posted
JT, how does what I had to say there have any less relevance? Are my objections ignorable because, as TomDavidson stated, I am allegedly a button pusher? I am not saying these things to push buttons, and in at least one instance recently I was attempting to steer away from that button pushing I was being accused of and had my attempt and the subsequent ridiculous behavior toward me deleted.
I am genuinely curious. I really want to know what makes my comparison less relevant, unless the determinant factor is having met someone face to face, as others seem to imply they have.
Tom: I didn't feel that way in the thread which was deleted, but I felt a sick feeling in my stomach at constantly being called the equivalent of a traitor and an American hater for my contrary views.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it doesn't have relevance; merely that it wouldn't do any good.
That has nothing to do with the content of your post -- as kat said, everything beyond a certain point just turns into noise. It turns out my post was part of that noise, too.
*shrug*
It happens. A person can only sort through so many responses at once, and they're typically handled on a first-come first-serve basis.
In this particular case, your particular post isn't likely to get much response because kat's already said she's not discussing the issue with you. Not that she's hasn't been known to recant that statement in previous instances, but given that she doesn't believe you'll engage in good faith discussion I can't imagine she'd answer anything you had to say on this subject at this time.
Especially when you factor in that she's already having the same discussion with Tom, JB, and me -- 3 posters she has an amicable relationship with and who, she knows, even if she doesn't agree with them that they are discussing in good faith.
That's cachet that you haven't yet built up. That probably annoys you, so I'll say this -- if you hadn't stormed in (to Hatrack, not to this thread) so obnoxiously you'd have been given the benefit of the doubt until you earned that cachet in the traditional way.
Edit to add: You may not care, but I have noticed that you've changed your tone (again), and already you're getting a better response than just a few days ago. People here are quick to forgive and forget, and they genuinely want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the change hasn't gone unnoticed or unappreciated. When I saw you make an effort to be civil, I stopped antagonizing you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I know that when OSC reamed me out a while back and about six or seven of the lurker set jumped on me, I actually experienced physical fear; my heartbeat went up, my face flushed, I found myself clicking "refresh" over and over again...
If you don't mind my asking, while you seem to have strong opinions in several areas, I have never seen you express it particularly provocatively, what were you and OSC posting about that generated such a vehement response?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to drop it; if my words are unwelcome, I will. But I'm really trying to explain what I see and how it comes across, not to dogpile or insult. I see you continuing to discuss the issue, and I can't grasp that it's dropped if you're still discussing it.
What comes across as passive-aggressive, specifically, is saying, "I don't want to have this conversation, BUT _____." If you don't want to have the conversation, don't have the conversation. Feel free to say so or not. But when you say you want it to end, but you still work your statements in, what you're really saying, as far as I'm concerned, is that you want to state your peace but not have anybody reply to it. I'm sorry, but you just don't get that right. You make a statement people disagree with, and they will express that disagreement. Nobody's saying you have to surrender, but you can't have it both ways.
It also came across as passive aggressive when you commented on our perceptions saying more about us that about what really is. As I said earlier, though, I don't think you were being passive aggressive. I think people, including me, misinterpreted you.
If you want to know why you keep being accused of being passive-aggressive, there are my two cents. In one case it was misinterpretation (rooted at least partially in your history of conflict with Tom) and in the other, well, you may not have realized it was passive aggression, but in my opinion it was.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't mind my asking, while you seem to have strong opinions in several areas, I have never seen you express it particularly provocatively, what were you and OSC posting about that generated such a vehement response?
Tom (and others) criticized the web design of the IGMS website. OSC took it both as a personal attack and as a real attempt to inflict harm on OSC's career and livelihood. He responded as such.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
No, it doesn't annoy me, but I am glad to hear someone else make a note of the difference in dealing with posters who have had a more familiar relationship before as opposed to those who are relatively faceless. I disagree that the benefit of the doubt is given in most cases, and that there are certain expectations that are waived for certain individuals that must be met by those who are not only not regulars, but have not experienced some type of rapport off the confines of this forum.
I am not asking for people to all of the sudden say to me that my posts are insightful and appreciated, as not even I believe that about some of my posts. Tom is correct in that there have been times I have pushed buttons, but the motives are not always the same. However, there have been plenty of posts by myself that have not been meant to push buttons, yet have been met with the assumption they are. I've noticed a number of individuals who seem to be excused from such scrutiny, especially of late, and they all seem to have that familiarity off the borders of this forum in common. For some of the more egregious examples, there are even more common threads. Maybe I should not have challenged that here, since as you say, I have not collected enough "points" in character to do so yet. But seeing the dichotomy tends to make me, and I would wager some other more silent individuals, desire to "join" that kind of communal association.
But that is a stand-off, isn't it? I've not earned credibility, but aspects of that same credibility make me suspect to want to earn it. Behavior like katharina's in this thread is one example of the source of my suspicion. How would you suggest I reconcile that? Do you think your perspective has any bearing on how you think I should reconcile that? And finally, do you think that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound?
Icarus: Thank you. I truly did mean it in the spirit of harmless fun.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: to sum up, I asked the forum if they agreed that the IGMS site -- which was due to go live shortly -- was poorly designed, using a less-than-judicious word choice. OSC was concerned that I was attempting to sabotage the financial success of the venture, a conclusion apparently based at least partly on previous threads in which I'd expressed displeasure with his political punditry (from which he had drawn the private conclusion that I was a destructively obsessed fan), and replied with some heat.
Over the years, there have been a handful of people (mainly trolls, in my biased opinion) who've been resentful of my presence on Hatrack. I think they saw OSC's anger as an opportunity to finally vent their frustration, and so it was a fairly unpleasant week or two for a lot of people who would have preferred that their forum not be cluttered with random NastyCrap(tm).
Like almost all forum flaps, it was ultimately just another incident of sturm und drang -- but, like the Song of Cedrios, will probably become part of the mythology for whatever reason.
------
Justa: I think you were right to be angry in that other thread. But I also think those posters were right to be angry with you -- not because you were spreading sedition, but because of the way you chose to present your case. I've already played Dr. Phil with ONE person in this thread, though, so you'll have to wait. *ducks*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I don't believe you need to analyze or explain anything. I have a good guess that some early things I said were done so in a terse enough manner and in faux-absolute enough terms that some people never got over it. Added to a preconcieved impression from posts in other threads, it's easy to see how it brewed into some fairly heavy resentment. I was in no way a 'victim' with that thread, just insulted and now subject to that imperfect memory I mentioned earlier.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, I agree that some people get more leeway than others, and that interacting off of this forum has a lot to do with it. In particular, once I've met someone face to face, it's hard to reduce that person to "just a troll." I recommend to anyone here over the age of eighteen that they look for an opportunity to get together with another Hatracker sometime. I have met people that way I consider to be some of the highest quality people I know. (But it's not just the behavior of established Hatrackers to newcomers that changes; I have seen in the past that newcomers change their own behavior once they realize that those collections of pixels on the screen symbolize other people, and that, in many if not most cases, those other people are actually quite decent, regardless of how they might annoy you in any given thread.) Once you know and like somebody, even in your disagreements you're more committed to making sure that person knows it's not personal, and to making sure that your disagreement doesn't hurt the relationship.
I would be glad to share a beer with you sometime if we're ever in the same area--like if you're ever in Central Florida.
I don't dislike you or think you're a troll. With that in mind, I hope you won't take it as fighting words when I tell you that your worst behavior has been, in my opinion, worse than Kat's worst behavior. And Kat very obviously does not get a free pass.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For better or worse, words are all we have here.
And, just like in statistics, the smaller the sample size the larger the error. Larger in magnitude, and in likelihood.
So, people with thousands of posts are judged by their body of work. Meaning they probably have a lot more good behavior to offset the occasional bad behavior (which, I think we can agree, none of us are immune to).
Likewise, people with a few posts, or a few hundred posts are judged by their body of work. Therefore a lot less leniency exists for them because they probably haven't had the opportunity to show as much of their good side.
Specifically, in your case, this:
quote:if you hadn't stormed in (to Hatrack, not to this thread) so obnoxiously you'd have been given the benefit of the doubt until you earned that cachet in the traditional way.
answers this:
quote:However, there have been plenty of posts by myself that have not been meant to push buttons, yet have been met with the assumption they are.
-------------------------
quote:How would you suggest I reconcile that? Do you think your perspective has any bearing on how you think I should reconcile that? And finally, do you think that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound?
As for the first, I would advise that you reserve judgment on kat for a few weeks*. I think you'll find that she's sweet, compassionate, and genuinely well-meaning. She's well-liked, and that reputation is deserved. She has bad days, just like everyone else.
As for the second, I can't think of any instance in which my perspective would not influence what I think about a given situation.
As for the third; that's a philosophy question. I'm no philosopher -- I'm an engineer. My answer to the question is, "Who gives a crap?"
*Once you turn the corner with your attitude, I think you'll find this is what most people are doing with you. Some come around quicker than others, but in time there are very few people who won't change their minds about a poster who wants to be a productive member of the community.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, regarding your first paragraph: not out of the question, but unlikely enough to not be a realistic expectation of some people, myself included. Perhaps we will meet face to face sometime, but if so it will not be under the auspices of a relatioship here. That's not a slight, it just has to be that way sometimes with some people. I hope you understand.
Regarding your second part, I don't think those are fighting words. She may not have a free pass, but there is enough of a discount that it is possibly more noticable than you may believe. But no, there are other instances where I believe there is worse behavior than even my worst that has gone relatively unchallenged, and with the same general conditions.
JT, I don't know what you mean by asking me to reserve judgment. My opinion, at least in this particular case of katharina's foibles, are not based solely on this thread. All this thread has been is a more focused example of such behavior. I believe you that she is a nice person and easy to get along with, once you have met her. From my perspective, I disagree and feel it is closer to relating to a feline that will be friendly one moment and scratch you the next. Maybe that is totally wrong and not like her personality face to face. To me that is irrelevant and should not be a requisite. As I implied to Icarus, though, there are worse cases that would probably deserve more scrutiny, but I think that you and I agree that I am not the individual to introduce the scrutiny.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no, there are other instances where I believe there is worse behavior than even my worst that has gone relatively unchallenged, and with the same general conditions.
We disagree. Not that there has been worse behavior than yours, but that any such behavior has gone unchallenged--at least not in the last couple of years.
I also disagree with your assessment of Kat, and would have before I met her.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought maybe he'd bought Sealand, so he was using the royal "We" as would befit his role as monarch.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Myself and Jutsa Notha Name. I was not speaking for any body of people. I was saying that he and I disagree. Does that clarify things?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: you know each other outside of this forum, and that is close enough.
Icarus: I have no answer for that. I don't want to change your opinion on those things on the basis that mine is different at this time.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, when you said "We", you meant you and Jutsa disagree with Jutsa?
Edit: Oh, I get it. You are saying "You and I disagree." Sorry, it sounded to me like you were representing more than your own opinion as disagreeing with Jutsa.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't want to chime in, but I think I should.
I'd like to think there's a difference as to what's expected/accepted by Hatrack the community, and what's expected/accepted by Hatrack the forum. I sincerely try to be as even-handed (and as hands-off) as I can be, though I'm certain not only that I have biases of which I'm unaware, but I also have some of which I am aware, and some of those I choose to apply and some I try not to. When I do intentionally apply such biases, it's usually in the direction opposite my actual inclination (much like when my dad was the cubmaster and was tougher on me and my brothers than on all the other cub scouts in the pack, or at least it seemed that way).
I'm sure there are people who consider me to use "double-standards." Yeah, probably, sometimes. And sometimes not. I've had people on both "sides" of an issue think that I was taking the other person's side, and I've made non-person-specific suggestions in threads and had each "side" think I was talking only to the other "side." Anyway, I'm doing my best (and no, I'm not asking for affirmation -- seems like someone throws some at me every time I post anything where I admit fault of any sort).
As to what's expected by the Hatrack community, I don't think it's my place to speak as a moderator.
As a member (and this informs my decisions as moderator, but doesn't dictate them, I don't think) I believe it's important (or at least healthy) for there to be a certain degree of disagreement, and sometimes with some energy behind it. Hatrack as a community is really good at working through such things and coming out better on the other side. Usually. And as long as the TOS aren't being tossed aside, I've found it best for the working through to be allowed to happen. I'll admit I wish more of it were worked out off-forum, and at times that people valued resolution more than "winning."
If anyone has specific questions or comments regarding things I have or haven't done, they're free to contact me. I can't promise a quick answer to everyone. And while I appreciate advice, I don't expect to take all of it.
Ok -- I've gotten interrupted maybe a dozen times since I started this, so I don't know how the thread has moved on or if I've said everything I originally intended to. But I'm gonna stop here. For now.
posted
If it helps in any capacity, Papa Janitor, I did not intend to imply I considered my opinion is concerning you. This is only the second thread you have poasted in that I have, to my knowledge, and the other time I viewed it as a positive, not negative.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: At this point, unless someone has access to an interview or something, EVERYONE is just guessing.
I'm pretty sure I heard Nick Meyer answer a question about it at a con in the late 80s or early 90s. Unfortunately, I don't seem to recall exactly what he said . . . Anyone want to try hypnotizing me?
I do recall assuming that it was a Mormon reference when I read it (I read most of the ST movie novelizations before I saw the movies), but I had at least one Mormon email-buddy at the time, so that doesn't mean much.
Oh, and Nick Meyer is Jewish. No idea if that's relevant.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Over the years, there have been a handful of people (mainly trolls, in my biased opinion) who've been resentful of my presence on Hatrack. I think they saw OSC's anger as an opportunity to finally vent their frustration, and so it was a fairly unpleasant week or two for a lot of people who would have preferred that their forum not be cluttered with random NastyCrap(tm).
Like almost all forum flaps, it was ultimately just another incident of sturm und drang -- but, like the Song of Cedrios, will probably become part of the mythology for whatever reason.
Huh. Tom thinks I'm a troll.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Over the years, there have been a handful of people (mainly trolls, in my biased opinion) who've been resentful of my presence on Hatrack. I think they saw OSC's anger as an opportunity to finally vent their frustration, and so it was a fairly unpleasant week or two for a lot of people who would have preferred that their forum not be cluttered with random NastyCrap(tm).
I think I might've been one of those trolls.
The thing is, though, I'm not a troll. And I just want to address the issue of lurkers "resenting Tom Davidson's presence at Hatrack" (from my personal perspective).
"The Tom Davidson controversy" occured shortly after I arrived on hatrack. At the time, I didn't know much about the players. But I'd been reading OSC's books since I was a kid. I met OSC once, and he was gracious and warm. I didn't know Tom Davidson. I'd seen a few Tom Davidson posts that (I remember thinking) were a bit disingenuous and mean.
(If you asked me to point them out now, I couldn't. But I could probably point you to one or two recent posts by Tom in the same basic vein. Just like someone wanting to could find the same type of posts by me (this might be one) or almost any other member of hatrack -- beacause we're all human.)
But I knew enough about our host to take him at his word. Why would OSC invent a history of misbehavior on the part of Tom Davidson that didn't exist? I remember specifically that OSC said there were communications between Tom and him that the forum was not privy to, and that Tom was up to no good.
That was enough info for me to take a side. Why? Because -- why would OSC lie? I had no real prior resentment (or even knowledge) of Tom Davidson's presence on hatrack. But why would OSC lie?
I can understand Tom's hurt feelings, but to characterize everyone who took OSC's side as a troll is ... wrong. It is natural and human for people to assume the rightness of a trusted party over an unknown.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now? Privately, I'd tell you that I think OSC is a great writer with a (forgive me) too-thin skin, as I've offended him now a few times myself without meaning to -- so much so that he's mentioned my offending posts two separate times -- once in an interview, and once in a column. And I thought that was an overreaction.
I'd also tell you that I like Tom Davidson quite a lot, though I think he thinks he's right too often. And I don't think he cares for me. Or at least, I think there's a refusal to engage me that I don't like, specifically because he has my respect and I'd like to engage him. But either there are some kind of hurt feelings there or I don't say anything meaningful enough for him to respond to. Either way, I'm bothered by it because I've come to like him.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand Tom's hurt feelings, but to characterize everyone who took OSC's side as a troll is ... wrong.
Tom did not say that everyone who took OSC's side was a troll. He said that some people took the spat as an opportunity to do something he considered nasty, and that most of those people were trolls. Nowhere did he equate siding with OSC as being nasty itself, nor that all who sided with OSC engaged in the nasty behavior.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
But I figure the forum's a healthier place if I refrain.
Can I ask, in the healthiest way possible, why what I wrote has offended you? Because I'd like to express myself properly about this. And if I'm coming across the wrong way, I'd like to correct it.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I value Tom's presence on the forum; while at the same time explaining my own misbehavior towards Tom... And maybe I'm working my way up to an apology.
I'd like to know how I've expressed this so wrongly that you've become offended.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I should have been more concise. I have LOTS of things to say about LOTS of people. But I figure the forum's a healthier place, all around, if I refrain from making those comments except where I feel a need and can direct a solution.
I was speaking in general terms, not in specific ones.
I was not happy to see Tom bring up that old sore spot; I'd happily see it be forgotten forever.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or at least, I think there's a refusal to engage me that I don't like, specifically because he has my respect and I'd like to engage him.
:: laugh ::
It may not be personal*, TL
In the early 90s Tom and a cat were in a teleporter accident, and the cat's genes were mixed in with Tom's. The only discernable result of this is that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the intensity of a person's desire to engage him and his interest in doing so.
*though on the other hand it may be.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not having read the majority of this topic, I can't speak to some of the main issues. However, I noticed some discussion relating to reputations gained from those with high post counts.
I have a great amount of respect for the frequent posters here. While opinions vary along a wide range of not just one, but MANY different continuums, I value the opportunity to read the thought out and often eloquent statements posters make here. So much so that I rarely feel the need to add my own two cents. Someone has usually said it, and worded it far better than I would have.
Nevertheless, I find myself wondering how I might go about building the kind of respect and "points", if you will, that many of you have built up here on Hatrack. I have been a member for 2 or 3 years, but only infrequently post, for the above-mentioned reasons.
Anyway, I suppose that all this amounts to is a lot of respect mixed with a certain small amount of jealousy for those whose posts are listened to.
In the meantime, my thanks go out to Hatrack for providing me with endless reading material, enlightenment in various ways of looking at topics, and a plethora of useful advice about any number of topics. Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*ducks*
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I have no answer for that. I don't want to change your opinion on those things on the basis that mine is different at this time.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Noemon
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
