quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Trvia that frankly the average 40 year old should know. I am not dissing them for not knowing uncommon trivia, like say whether or not saturn is visible to the naked eye, its not visible where I live and getting that question wrong or right doesnt mean anything but the gender of the biting kind of mosquitos is something any adult should know.
Um, Saturn gets a lot more press coverage than female mosquitos.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that Porter and I have been bad cops. Maybe I've been a little rude, but I wasn't being rude as a strategy, as it seems MrSquicky is.
I didn't think you were either.
And I have no problem with people taking exception to my or others' behavior. I don't have a problem with you saying you don't agree with me. It's certainly a step up from the lie and insults I normally get.
However, as I said, you disagreeing with me isn't going to change my behavior. I have no problem with people trying to convinve me, though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, You are making it very difficult for me to believe that you are acting in good faith here.
If you want to play games, you can count me out. If you want to talk with a goal of possibly resolving this, could you explain the things that I am apparently getting wrong?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have said nothing about when I understood things. I didn't clarify it because it seemed obvious to me, and I figured that pointing out that, no, I did not say that would make it clear to you as well.
I was not trying to fence or make conversation difficult, although I see how it could look that way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Porter pretty well, and I have no doubt that he's acting in good faith. I think you two are just miscommunicating. You said only two people understood what you were doing. Porter said that maybe only two people agreed with what you were doing, but (I think) more people than that understood what you were doing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, Could I suggest that, if I say something that you didn't say, that, instead of just saying "No, I didn't say that." perhaps clarifying the statement that I was referring to.
I am trying to honestly answer or reflect my impression of what you are saying. If I get it wrong, I will acknowledge this and replace it with your clarified version. I often can't do that if you don't clarify. edit: I hate playing the Dag game.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's certainly a step up from the lie and insults I normally get.
But insults are, occasionally, part of your bad cop arsenal. I won't comment on the lies because I don't believe I have seen them. If you say it has happened I'll grant it and move on. I'm just not sure you can gripe about being insulted when people don't care for your behavior, when you insult people whose behavior you don't care for.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid this is going to come across sounding petty and childish but no, that is not a conversation I wish to have.
It took me years to learn that everybody's better of if I listen to myself and not feel pressured to answer every question asked of me, even if I can't yet put my finger on why I don't want to answer it.
I've been much happier on the fora since I learned that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Are we playing games now? I don't think I want to play.
Funny....it seems to me that that is all you do these days.
Are you sure you aren't Cedrios?
I personally find this type of social manipulation, regardless of how ineffective it is, to be ignorant and rude.
You aren't half as clever as you seem to think you are, and the best thing to come out of this thread is that you just proved all of your critics right.
Too bad....there was a time where your posts were fairly interesting.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep....all the ones who couldn't were kicked out of schools for it before the show was filmed....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: porter, Could I suggest that, if I say something that you didn't say, that, instead of just saying "No, I didn't say that." perhaps clarifying the statement that I was referring to.
I am trying to honestly answer or reflect my impression of what you are saying. If I get it wrong, I will acknowledge this and replace it with your clarified version. I often can't do that if you don't clarify. edit: I hate playing the Dag game.
Oh good grief! More accusations about my playing games?
You're a bright guy. If Porter says he didn't say X, and you have said he did say X, go back the post in which you thought he said X with this new information. See if you can get what he said.
Oh, and here's a hint: leave me out of it. Your labeling my refusal to indulge your cross-examinations as "game-playing" is tiresome. Either you recognize what you're doing when you pull this crap with me, in which case you're acting very dishonestly, or else you don't recognize what you're doing.
And if you don't recognize it, then you aren't qualified to be a bad cop.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, It is exactly because you require cross-examinations to get you to say things about many topics that bugs me about your posting style. It's like playing Hot-Cold without even being told if you are warmer or not. This is especially true because, from my perspective, you often seem to laden your posts with unstated implications.
I'm hardly the only person who has noted this about you.
---
Kwea, As I've said, I'm not moved by insults. Since porter doesn't seem willing to engage me any further, do you want to take a stab at explaining what you think I was doing?
I don't know, but it seems likely to me that people aren't quite getting my intentions/methods. Perhaps it seems fair to others to just attack me over this. It doesn't seem that way to me.
edit: And you know, if I recall correctly, in your much referenced entrance here, when a certain group of people was jumping on you for thinking you were Cedrios, I was one of the few people who stood against them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's the fact that you're using "methods" at all that people are objecting to. It's disconcerting to be treated as a subject when you thought you'd been involved in a mutual conversation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, It is exactly because you require cross-examinations to get you to say things about many topics that bugs me about your posting style. It's like playing Hot-Cold without even being told if you are warmer or not. This is especially true because, from my perspective, you often seem to laden your posts with unstated implications.
It's not your job to get me to say things about many topics.
It's also not your job - especially not YOUR job, since you do it so badly - to articulate what you see as the "unstated implications" in my posts.
It's ESPECIALLY not your job to restate what I've said in the form of (mis)leading questions and then get huffy and indignant when I don't respond the way you want.
quote:I don't know, but it seems likely to me that people aren't quite getting my intentions/methods. Perhaps it seems fair to others to just attack me over this. It doesn't seem that way to me.
Others aren't getting you, and that isn't fair. Yet you feel qualified to comment on the "unstated implications" of my post? To drag my name into a thread I hadn't even participated in as a way to call Porter on the carpet for not allowing you to put words in his mouth? Please.
Next time you want to know what I think, do two things: 1) tell me what you think about the topic first, and 2) ASK ME WHAT I THINK, without attempting to state what I think, or giving me false dichotomies.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not your job to get me to say things about many topics.
No, I thought I was trying to have conversations with you.
As for the rest, I've engaged you on this before and explained my position. I use a reflective style of communication. That is, when I respond to what I think you are saying, I include a summary of what I think you said. I do this to minimize miscommunication. When I do this, you'll often just respond with, I didn't say that. And when I ask you what you did mean, you often use my apparently inccorrect summary as a reason to not explain what you meant (especially, in my perspective, when you may be on shaky ground).
From what I see, this is one of games that you play when you aren't interested in open discussion, but instead of protecting a certain position or group of people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think it's the fact that you're using "methods" at all that people are objecting to. It's disconcerting to be treated as a subject when you thought you'd been involved in a mutual conversation.
I agree. We're not your opponents to be cross-examined, we're not your pupils, and we're not your charges for you to protect from ourselves. We're peers to be conversed with. Granted, I don't follow every thread, but the only conversations I've noticed you involved in lately have been meta.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
There have been many instances in the last year or so where I've had occasion to wish I was treated that way.
quote:Granted, I don't follow every thread, but the only conversations I've noticed you involved in lately have been meta.
In those conversations, am I the one that starts out making them meta? It seems to me that I am trying to have conversations and people come at me, but then I get blamed for actually responding and even *gasp* trying to defend myself instead of backing down.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're not your opponents to be cross-examined, we're not your pupils, and we're not your charges for you to protect from ourselves.
Do you not feel a less than peer-type relationship with Blayne? There are people here I try to help because it seems to me that they may be benefited from this help*. When I do this, I do take a step back and try to figure out the best way to do this.
That in no way typifies my response to the forum in general and if I've given that impression, I'd like to appologize. Have you really felt that I've treated you this way porter?
---
edit: *In my experience, at least some of these people are not treated as peers by others as well, but these people often seem to me to have less benign motives than I do or at the very least do things that I think are likely to e less successful in helping.
quote:In those conversations, am I the one that starts out making them meta?
It sure seems that way, as you keep bringing up what you consider other poster's bad behavior. Although that didn't happen in this thread, I wonder if what happened here might have been somewhat of a reaction to the perception that you're not here on Hatrack to converse with people anymore, but just to play policeman.
quote:Have you really felt that I've treated you this way porter?
Toward me specifically, no, but thank you for your apology. It has seemed, however, as though you feel that way toward the forum in general. For example, your talk that nobody understands what you're trying to do for Hatrack, and even if we don't like it, you'll keep doing it, really comes across that way.
edit: On second though, that did happen here on this thread. Your first post was about Blayne's poor posting style, which is meta-, and after a while it went meta-meta.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, your talk that nobody understands what you're trying to do for Hatrack, and even if we don't like it, you'll keep doing it, really comes across that way.
But that's not what I said. I said that I'd be more than willing to discuss it and consider what people have to say, but I'm not going to stop doing something I think is helpful because other people (who may have a mistaken understanding of it) don't like it or choose to insult me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The arrogant thing is that you assume if someone disagrees with what you're doing then it's because they don't understand it. That's your default assumption.
Which is not only supremely condescending but also just a cheap rationalization on your part. "Oh, they don't get it. I'll keep acting like the self-appointed traffic cop of Hatrack because I alone know what's best for the forum. Nevermind that plenty of people have told me my behavior is unhelpful at best and destructive at worst."
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think it's the fact that you're using "methods" at all that people are objecting to. It's disconcerting to be treated as a subject when you thought you'd been involved in a mutual conversation.
Agreed. Squick, I like you. I think some of your posts are extremely insightful, and others are wickedly funny. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing many of either recently.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: dkw, Do you not sometimes employ strategies to deal with problem posters?
I know this was not directed at me, but I'd like to answer it (for myself), if that's ok.
The only "strategies" I use on "problem posters" is to reduce engagement with them, or refuse it entirely. I don't play games.
Then again, I am often told how blunt and tactless I am, so perhaps I may not be the best person to go by. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT, As I said, I believe I have a very different of view of certain things on Hatrack than other people do. My actions come from this perspective*. I do assume that people who do not share this perspective may not understand why I'm doing what I'm doing. Also, in the past and in this thread, it has been clear to me that many people have not understood it or even (for some people) the value of people sometimes saying mean things.
But, you may notice, I am open to changing this perspective. I am very aware that the way I see things is often mistaken. I've asked people to explain what they think I am doing, which would allow me to see if I am wrong and they do understand it, possibily allow me to better explain why I believe in what I am doing, and in general I hope lead to a better resolution to this.
---
edit: *In my experience, Hatrack is replete with people who feel that people aren't understanding them because they don't adequately grasp the perspective that they are working from. I don't see this as arrogant and I'm not seeing other people saying that they are arrogant when they claim this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hmm I seem to cause chaos and fighting whereever I go...
IP: Logged |
quote:No, I thought I was trying to have conversations with you.
And yet, when I take the time to answer the questions you ask, you accuse me of game-playing.
quote:As for the rest, I've engaged you on this before and explained my position. I use a reflective style of communication. That is, when I respond to what I think you are saying, I include a summary of what I think you said.
The questions you ask - such as the one you asked Porter - are not reflective communication. You leap to a conclusion and ask if that conclusion is accurate. Then you get offended by someone answering, "No."
quote: I do this to minimize miscommunication. When I do this, you'll often just respond with, I didn't say that. And when I ask you what you did mean, you often use my apparently inccorrect summary as a reason to not explain what you meant (especially, in my perspective, when you may be on shaky ground).
But you don't ask what is said. You either state two options - both inaccurate - and ask which I meant, or you continue to present the mistaken summary AFTER you've been explicitly told that the summary is inaccurate. And then I refuse to explain further, because you've demonstrated that my explanations will not correct your understanding.
If you summarize what I've said as Y, and I explicitly tell you that Y is wrong, you continue to ask my why I said Y. Even if I haven't given you any other explanation than "Y is wrong," you still persist in proffering Y as a summary.
As of late, I've been stopping the conversation at the first incorrect summary, simply because experience has taught me that the whole process is a waste of time.
quote:From what I see, this is one of games that you play when you aren't interested in open discussion, but instead of protecting a certain position or group of people.
No, it's the way I respond to someone who acts in bad faith by misstating my position, refusing to accept corrections, and then making up his own reason as to why I do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If there's been a miscommunication, I'm perfectly willing to accept that part of the blame may be mine, but I'm pretty sure that it's not just me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. Squick, I like you. I think some of your posts are extremely insightful, and others are wickedly funny. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing many of either recently.
I think that I've written insightful posts recently. I got acknowldged for a funny one yesterday, I think. Perhaps you've missed them or disagree with my assesments. Also, my output is less and I've definitely been writing less involved posts.
Part of that is due to personal things. Part of it is my work/school situation. And I think part of it is that (from my perspective) I've had a lot more crap addressed towards me recently.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If there's been a miscommunication, I'm perfectly willing to accept that part of the blame may be mine, but I'm pretty sure that it's not just me.
I honestly don't know what else I could do to get what I was doing across aside from restating it (edit: want to change 6 or 7 -> multiple) times in as clear language as I could. Did you find my explanations unclear or did they not register or did you just not believe them or is it something else?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, you may notice, I am open to changing this perspective. I am very aware that the way I see things is often mistaken. I've asked people to explain what they think I am doing, which would allow me to see if I am wrong and they do understand it, possibily allow me to better explain why I believe in what I am doing, and in general I hope lead to a better resolution to this.
When's the last time you admitted that the way you saw something was mistaken? I don't read every thread, and I don't have perfect recall, so I may have missed it.
What I have seen is you arguing people's explanations of how they've seen your behavior, rather than taking the time to consider their points. Not that you don't consider them, but I do not remember seeing you acknowledge many of them.
I think you are acting in good faith, and that you genuinely want to know why you seem to be misunderstood. But I think you're operating under a different definition of 'good faith' than a lot of us. And I think you're placing too much blame for your misunderstandings on the other party in the conversation (whoever that may be) and not enough on yourself.
I don't have anything to substantiate any of that with; it's just my impressions from being active in many of the same threads as you. I feel like it's accurate, and I don't have any personal stake in the matter beyond wanting what's best for the community. Like rivka, I like you. I think you can be funny and insightful. I'd like to see more of that.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick -- let me say it more clearly. You have come across lately as someone who thinks he's better than others.
You have come across as though you think you're some kind of martyr for Hatrack -- despised for your service, but willing to bear that burden.
It reminds me of a passage in SftD where it talks about Val's children's perception of their Uncle Ender "who was thought in every world to be a monster, but in reality was something of a savior, or a prophet, or at least a martyr."
Now, I'm not saying that's what you really think. But you have come across that way recently.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. Squick, I like you. I think some of your posts are extremely insightful, and others are wickedly funny. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing many of either recently.
I think that I've written insightful posts recently. I got acknowldged for a funny one yesterday, I think. Perhaps you've missed them or disagree with my assesments. Also, my output is less and I've definitely been writing less involved posts.
Part of that is due to personal things. Part of it is my work/school situation. And I think part of it is that (from my perspective) I've had a lot more crap addressed towards me recently.
I didn't say "none" (because it would not have been accurate); I said I had not seen many. I chose my words carefully.
I'm not talking about post volume. Everyone is entitled to a life outside of Hatrack (shocking but true), and of course people's posting rates and post detail/length/intricacy will reflect that.
But from my perspective (only one I've got), it seems that you have redirected the majority of your Hatrack-energies from insight and humor to a multi-pronged crusade. One which seems to me both counterproductive (both for you and for Hatrack) and unlikely to lead to the results which I believe you are aiming for.
Of course, it is entirely possible that my assessment has little or no basis in reality. It is also possible that yours might suffer from the same flaw, neh?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, It is exactly because you require cross-examinations to get you to say things about many topics that bugs me about your posting style. It's like playing Hot-Cold without even being told if you are warmer or not. This is especially true because, from my perspective, you often seem to laden your posts with unstated implications.
I'm hardly the only person who has noted this about you.
---
Kwea, As I've said, I'm not moved by insults. Since porter doesn't seem willing to engage me any further, do you want to take a stab at explaining what you think I was doing?
I don't know, but it seems likely to me that people aren't quite getting my intentions/methods. Perhaps it seems fair to others to just attack me over this. It doesn't seem that way to me.
edit: And you know, if I recall correctly, in your much referenced entrance here, when a certain group of people was jumping on you for thinking you were Cedrios, I was one of the few people who stood against them.
I was being facetious, Squick, although you do seem to be attempting some sort of social manipulation, much as he claimed to be trying, at least at first.
Let's get this straight though.....my "much referenced" entrance has been mentioned by me about 20 times or so. I have how many posts now?
Over 9000.
And no one accused me of being Ced. Not even once. It was someone else completely...someone with grammar as bad as Blaynes. I was here before Ced became a problem, and was here when he made his "announcements", pitiful as they were.
I guess I don't reference that story enough for you to actually remember it.
How many times have you been rude to others in the past year alone, and how many times have you cried foul at some phantom conspiracy aimed at you just in the past 6 months?
Squick, I use to really like talking to you, and engaging you in conversation. You are far, far smarter than Ced ever was....but your methods are not as invisible as you seem to think they are. You have also contributed to this forum far more than most people, and on some topics I really value your opinions.
I didn't comment on it (your recent attitude and attempts at social manipulation) before because I liked you, and because I didn't feel it would matter at all. You have always been very sure of yourself, so much so that it was easy to mistake for smugness, but in the past there was always a sense of fun, or engagement that far outweighed that and made it fun to converse with you.
But the past few years...and even worse for the past few months... you have been acting like you feel it is your place to police this forum, and not just with people like Blayne. I don't want to drag him into this....he gets enough grief, and usually for good reason....because I never interacted with him much.
You have been trying to make a difference, I know, but what you fail to see, or at least to admit, is that you have become almost as much of a problem as the people you object to. When you try to manipulate individuals in this group, which has a greater than average amount of intelligent people in it compared to most websites, people notice. When you try to enforce, by playing bad cop, behavior YOU deem important, people take offense..not because you are completely wrong, but because you don't have the right.
If someone offends you and you call them on it, that works because there is a sense of honesty about it. But if all you do every time you engage them is bring up every little thing you have ever disagreed on, then it becomes a pointless debate...for you, for them, and for Hatrack in general. I am not saying stop it....if I did I would be acting in the same vein myself....but people will begin to take offense, and begin to fight back.
As Icky said, it increases the static in the channel, and makes real conversation difficult.
You weren't all that smooth, and people DID notice. And then, because no one thought to mention it to you (probably because you wouldn't have bothered stopping), you claimed to be so smooth and smart that only two people could have caught you out.
That is insulting, and makes you come across as arrogant and condescending. You are, without a doubt, as smart person....but there are a ton of them here, so you are not unique in that.
Recently you have acted like you are, though.
Porter hit it right on the head, IMO....the only time I see you post is to take offense, cry wolf, or begin picking a fight trying to change someones behavior. You don't seem to enjoy posting here much these days.
And you admit to trying to shape others behaviors, using highly objectionable and impersonal behavior....and then you wonder why a lot of long-time posters take offense?
Perhaps it is because I don't spend as much time here as I use to. I find a lot of crap that goes on here not worth my time these days, to be honest. I go too far myself on occasion, although I haven't been warned even once, or banned from anywhere....ever.
But that isn't what I am always about, here or elsewhere. I love a good debate, as long as people are respectful of each other.
That's what it really boils down to, IMO....respect. You don't act like you respect most people here anymore, Squick.
And before you start thinking this is just another attack (by someone who posts at sakeriver....GASP) on you, think of this.
If I didn't care, and I didn't really remember how you use to interact with people here........why would I waste half an hour typing this post? I think a lot faster than I type (not that that is hard), but I still took the time on a Friday night to type this all out.
Take it for what it's worth.....God knows I am hardly the final word or authority on anything...nor do I wish to be.
posted
I will jump in here and say that not knowing the gender of a mosquito has nothing to do with intelligence. I, for one, did not know the gender of the mosquito that sucks blood. I may have once heard this and forgot, but I'm not sure. At any rate, most pieces of trivia cannot be expected to be known by all intelligent people. There are simply some facts that some people never learn about, just because they never came into contact with that fact.
Granted, if someone consistently does not know the answer to a lot of well-known facts, then perhaps that says something about their education, and maybe their intelligence, in some cases. I never knew the gender of a mosquito was such an essential piece of trivia to know. I'm not tooting my own horn, but I do have a Master's degree, and have been called a walking encyclopedia by some people, yet somehow I missed the mosquito fact. Does that have any correlation with my relative knowledge or intelligence? No.
I'm not saying I'm super-smart or anything. I just consider myself an average person with decent education. I just don't like using a lack of knowledge in a few very specific areas to be used as an indicator of intelligence or overall "smartness".
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was here before Ced became a problem, and was here when he made his "announcements", pitiful as they were.
