appropriate
is a personal decision that each citizen must make
when confronted by those circumstances.
Not everyone sees everything the same way.

That makes me wonder why you bothered to start this thread since you feel you can justify any response for yourself (as well as others.)

1 Reply

Hello David,

I moved this post over here because I don't want to further the discussion on the other thread. Here's the link to your original post http://able2know.org/topic/136591-15#post-3771061

OmSigDAVID wrote:

JPB wrote:
Quote:

He isn't the one who started the gun talk.
Someone else brought it up, knowing full well (imo) what would happen in response.
This is accurate and correct.

JPB wrote:

Quote:
Those who incite the trolls
are doing as much derailing as the trolls themselves.

It is my understanding that a troll is defined as a man who
posts material for the exclusive purpose of provoking a response,
and that he does not necessarily believe what he posts.

I am not a hypocrit.
Since my beginning with Abuzz until now I have posted
what I actually mean (unless I am being sarcastic, or jaunty).
Accordingly, I take exception to being characterized with the insincerity of a hypocrit.

David

Here's wiki's definition --- I'm sure there are many others.

Quote:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Ok, I admit that I don't think your primary intent is to take topics down a random path simply for the sake of doing so. I think that happens quite often with your responses, but I accept that it isn't your intent. I do not, nor have I ever, thought you to be a hypocrite.

OCD? Yep, I can see that. Gets carried away without realizing other's boundaries? Yep, maybe that too. But, I don't think you're vindictive, David.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
What degree of response is appropriate
is a personal decision that each citizen must make
when confronted by those circumstances.
Not everyone sees everything the same way.

That makes me wonder why
you bothered to start this thread
since you feel you can justify
any response for yourself
(as well as others.)

U need wander in wonder no longer:
I did it to ascertain Robert 's views, because he is our host
and he created the forum upon which we now post.
I do not wish to abuse his hospitality.

Additionally, from Robert's posts, I have come to respect his mind.
I know intelligence when I see it and I admire his analytical abilities.
Perception of subtle distinctions comes naturally to him.
For those 2 reasons: his opinions MATTER in my mind.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Additionally, from Robert's posts, I have come to respect his mind.
I know intelligence when I see it and I admire his analytical abilities.
Perception of subtle distinctions comes naturally to him.

I also know intelligence when I see it, and I also know that there are different sorts of intelligence. You know that too, right?

Robert has not only intellectual (reasoning/analytical) abilities, but also (and more important on this board) social/emotional intelligence.

This is one of the reasons I've avoided Mensa all these years: I've often found that those with analytical/intellectual abilities lack social/emotional abilities.

No doubt you've seen this as well.

I've come to believe that we are born with analytical intelligence; social/emotional intelligence comes only through experience.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Man up, dude (and you might consider stopping the daily ingestion of mercury).

0 Replies

@BorisKitten,

BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:

Additionally, from Robert's posts, I have come to respect his mind.
I know intelligence when I see it and I admire his analytical abilities.
Perception of subtle distinctions comes naturally to him.

Quote:
I also know intelligence when I see it, and I also know that there
are different sorts of intelligence. You know that too, right?

Yes; certainly, different talents.

Quote:
Robert has not only intellectual (reasoning/analytical) abilities,
but also (and more important on this board) social/emotional intelligence.

This is one of the reasons I've avoided Mensa all these years:
I've often found that those with analytical/intellectual abilities lack social/emotional abilities.
If u attend some of the Regional Gatherings, or the Annual Gathering,
u 'll find many different kinds of people in attendance.
A few weeks ago, someone claimed to avoid Mensa
because he (allegedly) attended a meeting and found everyone
patting himself on the back. From over 30 years actively in Mensa,
and having never seen that, I discounted his allegation as deception.

Quote:
No doubt you've seen this as well.
I've come to believe that we are born with analytical intelligence;
social/emotional intelligence comes only through experience.

We learn from experience.

David

1 Reply

@JPB,

Thank u, JPB.
When I have posted inflamatory material,
it was usually in the same civic spirit of the Fire Dept. of Phoenix, Arizona
in the 1940s or early 1950s, when it endeavored to reduce the number of false alarms
by publicising the story of a woman who was accidentally killed in a traffic collision caused
by her son turning in a false alarm; i.e., the avid desire to promote public safety
caused the publication of an emotionally inflamatory incident.

In the same spirit of public safety, sometimes I published
incidents of an emotionally inflamatory nature.
This has no longer been necessary since June of 2008.

David

0 Replies

ROBERT: WHAT ABOUT DEFENSIVE OFF TOPIC POSTING?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know