5
   

When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

 
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 01:56 am
Setanta wrote:
In re the Big Bird's remarks: the other two sites i frequent don't really have this problem--they see a troll, they call it a troll, they shamelessly ridicule the troll, then they ignore him. Problem solved, the troll leaves.

Hello. Let me just say a very few words in my own defense; When I entered the Who Lost Iraq thread, I walked in on what appeared to me to be a very nasty, profane altercation involving you and LoneStarMadame. Seeing that the language was nasty and the tone unnecessarily abusive, I immediately became LoneStarMadame's ally. It helped that the point of discussion was easy to debate. It's equally easy to be either confrontational or cooperative.

If a poster debates from a thoughtful perspective, the response is reasoned discourse, but, frankly, if I'm going to get flamed, there will be scorch marks at the edges of my replies.

It is nice to be described as bright and possibly fun, but I don't appreciate having my intelligent and very intellectually endowed wife being described as being uneducated. That seems prejudicial from my POV. Believe me, I've known her a long time, and although she is soft on the approach, anyone underestimating her abilities to debate can easily end up getting stung.

I'll leave the detective work up to the more seasoned members, but please know that although I have posted on many boards, I don't post under multiple aliases and neither does my wife.

I appreciate the candor and honesty some of the posters have expressed over the past several pages.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 02:23 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I suspect that most of us here have had occasional lapses into "troll-like behavior.

'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....'


I will, re trolls..
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 05:55 am
LittleBitty wrote:
blatham wrote:
LittleBitty wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
appear and disappear together.


cha-ching


Would you like to know why? I'd be more than happy to share this information with you. I'm being sincere.


You betcha. bethie's kaching has got my ears to ringing and I can't think straight.


Monte Cargo is my husband. As I have stated before, I've read this board off and on for many years. When I joined several days ago, I thought my husband might wish to participate as well, so I encouraged him to take part in your political forum. We have separate computers but share an IP through a router.

We purposely picked names that were two words; a detail that was overlooked in the witch hunt. The idea was to ease ourselves into this situation as we know how emotionally invested many posters become in their respective message boards. If we wanted to fool you, we'd never have joined or posted at the same time.

We've participated on other boards without any explanation and maintained that zero connection between the two of us for years. I wouldn't be too quick with that pat on that back considering all of the clues we left in this case.

This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You yourself blatham had your doubts though and have complimented MC whether you agreed with him or not. Unlike the the little emotional wreck I appeared to be days ago, I can promise you that many of you are wrong about my education, my husband's whereabouts prior to this time, and how we truly interact on a message board.

I've had a difficult time of it, but I've kept my husband off of this particular thread as he was less than impressed with what was said here. That, and I fight my own battles.

We thought that if I chose a rather ridiculous looking avatar and name, coupled with sounding naive and emotional, that I wouldn't be perceived as any sort of threat as my husband comes on rather strong. The amazing thing is the least tolerant group is this political forum. I've posted for far too many years on political issues to be that sensitive!

So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.


We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

If we should decide not to return, a fond adieu to a select few of you that were fun to debate regardless of whether or not you agreed with us on a topic. Tico and roger, your names come to mind right off the top of my head. We hope that you both remain the true gentlemen that you have been to us.

Humankind cannot stand very much reality. ~ T.S. Elliot


Well, thank you very kindly for this. I have to confess to guilt here. Of course, now that I've confessed, I don't have to worry about it any more.

We get nutty here sometimes and I put myself slightly below the 50 percentile (not necessarily accurate, but necessary for my equanimity). Your story ought to provide a reminder as to the limited functionality of jackboots for dancing.

A little ps, re one thing I said which may have been taken personally and misconstrued in that...I earlier mentioned something about two new posters and I described them as "uneducated nuisances". That wasn't a reference to you as I actually hadn't bumped into a post by you at that point.

Finally, welcome to both of you. I would like to offer you a sweet cookie now along with ten dollars canadian. Of course, you'll owe me ever after.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 06:01 am
joefromchicago wrote:
LittleBitty wrote:
This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You and your husband had the misfortune to arrive in the aftermath of our battle with a particularly persistent multiple-identity troll. As part of its legacy, it has now made many of us suspicious of new members who might, in truth, be its reincarnations. Those suspicions are exacerbated by the generally toothless response of the moderators, which has led some to act in the self-appointed role of watchdogs for the site, vetting new members to determine if they are genuine or merely the reappearance of that virulent troll. It's too bad that, in their understandable zeal to expose this pest, they targeted you and your husband.

LittleBitty wrote:
So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.

We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

Newcomers, unfortunately, are not always welcomed here. I know that I encountered some resistance when I first joined. Some people here treat it like high school, and if you're not in the "alpha group," then you're mocked, abused, or ignored. All I can say is that, like high school, we tend to find our niches eventually. I hope that you and your husband will choose to remain here and become valued members of our community.


Thanks, Joe. If I haven't previously tipped my hat to you for your contributions to this community, here it is.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 06:05 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Well you are a cranky old bastard Cicerone, but you have more than enough good and interesting features to make it worth the trouble.

I suspect that most of us here have had occasional l;apses into "troll-like behavior.

'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....'


A vision! I have a vison! I see cluster-stones dropping towards Iraq.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 06:51 am
monte cargo wrote:
Quote:
It is nice to be described as bright and possibly fun, but I don't appreciate having my intelligent and very intellectually endowed wife being described as being uneducated.

As I noted to ittybitty, that reference was not to her but rather to two others newly arrived (I didn't want to name them, whereas with a complimentary mention, you were nameable).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:12 am
Oh bog!

There's not gonna be something really disgusting, like a group hug, is there?


Because I wanna be warned if there is.....and I am out of here!


http://www.e-motional.com/images/hopping%20rabbit%20-%20animated.gif

Oh yuck!!!


http://www.geocities.com/aladdin_it/Cast_gallery_pic.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:20 am
Monte Cargo wrote:
If a poster debates from a thoughtful perspective, the response is reasoned discourse, but, frankly, if I'm going to get flamed, there will be scorch marks at the edges of my replies.


This is hypocritically ironic and amusing--i had never seen a post of yours, and was sublimely indifferent to your very existence when you chose to launch an attack involving scurrilous characterizations, assumptions which attempting to be unflattering and demeaning, and assumptions which were intended to be condescending and belittling.

So if you want to whine about my response to that behavior on your part, i can only observe that: " . . . if i'm going to get flamed, there will scorch marks at the edges of my replies."

You great, barking hypocrite.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 08:15 am
I know it wasn't intended as funny, but that "barking" remark made me laugh.

Colorful, that.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 09:44 am
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/93106/2005/January24/images/c3_drStrlove.jpg
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!









<sigh>


Sure don't take much to entertain some folks Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
Hey, I resemble that remark.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:20 am
timberlandko wrote:


<sigh>


Sure don't take much to entertain some folks (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)


Yes . . . apparently you are easily amused.

Given that you were not attacked out of the blue by someone who is now whining about getting "flamed," when no one had addressed him or made any unfavorable or unflattering comments to or about him, i find this a rather pompous position for you to take.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:28 am
Anyone who wants to go to the thread which Monte Cargo mentioned, and look at the series of exchanges in which he and i indulged (i'm assuming Monte Cargo is a he, as Littlebitty has described that member as her husband), it will quickly become apparent that Monte Cargo lashed out at me based upon his political point of view. It will be evident to anyone reading there that i had not at any time "flamed" him before he launched his attack on me. I was not even aware of his existence. His complaint is nothing less than pure hypocracy.

He is piling up excuses for his behavior, and also advances the "white knight" defense, suggesting that he was riding to the defense of the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse. That new member has lashed out at and ridiculed other members here who disagree with her since she showed up, and has been posting at twice the daily rate as my own, even though i have racked up more than 30,000 posts. If she keeps that pace up, in two years she'll have more posts than any other member here. Her posts have consistently contained attacks on other members here, and her only apparent criterion is that said members have a different political viewpoint than hers.

Monte Cargo brought her up, so i make no apology for having mentioned her. Monte Cargo's attempt to defend himself on a claim that, one, he was being flamed and was responding in like kind, and, two, that he was defending the helpless and abused belle LoneStarMadam, is transparent bullshit.

Roll your eyes again, Big Bird.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:40 am
Buncha transparency goin' on ... not too much clue-gettin' though.


Nothin' unusual in that, either.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:43 am
Lemme see if I get it:

It doesn't matter what the other person did, because responding to trolls only makes them grow larger.

And doing it in this thread is double plus ironic

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:43 am
You're so dashing when you're being condescending, timber.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:44 am
Yes, transparency is a problem and for Big Bird's as well.

You might take a hint to get a clue about how silly your olympian manner looks, especially in view of the details of me being flamed by someone who then whines that he was flamed.

I didn't appreciate his attack, and i don't appreciate your snotty attempt to look like the aloof and impartial judge, willing to make nasty remarks about "transparency" and "clue-getting."

Buy a vowel yourself.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:45 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lemme see if I get it:

It doesn't matter what the other person did, because responding to trolls only makes them grow larger.

And doing it in this thread is double plus ironic

Cycloptichorn


I think that about sums it up.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 11:23 am
Certainly does - for all the good it ever does.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 11:24 am
snood wrote:
Hey, I resemble that remark.

:wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:43:26