|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2013 7:36:09 GMT -5
As you say above, there is bullying and mocking on both sides. So I don't know how you can decide that one side is the "source" of nastiness here. It's nasty to complain about someone's mocking as a source of negativity and then go on a name calling binge oneself while trying to outsource that someone into another forum section and even calling that someones forum appearance evil or sniping at that someone at every opportunity. Yes. The actual source of nastiness is clear. Yes. I only sometimes post 'masses of posts' when I feel like getting closer to the core issue. I don't push people, I just keep asking and don't follow their distractions. That would be your giraffe/spin. When I look at the result, then I must say that your words are meaningless. If you wouldn't have an issue then you wouldn't comment. The recoiling is not a emotional story? Not emotional would just be words on screen. Look what just happened here: Reefs: It got only worse. Quinn: You are painting. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: You are spinning. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: I don't like your spin. edit: there was a word missing.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 12, 2013 7:43:34 GMT -5
It seemed to me to be the same old same old. I didn't say it was better, just not worse. Andrew was more direct than usual, but Verbed, Silver and Tzu were doing the same thing they've always done. The only thing that was radically different was you and Enigma reporting every little infraction. Listen, I shake my head when people say, "You should be kinder - here, let me be nasty to you to show you that." I really don't get it. So if this is the way you want to highlight the absurdity of that, fine. I'm just saying be honest. It didn't get worse when the forum split. That spin just supports your portrayal of Top. Well, you forgot to take the abuse in the unmoderated section into account. Just look at the facts and don't follow your emotional story. It really got worse. Not much worse, yes, but still worse. And it wasn't just 'every little infraction'. I could have reported the mocking as well but then Peter would have had at least 30 posts to deal with. And I was actually only reporting Andrews posts since I have Silver and Hetero blocked and only sometimes see their posts when someone quotes them. The point, from my perspective, was to show that the anti-bullies are bullying as well and very consistently which is the actual source of nastiness here since they only point the finger at others and also are the only ones who actually do name calling. But they know how to manipulate with emotions so the impression can be very different. Peter finally seems to get that point. And Peter isn't that innocent as well. If you look into his replies you will see an awful lot of mocking. So, it really got worse. Take a look at the facts first and then report back. Reefs, you really don't understand emotional people do you? Are you really that attached to the image of Reefs in other people's minds? You frustrate people alot and to blow off steam those that get frustrated want to vent by burning an effigy of you. Blowing off steam is not real animosity. But if you want to take it personally, that's your perogative, and you just taking things personally. Beingist needed to vent, I was venting, Verbed was venting. I have no real animosity to you Reefs. I don't know that you see that yet. I get irritated with you because of your style and that you irritate others so much, causing waves on my empathy sensors that don't have to be there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 7:47:30 GMT -5
As you say above, there is bullying and mocking on both sides. So I don't know how you can decide that one side is the "source" of nastiness here. It's nasty to complain about someone's mocking as a source of negativity and then go on a name calling binge oneself while trying to outsource that someone into another forum section and even calling that someones forum appearance evil or sniping at that someone at every opportunity. Yes. The actual source of nastiness is clear. Since I came back to the forum, and even well prior to the time I wasn't here, possibly dating back to the time you first came, it is rare for me to address you on a thread UNLESS you talk to me in response to something I have said to someone else, or talk about me to someone else (and even then I ignore a lot). You then respond to the messages I write to you (which makes sense), and you also continue to respond to the messages I write to other people. Not that there is a rule against that. Point is, I have nothing to say to you, though its likely that I will respond to at least some of your messages for as long as you are following me round the forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 7:52:28 GMT -5
As you say above, there is bullying and mocking on both sides. So I don't know how you can decide that one side is the "source" of nastiness here. It's nasty to complain about someone's mocking as a source of negativity and then go on a name calling binge oneself while trying to outsource that someone into another forum section and even calling that someones forum appearance evil or sniping at that someone at every opportunity. Yes. The actual source of nastiness is clear. Yes. I only sometimes post 'masses of posts' when I feel like getting closer to the core issue. I don't push people, I just keep asking and don't follow their distractions. That would be your giraffe/spin. When I look at the result, then I must say that your words are meaningless. If you wouldn't have an issue then you wouldn't comment. The recoiling is not emotional? Not emotional would just be words on screen. Look what just happened here: Reefs: It got only worse. Quinn: You are painting. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: You are spinning. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: I don't like your spin. Reefs side of this conversation, or any conversation he's engaged in (pick one at random, any one...), kinda reminds me of an old Bill Cosby bit. When his children were small they used to get in the cookie jar before dinner. So one day he caught his two year old son in the act. He scolded him, and moved the cookie jar to a place where it was just out of his reach, and went back in the living room to do whatever he was doing. A few minutes later he heard the lid on the cookie jar rattling again, and walked to the kitchen where he saw his son, wide-eyed, with two cookies in his hand. Cosby said, "I told you to stay out of the cookie jar, didn't I?" And the kid, with cookie crumbs all over his face said, "I was getting the cookies for you."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2013 9:45:52 GMT -5
Reefs, you really don't understand emotional people do you? Are you really that attached to the image of Reefs in other people's minds? You would have to drop your assumption that I'm somehow emotionally impaired or 'not normal' to have a meaningful conversation on this topic with me. This seems to be your core attachment. Again, I see your story has already been written and you are just waiting for me to fill in the blanks in your script. Sounds like you want to give yourself a free pass here. I don't really mind the venting, there are numerous methods to ignore that. However, what I find questionable behavior is when someone sees his venting as okay and necessary and excusable but others alleged mocking as the cause of all evil that has to be contained at all costs when mocking is at least content related and something to do with the actual discussion at hand and the person addressed. I'm pretty certain that you don't see me as evil to the core like Andrew does and you only periodically step on your slippery moral apostle slope. The thing with venting is that it doesn't have anything to do with the discussions at hand or the person addressed and therefore is an unnecessary and rather nasty distraction. It may feel good to the one who is venting, but what about the one who gets clubbed over the head and beaten senseless day after day for the sake of someone else emotional relief? What do your empathy sensors say about that? Strange that you don't care about that part of the equation. Most of the venting here doesn't have anything to do with what happens on the forum anyway. Folks just bring their offline garbage here, hear a trigger word and off they go (see your own story for details). I suggest you get used to the idea that certain folks are just incompatible by nature (i.e. innate preferences and predispositions) and that there's nothing you can do about it and that's nothing that needs fixing. I've already told you that your re-education attempts for some imagined 'greater good' are the most hideous thing you can do to folks in general. You can make them behave on the surface and force them to be nice to each other, sure, but that's creating contrived behavior which creates new problems. Or you can even break them like the horse to make them fit your kumbaya ideal. But then all spontaneity and vibrancy is gone. Try ponder that for a while. Did you try to re-educate your wife too to make her fit your kumbaya relationship idea?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 9:55:08 GMT -5
Don't exaggerate. I don't see you as evil to the core, at most I see your strategy as somewhat evil, that arises from control freakism and non-duality gone wrong.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 12, 2013 10:28:40 GMT -5
Reefs, you really don't understand emotional people do you? Are you really that attached to the image of Reefs in other people's minds? You would have to drop your assumption that I'm somehow emotionally impaired or 'not normal' to have a meaningful conversation on this topic with me. This seems to be your core attachment. Again, I see your story has already been written and you are just waiting for me to fill in the blanks in your script. Sounds like you want to give yourself a free pass here. I don't really mind the venting, there are numerous methods to ignore that. However, what I find questionable behavior is when someone sees his venting as okay and necessary and excusable but others alleged mocking as the cause of all evil that has to be contained at all costs when mocking is at least content related and something to do with the actual discussion at hand and the person addressed. I'm pretty certain that you don't see me as evil to the core like Andrew does and you only periodically step on your slippery moral apostle slope. The thing with venting is that it doesn't have anything to do with the discussions at hand or the person addressed and therefore is an unnecessary and rather nasty distraction. It may feel good to the one who is venting, but what about the one who gets clubbed over the head and beaten senseless day after day for the sake of someone else emotional relief? What do your empathy sensors say about that? Strange that you don't care about that part of the equation. Most of the venting here doesn't have anything to do with what happens on the forum anyway. Folks just bring their offline garbage here, hear a trigger word and off they go (see your own story for details). I suggest you get used to the idea that certain folks are just incompatible by nature (i.e. innate preferences and predispositions) and that there's nothing you can do about it and that's nothing that needs fixing. I've already told you that your re-education attempts for some imagined 'greater good' are the most hideous thing you can do to folks in general. You can make them behave on the surface and force them to be nice to each other, sure, but that's creating contrived behavior which creates new problems. Or you can even break them like the horse to make them fit your kumbaya ideal. But then all spontaneity and vibrancy is gone. Try ponder that for a while. Did you try to re-educate your wife too to make her fit your kumbaya relationship idea?This is your talent Reefs and why so many people are responding negatively to you. You find what you think is the soarest spot in them and and jab your thumb into it for good measure. Then you complain about their howling.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 10:33:53 GMT -5
Try ponder that for a while. Did you try to re-educate your wife too to make her fit your kumbaya relationship idea? Duuuuuuuude .... a bit harsh, no?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 12, 2013 10:38:05 GMT -5
To have an unmoderated section. The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. Although I'm too dang tired to read all the stuff that transpired while I was asleep, I have been wanting to make a point or two about the new set-up with mod/unmod - which I had made when wren stepped in and tried to take that from me with her sniping - ahh sniping. The fact that your funny-man persona totally went ape-sh*t in the new unmod section and posted all of those inane threads for voting this and that individual for mod and all the others is just your hissy fit or whatever you want to call it - trying to prove something - like the new situation is going to fail - I think all WAS going really well in the beginning and people weren't going ape-shit and some nice stories about birdies came out - it was the idea of freedom from ongoing mocksters mocking that the unmoderated section was trying to improve upon the whole forum - NOT just so peeps could swear and act like total idiots.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 12, 2013 10:38:34 GMT -5
Try ponder that for a while. Did you try to re-educate your wife too to make her fit your kumbaya relationship idea? Duuuuuuuude .... a bit harsh, no? You? Surprised?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 12:03:02 GMT -5
To have an unmoderated section. The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. (Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 12, 2013 12:18:30 GMT -5
The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. (Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out. The inference is very subtle. The poking and taunting was theoretically supposed to move over, but peeps being lazy and resistive to changing locale, they stayed where they were at and stayed with the same behavior... Ah well. The inference is that if the new section was for poking, the old section would be for non-poking, but peeps be poking each other in the old section so Peter would be forced to step in and play nanny until all the poking migrated to the poking section. I don't think Peter fully realized that would be required... He said moderation wouldn't change in the existing section and that anything that had been going on there before was already acceptable there... I don't think he fully heard what he was saying in saying that either.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 12:22:44 GMT -5
The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. (Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out. No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 12:38:32 GMT -5
(Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out. The inference is very subtle. The poking and taunting was theoretically supposed to move over, but peeps being lazy and resistive to changing locale, they stayed where they were at and stayed with the same behavior... Ah well. The inference is that if the new section was for poking, the old section would be for non-poking, but peeps be poking each other in the old section so Peter would be forced to step in and play nanny until all the poking migrated to the poking section. I don't think Peter fully realized that would be required... He said moderation wouldn't change in the existing section and that anything that had been going on there before was already acceptable there... I don't think he fully heard what he was saying in saying that either. Okay - yes, that's pretty much what I read too.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 12:40:42 GMT -5
(Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out. No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it. Oooh - you were referring to others' expectations. Yikes. Well, you're a better man than I (hehe) - I hadn't even traveled down that path.
|
|