BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'

If that's what you think neither did mine. I carfully phrased it and stand by it.

If anyone takes umbrage they should remember the firmly lodged beam.

I did notice you have no inclination toward civility. You've been going around calling people jerks, idiots and planks....

Again, the beam.

0 Replies

Well, Mr. Wonderful, i didn't make any comment on anyone, in remarking on what Ma had written. I think it is rather ironic that i get a comment on what i've said about others, and said without qualm, but there is no comment on those to whom i made those remarks. Apparently, if one gets sufficiently annoyed with being the object of attacks on what one has written, when the attacks are based, as your oblique criticsim of Ma was, on having read into what was written, something which patently not there--then one has singled oneself out as a pariah. Those who have picked a fight, or tried to pick one, by the willful misrepresentation of what another has written, i take it, are not to be criticized. Your use of the locution "going around" suggests that i've been on some sort of rampage. That is not true.

0 Replies

Sensitive, Craven, sensitive. What have you said that makes you think I was referring to you?

And no, I'm not above that either. Although it was a general statement, of course it referred to a specific. And, setanta, I read it as rather more than an oblique criticism.

I don't think looney, or mis-informed, ill-informed statements posing as facts should go unchallenged. But I was commenting on the way George and Setanta handled it. To my mind, like adults.

I stand in admiration of these two, and respect their ways of doing things. Don't get swelled heads, boys, but you so often come here with informed sources and knowledge to back you up, plus the weight of your own interesting opinions, plus humor - that it just gladdens the heart. Reminds me of my husband - and that's about the highest compliment I can pay.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I never said you "made comment" about anyone. Stop trying to "pick fights" by "wilfully misrepresenting" what I wrote. :-)

You proceed to tell me I have criticized Ma, and therein lies the point of the whole thing. "Oblique criticism" can be an understated way of deriding someone. When the derision is about the inability of the person to keep things from becoming personal there is a blind irony that I sought to point out.

As to your "rampage" I think you can understand that others might be inclined to view it differently than you do. You seem to think that others misundertanding you is license for you to call them idiots and jerks. I posit that they remained civil while you didn't.

0 Replies

Ma,

I know for a fact you were not referring to me. I know who you were referring to and so does that person.

That your reference implied that they make things personal was ironic to my mind because you proceeded to do the same thing.

0 Replies

Before i posted a word here yesterday, Lovey and i were speaking privately, and she commented that everyone here seemed awfully grumpy. I showed up, and found that an ironic, toss-off line of mine had become the object of Habibi's self-satisfied little rant, in which he first greeted Craven, with remarks implying that he and Craven were the only ones able to objectively view the political threads, and in his succeeding rant, he took a sneer at me based upon having read into what i'd written, that which was not there. When i replied to this, Habibi comments that i am somehow famous for this. Thomas jumps in--both of them continue to focus their attention in the thread, not on the subject, not on what anyone else has written, but on the single sentence i'd written. I've received a private messsage from Thomas in which he notes that at one point, at least, he did misread me, and i replied that it is unimportant. In another thread, Dlowan speaks of her experience waiting tables. As i have considerable experience in occassionally working in that industry from my college days, i came in with my comment. It was inspired by, and referred to, and only referred to, what the Cunning Coney had written. C.I. decided to attack me for it, contending that it was a criticism of him. It was not. Dlowan put in a post to suggest to him what the case precisely was, that i was repsonding to her. C.I. got nasty with Dlowan about it. At this point, having already been subjected to several attacks based upon people deciding to interpret what i'd written without reference to the actual construction of words which comprised what i'd written, i unloaded on C.I. I have no regrets. I repeat that what Ma wrote did not impugn the character of anyone, and, in fact did not contain any comment on the character of anyone. That it referred to someone specific does not mean that it was a comment on the character of the individual so referred to. Craven, you come back from that to suggest that i'm on some kind of rampage, and add that others thinks so as well. I came here yesterday in my habitual good humor, and like all good-humored, ill-civilized Irishmen, if you take a swipe at me, i'll swing back. Beginning late yesterday, and continuing into this morning, i get private messages, unsolicited of course, from another member here who was not involved in any of this, and he is condemning me for being a grump. By this morning, his sneering condescension, even though i tried to defuse it with humor, had reached the point where it is now unlikely that i will ever wish to converse with that individual again. Yeah, i'm on a rampage, CdK, i'm on a rampage not to sit back passively when under unjustified attack.

0 Replies

Set, If the shoe fits, wear it! c.i.

0 Replies

Nice to see that you're willing to up the ante, C.I. You were wrong yesterday, and you're wrong today.

0 Replies

If you say so.

0 Replies

I most certainly do.

0 Replies

"Up the ante?" Sounds like a threat. c.i.

0 Replies

Sentanta,

I did not wish to open up another opportunity for you to disparage other members yet again. It's a pity that you equate the percieved injustices you suffer (e.g. "misreading" you) with your calling people jerks, idiots and planks.

I see a "I'm leaving" fit coming on, please note that while I thoroughly enjoy most of your participation here your insistence at maintaining the "right" to flame anyone who "attacks" you, even if their "attack" is only seen by you, is most decidedly unwelcome.

Can't you "attack" back with the same civility you enjoy?

Can't you carp an argument without resorting to calling the opponent a jerk, idiot or plank (or all three)?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Sentanta,

I did not wish to open up another opportunity for you to disparage other members yet again. It's a pity that you equate the percieved injustices you suffer (e.g. "misreading" you) with your calling people jerks, idiots and planks.

I see you do this all the time, different standards are being applied here.

Quote:

I see a "I'm leaving" fit coming on, please note that while I thoroughly enjoy most of your participation here your insistence at maintaining the "right" to flame anyone who "attacks" you, even if their "attack" is only seen by you, is most decidedly unwelcome.

Sorry to disappoint your fond expectation, but i have no intention of leaving over these teapots tempests. I would ask if i am expected to welcome others making slighting comments about me based upon their misrepresentation of what i've written. You've got the Habibi/Thomas thread locked, so i can't go get a quote. However, Habibi drew inferences from what i'd written which were not justified, and then commented with a sneer on the meaning, which meaning depended upon a willful misreading, and then commented that this is what "we" expect from me. But he's your buddy, right? So that makes it ok.

Quote:

Can't you "attack" back with the same civility you enjoy?

On the one hand, you characterize my "attack" back as flaming, when you wish to pose it in an unflattering light. Here, you simply refer to it as "attack," because this is more consonant with your inferential contention that there was civility involved. I could not disagree more, and you've cotradicted yourself, after having said such attacks are only seen by me.

Quote:

Can't you carp an argument without resorting to calling the opponent a jerk, idiot or plank (or all three)?

I don't recall having applied all three to any one poster, but i would be greatly amused to think that i had. When it reaches the point at which people are making continuing attacks on what i've written, when it was so obviously insignificant, and which attacks are not germaine to the the thead, and when another member becomes almost hysterical in response to something i've written which had no reference to that person, i am very likely to go to such extremes. This is blown way out of proportion, and i don't give a damn if you condemn me for that--you've had just as big a hand in the process as have i. Your attitude of haughty disregard for the value of the opinions of others, and your continuing contention that you always apply logic, with the implication that others do not--you've even gone so far as to open a thread in order that others may enjoy the wisdom of your perfect comprehension of logic--most certainly draws you into the realm of those whose writings are suspect for the expressed attitudes toward the other members. At least i'm being openly honest in my contempt.

0 Replies

I would also ask that you have the courtesy to correctly spell my screen name.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see you do this all the time, different standards are being applied here.

I am quite an ass, despite my attempts to the contrary. But I do not think different standards are being applied here after the fact, I do think they are applied though.

To clarify, I try to avoid more obvious flaming by not using the calling the members idiots, jerks and planks.

My point is that you can "attack" while retaining a level of civility.

Setanta wrote:

I would ask if i am expected to welcome others making slighting comments about me based upon their misrepresentation of what i've written.

Most certainly not, debate them and attack their posts. I am suggesting that you avoid the use of more obvious flaming. I think you can attack ideas and posts without attacking the person openly.

There is a big difference between trying to illutratate that a certain post is illegitimate without trying to call the poster a jerk or an idiot.

Setanta wrote:

You've got the Habibi/Thomas thread locked, so i can't go get a quote.

You can still quote it. Just copy the text and frame it with teh quote tags.

Setanta wrote:

However, Habibi drew inferences from what i'd written which were not justified, and then commented with a sneer on the meaning, which meaning depended upon a willful misreading, and then commented that this is what "we" expect from me. But he's your buddy, right? So that makes it ok.

nimh is not "my buddy". He has a low opinion of me that he expressed on Abuzz. This wrought a healthy disagreement between us.

Now, here you ahve mischaracterized me. Note that I do not need to throw a fit.

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Can't you "attack" back with the same civility you enjoy?

On the one hand, you characterize my "attack" back as flaming, when you wish to pose it in an unflattering light. Here, you simply refer to it as "attack," because this is more consonant with your inferential contention that there was civility involved. I could not disagree more, and you've cotradicted yourself, after having said such attacks are only seen by me.

Setanta,

I am not asking you to be "flattering" just to check yourself somewhat. A scathing rebuttal of a post would have done nicely, the part where you throaw in that the opponent is a, and yes I'm tired of repeating it, jerk, idiot and plank was wholly uneccessary to your point.

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Can't you carp an argument without resorting to calling the opponent a jerk, idiot or plank (or all three)?

I don't recall having applied all three to any one poster, but i would be greatly amused to think that i had. When it reaches the point at which people are making continuing attacks on what i've written, when it was so obviously insignificant, and which attacks are not germaine to the the thead, and when another member becomes almost hysterical in response to something i've written which had no reference to that person, i am very likely to go to such extremes. This is blown way out of proportion, and i don't give a damn if you condemn me for that--you've had just as big a hand in the process as have i. Your attitude of haughty disregard for the value of the opinions of others, and your continuing conention that you always apply logic, with the implication that others do not--you've even gone so far as to open a thread in order that others may enjoy the wisdom of your perfect comprehension of logic--most certainly draws you into the realm of those whose writings are suspect for the expressed attitudes toward the other members. At least i'm being openly honest in my contempt.

Setanta,

No need to try to make the case taht I am haughty and contemptuous, I readily admit that I am.

I believe you would admit to the same.

As to your "honesty" there is a saying that a skunk is better company than one who prides himself in "being frank".

Try to twist it as you will and point fingers but I still don't see your need to resort to levels of incivility that others are expected not to.

It's easy to make a case that i am an arrogant ass, I am. I am not asking you not to be contemptuous and arrogant I am simply asking you to avoid the out and out flaming.

Again, you can "attack back" without resorting to obvious lows.

0 Replies

The misspellings are not intentional. For the longest time on Abuzz I thought it was "Setana" and I occasionally misspell.

To be fair i misspell everything on occasion. No need to feel slighted.

0 Replies

Thank you for the use of "twist," "fit" and other such tendentious language. I withdraw my remark about Habibi, and, given the low opinion i entertain of the quality of what he posts, i heartily apologize for what i would myself consider an insult.

If you're trying to win, good--you win. I have no regrets.

0 Replies

My use of the words "twist" "fit" and such are unecessary. But also not something I'd take someone to task for.

This isn't about winning. I have nothing to gain but a headache by interjecting myself in contention.

Think about it this way.

This forum aims to avoid certain levels of incivility.

You would not belive how many "attacks" are perceived and reported. To use your example I, though I did not read it all, did not see an "attack" on you.

Since the level of civility we aim for is hard to define there are some problems.

You see your attackers as deserving of your attack.

But what I am trying quite unsucessfully to point out is that there is a certain point in which the attacks become obviously incivil.

To use an unrelated example:

Calling an idea stupid is not the same as calling the person stupid.

If you felt mischaracterized I think you should have tried to correct this. My entire point is that I think you could do so without the name calling without losing any substance from your post.

Think about this, do you really think there should be no standards? And that ANY level of flaming should be tolerated?

Then assume that some standadards exist and are aimed for.

How would you define the standard? Where would you draw the line?

It's not about being noce and humble, it's about a modicum of restraint. Name calling can easily degenerate and it would be a pity if the level of debate here is reduced to calling each other names.

That is my only qualm with your posts, I am not saying you shouldn't have felt attacked and am not saying that you should have been nice.

I am just saying that by allowing a member to call another a jerk or idiot we open the door for a degradation of the quality of debate.

Is that something you can appreciate?

0 Replies

I just looked it up (because you contended that you did not use all the referenced insults).

This is from ONE post of yours, you repeated it several other times:

"pompous jack ass, idiots, planks, foolish, rather dim, obtuse , pair of planks"

Again, I ask if it was necessary, and i ask how far you expect this forum to tolerate such types of flaming. I also ask if those who you percieve as having had "attacked" you resorted to such tactics.

<all of this is based on the assumption that you understand my desire to avoid hosting a board where members call each other assholes and such as a way of debate>

0 Replies

As many people have advised, we need cooler heads to calm down and get back on track. I'll be the first to apologize to Set for misunderstanding his post. Sorry. Let's put it behind us, and go forward with a clean slate. I think we can all agree, this is getting out of hand. c.i.

0 Replies

BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know