Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Renault]

Psha! Havent you guys ever read Ann Rice? Everything is better with repeated climaxes!
 

[Grakelin]

I'm not being defensive. I think it would be more apt to say you are being aggressive. Nor am I acting immaturely to an opposing force. My reaction differs greatly, because I have yet to secretly give you a nickname or spend my days lamenting your existence.

If you have not finished reading the topic, it is generally best not to contest statements made in a post. It is entirely possible that I may have seen the error of my ways, apologized for everything I have said, and sent CJ a care package with some candy and a few contraceptives to help him with his new girlfriend (although this is not what happened). Again, I'm all for free speech, so you can respond to a two-day old comment that has been thoroughly discussed, explained, and concluded if you like. I, personally, would not do so, because it would leave me in the uncomfortable position of passionately fighting for a dead issue and looking silly.

[Bandages]

Can we just agree to let a mod lock this up? It's just a drama fest now.

[Kebooo]

Aggressive?  Would you judge this to be more, or less "aggressive" than you were to CJ?  It's quite clear he didn't take it very well and from the looks of it, your post wasn't constructive.  I merely turned the tables to see how you would cope with criticism of your behavior.  You have not coped well, because you know very well that there isn't an ounce of me that is even remotely upset or angry, yet you claimed I was, why?  I don't imagine it was a misreading.  I'd be interested to see which words or lines of mine you could have possibly derived anger or being upset from.  The thanking you for the welcome?  I would suggest you don't take sarcasm as a sign of anger, because there are people like myself that like to use a lot of it.

Also, I had finished reading the topic.  I would caution against making assumptions that don't strengthen your argument, so that we don't waste time arguing the irrelevant.  I looked for any post that I felt responded to yours in the way I felt it needed to be.  I didn't find it.  So I wrote the post.  It really is as simple as that.  By no means was your post thoroughly discussed on any level besides the "how dare you?" immediate indignation common to internet arguments.  I know you'd like to sweep away the first real, analytical rebuttal to your post, but I'm afraid it's not so easy!

To Bandages: I'm not trying to stir drama or create controversy for its own sake.  I saw a post that I completely and entirely rejected for more than one reason, and I felt it necessary to reply to it.  I'm sorry I didn't reply three days ago.  I thought the purpose of forums were for discussion, not stifling it through locks.

[Bandages]

To Bandages: I'm not trying to stir drama or create controversy for its own sake.  I saw a post that I completely and entirely rejected for more than one reason, and I felt it necessary to reply to it.  I'm sorry I didn't reply three days ago.  I thought the purpose of forums were for discussion, not stifling it through locks.

Bolded part highlights exactly what I mean. You made a point, and yet decided to go beyond what you needed to convey to throw an agressive sarcastic jab at me. We're a pretty tight community here, and it doesn't make sense to leave a thread whose purpose has long since been fufilled (he got the girl days ago, IIRC) to just live on when it breeds this kind of mean-spirited posting.

[Kebooo]

To Bandages: I'm not trying to stir drama or create controversy for its own sake.  I saw a post that I completely and entirely rejected for more than one reason, and I felt it necessary to reply to it.  I'm sorry I didn't reply three days ago.  I thought the purpose of forums were for discussion, not stifling it through locks.

Bolded part highlights exactly what I mean. You made a point, and yet decided to go beyond what you needed to convey to throw an agressive sarcastic jab at me. We're a pretty tight community here, and it doesn't make sense to leave a thread whose purpose has long since been fufilled (he got the girl days ago, IIRC) to just live on when it breeds this kind of mean-spirited posting.

I sincerely hope the bold part is not exactly what you mean.  I want to say this clearly so it's not misunderstood: My "aggressive sarcastic jab" is by no means how you characterize it.  It is a completely open and honest statement meant without a shred of sarcasm.  Is it the the notion locking this topic would, in reality, stifle discussion, that makes you feel it was a jab?  Do we have to tip toe and obfuscate the truth of things now?  Because that is precisely what it would do.  So stating that fact is a sarcastic jab?  I can't believe I just read that.  In fact, while Grakelin might have believed something he said upset me, it did not.  But your post right there did manage just that.  I have been to far, far too many forums where a topic is locked simply because there is an argument, even a civil one.  I find it against the spirit of forums in every sense.  This argument clearly can't go on for long because it's practically exhausted all avenues of discussion already.  When I have nothing new to add, I will stop adding.  So the answer is to lock it?  Threads evolve, if the original poster asked for it to be locked, that is one thing, if others are asking for it, that is another.  I can't stress how much it offends my senses for people to openly call for a topic to be locked in the middle of discussion.  Sorry, but that is one thing I will admit upsets me.

If an alleged mean-spirited argument is grounds for locking topics, I can assure you, this one should have been locked a long time ago.   I can also go find many topics on these forums in need of locking that are left open, if I use such criteria.  Is it mean-spirited to call out what I consider mean-spiritedness?  I don't believe so, I have no regrets for anything I have posted here, and I would argue to my dying breath that I have said all of it with a real purpose, not out of malice, and certainly nothing for the sake of drama.  I stand by my principles, and if mods want to lock a topic because of it, that's their choice, but at the very least, don't mask the truth of what it is.

Sorry for this rant, it's been building for many years, and this "I think we need a lock" is what pushed it over the edge.

[Grakelin]

Please do not post

I hadn't read this topic before, am I somehow excluded from commenting on a point that wasn't disputed in the fashion I felt it should have been?  I felt, from my perspective, such an ignorant, and ironically, immature  statement shouldn't go uncontested. 

and then berate me because you

had finished reading the topic.  I would caution against making assumptions that don't strengthen your argument, so that we don't waste time arguing the irrelevant.

It is not conducive to the healthy, civil debate that I do not think you are trying to achieve, and it is also very confusing from my standpoint. Not in an "aha, I'm winning this argument because I backed him into a corner" way, either. More of a "Hm, this person is completely unpredictable, and I have difficulty understanding what he is trying to tell me".

I find your posts emotional and aggressive because of your sarcasm, you are correct. You will probably find that most people will interpret such posts in a similar way.

Again, you are welcome to make any criticism you like, and you are also welcome to say things that make you come off as a sarcastic pot-stirrer. If you don't want to be considered as the latter, however, reading and responding to the most recent posts in a thread is a good place to start.

Your post wasn't really that analytical, either. Nor would it have been the first one to analyze my own even if it was. It might have been the first one where the poster had analyzed it thoroughly and then come to the conclusion that what I was saying was baseless and inflammatory, however. In this case, you appear to have misread my post as an attack on him for being too skilled in the English language, when I was actually sharing an opinion that his problems with 'King Ratbastard' stem from his perception that this individual is the embodiment of pure, unadulterated evil, coupled with the way he switches into a semi-Shakespearean 'avast, to a duel, yon cur!' style of writing when relating his antagonism towards this person.


And, seeing from what you ninja'd in while I was typing, you can completely understand how a comment spiked with humour or light sarcasm might be misinterpreted and turned around on oneself. This is a good thing to consider when attempting to critique somebody's comment.

The Bay12 forums are actually quite lenient about passionate arguments and debates. There are a variety of threads (one of which is called 'Atheists', where the scale of the debate is such that if you try to respond to old posts you will be in an even more uncomfortable position than we are now) that would have been locked ages ago on another forum. Ranting about the injustice of locking a thread is something for another forum.

[Kebooo]

There has been some confusion over this line: "I hadn't read this topic before"

I hadn't read this topic until today, before I posted.  I read the topic in full before I made my post.  I hope that's cleared up.

Did you believe I was angry and upset because I said thanks for the welcome?  Even though, by the very nature of your welcoming, you were being sarcastic to me.  So I am then to interpret your sarcasm as aggressive and emotional?  You do see the double standard, yes?  I am a man of reason, if someone can point out the flaws in my logic or my words, I am more than willing to concede points, believe me.  I don't try to win an argument by backing anyone into a corner on a technicality, only on the persuasion of reason.  Let's not forget, it is you that called me "very upset" and "angry" as some basis for a rebuttal, for something, at least with all forums and people I have ever dealt with previously, that would not be interpreted as being very upset.  And seeing how hostile some of these other threads on the forums get, I didn't even begin to imagine bay12games would be a new exception to how a sarcastic reply to sarcasm is construed as anger.

Here, here's another opinion of mine that may be wholly rejected: The hostile and passionate debate over religion is less constructive than debating the actual treatment of fellow posters.  I felt your post was disrespectful and patronizing toward CJ, more aggressive than any I have posted.  Not to mention the "flowering" of language is his choice, and the maturity you ascribe to his nickname should have nothing to do with whether he should use that language or not.  Yet this is to be locked, and the atheists thread to keep on for hundreds of pages of circular, hostile debate?  Forgive me if I prefer a consistent standard.

[Heron TSG]

EVERYONE LOVE EVERYBODY!

arguing is no good on the intertubes.

[SIGVARDR]

However,when someone connects to the web,it seems they automatically become professional debaters with multiple degrees in whatever they're trying to argue about.Thus,you must convert to their thinking or die.

[Jude]

What the hell are you guys even arguing about anymore

You guys remind me of me except you're arguing over fluff instead of real-world problems

[Kebooo]

What the hell are you guys even arguing about anymore

You guys remind me of me except you're arguing over fluff instead of real-world problems

I wouldn't say it's fair to call arguing over how he treated a fellow poster as "fluff".  I guess not everyone has to agree with that, so now people feel a need to belittle other views by chiming in with one liners.  That's classic internet.  The conversation steered to fluff when people began to argue not against the content of what I posted, but whether I was angry or upset, whether my posts were aggressive or sarcastic, whether I was making a jab, whether I had read the topic, the chronology of the post within the topic, whether I should have posted that opinion at all, whether the topic should have been locked.  Do you think I care to debate any of that nonsense?  But in an attempt to steer back to the real content, I can't let those objections stand as if they have merit or relevance to the argument.  I would be completely willing to not argue about any of those points if others hadn't brought them up.  Let's just not pretend arguing that CJ was disrespected and demeaned without good cause is fluff, because it isn't.

[Footkerchief]

Of course I got picked on my freshman year of high school and I was too little (I was fuckin 5'2" until I grew 7 inches later in the year!) to hand out any ass beatings so I'm probably trying to re-live it vicariously through you

That was pretty obvious even before you said it, yes.  Maybe you should get therapy for your lingering anger or something instead of channeling it into macho advice.

[Grakelin]

Of course I got picked on my freshman year of high school and I was too little (I was fuckin 5'2" until I grew 7 inches later in the year!) to hand out any ass beatings so I'm probably trying to re-live it vicariously through you

That was pretty obvious even before you said it, yes.  Maybe you should get therapy for your lingering anger or something instead of channeling it into macho advice.

Excuse me, but what you just said was very rude and completely unnecessary. I hope you're prepared for me to write a paragraph full of angry sarcastic comments where I call you out on this. You're going down, bad boy.

/love

[zchris13]

This man doesn't know what he's messing with.  You're doomed, buddy.  In a "holy shit banned" sort of manner.