This is topic Petition Thread in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=050054
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Here

Click here and enter your name if you wish to sign a petition to remove my right to make new petitions, and as a secondary effect I shall agree to limit myself to 1 thread per week with up to 3 in case of emergancies.

[ September 13, 2007, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Okay whose the little smartass who wrote "suck my" in the field? Little kids view my stuff.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Ooooo...in ignoring his petition, I seem to have overlooked a wide array of childish yet comical pranks I could play...

This is your classic shoulder angel and devil situation.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
who just tried to delete my tables?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And now whose the ass who just called me an idiot.

[ September 13, 2007, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Why does a little popup saying *doom* keep on popping up when I'm on that page? Kinda freakin me out ...
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Because someone added this:

code:
<script type="text/javascript">setInterval('alert(\'*doom*\')',10000)
into one of the form fields and updated it.

Blayne, it appears you are not accounting for someone putting code into the form entry fields. If you are using a database, you are likely exposed to injection attacks. You are definitely exposed to people adding HTML and Javascript into those fields.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
I shouldn't laugh at that, but I can't seem to help it.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
This whole thread is hilarious. Made me laugh out loud.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I meant to add that this is not a minor risk - it would be trivial for someone to point to malicious code from your site because of this vulnerability, or simply redirect to an objectionable site.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Indeed, this is a truly classic security vulnerability. ZOMG u haev been teh h4xx0red!
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I saw the code whenever I checked it in PSQL but I did not think it actually does anything as I never on the page long enough to see anything.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
That is actually pretty cute, how does one disable code inserted into the page?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
He seems to guard at least against basic SQL injection, but yeah, he's vulnerable to html injection.

Blayne, you need to (at minimum) replace left angle brackets and ampersands with their html escape sequence before you insert things into the database. Also, you should check the length of input. If someone enters something too long, it causes an exception (probably because the DB insert fails).
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I love that Blayne complains about profanity and then has several posts with profanity in this thread, including the one in which he complains about it.

-Bok
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Well at least it seems somebody likes me.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Haha, I love this thread!
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
My table seems to be slowly running away from me....
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Blayne, I can't give advice about protecting your website, but I do have a little advice about protecting yourself.

Stop making it so fun for people to torment you. If it's easy to get a rise out of you, people will poke you to see you jump. Yes, they're acting like jerks by doing it, but if you try to make yourself a little less of a tempting target it will help. Because right now the way you act on the forums is like painting a giant "please mess with me" sign and attaching it to your forehead.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
"kick me"
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Blayne,
Unless you are restricting it to one entry per IP, it's very likely that the people poking at you is just one person, namely jebus. In any case, your profanity and basic conduct here isn't proper.

---

I've got to admit, having Blayne's cry for attention based on "Hey, don't you dislike me?" turning around on him by someone who is saying that they dislike him and then Blayne getting upset about it is pretty amusing to me. And the "Hey you &%^&, stop %^&%^ cursing." is just the ironic icing on the cake.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I wasnt asking people to stop cursing, I was asking people to act like decent human beings and to stop insulting me in something that I made myself. Either way I redirected the link to someone else's work, hope your happy.

[ September 13, 2007, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Blayne, please stop using profanity. This is a family-friendly forum.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Aw, but now no one will be able to keep up on the rivalry between your old lover wellhungx69x and and your new boyfriend stevetheman.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Blayne,
You need to stop using profanity. It is not appropriate for this board.

And, as I pointed out, your "people" is probably just one person who is reacting to the giant target you paint on yourself.

This is going to keep happening everywhere you go until you grow up.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
And geuss what I linked to a place easily reached by this "family-friendly" forum where people posted inappropriate profanity so from this site it is easily linked to somewhere where people posted said profanity. I asked merely for people to post their names, and instead they posted garbage.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Is Blayne... you know? Not right?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I am grown up, I just don't tolerate other people's stupidity very well, someone is doing it and so far no one has fessed up.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
And geuss what I linked to a place easily reached by this "family-friendly" forum where people posted inappropriate profanity so from this site it is easily linked to somewhere where people posted said profanity. I asked merely for people to post their names, and instead they posted garbage.
That's unfortunate. How does that make it OK for you to post profanity on the forum though?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I apologize for my profanity but really the immature jerks have to stop acting like jerks.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I am grown up, I just don't tolerate other people's stupidity very well, someone is doing it and so far no one has fessed up.
::waves arms:: I was doing it, though not the only one. The Uranus Hertz one made me chuckle, whoever put it up.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
No, the proper, adult response is "Sorry about that. I'll go edit it out." (edit: Good on you. You eventually got there.)

Showing consideration for others is an important trait to develop. It is excedingly difficult to care that your cry for attention didn't go the way you planned when you so clearly only care about your own concerns.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Blayne,
quote:
I am grown up,
You are so far from being grown up I don't think you even understand what it entails.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Whining, pouting, swearing, and blaming other people for your bad behavior are not grown up behavior. "I just . . . but he did . . ." are phrases that are heard on elementary school playgrounds, not in adult conversations.

By acting this way, you are making it fun for people to annoy you.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
How was I crying for attention? I made a fun little webapp and I wanted Hatrack to participate not abuse it.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
How was I crying for attention? I made a fun little webapp and I wanted Hatrack to participate not abuse it.
This whole thread, along with the high number of threads you continually start, seem to say "look at meeeeeee!!"

Whether that's their intention or not, that's how they come across.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
"[he]'s like a member of ADAPT!"
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Huh, what are you on about potato head? This thread had a very interesting subject that had nothing to do with focusing people's attention onto Blayne.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I intent my threads to be usually whimsical and silly not as desperate cries of attention as I have plenty of people at college who are entertained by my eveyr eccentricies.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Blayne, you asked how you were crying for attention. I answered you politely. I'm not going to argue about whether the perception is correct or justified or not, but I promise you, it is a common perception of you out there.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I am grown up, I just don't tolerate other people's stupidity very well, someone is doing it and so far no one has fessed up.
::waves arms:: I was doing it, though not the only one. The Uranus Hertz one made me chuckle, whoever put it up.
That was me. It was from an old (censored in several markets) Dilbert strip.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Blayne,
quote:
I intent my threads to be usually whimsical and silly not as desperate cries of attention as I have plenty of people at college who are entertained by my eveyr eccentricies.
No, you don't, though I'll grant that you may not realize what you are doing. You intend to focus people's attention and conversation on you. This is exceedingly obvious. You are not subtle.

You know how people tell you that various threads you make are better suited for a blog. That's why.

You are very self-centered and show little concern for anyone else. I've come to believe that you don't realize this though. I think you'd benefit from working on this. You might do well to take an active interest in some of the people at Hatrack as more than an audience for you.

---

disclaimer: I'm a mean man. People here will tell you that I'm a big old meanie who just hates people and tries to make them feel bad.

That being said, I worry that you are going to waste your life stuck in permenant 14 year old hood. I would love to see you post in about 2 or 3 years about how you silly you realized you used to be and now that you've moved out of your parents' house, gotten a girlfriend, are holding down a pretty good job, and don't spend all of your free time playing video games, you've really seen what benefits adult life can have. And also that people seem not to pick on you at all as much anymore.

I want that for you, but you've got some serious flaws that are standing in the way of that. You need to deal with them if what I want for you is ever going to come about.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dude, swearing is bad form on Hatrack.

EDIT: Dang thread moved fast.

And in case you haven't figured out, Blayne, the reason so many people respond to your threads, even when it is bad form, is that most of think you could be good Hatracker, if you'd actually pay attention to how you act here, pay attention to how respected members act here, and reconcile the differences. That doesn't mean be like everyone else, it means play by the rules, even the unofficial social rules, which should be quite apparent to you at this point, and are different than most other forums on the net.

-Bok
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I saw that, jebus!

-Bok
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
How was I crying for attention? I made a fun little webapp and I wanted Hatrack to participate not abuse it.
This whole thread, along with the high number of threads you continually start, seem to say "look at meeeeeee!!"

Whether that's their intention or not, that's how they come across.
Given Blayne's OP, I think its fairly obvious that this thread was made as a joke. Probably in response to his thread asking for a theme song where he was ripped to pieces. Notice that he said

quote:
as a secondary effect I shall agree to limit myself to 1 thread per week with up to 3 in case of emergancies.
I initially viewed this thread as an attempt, on Blayne's part, to try to get over the hostilities from his other threads in a light-hearted way.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
So did I. If this thread had been taken seriously, some of the results certain posters so desperately seek may have come to pass. Alas, it was not meant to be.

(edit: not that I advocate taking things seriously as a general rule. In most cases it is far more appropriate to take things as silly-y as possible.)
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
The problem with this thread is the re-occurring problem that Blayne has that manifests itself in his second post. If he's making a joke thread, he should be prepared for jokes on himself.

-Bok
 
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
 
Is anybody else reminded of Ignatius from A Confederacy of Dunces?

(I just read it last week so it's fresh in my mind. Maybe it's too fresh in my mind so perhaps I am hasty in my comparison)
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Who are you calling a dunce?

*swings wildly*
 
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
 
watch where you are swinging that pointy hat, yo!
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'll moidalize ya!
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
"Joke thread" is probably the wrong term, however this thread was clearly meant to be light-hearted, not offensive. Yes, he shouldn't have taken the petition entries so seriously, and he probably wouldn't have in other circumstances, however I think he found them offensive because he wanted to find out whether people had gotten over his [now deleted] thread from yesterday (and some clearly haven't).
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I deleted that thread because people asked me to, not because I wanted to.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
IIRC, nobody asked you to delete your thread. Instead, they wanted you to stop starting so many threads.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
I deleted that thread because people asked me to
And that was very nice of you. Honestly, were I to get the flack that you get on a regular basis, I would be far less civil. Probably woulda gotten myself banned pretty quick.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Because sent me PMs to delete the thread.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
As it happens, I asked him to delete that thread, through non-Hatrack channels.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I was trying preserve the anomyniousity of whom sent me said pm.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
As it happens, I asked him to delete that thread, through non-Hatrack channels.
So the best way to get Blayne to delete threads is to question your pure, Nordic heterosexuality? Sweet. Thanks for the tip!
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
anomyniousity
I have no idea why you would want to preserve this, whatever it is. But thanks anyway.

quote:
Thanks for the tip!
I rather suspect that our good janitor would object to anything of the sort.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What? Because of the whole "man-crush" thing? Really?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Thanks for the tip!
I rather suspect that our good janitor would object to anything of the sort.
Did someone break your humor meter, or do I need to make jokes about snow-shoes and lutefisk to get you to join in the fun?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What? Because of the whole "man-crush" thing? Really?
That would be weird.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I have no idea why you would want to preserve this, whatever it is. But thanks anyway.
I would natually assume, and it looks like Blayne did as well, that the purpose of sending him a PM asking for thread deletion is that you didn't want it known in public that you were asking for that.

Because otherwise, I'd assume that you'd just ask him to do it in public.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Because otherwise, I'd assume that you'd just ask him to do it in public.
I was laughing at his mis-spelling of 'anonymity', which you must admit was fairly atrocious. But anyway, it is polite for Blayne to keep his PMs in confidence, but it is not necessary for the sender to do so. So I corrected your error of fact, that being more important than such a minor confidence.

quote:
Did someone break your humor meter, or do I need to make jokes about snow-shoes and lutefisk to get you to join in the fun?
Gee, I don't have much of a sense of humour about questions touching my identity and sense of self. I must be a boring squarehead. What's next, you make jokes about my scientific integrity to get me to lighten up?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I was laughing at his mis-spelling of 'anonymity', which you must admit was fairly atrocious.
Gotcha. Nevermind.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What? Because of the whole "man-crush" thing? Really?
Oh man, now it's really funny.

The overreaction was funny on its own, but now that I know that KoM has absolutely no sense of humor it's even funnier. To the point where he'll ask someone to delete a thread if anyone impugns his sexual orientation.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
What's next, you make jokes about my scientific integrity to get me to lighten up?
Sure, why not? It'd be funny because it isn't true. There's nothing about being a scientist that means you can't be funny, or self-deprecating. If anything, it will help more people like you, which isn't a bad thing.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Gee, I don't have much of a sense of humour about questions touching my identity and sense of self.
That's really bizarre, considering how you treat things which touch other's identity and sense of self, such as religion.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You know, "man crush" is used specifically to say that it is not a sexual crush. If a guy is attracted to another guy in a sexual manner, it is just a crush.

---

That being said...KoM, getting a thread deleted just because someone made a joke that could be wrongly interpreted to them saying you were gay...you people are just so emotional.

Do you flip out when people ask if you're "coming out tonight?"
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Other people are free to react as strongly as I did, and often do. Further, people who attach their sense of self to things which are demonstrably untrue get exactly what they deserve.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
demonstrably
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
The only people I've ever known who actually regarded "I'm not into dudes" as an important part of their self identity were all closeted gay men. Just saying is all.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
It's funny because "man crush" is specifically reserved for heterosexual men.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
If anything, it will help more people like you, which isn't a bad thing.
I get the impression that this is not high on the list of KoM's priorities.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
If anything, it will help more people like you, which isn't a bad thing.
I get the impression that this is not high on the list of KoM's priorities.
He should care, if he's ever to keep friends in the scientific community. I don't know about you, but if I were a scientist, I wouldn't want to miss out on the annual barbeque because I'm known as a wet blanket.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Personal insults are rude, even if they are intended as "jokes". Accusing someone of lacking a sense of humor because they don't laugh when they are insulted, is juvenille.


Those of you who aren't scientists probably don't appreciate that impuning someones scientific integrity is a very serious charge. To a scientists, it is the equivalent of accusing a Mormon Bishop of molesting primary girls. Somethings just aren't funny.

Don't get me wrong, I find KoM's continual rants against religion and mockery of religion to be rude and immature. I just can't see that returning tit for tat is any better.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Would joking about a scientist's scientific integrity by on par with joking about a writer plagiarising? Not making a point, just asking a scientist. (If you can't answer, I'll send a letter to Beekman.)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
If I might add my two cents here, I think there is a subtle unconscious distinction that some people make when judging whether a joke is hurtful or not.

For these people, jokes about something that people cannot change and were born with can be more hurtful than jokes about something that people chose for themselves and can change. (which is not to say that there is no overlap, but rather that the average level of "possible offence" if I can can call it that differs)

So jokes about race, sexual orientation, genetic disabilities, etc. are perceived as more hurtful than jokes about religion, jobs, political views, etc.

As an example, possibly this is why jokes about lawyers are commonly accepted whereas jokes about Jews (as an ethnic group) are less accepted, even though many of the jokes could be reused by simply copying and pasting "Jew" for "lawyer."

Obviously not everyone makes this distinction, but KoM may very well make this distinction when it comes to sex.

Short version: attack/joke at the idea, not the person
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The funny thing is that the joke wasn't about KoM's sexual orientation at all, except for implying that he's not gay.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
god is dead no he isn't you're dumb no you're dumb shut up no YOU shut up now back to thread in progress.

:>
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That was old the first time you did it, Sam.

Now it's just sad and tedious.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
The funny thing is that the joke wasn't about KoM's sexual orientation at all, except for implying that he's not gay.
I'm not sure how well that translates really. I'm in Canada and I've never heard the term "man-crush" and he's in Norway(?). I actually had to look up the term in the Urban Dictionary online.

To be honest, perhaps I still do not get it. My understanding is that the joke is supposed to be funny because its supposed to be close to saying KoM has a "gay-crush" on Blayne, but not quite because "man-crush" is slightly different. In the same way that a FCUK shirt is supposed to be funny because its different from a shirt that had the letters in the "correct" order?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
"man-crush" is a way of indicating a man's affection for another man while simultaneously making it explicit that the affection is non-sexual.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
The funny thing is that the joke wasn't about KoM's sexual orientation at all, except for implying that he's not gay.
I'm not sure how well that translates really. I'm in Canada and I've never heard the term "man-crush" and he's in Norway(?). I actually had to look up the term in the Urban Dictionary online.

To be honest, perhaps I still do not get it. My understanding is that the joke is supposed to be funny because its supposed to be close to saying KoM has a "gay-crush" on Blayne, but not quite because "man-crush" is slightly different. In the same way that a FCUK shirt is supposed to be funny because its different from a shirt that had the letters in the "correct" order?
That's how I've always interpreted it, but then again this language moves pretty fast.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
KoM's actually living in the States now.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
That's not the intrepretion - it very specifically excludes gay crushes.

The only way it could be construed as gay is if one believes there is absolutely no such thing as admiration or fondness that is not sexual. That it is impossible for a man to hold another man in esteem and not be gay.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
It's not just holding a man in esteem. It's a crush. You think they're just awesome and that everything they do is super. You really want to be around them and you want their attention. However, this has no element of sexual attraction.

There was a Seinfeld episode about this.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I'm not sure how well that translates really. I'm in Canada and I've never heard the term "man-crush" and he's in Norway(?). I actually had to look up the term in the Urban Dictionary online.
It's not a term I'm familiar with either even though I live in the US. Without the explaination that it referred specifically to a non-sexual obsession, I certainly would have interpreted it to imply a homosexual attraction. It seems hardly fair to poke fun at some one for misunderstanding a slang term that is not in common use among their peers. In fact it seems presumptuous on a forum like this which cuts across many age, ethnic and cultural groups to expect that people would understand any given slang term.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
"You think they're just awesome and that everything they do is super." = Esteem

I do not watch Seinfeld.

I do, however, have a girl crush on Catherine Zeta Jones.

And a regular crush on James Marsters.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Accusing someone of lacking a sense of humor because they don't laugh when they are insulted, is juvenille.
Implying that I behave in a child-like manner is also insulting, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Oh wait, you did, because you aren't joking. So it must be acceptable to question someone's motives only if you want to reprimand them. That makes sense.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Those of you who aren't scientists probably don't appreciate that impuning someones scientific integrity is a very serious charge. To a scientists, it is the equivalent of accusing a Mormon Bishop of molesting primary girls. Somethings just aren't funny.
That's insulting to the many people who have been molested by authority figures of any kind, as the analogy is very much innacurate. Child Molestation is a severe moral issue involving issues of innocence, abuse of authority, and abuse of trust. Calling into question someone's scientific integrity is a question of professional ethics. Totally different.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Don't get me wrong, I find KoM's continual rants against religion and mockery of religion to be rude and immature.

I just can't see that returning tit for tat is any better.
I'm not returning tit for tat. I happen to agree with KoM more often than not. I have a problem with his methodology in that regard, but I don't disagree with his positions, as I consider myself to be an atheist as well.

I was just taken aback by his response. I figured someone who could dish it out was also expected to take it. It's really the rule of the game. If you don't want to be made fun of, you don't make fun of others. You can argue from the outside that no one should ever make fun of anyone else, but that's not the rules that KoM is playing by. If he doesn't want to be made fun of, he shouldn't try and make fun of others, because it's going to be reciprocated no matter how much he complains.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'm going to disagree with you there, Kat. While the term man crush explicitly means something that is not sexual in nature, it's quite possible to use the term to imply more. I'm not saying that's what happened, but inferring that does not necessitate it being impossible to hold another man in esteem and not be gay.

----

Those two are good friends. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

He's got a man crush on him. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Rabbit,
You are being very insulting here. I don't understand why you consider it okay for you, especially in a situation where it has repeatedly been explained to you there were no intended insults.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Well, given BB and my interpretation, I could definitely sympathize with how one could take offence.

The joke is due to the close-but-not-quite similarity between two things, one slightly distasteful and one very distasteful (to the individual).
i.e. KoM has a man-crush on Blayne, "haha" its funny because its close to being gay, but he can't be upset because I didn't actually say it "wink wink nudge nudge" and meanwhile I get a free pass on saying that he has a crush on Blayne

Trying to extrapolate this another way, its like joking that Mitt Romney is campaigning for President so he can seduce interns into "polyga-romney."
"Haha" its funny because he's a Mormon and I didn't exactly say polygamy *wink wink nudge nudge* and meanwhile I get a free pass on saying he's like Clinton

The latter joke is in bad taste, viewed in a similar perspective the first could easily be seen as bad taste too.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Porter,

Sure, but it's possible to make anything sound dirty if you add "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" after it.

He really loves being a Scoutmaster. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Wait, how is Rabbit being "very insulting"? Or are you being sarcastic to prove the point that the original "man-crush" joke wasn't insulting, so it's could be considered silly to take it that way?
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I think Rabbit's being insulting. In fact, so insulting that I suspect she's being funny with the chastisement for saying something that might be construed as offensive.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
KoM has a man-crush on Blayne, "haha" its funny because its close to being gay, but he can't be upset because I didn't actually say it "wink wink nudge nudge" and meanwhile I get a free pass on saying that he has a crush on Blayne
That's not the nature of the joke at all. There was no implication that KoM was gay or desired Blayne in a sexual manner.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
MrSquickly: As I said, possibly I misunderstood it.
However, I am hardly the only one.

Perhaps you can explain it, how is it supposed to be funny if there is no sexual implication?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Mucus, I still think you're applying a bit of your own incorrect interpretation of the term here. You admit to being unfamiliar with the term but then go on to state that the reason it's funny is because it has something to do with heterosexuality.

It's funny in the same way that accusing someone of a "normal" crush is funny. It doesn't suggest that they are of a different sexual orientation than they claim to be. It just makes an exaggerated claim about their esteem for a particular individual.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I don't think that the original statement was intended to be all that funny.

KoM's silly reaction and, with his past behavior and displayed character, him having rainbow colored clay feet amuses me greatly though.

---

edit: Although, to be clear, I was pretty much serious about the only people I've ever known who consider "not being into guys" as an important part of their self identity were all closeted gays...well, and militant lesbians. I'm not implying that KoM is gay, but it's a terribly silly thing to place importance on.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
It seems hardly fair to poke fun at some one for misunderstanding a slang term that is not in common use among their peers.
I don't see where anyone has done this.
quote:
In fact it seems presumptuous on a forum like this which cuts across many age, ethnic and cultural groups to expect that people would understand any given slang term.
I don't see where anyone has done this either.

Though, just to be on the safe side, I'll never presume that anyone will understand me again.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
<deleted on Noemon's request>

[ September 14, 2007, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Though, just to be on the safe side, I'll never presume that anyone will understand me again.
Welcome to my world.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
MattP: I think you misunderstand me. I explicitly said "given my interpretation" at the beginning of my explanation as to how one could take offence.

I was not explaining why the *intended* joke was funny.
Quite the contrary, I was explaining how someone *given my interpretation* of the joke could find it quite insulting.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
(in response to Javert Hugo) That's pretty mean.

[edited to add quote]
[edited again 'cause MrSquicky has a point (and before he made the explicit request that I edit. [Razz] )]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Wow, kat, that interpretation didn't come from anywhere but yourself. I'm pretty positive that it wasn't at all what was intended. I actually refrained from quoting it because you really should delete it. That was extremely mean and uncalled for.

---

edit: vonk, can I suggest that you remove the quote and perhaps put in the name of the person you are addressing. If kat (JH) deletes that like she should, it would be a shame to have it still around because you quoted it.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Blayne, did you figure out how to prevent the exploit in your petition code?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Porter,

Sure, but it's possible to make anything sound dirty if you add "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" after it.
The "nudge, wink" was supposed to be implied in those examples.

Now, while I don't think it was correct or necessarily reasonable to infer something like the "nudge, wink" along with the original joke, it's an understandable inference.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Wow, kat, that interpretation didn't come from anywhere but yourself. I'm pretty positive that it wasn't at all what was intended.
Actually, that's how I interpreted it as well.
 
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
If I remember the context of the original comment correctly, I didn't find it offensive for implying that KoM had the hots for Blayne, sexual or otherwise. I found it offensive because it implied that the only reason KoM could have for defending Blayne was that he was abnormally attracted to him.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Yep, a lot humor is fairly cutting at its core. I'm not saying it is accurate; I'm saying how it is funny without having anything to do with homosexuality.

Try explaining why a pratfall is funny without sounding like a monster.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Wow, that (the interpretation) is an awful thing for someone to say. Why would you let that stand uncommented on? That's a blatant violation of the TOS if it was intended that way.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Now, while I don't think it was correct or necessarily reasonable to infer something like the "nudge, wink" along with the original joke, it's an understandable inference.
I can understand someone inferring that if they've never heard the phrase "man-crush" before. I can't imagine someone familiar with the phrase using it to imply that someone is gay.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
News Flash: Mocking humor is mocking and not flattering.

In other news: Gravity makes things fall.

---

Now, the above, while not very funny, if it were, would be funny because it is saying that Mr. Squicky has such a poor grasp of social behavior that he must be so dumb as to not understand the basic physical tendencies of the universe.

Humor is a bite rendered subtly.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Yikes, given that we have four possible interpretations so far, "not intended to be all that funny", my "uncomfortably close" interpretation, Javert's mean interpretation (which refutes my previous thought on the issue, that I might be being too cynical in my interpretation), and the "exaggerated esteem" interpretation ...

I think I've established that there is ample room for misinterpretation and possible taking of offence.

Dagonee: I doubt it given that some took up your challenge of
quote:
...or simply redirect to an objectionable site.
[Wink]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Wow, kat, that interpretation didn't come from anywhere but yourself. I'm pretty positive that it wasn't at all what was intended.
Actually, that's how I interpreted it as well.
I didn't interpret it that way. I thought it was funny because the level of positive enthusiasm for another human being indicated by the term "man crush" seem incongruous with my experience of KoM's personality. In other words, the juxtapostition of KoM and man-crush was funny, not the juxtposition of man-crush and Blayne.

edit to add: and now five interpretations.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I'm not saying I believe my interpretation and I'm not even saying that the original joker believed it. I'm saying how it could be funny without being an accusation of homosexuality.

A lot of humor does have a sting behind it. Stripping away the context to leave only the sting can be a shock. On the other hand, context matters.

If only the flat-out insult was intended, that can be delivered easily. Since it WAS couched as humor, then the comment needs to be evaluated as a whole.

Added: Actually, I think kmboots' interpretation could be it as well.

Maybe, like many well-crafted jokes, it could be funny for many reasons depending on which figure in the tableux the hearer focuses.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
For Jebus's sake, of course you were saying it was accurate. There was no reason to add your "sadly" otherwise.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Nope. You're wrong.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
FYI, your earlier comment reads to me as if you believe that to be true. It also reads, to me, as an incredibly mean thing to say.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
A lot of humor does have a sting behind it. Stripping away the context to leave only the sting can be a shock. On the other hand, context matters.
It's a shame all the context is gone with the rest of the thread, then.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
It wasn't meant to be.

Have we really moved from an uproar over a misinterpreted joke to an uproar over a misinterpreted explanation of the joke?
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Well, to me, that was the only truely mean thing anyone has said directed at an individual so far. But, I'll move on. No need to continue.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Have we really moved from an uproar over a misinterpreted joke to an uproar over a misinterpreted explanation of the joke?
Yes.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Can I suggest rephrasing what you said so that it actually sounds anything like just a postulated explanation of the joke as opposed to a nasty insult?
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
[Deleted now unnecessary commentary.]

[ September 14, 2007, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
If only I had explained. Too bad that was the only thing said on the matter.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
It's also lamented (with the sadly). I don't see how that could be anything but the writer lamenting the fact that she is stating.


edit:

I've whistled it. I recommend other people do too.

Also, Matt, can I suggest that you remove the quote? If you address who you are talking to, I think it will be clear what you are talking about.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I know you don't.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
[Deleted now unnecessary commentary.]

[ September 14, 2007, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I think it's time to send in the clowns.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Clearly it's time for Blayne to delete this thread... after copying all the nasty posts so he can use them against people in later discussions.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
It's also lamented (with the sadly). I don't see how that could be anything but the writer lamenting the fact that she is stating.

I've whistled it. I recommend other people do too.
I see at least one way and could probably come up with several others.

When I read it, I read it as Kat writing in the "voice" of the original poster of the man-crush gibe.

It's a technique you've used yourself in different contexts - stating something you don't believe in a way that you expect will be understood that you are not advocating the underlying sentiment.

If I go back and read it now, on its own, it doesn't read that way to me. But on the heels of a string of people writing ironic statements about Rabbit's posts, it did.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Have we really moved from an uproar over a misinterpreted joke to an uproar over a misinterpreted explanation of the joke?
Yes.
Perfect.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I just want to state that I have a man-crush on both Blayne and KoM, and that's not an insult to either of them because I'm a damn sexy hetero-man, and I don't just give out man crushes like larks tongues.

Hey sailors! [Wink]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
<expletive deleted before it was written> it. It's not perfect. Blayne gets some rough treatment here, much of which he deserves. That nasty statement (even granting that it is possible that it wasn't intended as an insult, which I don't see any way, I'm pretty sure that is will come across that way to him) is not something that he deserves and something that is going to hurt him. It should be removed. I've asked kat to restate it as something that won't come across as an insult.

I don't get how you don't think that that is important.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Squicky: 'Not into dudes' is not an important part of my identity; indeed, I experimented a bit some years ago. However, 'into my wife' absolutely is an important part of my identity, thanks kindly.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I've asked kat to restate it as something that won't come across as an insult.

I don't get how you don't think that that is important.
Who is the last sentence addressed to?
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
I hope this doesn't sound cold-hearted or anything because its not meant to be.

I generally believe that an insult is only as offensive as the receiver makes it out to be. In a case like this where the comment was clearly meant as a joke, I think its up to the receiver to just not let the joke bother him.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
However, 'into my wife' absolutely is an important part of my identity, thanks kindly.
I'm not aware of anything that was said here or in the deleted thread that would call that into question.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
That nasty statement (even granting that it is possible that it wasn't intended as an insult, which I don't see any way, I'm pretty sure that it will come across that way to him) is not something that he deserves and something that is going to hurt him. It should be removed.
This I absolutely and completely agree with. I believe kat when she says that it isn't what she actually thinks, but regardless of that I think that the person being so described would feel (understandably) hurt if he were to read it. I'd like you to delete it too, kat.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Okay, Noemon.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Thanks kat, I appreciate it.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
[Smile]
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Wow.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I think the real problem with this thread is that the initial attention to direct every one's attention was simply, well, misdirected. Obviously you should be paying attention to me. Did you know I can juggle five objects at once? Well I can.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
However, 'into my wife' absolutely is an important part of my identity, thanks kindly.
I'm not aware of anything that was said here or in the deleted thread that would call that into question.
But your judgement is not the relevant one.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
But can you juggle with your feet?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Hey, Noemon, you ever get a chance to go back through that thread from awhile back? You said some pretty un-nice things about me that you said you'd back up. I waited, but...
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I take it you never got my email. Is the address in your profile not one that you check?
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
However, 'into my wife' absolutely is an important part of my identity, thanks kindly.
I'm not aware of anything that was said here or in the deleted thread that would call that into question.
But your judgement is not the relevant one.
It is when his is by far the majority opinion. It's you who overreacted and misinterpreted, and apparently continue to do so.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oddly enough, I rarely let my emotions be dictated by a majority vote of Hatrack.

I am not enjoying this thread; I will post no further in it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Hmm... Well I was gone for 2 days so I never got to see what people were so worked up over....


Someone email it?
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I am not enjoying this thread; I will post no further in it.
Damn you all, now my man-crush on King of Men will forever go unrequited! [Cry]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
That was old the first time you did it, Sam.

Now it's just sad and tedious.
Man I don't even understand why you would have a problem with it at all unless you totally misunderstood the meaning of it in both instances, which ... ah, yeah, I guess you did.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Man I don't even understand why you would have a problem with it at all unless you totally misunderstood the meaning of it in both instances, which ... ah, yeah, I guess you did.
Your inability to understand me does not mean that I misunderstood you.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
That's a perfect example of a quote that goes around as easily as it comes around. I could literally retort just by saying it back.

Gotta say it doesn't happen often!
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
As long as you quit doing your blah blah dishonest restatements of other people's discussions, I don't particularly care.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Man I don't even understand why you would have a problem with it at all unless you totally misunderstood the meaning of it in both instances, which ... ah, yeah, I guess you did.
Your inability to understand me does not mean that I misunderstood you.
Your inability to understand me does not mean that I misunderstood you.

*couldn't help myself* 8)
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I thought the whole point of scientific integrity was that it didn't have anything to do with your character, but that certain things are self-evident and repeatable. I should think the whole point would be that there is nothing inherent to religious experience that can take the place of a well supported scientific conclusion. And that's perfectly fine.

But I've read this thread in a bit of a screwed up order. I think I went page 1, then 4, then 3 then 2.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
wha.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Back on page 2 folks were trying to draw an analogy between attacking a scientist's integrity vs. attacking a religious person's integrity. Integrity is integrity, but science should be independent of one's morals.

I mean, there's a whole other can of worms about what are morals v. ethics and all that.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
ethics ae suporior then morals because morals are too easily bent by relative perspective.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
That's like saying rocks are better than light. Better for what?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sounds more like saying rocks are better than stones.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
As long as you quit doing your blah blah dishonest restatements of other people's discussions, I don't particularly care.
That would be all fine and great if they were dishonest restatements and not friendly sarcasm.

Like I said, y'know. Your inability to understand me does not mean that I misunderstood you. But if you really don't care then feel free not to announce how sad and tedious you think my statements are, in all the glories of your stern affect.

:>
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
That would be all fine and great if they were dishonest restatements and not friendly sarcasm.
Sarcasm is, by it's nature, a dishonest restatement of something.

Moreover, they're not particularly friendly. And even if you mean them as friendly sarcasm, they are equally tedious and sad.

As you admitted, you lack the ability to understand why someone who understands your intent would have a problem with them.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oddly enough, I rarely let my emotions be dictated by a majority vote of Hatrack.
You should give it a try; you might find it an improvement over letting them be dictated by homophobia and insecurity.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oddly enough, I rarely let my emotions be dictated by a majority vote of Hatrack.
You should give it a try; you might find it an improvement over letting them be dictated by homophobia and insecurity.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

This thread is kinda silly TBH.

All right stop that, clear off, we'll have no more of this. It's silly!
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oddly enough, I rarely let my emotions be dictated by a majority vote of Hatrack.
You should give it a try; you might find it an improvement over letting them be dictated by homophobia and insecurity.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Sounds more like saying rocks are better than stones.
No, he's clearly saying the rocks have different properties than the stones.

Anyway, rocks can bend, at least if you look at them from an objective standpoint.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
As you admitted, you lack the ability to understand why someone who understands your intent would have a problem with them.
I'm sure you think so, but you also think that I wasn't being friendly. I consider you a terrible judge of character in these regards.

Give it a rest, fella. You're being stuffy. :>
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure you think so, but you also think that I wasn't being friendly. I consider you a terrible judge of character in these regards.

Give it a rest, fella. You're being stuffy. :>
I'm not judging this by your intent. It's almost irrelevant.

You can give it a rest any time you like.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The value judgments and pronouncements about what I am or am not saying, as well as the mischaracterizations, I all expected.

What I did not expect was you parroting back my own comments in a 'no, you shut up' fashion, especially given that's included in the sarcasm that provoked you to insult me openly in the first place.

This is all coming across as really dumb to me.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
As long as you quit doing your blah blah dishonest restatements of other people's discussions, I don't particularly care.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
dagonee is a meanie no he isn't you're dumb no you're dumb shut up no YOU shut up now back to thread in progress.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
You forgot to say "blah blah" first.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I think someone has a man-crush...
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
This thread reminds me of that Batman story where he compiles a list of everyone's vulnerabilities.
So we know that Blayne is vulnerable to hacking, KoM to questioning his sexuality, and Dagonee to restating his words ...
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I think someone has a man-crush...
Only on Jon Boy. He's such a hottie.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
This thread reminds me of that Batman story where he compiles a list of everyone's vulnerabilities.
So we know that Blayne is vulnerable to hacking, KoM to questioning his sexuality, and Dagonee to restating his words ...
And I know yours.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Okay, that made me laugh.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
"Mr. Mucus", I like that [Smile]
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Alas, my weakness is all too obvious. [Cry]
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
But you're the MightyCow, don't you have any inherent invulnerabilities to help you combat the butcher menace?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
dagonee is a meanie no he isn't you're dumb no you're dumb shut up no YOU shut up now back to thread in progress.
exactly!
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
dagonee is a meanie no he isn't you're dumb no you're dumb shut up no YOU shut up now back to thread in progress.
exactly!
laughed Sam, quite racistly.
 
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
But you're the MightyCow, don't you have any inherent invulnerabilities to help you combat the butcher menace?
Chickens in choppers.

--Mel
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
laughed Sam, quite racistly.
"You may continue your feeble protests," continued Sam, the frenzied hate of several generations of disaffected white hicks gleaming in his eyes, "My heterogene ray will turn us all into sissy white boys -- what will hip hop do, then?"

The council knew that if they did not intervene, it would be nothing but Country and Indie Pop until the end of time.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I take it you never got my email. Is the address in your profile not one that you check?
That's my email, but I have a bunch of filters set up. I wasn't expecting a private resolution of public attacks, so I wasn't sepcifically looking for an email from you. I probably missed it.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I sent the message on April 8th, if you want to go back and look for it. I can't access that email account from work, but I'll forward you a copy of it when I get home, if you'd like. The gist of it was that after going over both of your posts in that thread, neither of you seemed to be exhibiting a level of snark beyond the bounds of what's generally accepted here.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Why do you think you accused me of it then?

As you know, I have my theory.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
My theory is that no one wants to give you the benefit of the doubt because you spend most of your time here being a condescending know-it-all holier-than-thou a-hole*.

Why do you behave that way? I have my theory.

*who says hyphens are dead?
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Squicky, really, let it go. All of it. There's no need for any animosity to or from anywhere to continue. Whatever you're holding a grudge for, it was a long time ago, in another country. Besides, the story is dead. You don't have to hold onto it anymore.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Jt,
No one? Or are we talking about a specific group of people?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
who says hyphens are dead?
You make a compelling argument.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
There is no conspiracy. There is no vendetta against you. There is no, as far as I know, discussion of you at all outside of these tiresome threads. Whatever you're imagining, the reality is that this is an old, played-out story that no one wants to think about anymore. You can just let it go.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
There is no conspiracy. There is no vendetta against you.
Who said there was? All I see is a clique of people who stand up for each other and attack those who criticize people inside the clique.

I don't think it is too much to ask to be treated fairly even if I am not popular, but it certainly seems to be.

kat,
Even after your initial way out of line insult, you were nasty and petty in this thread and your behavior damages the forum. This is a consistent aspect of your behavior here. However, your clique mates will defend you and respond to people calling you on it with insults and unjustified attacks on the peopel bringing it up. Even Noemon, who you claimed has reined you in at times when your behavior was really out of line, won't admit that people who see your behavior as nasty may have a reason for this.

I've said multiple times, stop being nasty and you won't have any problem with me. But you really shouldn't expect people insulting me or your latest artifice to accomplish the same thing.

[ September 26, 2007, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
There is no clique. There are only individuals. Put away your unrighteous indignation and let it go. Really - you'll be so much happier. All is forgiven. You have good qualities - let them shine. Let all this nasty stuff go.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The funny thing is, Squick, I'd say you were in the clique. [Smile]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Tom,
I'm not sure that we'd be using the same definition of clique, then.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, I think we would. I think the only argument for your not being "in it" is your continual and tiresome complaints about not being in it. *grin*
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
We actually prefer the term 'cabal'.

Not that the terminology should affect Squick's paranoia at all.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
The only remedy Mr Squicky is to form your own clique; one that's more popular and more cool!

But in all seriousness I just have not seen the clique you are talking about but that does not in any way mean you are wrong. For what it's worth, I'd never willingly join such a group. Though we disagree on many things, and on occasion I've been genuinely annoyed at you, I still think you make the community a better place and enjoy your participation in it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
For what it's worth, I'd never willingly join such a group.
That is unnecessary. If you join, it will be without your knowledge or permission.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
For what it's worth, I'd never willingly join such a group.
That is unnecessary. If you join, it will be without your knowledge or permission.
Sounds like a pretty desperate group.

I refuse to join any group that would have me as a member! [Wink]

Also

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
That is unnecessary. If you join, it will be without your knowledge or permission.
I really don't think we're using the same definition of clique, Tom.

---

Thanks BB, that's nice to hear. I'd say much the same about you. There have been things you've done that I haven't been happy with, but I'm pretty sure you just about always mean well and you're good for Hatrack (and I think Hatrack has been good for you too).
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
The clique you are referring to does not exist.

However, if it did, it would hardly go like a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. I've been in informal social groups before, and there are rarely constitutional congresses involved.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I really don't think we're using the same definition of clique, Tom.
Oh, we are. I was merely speaking tongue-in-cheek to BB, because I find your whole "clique" thing immeasurably funny. [Wink]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Wait-- is our story now that there is no clique?

How are we going to exclude Squicky *now*?

I mean...really. Someone should've sent me an email or something.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I didn't know there was a clique... *lip wobbles*
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I thought you were in the clique-- you mean you weren't? I thought you were speaking from knowledge and...

Oh, crap. What if they don't like *me* anymore? What if I've secretly been voted out?

I need to go talk to Dagonee.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Have people been smiling at you oddly? The laughter at your jokes changed from raucous to polite? No longer getting calls at 4 am?

You, too, may be suffering Cabalaphiliasterism, the condition of being stranded when your clique has dissolved. Your mind refuses to accept that the tribe that gave you security and identity is gone. Victims of cabalaphiliasterism include Alan Thicke and that 23-year-old who still wears her high school chearleading uniform to parties.

[ September 27, 2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
We haven't had a good clique fight for a couple of years. Well, at least that I've been around to see.

I won't deny that there are some people I'm more strongly aligned with than others, and a couple of people I'm counter-aligned with. Imagine if I felt exactly the same towards everyone. Now some people can genuinely love everyone, but I'm afraid the best I could muster would be universal indifference or else paranoia.

I think Hatrack, like any group of a few hundred people, is a kaleidescope of cliques, and it's just a matter of which ones I care to be a part of.

P.S. Actually, I realize that one can't always just decide to be part of a clique. Or maybe one can, but one cannot decide one's role or rank within the clique. I might be the party animal of the linguistics clique, but in the party clique I'm the quiet religious guy who goes crazy.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
MrSquicky with all respects I have to warn you that it's a losing battle to attack 'cabals' and 'cliques' because it's like the dumbest way to handle and/or classify the unpopularity of your position or reputation.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't think there is anything as organized as a clique.

But, I do think that people who have had more congenial interactions - either on the forum or in person - are likely to be more sympathetic to each other. And that those sypmathies show. I also think that they make a difference to whether or not I will bother engaging in what is likely to be a less congenial on line interaction.

And there are people that I am not crazy about and who aren't crazy about me.

In those cases, I need more incentive to engage with them.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Samp,
I care very little for the unpopularity of my positions or reputations. I do care about fairness and about the health of the forum.

I don't care if people form cliques. I don't care if those groups don't like me. I do care that they seem to not do anything when one of their members acts poorly, unless someone points out this poor behavior, in which case they attack that person, often with lies, insults, and unjustified accusations.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
There is no clique. There are only individuals.

I feel like I'm the anti-Borg.

More specifically, if you desire better relationships, I suggest treating people as individuals.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
boots,
A big part of my problem is that what people post have an effect on the forum which in turn effects me whether I am engaging them or not. When kat dishes out a nasty insult aimed at Blayne or responds to a newcomer's actually pretty reasonable post by saying that they are engaging in...what was it...space logic or something like that, she is making Hatrack worse and, oh yeah, hurting people. When people tolerate or even defend her nastiness, I think it also has a bad effect on the forum.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Squick, I really think you'll be happier when you let go of the grudge that you're holding against me.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I agree - I just don't have the energy to be the Hatrack police.

And I don't know that the resulting squabbles are an improvement.

Maybe a better method would be to support whoever was being attacked rather than directly engaging the attacker?
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
If you cared about Hatrack, you'd stop your campaigning.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
boots,
A big part of my problem is that what people post have an effect on the forum which in turn effects me whether I am engaging them or not. When kat dishes out a nasty insult aimed at Blayne or responds to a newcomer's actually pretty reasonable post by saying that they are engaging in...what was it...space logic or something like that, she is making Hatrack worse and, oh yeah, hurting people. When people tolerate or even defend her nastiness, I think it also has a bad effect on the forum.
For what it's worth, I agree. However, there's a point at which it makes more sense to adapt to a negative influence rather than try to eliminate it.

A long, drawn-out battle can be more disruptive than the initial nastiness that triggered it and if there's no realistic expectation of changing the negative behavior that you are responding to, then its not only distracting, but futile.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"Better for the community" can be tricky. Is it worth "keeping the peace" at the cost of ignoring slights to some people? Maybe. It is hard on the folks that are being slighted, though.

I think that supporting the "victim" rather than directly attacking the attacker might be a good middle ground, depending on the egregiousness of the attack.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I am part of Hatrack. I'm not going anywhere, and Squick is wrong in his interpretation of me.

It's better for everyone, but especially you, Squick, if you stop.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
what people post have an effect on the forum which in turn effects me whether I am engaging them or not.
I think that the damage your campaign causes to Hatrack greater than the good it could ever hope to accomplish.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I can see how letting things slide isn't better for the people who are treated unfairly. And they are also part of the community.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Squick is wrong in his interpretation of events. This years-long grudge he is holding would be better confined to the ether.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am writing in generalities, not in specifics.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
A long, drawn-out battle can be more disruptive than the initial nastiness that triggered it and if there's no realistic expectation of changing the negative behavior that you are responding to, then its not only distracting, but futile.
To a certain extent, I agree with this. I have no expectation of changing kat's behavior by my reaction to her. But it's not her behavior that I am aiming to change.

Consider, even when I laid it out (and serveral other people requested that she take it down) that what she did (in the extremely unlikely case that she didn't intend to insult him) was going to hurt Blayne, she wouldn't take it down. It wasn't until Noemon asked her to that she did. She goes to some length to make it clear that's the reason she did it.

kat isn't going to listen to me, but she will listen to some other people, at least some of whom I do believe are honestly concerned about the forum and don't just define it as the people in their group. I don't want to be the one who calls kat out when she starts acting nasty. It's not something I particularly enjoy; it's something that is going to end up with people attacking and insulting me; it's also not going to do much good in the short term. And, as I've said many times before, I wouldn't feel that I had to do it if I wasn't generally the only person who will.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Squick is wrong in his interpretation of events. This years-long grudge he is holding would be better confined to the ether.
I don't know what he's specifically referring to, but my impression is that you occasionally say something that seems deliberately mean, sarcastic, or rudely dismissive. I usually let it slide because I don't want to get into one of these types of dramatic exchanges and whether your intention is to be caustic or not, I don't expect anything I say is going to change your behavior.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
boots,
How would you suggest supporting people as an alternative method? It's not something I can see working.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Squick is wrong about me and his campaign is damaging to the forum and very, very personal. It's been going on for years. There is nothing good to be gained by it.

I will not be opening this thread again.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I don't want to be the one who calls kat out when she starts acting nasty.
The rest of your post I buy. This sentence I do not. [Smile]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
boots,
How would you suggest supporting people as an alternative method? It's not something I can see working.
An idea:

In this case, instead of calling kat out on the allegedly/apparently mean comment, you could have just replied that you disagreed and reassured Blayne that you didn't think that opinion was representative of the members of the forum at large. In the cases where I feel attacked, it only takes a small "I'm with you buddy" to make me feel better.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Instead of this:

Poster A (the victim): I think x.

Poster B (the attacker): Snotty response

Poster C (the avenger): Poster B,it was really wrong of you to say snotty response to Poster A.

Try this:

Poster C (the advocate): Poster A, I think you are great and I agree or even if I don't agree, you are great for posting x.

That way, Poster B gets ignored instead of the thread becoming all about him or her.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Even better.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Has the animosity between kat a squick really been going on for years? I've only noticed it in the last six months or so. I mean, before that I didn't really think of them as aligned on very many subjects. But the real dance of anger is a pretty recent phenomenon.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's bad for the forum, because few people every play that card on themselves. It's always something someone else is doing that is bad for the forum, you'll notice. (This a non-particular use of "you").

I used to have a grudge against kat. It was weird because we had similar opinions on a lot of stuff but she just rubbed me wrong (as I saw it.) But the day came when I had to decide whether I was going to meet up with the Utah clump or continue to snub her. I'm glad that I chose to meet up with her. It's really fortunate since we both wound up moving east. I haven't seen her a lot, but I am glad I don't have to go through that struggle I did the first time.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm still in the clique.

This is because I am awesome, apparently.

Let's face it-- if you're not in the clique, you're less than stellar. I mean, you might even be pretty pathetic.

I feel pity for you, if you're not in the clique. Not enough to make me take you on as an adept, mind you-- who has the time really, to listen to your whining about not being popular? I'm sure someone does, but that's not me. No, I'll be over here, being Awesome.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
I stick with the frame of mind I developed in high school. All those people not looking at me and not talking to me? It's 'cause they know how cool I am and don't want to embarass themselves by showing their unworthiness. Yeah. Too right.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I am too awesome for all your cliques. The sooner you come to grips with that fact, the better. Instead, you should just form a clique that does not include me, but which is devoted to admiring my awesomeness. That is the most healthy and productive use of your time.

You may commence your worship immediately.

-pH
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
boots and Matt,
I have a couple of problems with your suggestions.

First, the types of things you are suggesting that I say wouldn't necessarily be honest. I very uncomfortable with the idea of using potentially false praise as some sort of counter-balance for someone being treated poorly.

Second, while it may help the individual attacked, it doesn't address the people reading and potentially using the displayed behavior as an indicator of what is and is not acceptible here. I'm not sure if either of you have read what I've written about what I call the two door problem, but I'm very committed to being that guy who will speak up first.

---

What I'm doing definitely has a negative effect on the halth of the forum. I am very aware of that.

Does it have a more negative effect than doing nothing? That I'm not so sure about. At her current rate, sure, but kat used to be nasty on a much more frequent basis in the past, before a couple of incidents ended with many people recognizing her behavior as being nasty and out of line.

If she stopped being nasty, I'd have no problem with her. If other people stepped in when she was, I would feel any need to. I don't think either of those two are unreasonable requests and, to me, are things I can live with much better than "Don't point it out when people (or at least popular people) do something wrong." If what I'm doing is having a negative effect, it is surely not happening in a vaccuum, unrelated to others actions or failures to act.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Mr. Squicky is a Lawful Good Paladin.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
It bugs me that this is seen as so out of the normal. If you don't see what I see, that's fine, but if you do (or are willing to grant that I honestly do), is acting the way I do really so out of the ordinary?
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I am not familiar with the two door thing, but I'll try searching.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
kat used to be nasty on a much more frequent basis in the past
And now you're nasty on a much more frequent basis than in the past.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
porter,
Where am I nasty?

---

Oh, that reminds me, Noemon, if you sent the email in the last couple of days, I never got it.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Sometimes, though, the attention gained from being nasty is a sort of reward. The attacker gets to be at the center of attention.

I don't know that this is a disincentive for being nasty. Negative attention can be more desirable than no attention.

I wouldn't suggest posting anything false to bolster the victim. Surely there is something good to say that wouldn't be a lie? This has the benefit of strengthening the victims social ties as well - giving them the kind of armour that the attacker may have.

And it sets a good example.

I do understand the impulse to shame wrongdoers, though, and, while it may be futile (sadly, especially from you because of the history) and may be damaging, I think you must do what you believe to be right.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Yeesh, the whole victim thing is icky to me, that someone would build their identity on this or any forum as a victim. I guess it happens, and it happens to me, but discussion of how to do it in a "healthy" way is kind of disonant to me

I guess as a recovery codependent, to me it kind of smacks of eating disorder instructions.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
It bugs me that this is seen as so out of the normal. If you don't see what I see, that's fine, but if you do (or are willing to grant that I honestly do), is acting the way I do really so out of the ordinary?
I think there's a sense of "just let it drop already" even from people that agree with you.I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out misbehavior, I would try to do so in a non-confrontational manner so the offender doesn't feel trapped and then let it go.

It's a lot easier to apologize to "that was really hurtful" than to "I demand an apology". If the apology is not forthcoming, that's a reflection on them, not you, and we're all smart enough to see this without it having to be pointed out repeatedly.

Once it degrades to "did to!", "did not!", there's nothing to be gained by continuing the exchange.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
Yeesh, the whole victim thing is icky to me, that someone would build their identity on this or any forum as a victim. I guess it happens, and it happens to me, but discussion of how to do it in a "healthy" way is kind of disonant to me

I guess as a recovery codependent, to me it kind of smacks of eating disorder instructions.
I think "victim" is being used in a more specific way here, i.e. the victim of a specific mean comment.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
By "two door" did you mean the card trick discussion from the numb3rs thread?
http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=034845;p=0&r=nfx
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
Yeesh, the whole victim thing is icky to me, that someone would build their identity on this or any forum as a victim. I guess it happens, and it happens to me, but discussion of how to do it in a "healthy" way is kind of disonant to me

I guess as a recovery codependent, to me it kind of smacks of eating disorder instructions.
I think "victim" is being used in a more specific way here, i.e. the victim of a specific mean comment.
Exactly. I was just using it to identify the roles (victim, attacker, advocate, avenger) in a particular situation. I did not mean to suggest that they self-identify that way.

I'm not sure where you got that.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, we've had a couple of career victims, who hardly did anything else. I understand the concept of it being a role in a given interaction.

quote:
I wouldn't suggest posting anything false to bolster the victim. Surely there is something good to say that wouldn't be a lie? This has the benefit of strengthening the victims social ties as well - giving them the kind of armour that the attacker may have.
The essence of being a victim in relationship addiction is to recruit a defender, and then when they have truly become a protector, to see them as an oppressor and then seek a new defender. It seemed like the discussion was on how best to become a protector.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
No, the two door thing is a distillation of a lot of different principles. It's a relatively trivial example of the principles that undergird the Kitty Genovese incident or the Stanford Prison experiment.

If you get a situation with a large number of people going through a closed doorway (say at a train station, which is where I first noticed this), you'll often see an interesting phenomenom. The early people will open one of the doors, which makes sense. They need to get through, but they don't realy have enough volume to need both. However, most of the press of people behind them will line up to go through the already opened door. However, if someone opens that second door, they will almost immediately reconfigure to go through both doors.

Opening the seond door makes the situation better, but many (most in my experience) never think to do it and take their cues from the people around them.

---

The application to the Kitty Genovese incident is probably pretty obvious. That to the Stanford Prision experiment relies on one of the lesser known aspect of the situation. That is, it is likely that the harsh treatment the "inmates" got was not necessarily drawn out by the situation itself, but rather, one of the "guards" wanted to treat them poorly. You can see him in the interviews conducted after the experiment. He's the only one of the "guards" who didn't feel badly about his behavior.

The social dynamics of the guards were strongly affected by him and what he wanted to do. He set the tone as to how the prisoners were treated because he was forcefula nd seemed confident in what he was doing, whereas the other guards were unsure and no one stood up to him. Consider in the Milgram experiment, when there was another person who decided not to go along with the experimenter (especially if that person was high status), the rate of compliance shot way, way down.

In many group situations, people take their cues from what people around them are doing. A single voice can have a profound effect, especially in cases of uncertainty. Introducing dissent to either group direction or group silence (in effect, opening the second door), will often to lead to people actually considering the situation as opposed to adopting the apparent norms.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
pooka,
I don't think what you are talking about has much relevance to what anyone else is saying here.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think you must do what you believe to be right.
Worst. Advice. Ever.

Trust me.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out misbehavior, I would try to do so in a non-confrontational manner so the offender doesn't feel trapped and then let it go.

It's a lot easier to apologize to "that was really hurtful" than to "I demand an apology".
I think this is a pretty good idea for people who are behaving in good faith. For people who are intentionally hurtful and nasty, I think it is much less so.

quote:
If the apology is not forthcoming, that's a reflection on them, not you, and we're all smart enough to see this without it having to be pointed out repeatedly.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be doing this. It's common not to want to see flaws in people you like. In kat's case, not only do some of her defenders refuse to see anything bad in her, but they invent it in people who call her on it.

Even in this case, Noemon looked at the nasty insult kat gave and said "Well, I believe her when she said she didn't mean it as an insult." Was there any ambiguity in her statement to justify this? I don't think so. I think he judged it based on that he likes her, not on anything she said or her past behavior in this regard.

(edit: And, ultimately, that would be fine, I guess, if it defused the situation. But she's just going to do it again and again. And at least some of these times, none of the few people who call her on it are going to be around.)
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, kmb was saying it was about specific interactions and you are saying it is about a group dynamic (at least, I think that's what you're saying.)

But I think what's important to me about this (today, at least) is that two perfectly "nice" or rational people can fail to get along with each other.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I think he judged it based on that he likes her, not on anything she said or her past behavior in this regard.
I think JT's theory is more likely -- the way you act makes it very hard for people to give you the benefit of the doubt, that he acted that way not because of Kat, but because of you.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
It's common not to want to see flaws in people you like.
It's equally possible to see additional flaws in people you don't like. I think it goes both ways in this case, and I'd also say that since everyone has flaws, it's not hard to spot them.

I used to dislike Hondas. Everywhere I drove, I thought I could see them acting rudely and one day to my utter delight I saw two Hondas that had been in an accident with each other. I think I realized that I'd become evil at that point and stopped looking for Honda misbehavior.

Similarly, I never knew what a Saturn Ion looked like until I started driving one, and man, those freakin things are everywhere.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I don't understand how how I acted would be relevant to the determination of whether or not kat intended to hurt Blayne, porter. Could you explain?

---

Also, you said I was nasty. Could you show me where?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
What words? (This was in response to a deleted post by porter where he accused me of putting words in his mouth)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I think I realized that I'd become evil at that point ...
I must say, that remark did bring a bit of humour to my day.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Squicky -- surely you realize that ones feelings or opinions of messenger can have an effect on how the message is received. Ad hominem? Certainly, but also unavoidable to some degree.

You have made it so that you getting on Kat's case is extremely unlikely to get the response you want. Almost anybody else would have a better chance of getting a favorable response.

Because the constant cries for Kat's repentance come from you, they are less likely to change her actions.

Surely you've noticed that. Just the other week, you stunk up an entire thread fighting with Kat again, and she didn't budge one bit. Noemon comes along and asks her politely and she instantly capitulated.

Your credibility as a judge of Kat's actions is extremely low, because you are perceived as extremely biased and as having an axe to grind. Whether it's true or not, continuing with your behavior towards her enforces that perception.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Surely you've noticed that. Just the other week, you stunk up an entire thread fighting with Kat again, and she didn't budge one bit. Noemon comes along and asks her politely and she instantly capitulated.
Sweet Jebus, that doesn't tell you anything?

Three people tell kat she's being hurtful and she doesn't care. Noemon does the same and she changes it. Do you really think it was her concern about not being nasty or hurtful that changed her behavior?

(edit: I'd also trace "stinking up the thread" to kat's nasty insult of Blayne, but I'm hardly suprised that some people regard that as the fault of the person who said that she shouldn't insult people.)

---

I'm still not sure how Noemon's determining what kat initially said was an insult or not is at all tied to me participation. And I'm still waiting to be shown where I've been nasty.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
Almost anybody else would have a better chance of getting a favorable response.
FWIW, I, and at least one other poster, was making the same comments as Squicky and getting a less than favorable response. It wasn't until someone she knows better came along and made the same comment that a response was achieved. I'm not complaining or anything, just pointing out that, in this instance at least, it took more than the poster being not-Squicky.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't see you as nasty, but I see you as focused on something that makes you unhappy.

I mean, I don't point it out whenever some people say something that I consider objectionable, because they do it all the time. Strangley, I tend to get into fights more with people I like because I care about what they say.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
pooka,
I don't think you understand me here. I'm not made unhappy by this. I'm not angry. I think that this is wrong, that it is bad for the forum, and I'd very much like it to stop.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
ust the other week, you stunk up an entire thread fighting with Kat again, and she didn't budge one bit. Noemon comes along and asks her politely and she instantly capitulated.
For the record that was page three of this thread. Also, I'd agree with vonk that I shared his sentiment and was puzzled by the sudden turnaround.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
A search on "Squick" by username "katharina" is a somewhat interesting read. I used to think it was just me, but there are a lot of people who seem to have different definitions for 70% of the words in the English language from you.

I'm not saying the rest of us consequently share all the other definitions, in some kind of "Native Speakers of American English" clique that you are excluded from. (Kidding!)

Actually, a lot of the threads have folks siding with you.

And you're right, you're not nasty, but you are that strange quality that so many people on this forum display from time to time, which OSC was accused of, and which it was decided only he should not be forgiven for. I can't say I never have it, because there have probably been times I have pronounced my opinion as if it were written on stone by bolts of lightening. I guess it's pride.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
there are a lot of people who seem to have different definitions for 70% of the words in the English language from you.
SIG!
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
And I'm still waiting to be shown where I've been nasty.
By stinking up thread after thread after thread in your repeated and utterly futile attempt to change Kat's behavior.
 
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
I've just read this entire thread, twice. What in the heck? How many posts have been deleted and edited?

[Confused]

Forum clutter!
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I think this may be one of the cases where peopel are using words to mean differently than I think they do, because that doesn't sound like me acting nasty at all. I am not being mean or malicious. I have no desire to hurt anyone. That's what I am using as a definition.

I'm not sure what you are using. Unpleasant, maybe? Again, I'm not suprised that some people find a person calling somone else, especially someone that they like, on behaving poorly unpleasant, but I'd suggest that they are maybe pointing the finger as to the source of this at the wrong person.

I've already given reasonable conditions that would stop me from doing this. Have you ever called kat on her poor behavior, porter?

If not, from a certain perspective, I'd say you are more responsible for the stinking up of threads than I am.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The best definition I can come up with for how I'm using it is "bad behavior".

I know you're doing it in response to what you perceive as bad behavior on Kat's part. I don't think that Kat's behavior (bad or not) justifies bad behavior on your account.

Mostly, Squicky, I'm just tired of the continual catfights between you and Kat.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I've showed up in threads where kat was planning a vacation and reminded her, out of the blue, that I didn't like her. I don't know how long I kept that up, and it felt like I was acting justly at the time.

And Scott, please please tell me you're kidding.

See, I don't like to go to Sakeriver much, though I like Saxon75 and keep tabs on Karl's odyssey. A lot of the people I like are there, but the manner in which they interact puzzles me because, I guess, I'm not involved in the games.

I'll go ahead and challenge you, MrSquicky, with the idea that you and kat behave as you do not because you feel angry, but to conceal your anger from yourselves.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
What bad behavior, porter?

quote:
Mostly, Squicky, I'm just tired of the continual catfights between you and Kat.
Yeah, and I've told you how you can stop that easily.

Also, I've got to say, I just looked back at your reactions on this thread, and it looks to me like you thought kat's hurtful comments were something to joke about.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
stinking up thread after thread after thread in your repeated and utterly futile attempt to change Kat's behavior.
"Bad behavior" is probably overstating it, though. Like I said, it was the best definition I could come up with, but not a perfect one..

I do think your behavior has net bad consequences for pretty much everybody involved.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Not a chance, pooka. It's so...right for me right now, even beyond the boundaries of this thread.

You've been sigged. You have no choice in the matter.
 
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
What's sigged?
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Then you leave me no choice but to sig you back!
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Being "sigged" doesn't really make sense here on Hatrack, but in forums where you can have a signature (or sig) which is attached to each post, being sigged is being quoted by somebody in their sig.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
As I've said, I'm not trying to change kat's behavior, at least not directly. I've already told you what you can do to stop me from doing this. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. If you're not going to step in when kat nastily insults someone, if you are going to make jokes about it instead, I think you should be concerned about your own bad behavior. and acknowledge your own culpability to what occurs.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I'm afraid I can be of little help here. I can't imagine that my censure would have any impact whatsoever on any of the bad actors here.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm kind of afraid to mess with kat while she's wearing that creepy Javert Hugo handle.

Maybe you should come up with an alter ego that evokes fear and uncertainty. I recommend Guy Fawkes.
 
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
Okay, kat is posting as Javert Hugo?
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Gosh, I hope so, or I have likely misinterpreted some things. There's also a plain vanilla Javert running around, just so you know.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
boots,
If you wanted to explain to me how my actions are bad (if you see them as such), I'd surely listen. I don't care much for whether or not people like me, but I do try to listen to what people have to say and consider it.

I did consider what you said about a positive rather than a negative response. If I find myself in a situation where I think it will serve, I will certainly use it.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yeah, kat is posting as Javert Hugo.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Man Squick, if I were you I'd be losing it by now, good job for keeping it cool.
 
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
Well, that certainly clears up some issues I've had with this thread. It all makes a little more sense now.

Carry on.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
MrSquicky, just FYI, I wasn't counting you among the bad actors. But thanks.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
If you're implying I am a bad actor, then fie on you! If not, please disregard.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I'm a terrible actor so no one ever wants to play charades with me. I'm pretty good at pictionary though.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I was going to delete this post but instead I just deleted everything in it.

[ September 28, 2007, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Noemon,
Just a note, I still haven't gotten an email from you. If you've sent it, it must not be getting through. I have no objections to you posting it here if that is the case.
 
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Let it go, Squick.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I'm trying to figure out if that was intentionally ironic or not.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2