posted
It means that there is not a monolithic opinion on the topic on this forum, but the thread was so ugly and trashy that no one else was interested in discussing it with those participants.
ETA: Except Humean, who is delightful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It means that there is not a monolithic opinion on the topic on this forum, but the thread was so ugly and trashy that no one else was interested in discussing it with those participants.
And, again, how do you know this?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or it could just mean that most people on the board happen to hold an opinion with which you disagree. Not saying that's necessarily the case, but the available data support that conclusion as much as your own.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. I suppose another option is that I am a lone voice in a wilderness. If I wanted to feed my ego, that's the one I'd believe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I was the only dissenting voice, it wasn't a clash of ideas. No board is so monolithic as that.
It means the thread was not appealing to anyone with a stake in the clash of ideas.
Since the thread is gone, you can make that claim but it is inconsistent with my memory.
Humean, for example, had written some very detailed arguments explaining why he believed that certain peoples objections to Sarah Palin were sexist. Irami had also participated and argued that Palin had been mistreated by the media. I also remember several others who were more or less arguing the same side kat was arguing.
I'm afraid that I can't prove that since the thread is gone and I don't have it cached but I believe at least some others involved with the thread will remember it the same way.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't we have a don't-talk-to-each-other truce, Rabbit? What happened to that? Did you decide you didn't want to abide by it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't consider it "feeding my ego" to be the only one on one side of a position. It would cause me to deeply think about my reasoning for my position, as a good Bayesian always ought. Of course, that sort of statistical reasoning must also take into account my beliefs about the intelligence and reasoning ability of those on the other side of the position. For example, I've thought quite a bit about the Prop 8 map, given how many people disagreed with my initial stance (which was not at all firm when I first posted). This is one of the reasons I'm very grateful Hatrack is here to bounce ideas off of.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: As the Ambassador of Right On and Headmaster of Sakeriver, I invite you all to leave this acrimonious place and have some Sake. It's all fluffy kittens and rainbows over there.
I haven't been reading this thread, but I just wanted to point out, for accuracy's sake, that Jesse's diplomatic credentials were revoked quite some time ago, and he cannot speak for Sakeriver in any official capacity. Which is not to say that any of you are unwelcome there, I just want it to be clear that Jesse is misrepresenting himself.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the thread was interesting before it became about personalities. And there were still some interesting bits after that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: realize that other people have different opinions about this and that's fine, but I haven't been convinced. As much as I liked Ender's Game, I don't actually think that posting on forums is like releasing a treatise by which RL reputations can be made. It's a party conversation, a sand castle made with too-dry sand. Writing on a forum is like writing on water.
There, I found an analogy.
"Writing on water" doesn't last long enough to complete a single letter. Its an exercise in navel gazing since there is no chance that anyone will be able to read what is written. I don't suspect many here expect that their post posts will be permanent but there is a big difference between "permanent" and "instantly erased".
I suspect most of us post here believing that what we post will be read by others, hoping that we will get feedback on our ideas, expecting often to provoke an interesting debate and believing that what we have written will last as long as other people continue to have interest in discussing the topic.
The sand castle analogy is much better. When you build a sand castle on the beach you know that eventually the tide will come in an wipe it out. But you build it anyway because its fun creating something and maybe someone will see it and appreciate it or even lend a hand in building it. If your little brother comes along and kicks the whole thing down while you are still building, you are going to angry and justifiably so.
Would you accept it if your brother then argued "Gee what did I do wrong, the waves were going to destroy it in a couple hours any way and besides that, I thought it was ugly."?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would it change for you if she didn't want the truce, really? Are you currently refraining from certain actions that you won't feel bound to refrain from if the truce is called off?
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie's left hand is currently resting on the headset of a red phone that, when lifted from its cradle, will nigh-instantly dispatch legions of ninjas to Rabbit's last known location. It's one of the perks of working for the federal government.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
You know, the funny thing is, that thread wasn't deleted, so everyone can go and see exactly what the "offer of peace" was.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Katie's left hand is currently resting on the headset of a red phone that, when lifted from its cradle, will nigh-instantly dispatch legions of ninjas to Rabbit's last known location. It's one of the perks of working for the federal government.
This too. This, plus getting Inauguration Day off are the real perks.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all seriousness, might I suggest that if both parties believe they value civility, both should endeavor to be civil? And when they cannot bring themselves to post something civil, they decide for their own purposes that the "truce" prevents them from posting?
Worrying about whether Party A is directly or obliquing speaking to Party B in order to determine whether Party B should feel bound by her own decision to be civil seems like it adds just one more potentially confusing situation.
The alternative would seem to be arbitration. If that is indeed the preferred alternative, I strongly recommend Dobbie or Jebus as arbiters.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Didn't we have a don't-talk-to-each-other truce, Rabbit? What happened to that? Did you decide you didn't want to abide by it?
I don't think you ever understood the terms of the truce. I never agreed that I would not respond if I felt you were treating me rudely and disrespectfully. When you deleted the Sarah Palin thread, you failed to treat me and the many others who posted there with respect.
You can't expect me to agree to a unilateral cease fire.
And BTW, Since the issue of you deleting threads has come up several times at hatrack and many hatrackers had expressed their strong objections to having you delete their posts, it is impossible for me to believe that you had any doubt when you deleted the thread that people would be offended. You chose not to respect the feelings of many forums members on this issue. Whether or not you feel that opinion is deserving of respect if really irrelevant. You chose to be disrespectful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very rarely post in serious threads on here. There are basically 3 reasons for this.
1. I come here as a way of finding a bit of relaxation and fun. I don't find arguments to be relaxing.
2. If someone is going to get snarky with me, I want them to look me in the eye while they're doing it.
3. In my brief time here I have lost posts in deleted threads. I wouldn't care too much, if I thought everyone who participated in the discussion had a chance to read what I'd written. But this is not like a bunch of people sitting around a table talking; when one person speaks others may not "hear" it for up to 24 hours - or more. So when I post something, and five minutes later the entire thread is gone, then I have wasted effort. So I don't waste my time posting in threads that I think might end up in the bit-bucket.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm being dogpiled, and I think its the same usual suspects that are up for the dogpiling.
Maybe Squicky, Rabbit, and Jhai could alternate Trashing Kat shifts, so they call get their digs in but don't end up being a collection of howling bullies every time.
Barring that, I'd be perfectly happy if they never spoke to me again. I have been successful in ignoring Squick's squawks, but it takes time to recalibrate the machine and life would be so much better if no one else had to witness the ugly attempts as well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeorge, you have my solemn promise that your post above will not be deleted by any actions I take. (...wanders off, wondering whether to bump the pledge thread.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Rabbit, so you are in the Squicky camp of "If I am rude to you, it is your fault." How charming that you both love to blame the victim.
Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still wondering why you deleted the thread. You posted why you didn't think it was disrespectful to do so (though, obviously, other people think it is. And you know they think that. So you were doing something you know other people find disrespectful. Which is pretty much the definition of being disrespectful). But you didn't post why you deleted the thread. Given THIS thread, if the intent was to make the other thread go away for whatever reason, I'd say you failed, and maybe you should take that into consideration next time you think about deleting a thread.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
You know, the funny thing is, that thread wasn't deleted, so everyone can go and see exactly what the "offer of peace" was.
Actually, that thread wasn't deleted. If you really want to look at it, here is the link.Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading the thread and was very interested in it. I had participated in its earlier iteration, when we were discussing whether or not Bristol Palin's pregnancy reflected on Sarah Palin as a mother, and if that should be a consideration in thinking about her as a candidate.
I was *very* interested in Humean's points about the rhetoric of anti-feminism--especially the word "ambitious." No matter how Mr. Squicky was using it (and I think he was using it in a neutral to positive way), in general it's a word that's positive when applied to men and less so when applied to women. Interesting.
I am annoyed that the thread is gone.
But that's all. Just annoyed, not angry, and certainly not expecting an apology.
Still, I think the annoyance of relative strangers (by that I mean members with whom you rarely interact) is something an OP should take into account when considering whether or not to delete a thread. Doesn't mean I think you should decide not to do it--just remember that others are affected too.
It's quite possible that katharina took all of that into account, of course. But since we're navel-gazing, I thought I'd take my turn.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I didn't get to say it in the other thread, and I don't believe you've mentioned it before -- Congratulations on your engagement, MrSquicky.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ah, Rabbit, so you are in the Squicky camp of "If I am rude to you, it is your fault." How charming that you both love to blame the victim.
Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
No kat, I'm not of that camp. I take full responsibility for my own behavior.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
At this point I'm pretty much certain based on my own interactions with you that you can end up claiming that someone acts like 'complete trash' (or in my case, 'barbaric') simply for acting to civilly point out blatant hypocrisies in your outrage against incivility.
Leading to further incivility.
By you.
So you better put me and a few others in the People I Dismiss As Howling Beasts That I Mention I Ignore Frequently category because your recent activity is lending people to need to treat you like an incredibly immature arguer.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...A new thread where they don't actually have to engage in the losing conversations of the previous thread, but get to carry the same anger, scorn, and derision into a whole new discussion.
It's like a bonus level for snarking.
Fox News is still waiting to hear from Minnesota, but both CNN and NBC are calling this one for MightyCow.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
