|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:31:48 GMT -5
Only if you believe the images that you create, I mention such things a 'being stuck' because I'm interested in discussing it....exploring it with the one I'm challenging. AGain, very much in the eye of the beholder. My experience is that very often, the mocking itself takes the place of actual discussion...it's used as a means of avoiding directly answering questions and offering concise explanations and descriptions of experience. Once you've developed an image, and the subject disclaims the image, there's a number of possibilities of how the conversation can spin out from that point. The next time this happens, I'll be sure to point it out to you. The shorthand for flagging this situation is "straw man", but I won't use that term given that I've committed to a different conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 22:35:20 GMT -5
So you acknowledge ego involvement? That's not as interesting. A 'spiritual philosophy' in which there is a lot of mocking, belittling, making others wrong, painting negative images...that says that that is NOT ego involvement, I would say is a spirituality worth questioning. Have I mocked you in this thread? As I promised, I'm refraining from anything other than ordinary conversation with you for the time being, and as I've promised, that's likely to result in some new opportunities. The next time the humor emerges (not from me) and you complain about it I'll be able to explain to you exactly what led up to it. Nice work, boss. Trouble is, Andy's never gotten the part -- his part in this for such a long time, like forever. Not saying anything YOU don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 22:35:57 GMT -5
Well, I don't much care if I've lost credibility. As you can see in the 2 quotes I put there, you took a strong stance against mocking/sarcasm. You were wagging your finger almost regularly. And now you've been caught red-handed doing the exact same thing you actually detest. I'd say there's an obvious walk/talk issue. Something you might wanna take a look at. You were clearly mocking me, Quinn. Then why didn't you phrase it exactly like this? I could have a field day with you right now about your phoniness, self-deception and high horse position and all that kind of stuff but I'd say we can skip this because I see a chance that you might actually see how mocking happens. I guess you just wanted to make a funny post instead of a deadly serious post?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:38:03 GMT -5
You say you are interested in clarity, but spend most of your energy in the conversation constructing elaborate images As I see it, I express what I am seeing in the ideas presented by others. In order to discuss something, that's generally the way an idea is put forth. That does not mean though that I'm not open to refining my opinion as the other explains and describes and engages in direct dialogue. This is where I very much disagree. I'm very open to counter-arguments, WHEN they are actually given...and when they actually 'counter' my point in a meaningful way. That's demonstrably untrue in at least one specific instance. Interestingly enough, I have done so...and what I see is that In order to engage in the type of overt mockery and nastiness that some here engage in, I'd have to be very insecure and very attached to my point of view as being the 'right' one. Now you're suggesting that your preference for a serious conversation is somehow indicative of anything other than the preference. The fact that you have turned yet another conversation toward your perception of "nastiness" seems indicative to me of exactly that sort of attachment you reference.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:39:29 GMT -5
Have I mocked you in this thread? As I promised, I'm refraining from anything other than ordinary conversation with you for the time being, and as I've promised, that's likely to result in some new opportunities. The next time the humor emerges (not from me) and you complain about it I'll be able to explain to you exactly what led up to it. Nice work, boss. Trouble is, Andy's never gotten the part -- his part in this for such a long time, like forever. Not saying anything YOU don't know. ... that you'd "like" all the figgles "anti-mocking" stuff and then start poppin' off is just too precious fer werds hun'!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 22:41:52 GMT -5
Nice work, boss. Trouble is, Andy's never gotten the part -- his part in this for such a long time, like forever. Not saying anything YOU don't know. ... that you'd "like" all the figgles "anti-mocking" stuff and then start poppin' off is just too precious fer werds hun'! I see both sides and I understand both sides. If you think that's precious, then more power to me! ps - besides, you don't know what it is I like about the posts.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:43:47 GMT -5
... that you'd "like" all the figgles "anti-mocking" stuff and then start poppin' off is just too precious fer werds hun'! I see both sides and I understand both sides. If you think that's precious, then more power to me! Notice how figgles never calls you out all those grenades you toss at the frog?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 22:44:54 GMT -5
I see both sides and I understand both sides. If you think that's precious, then more power to me! Notice how figgles never calls you out all those grenades you toss at the frog? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:45:48 GMT -5
Notice how figgles never calls you out all those grenades you toss at the frog? Huh? uh yeah ... that'd be a "No".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 22:51:41 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I deny being on a reeducation campaign and the way I see it the conversation about the dynamics of the conversation is one that can only end with total suppression -- which is what I've seen on two of the other three forums that I'm familiar with, and has been suggested by others is the usual way that such conversation is dealt with. As you've pointed out on occasion, it's not possible to live a concept, but I do have a bias toward free speech. I just don't understand why Tzu hasn't been banned a year ago already. He was clearly violating the old rules and even Peter's personal 'no crusades' rule. And he has been allowed to do so for more than a year now. Instead of showing him the door, we have this strange cat and mouse game discussions with him about this disrespect straw man.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 22:55:39 GMT -5
uh yeah ... that'd be a "No". You're just trying to be clever here. I toss grenades at the frog? Why I was just thanking him earlier today -- I faintly remember some itty bitty grenades -- or maybe they were just itty bitty frogs.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 22:55:43 GMT -5
... that you'd "like" all the figgles "anti-mocking" stuff and then start poppin' off is just too precious fer werds hun'! I see both sides and I understand both sides. If you think that's precious, then more power to me! ps - besides, you don't know what it is I like about the posts. Old habits die hard, eh?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:57:47 GMT -5
I deny being on a reeducation campaign and the way I see it the conversation about the dynamics of the conversation is one that can only end with total suppression -- which is what I've seen on two of the other three forums that I'm familiar with, and has been suggested by others is the usual way that such conversation is dealt with. As you've pointed out on occasion, it's not possible to live a concept, but I do have a bias toward free speech. I just don't understand why Tzu hasn't been banned a year ago already. He was clearly violating the old rules and even Peter's personal 'no crusades' rule. And he has been allowed to do so for more than a year now. Instead of showing him the door, we have this strange cat and mouse game discussions with him about this disrespect straw man.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 0:12:51 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. Yes, that's one thing I have seen change on the forum. I'm bored to tears with discussions about who's misbehaving and what should be done about that. a lot of the personal vs impersonal discussion seems to be about trying to shift away from that focus, but it's not working. I'm actually begin to appreciate moderators who ban peeps and refuse to say a word about it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 0:15:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but since no one else is allowed to post in laffey's thread, per laffey's request, I must offer another thread to respond. And respond I must. In said thread, laughter repeats assertions that Figless, Andrew, and Tzu are 'disrespectful' in their posts. Here, I just wish to register my own assertion that I, for one, do not share such a perspective. I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. Andrew I hold in similar light, and in fact, consider his calmness in the face of blistering accusations from the likes of Reefs a characteristic to admire. As far as Tzu, well, I have no further comment regarding disrespect, because, as anyone who's spent time here knows, his agenda seems focused on Enigma, and I cannot honestly say that in his responses to E, he hasn't been disrespectful (for those who have a hard time with double negatives, that is to say that he may or may not have been disrespectful, in my perspective). I think some credit should go to E for his patience, where Tzu is concerned. He doesn't seem to let up, in any case. I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you I agree with all of that. Plus I struggle with double negatives, so thanks for the translation. How could you not avoid struggling with double negatives?
|
|