posted
"...I've tried to remain relatively distant and indifferent in this thread to try and avoid further provocation (and the response to my latest question seems to justify that, or maybe indicate I haven't been distant *enough*)..."
I'm confused here...Have I been rude to you in -this- thread?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when you say "avoid further provocation" do you mean you provoking me or me provoking you?...or both?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My hope is that it will make Stone Wolf shut up, and maybe later realize he's being ridiculous.
I had written my intial post before you edited in a valuable piece of advice even with the sarcastic (or humorous? I didn't really get the sandwich comment) ending. Your initial post was just expressing exasperation and asking a sarcastic question and wasn't going to accomplish what you claim you hoped it would. Your follow-up was sound advice, though.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, I think he's saying he's trying not to get too involved here since he probably feels like whenever he tried to express himself it somehow finds a way to provoke or irritate you. Echoing what he and others have said, Dogbreath hasn't written any differently to you then he does to anyone else he disagrees with during a discussion. And this is coming from someone that has also had differences with him in the past until I realized that's just how he conveys his opinion.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
DB...I'm -really- trying to be calm and respectful here.
I can admit I lost my schitte back there and apologize. But can you help me out and read over YOUR posts and then simply throw me the bone of saying something like..."I can see how you would think that some of the things I've said appear hostile...but since I've plainly said that's not how I feel, lets just move on."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, here is the bottom line. Even if by some fluke you should somehow "win" this argument, it won't make DB like you better. It won't change anyone's opinion about you. It won't get you what you are looking for. It will just make the hole deeper.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're asking him to pay lip service to your ego by him dishonestly conceding that his posts can be construed as hostile just so you can feel like you got tossed a bone out of this.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would not give him a false apology earlier and have no interest in anything less than honesty.
I asked him to -read- the posts...not blindly admit anything, let alone apologise.
Please note that along the way I've apolgized, deescalated, acknowledged my own innapproriatness more than once.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But can you help me out and read over YOUR posts and then simply throw me the bone of saying something like...
That's not asking for his honesty. You didn't ask him to reread his posts and then give you his honest, fresh new opinion on his tone. You asked him to reread them and then give you a very specific set of words indicating he sees his fault.
quote: Please note that along the way I've apolgized, deescalated, acknowledged my own innapproriatness more than once.
Duly noted. And you expect him to do the same since you've also admitted fault. But that's not how being wrong works. There is no reciprocating apology, you acknowledge your mistake and that's it. There is no bone for you. Take it from someone that's wrong a lot. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will note with only slight and perhaps excusable snark that someone did suggest considering asking someone whose perspective you trusted for an outside opinion and further considering letting that perceptive influence things;)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: SW, I think he's saying he's trying not to get too involved here since he probably feels like whenever he tried to express himself it somehow finds a way to provoke or irritate you. Echoing what he and others have said, Dogbreath hasn't written any differently to you then he does to anyone else he disagrees with during a discussion. And this is coming from someone that has also had differences with him in the past until I realized that's just how he conveys his opinion.
I was thinking of you when I wrote this post earlier in this thread, specifically:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm introspective enough to know that the extemporaneous writing style I employ in the majority of my posts may make me appear harsher or more acerbic than intended, but in an environment like this I assume an implied cordiality in the tone and subtext I read into other people's posts and hope they make the same assumption.
In the handful of times I have rubbed people the wrong way here (and it has happened before), it's generally resolved with a "do you really mean to say this?" and an explanation and/or apology.
(Though that post, once again, got me accused of lying about how hostile I obviously am)
Anyway, thank you for defending me, so to speak. I appreciate it. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I will note with only slight and perhaps excusable snark that someone did suggest considering asking someone whose perspective you trusted for an outside opinion and further considering letting that perceptive influence things;)
Who, who ever could you possibly mean? Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to possibly stir the pot back up with this post, but here it goes:
I think I know why Stone_Wolf's ire was directed at Dogbreath instead of Rakeesh or Samprimary or any of the other users here who may have antagonized him in the past.
I think Dogbreath enjoys not just analyzing the issue in the discussion, but analyzing the discussion itself and by extension, the people in it. So when Stone_Wolf makes a statement in a discussion that is patently false (not suggesting you frequently do this or are the only one that does), Rakeesh or Sam would simply reply with a brief snarky or sarcastic comment and not elaborate further, thereby keeping side conversations to a minimum. Dogbreath, OTOH, addresses it head on, breaking it down completely, and even delving into the poster's personal psychology (not in a hostile manner, just as a point regarding why the poster may have this fallacious belief) in writing that post, thereby causing a back-and-forth which becomes about the poster rather than the issue, as it did in this incident.
That may sound like criticism, but I prefer that method to the snarky comment that brushes off the poster. It may take longer on the first go-round but it prevents the issue or incorrect belief from dragging on into future discussions.
To tie all this rambling into how it caused this 'dogfight', if SW accuses Rakeesh, Sam, or Tom of being hostile or dishonest, they merely roll their eyes. Dogbreath tried to break down why SW held such a belief and asked for elaboration, and he got more of it then he bargained for.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaal: That's both fair and accurate. I would add I generally have the following motivations for analyzing things this way:
1) If I can find out why someone believes something, it helps me understand both them and that belief better. In the case that they're wrong about something, it may help me get to the root of why they think a certain way and address it and possibly even change their mind. Also, typically asking "why do you think this way?" rather than saying "what you think is wrong" is less aggressive and more conducive to dialogue. (Or so I thought until this debacle) You'll notice I almost never explicitly told Stone Wolf he was wrong in our debate - I prefer to present contradictory evidence and ask pointed enough questions that people come to their own conclusions. This is usually less confrontational and more effective. (Again, most of the time...)
But on a larger scale, I simply think it's useful to ask those questions to people who simply have differing experiences or opinions from me. It's educational, if nothing else.
2) In the case of conflicts, I think it's absolutely essential to try and understand the source of the conflict. As a leader I've had to break up fights occasionally and resolve conflicts between subordinates on many occasions, and that usually involves bringing them into separate rooms and asking them what they believe the root of the conflict is. It usually ends up being something relatively minor that one party or the other can fix.
So in this case, if I'm told that I'm being hostile, my first and foremost desire is to find out why I'm being perceived that way, and what I can do to change that perception. Where a "no I'm not, you're being hostile!" might simply escalate the situation and a eye-roll might engender feelings that I'm being arrogant or disingenuous, asking "why do you feel this way?" generally inspires introspection opens the dialogue back up - allowing me to discover whatever it was that he found hostile or offensive and correct it.
Generally speaking this helps me stay on very good terms with other people, both online or off. (It's also a good skill to have as a married man) I have encountered situations - with drunk men, or people high on adrenaline - where I've had to let them sober up or calm down before discussion is possible, and some people who simply aren't interested in discussing their motivations. But I wasn't exaggerating earlier when I said this is the first time I've experienced this level of antipathy on Hatrack. It's pretty discouraging.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you make me, you limp-wristed gerbil brained dweeb? You're about as useful as a dessicated moist towelette! And, and... your face! It's ugly.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm not very good at insults.
try these
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: so yeah someday a roundly mocked group of humans with insufferable behavior will internet diagnose themselves with samprimary
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: what is it like to be you anyway. your mind is like words that came out of michelle bachmann
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: you're like the product of if someone consciously tried to create a human being that was the opposite of batman. at least your parents are alive, so you got that going for you
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: does your parapro know you're posting? i think it's time to get walked back to hufflepuff commons, lil' guy
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: yeah sam i know you're trying to communicate with me but every time you type words at me it just feels like you know how it's like when you turn on the garbage disposal but oh balls there's a fork in it oh my god. ok. that's basically what it's like when you're trying to talk to me
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: i wanted to say 'stop posting, sam! think of the children!' but all that did was remind me that you too were a child once and so i've written them all off. go nuts
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [qb]you're like the product of if someone consciously tried to create a human being that was the opposite of batman. at least your parents are alive, so you got that going for you
This one is special.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
