BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Burning down the Haus part 2 - Attack of the Clones

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 17

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:33 / 12.07.06
It’s quite something to ask someone to spend five minutes of their time reading something that you think is interesting or pertinent

No, dude, it really isn't. If you read _this_ thread, you will find that we already covered this, here.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:35 / 12.07.06
I certainly got the impression he was commenting on the article, going so far as to say there was no point reading it because WHATEVER was in it wouldn't be convincing. Which is to assume a lot.

Though the point about links dying is an interesting one- a lot of these threads are good to come back to months or years later, and broken links can be really confusing. Don't know what the option is, though, as I don't think we really want cutting and pasting of entire pieces (apart from copyright issues). Perhaps providing, as a mater of course, more detailed information on what the article is called, who it's by and where it was published? Cumbersome, I know...

Incidentally, I have yet to read the article. Which is why I haven't said anything about it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:37 / 12.07.06
Oh, and "Attack of the Clones" is the name of the second film in the Star Wars series. This is the second thread entitled "Burning Down the Haus". This, incidentally, is why it is often useful to use "I feel" statements - you have made a series of assumptions above, stated as facts, that are both inaccurate and indeed offensive. I am offended by these assumptions. You may want to apologise.
 
 
Ex
14:58 / 12.07.06
I feel there are issues about pacing - Haus is on the board a lot, and thus is often the first person to see a particularly problematic post. And when the poster responds, he's often there to catch it again. Thus debates can become a bit Haus-focused.

And I know that if a poster has just been responded to in a thorough fashion by Haus, I'm less likely to stick in a post saying '...yeah! Same here!'. His rapid response time makes it easier to watch discussions, rather than participate in debating things with which I'm uncomfortable. I've commented in the past on things I found difficult or unacceptable on the board, but I'll usually do it if I'm within the first three people to post, or I feel it's really venemous enough to warrant a string of rebukes, or if I have a particular perspective that hasn't been voiced.

But this is a bit chicken and egg - I have no idea if, were he to twiddle his thumbs for half an hour, other people would pick up the baton and generate debate.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:01 / 12.07.06
Perhaps Haus should take a set period of time off (not from the board, just a certain role he often takes), like a DC superhero, and then that hypothetical might be answered? You could think of it as a vacation...
 
 
gridley
15:25 / 12.07.06
Perhaps Haus should take a set period of time off (not from the board, just a certain role he often takes), like a DC superhero, and then that hypothetical might be answered? You could think of it as a vacation...

Only if you can promise that one of the people replacing him would be a leather jacketed teenage Haus-clone who goes by the name of Hausboy.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
15:28 / 12.07.06
Hmmm, this is only a suspicion, so DM can confirm or refute it if he wants.

But I certainly got the feeling from that thread that at first DM hadn't read the article because he was feeling lazy. But then a combination of feeling backed into a corner and being generally in a bad mood (which is no big deal to me, it happens to us all) meant that not reading the article was being used as an aggressive debating tactic.

Or, in other words, I feel there's a distinct possibility that the reason that DM was not only refusing to read the article, but doing so loudly, was because he was pissed off with Haus, and part of him felt this was a good way of winding Haus up.
 
 
electric monk
15:44 / 12.07.06
Yes, it did seem a point of pride for DM in a way. I got that impression as well. Rightly or wrongly.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:46 / 12.07.06
Rightly, clearly. I think it's also fair to say that it seemed as if DM refused to read the whole article because he had already made his mind up about this bell hooks woman, whoever she is, and what he had decided was that she was a whiney PC apologist for horrid gangsta rap and she blamed society for the criminals, thus letting them back on the street etc. etc.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:59 / 12.07.06
Haus, acting insulted and shocked, even for comedic effect, is not really helpful in the context of this thread. Perhaps you could consider stepping back please?
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
16:06 / 12.07.06
To clarify slightly, when I said "scarily harsh", I meant "scarily" as in "seeing that sort of treatment of people whose ideas are no more incoherent than, in my own estimation, my own ideas often are, leaves me too scared to post my own ideas on the same subjects for fear of the potential effect on my possibly-overly-sensitive emotions of me getting the same sort of treatment".

I have a tendency to automatically (possibly too automatically) put myself in the place of anyone who, it seems to me, is being attacked not so much for the actual content of their opinions but for their communication style (eg "tone" (which doesn't really exist in text anyway, and is often an artefact of the reader's perception rather than of the writer), spelling/punctuation, possible poor choices of words, etc), or for the breaking of some sort of "consensus"/"orthodoxy" (which i think all communities with a number of long-established and prolific contributors have, to some extent), and to want to spring to their defence, particularly when it seems to me that the things they are saying are actually reasonable, but seem to be getting jumped on based on assumptions of unreasonability* and a desire to pick out relatively small things (eg linguistic points) with which to eviscerate an entire worldview, which seemed to me to be what Bruno was getting in both of the above linked threads... thus, when reading those threads, I can't help but place myself in Bruno's or DM's shoes, and think of the effect the same response would/could have on me...

hope that makes things a bit clearer...

*is this a real word?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:07 / 12.07.06
Lady - I don't believe that I have "acted" insulted or shocked. Again, this is where I feel statements can be ever so useful, as they help to avoid a situation where you (or in this case, well, you) risk causing further irritation by claiming for your interlocutor motivations that are not actually there or theirs.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:16 / 12.07.06
Here? It's why I used the phrase 'for comedic effect'. 'I feel' of course...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:24 / 12.07.06
hope that makes things a bit clearer...

Hmm. Not massively, I'm afraid, because it's relying on us accepting your interpretation of what was going on as:

being attacked not so much for the actual content of their opinions but for their communication style (eg "tone" (which doesn't really exist in text anyway, and is often an artefact of the reader's perception rather than of the writer), spelling/punctuation, possible poor choices of words, etc), or for the breaking of some sort of "consensus"/"orthodoxy" (which i think all communities with a number of long-established and prolific contributors have, to some extent)

This, it strikes me, as one who did their best to try to engage with Bruno in a reasonably polite way - certainly a more polite way than he was engaging with his interlocutors, may be more about the reader's perception than the words employed by the writers. Again, I am unsure where, if anywhere, Bruno's spelling or punctuation were monstered.

However, I've got a bit of a problem trying to propose this. You see the disagreements with Bruno as, in shorthand, ad hominem. So, your idea of what might consitute ad hominem and that of others, including myself, might differ vastly. Further, you have said that being on the receiving end of what you perceive as an ad hominem response might make you suicidal. That makes it pretty hard to decide what it is wise or unwise to say.

Lady - well, I was neither shocked nor insulted, but I did find the assumptions FFF was making about my motivations and my personality offensive - along with yet another trot-out for the idea of dumping, the problems with which as an analysis of other people's motivations have already been covered, I think.
 
 
Ex
16:30 / 12.07.06
I've been holding off commenting on the thread involving bell hooks, because I wasn't sure that rehashing it would be of use here. However, I do want to pick up a thought from Natty Ra Jah - and this isn't intended as an attack on you, just an attempt to articulate some of my feelings:

a desire to pick out relatively small things (eg linguistic points) with which to eviscerate an entire worldview

I see what you mean, but I also feel that those posters who you see as having a less fluent 'communication style' are capable of absolutely eviscerating world views (and me as a reader) themselves, with their 'quite small things'. For example, Dead Megatron suggests that those discussing blame and gangsta rap say to one another "Wow, how very PC of yours". I point out that bell hooks is a black American woman from a working class background. She's not contructing these arguments to strive to be 'PC' - she's trying to make sense of the conditions of her life.

To which DM replies:

Seh certainly is. ANd the conclusion she arrives at is, of course, "It's not our fault. At all".

To me, that reads as an accusation that a writer I respect a fuckload has, 'of course' sided with - well, with what? She's not a rapper, she's not a man, so I can only think that when DM says 'our fault' he's referring to her race.
And anyone who's picking up on Haus being 'condescending' - I'm not arguing, but dudes - 'She certainly has'? 'of course'? 'At all.'? This is a post that sounds very certain of a Big Fact that I'm missing.

Haus' unpacking, unpicking or nitpicking on these points may be uncomfortable to watch, but I think in part that's because these posts are unpleasant packages. I have a lot of faith in DM's capacity to think things through. I hope that we can have more productive debates in future.

Sometimes people are unskilled at articulating themselves. Sometimes they talk cock. Often, there is an overlap - more often than is likely by chance, because often people who have had controversial conversations (twice, or several times) on an issue are quite likely to be both more able to articulate themselves and standing on firmer logical ground. It gives you practice. I can give you three different reasons 'Why Gay Pride has to happen' in five minutes while blindfold and legless.

It can be very uncomfortable to watch someone who doesn't express themselves well being held to account for comments that are dodgy, but I really don't think that that's an excuse not to do it.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:32 / 12.07.06
So Haus, much of the discussion around and about these sorts of issues oft seems to touch on your motivations. Your inner mind-ready feelings when you're ripping people to shreds.

Which assumptions when made by people, on occasion, you'll point out are incorrect.

Care to enlighten the discussion by letting the rest of the 'lith know how you feel about these discussions, and why you get into them?

I'm getting the impression you're becoming frustrated with the endless line-up of fools, but I could be wrong. Certainly be interested to know what you feel you're getting out of them.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:36 / 12.07.06
Well, actually, I was thinking of dropping off the face of for a bit to let the thing breathe a bit, but if you'd like... could I clarify what you mean by "these discussions", though? Do you mean discussions like this one (in Policy, about behaviour), or like those ones (not in Policy, about all sorts of things)?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:40 / 12.07.06
Oh, and I think language like "rip to shreds" is probably about as helpful as "eviscerate" - that is, not very.
 
 
*
16:43 / 12.07.06
Yeah, I'd particularly appreciate having my assumptions corrected— scathingly, if necessary. I've made a lot of them; they can't all be spot-on.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:53 / 12.07.06
Not the policy ones, but the ones about which this policy one is.

The ones where you're a lightning rod for aggravation as mentioned in the opening post, basically.

Do feel free to back out and leave breathing room, though. Far from being a demand.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
17:32 / 12.07.06
To be honest, I'm not sure why this thread should exist, any more than there should be a thread asking the community what they think of any other single contributor unless that person has contravened regulations or caused widespread offence.

Haus posts quite a lot, and often at length, so he is a significant presence on Barbelith ~ and his starting the thread complicates my point ~ but I think it's almost absurd that a person who's done nothing "wrong" except give a lot of time and energy to the governance, cajoling, encouraging and occasional scolding of an online community should feel obliged to face their critics, and stand in judgement, and effectively sit in the stocks.

Again, there's the factor that Haus has locked himself in the stocks here and is inviting the tomato-throwing, chucking a few missiles back and giving the impression that he's kind of enjoying the whole affair, but I think (to shift scenarios) the whole idea of a mini-forum where Aslan ties his own feet, shaves his own mane and chuckles while the trolls poke at him with spears is a little bit peculiar, and I don't know if anyone is really learning or growing from it.

Wasn't it Cassius who said: cui bono?
 
 
Spaniel
17:59 / 12.07.06
On the subject of deportment.

Triplets and Gridley, when you're enjoying people, is hot stinking breath and hard tonguing involved?

I hope so.
 
 
Quantum
18:05 / 12.07.06
Wait, Haus is a Welsh Aslan with headcrabs? Who knew.

More (ever so slightly more) seriously, I feel that it is a bit silly that people project this weird spelling-correcting newbie-bullying ogre persona onto Haus. As I said, lots of posters do all the things people are suggesting as problems, why does Haus get the flak? Beyond posting a lot I mean?
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:09 / 12.07.06
Hmmm, this is only a suspicion, so DM can confirm or refute it if he wants.

But I certainly got the feeling from that thread that at first DM hadn't read the article because he was feeling lazy. But then a combination of feeling backed into a corner and being generally in a bad mood (which is no big deal to me, it happens to us all) meant that not reading the article was being used as an aggressive debating tactic.

Or, in other words, I feel there's a distinct possibility that the reason that DM was not only refusing to read the article, but doing so loudly, was because he was pissed off with Haus, and part of him felt this was a good way of winding Haus up.


To my shame, your assessment is pretty much on the money. I was having a bad day then. I have no excuses for that.

I think it's also fair to say that it seemed as if DM refused to read the whole article because he had already made his mind up about this bell hooks woman, whoever she is, and what he had decided was that she was a whiney PC apologist for horrid gangsta rap and she blamed society for the criminals, thus letting them back on the street etc. etc.

It may seemed that way indeed, but the truth is I felt I didn't need to read the article not because I thought I wouldn't agree with it, but because I thought I already agreed with it in every aspect, except that one detail I was picking on, i.e. the apologism. Which, after actually reading the article, proved to be the case (I particularly agree with bel hooks' assessment of the way journalists like to see things burn and get disappointed when they don't). The whole article seemed to be only stating the obvious and not adding much to my - or anyone else's - point. Maybe because it's a 12 years old piece. As for bell hooks herself, having reading nothing from her but the article, I have no opinion on yet. But I look it up as soon as I have the time (I'm still struggling with an article about forms of autism in another Convo thread).

For example, Dead Megatron suggests that those discussing blame and gangsta rap say to one another "Wow, how very PC of yours". I point out that bell hooks is a black American woman from a working class background. She's not contructing these arguments to strive to be 'PC' - she's trying to make sense of the conditions of her life.

To which DM replies:

Seh certainly is. ANd the conclusion she arrives at is, of course, "It's not our fault. At all".

To me, that reads as an accusation that a writer I respect a fuckload has, 'of course' sided with - well, with what? She's not a rapper, she's not a man, so I can only think that when DM says 'our fault' he's referring to her race.
And anyone who's picking up on Haus being 'condescending' - I'm not arguing, but dudes - 'She certainly has'? 'of course'? 'At all.'? This is a post that sounds very certain of a Big Fact that I'm missing.


Yeah, that all was very badly worded, way too sarcastic, and quite confrontational. Again, bad day, no excuses...

Anyway, ex, thanks for the faith in me. And I hope confessing to all that doesn't get me banned.
 
 
Char Aina
18:30 / 12.07.06
dude is accurrate.

accuracy hurts more in a criticiism.

a person gets 'attacked' and feels shit.
they feel shittest about the stuff that is true, but they can only really whinge aboutd al the stuff that was said that wasnt.
haus makes folks feel most slighted, by being accurate, so they put all the energy into fighting that battle, bringing all of their other (irrelevant to haus) grievances with them when they do.

"i feel crap!" the dude thinks.
"haus was crap to me!" the dude thinks, remembering most vividly the face of he who delivered the most stinging(and often earliest, so most shocking to the worldview) 'attack'.
"i got called all sorts of evil shit!" the dude recalls, somwehat less vividly.
"some of that shit was totally over the line, whatever i said! the due asserts to hirself, quite probably accurately.

"i need to send some of that shit back to where it came from!" the dude thinks, possibly not consciously.

"huas and his kind are fucking out of line, man!" the dude opines, somewhat innacurately, conflating harder than an esperanto dictionary writer.

"why not show me where, exactly?" asks haus, fairly reasonably.
"oh COME ON!" the dude replies. "you totally know what i mean!" he adds.
"all that shit about X before!" the dude says, unable to provide examples of same, as the remembered words may not exist and are an amalgam of other posters' words, none of whom need be haus.


the reality is certainly more complicated, yeah.
there will likely be variations and additions, and a healthy dose of denial fuelling the process, but i reckon what i outline above might be, in some small way, a part of what makes the haus suit so much of a lightning rod.


i also agree with a lot said above me, by the way, so please feel free to ask if you think i am ignoring anything obvious.


thoughts?
 
 
Quantum
18:57 / 12.07.06
I feel that perhaps one factor is that Hauslan quite quickly picks up on posting style and mentions it, going meta-debate if you see what I mean. For example Poster X, do you think you could respond in a bit more depth? Thanks. Maybe some posters feel that's an attack on them somehow.
 
 
enrieb
19:37 / 12.07.06
My first impression of Haus was similar to Kim & mik, I felt that he came across as a bit of a bully and I took a dislike of the Haus style of posting and tone, especially towards DM, I messaged DM afterwards expressing concern about the argument in the Death thread and I was critical of Haus.

Seeing how things can get so out of hand on the board put me off posting, though I can understand why Haus at times gets so frustrated with DM. Since that time I have spent a most of my time reading Barbelith to understand why some posts cause such reactions, so that hopefully I can make my own posts come across in a more effective way.

During this timeout I have read a lot of threads, and many that involves haus and have shown me the huge contribution that he makes towards Barbelith, this has changed my opinion of Haus. I now see him as a very intelligent, funny and likeable fellow; this does not mean that I always approve of the style of posting.

We could all learn to be a little more careful in the way that we address others in here at times, remembering that there are people behind these words. It is important to hold people to account for the things that they post on here, but if their words are taken and given a different interpretation that then shows what they said can come across in a racist or misogynist way (when they state that this is not what they meant or intend) then they should be given the opportunity to withdraw or restate their opinion and intent.

Sometimes I feel that we are destroying threads in order to save them.

I would not like Haus to drastically change his overall posting style, just at times to realise that his use of humour and tone can sometimes come across in a counter productive way. If there is anything positive that Haus could take from this thread its that occasionally a slight adjustment of his tone could make him even more effective at getting his valuable points across to the people who most need to understand them.

I do not believe that Haus is a bully just as I do not believe DM is a racist or even a misogynist. I can see how it could be possible to misread haus as a bully, if you are new to the board and have never read any basic philosophy or learnt the tools of critical thinking. It can be a painful experience to find your assumptions not standing up to searching questions.

I expect that at times without Haus Barbelith could be more of a happy fool, but I think that without the examined life and insight that Haus gives the board it would be a less attractive and illuminating place.
 
 
foolish fat finger
20:15 / 12.07.06
Haus-

It’s up to you what you do with the feedback. If you don’t like honest feedback, don’t ask for it.

Your stance in this discussion suggests to me that you have no interest in changing your ways to make your stance less confrontational. It is my opinion that you posted this thread, not to become educated of people’s feelings, but just to kind of ‘show off’ in front of your friends here. It is basically an ego thread, in my opinion, with nothing to do with policy, and as such, belongs in ‘conversation’.

I am aware that attack of the clones is a star wars film. However, the jokey title for the thread is, in my opinion (or if you like I feel) not conducive to a supposedly serious thread in Policy, where you are inviting discussion with people who may have felt slighted by you in the past.

This, incidentally, is why it is often useful to use "I feel" statements - you have made a series of assumptions above, stated as facts, that are both inaccurate and indeed offensive.

no I haven’t. if you read it again, you will find that I have been very clear that it is mostly my opinion, which is exactly what you asked for on the first page. The only thing I claim to be fact is that you ‘dumped’ on Megatron, with your (in my opinion, incredibly patronising) 'dung-spattered village idiot' comment. I think that’s pretty indisputable, and I stand by it.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I have been very careful not to state my opinions as facts, as you claim I have.

It is having to correct this kind of sloppy inaccuracy that I find persistently annoying in discussions with you, and why I am confused as to why some members hold you up as being skilful with reasoning. It is a waste of everyone’s time.

As to quite what you are offended by, I really don’t have a clue. ‘these assumptions’ is a bit vague, a bit nebulous really for me to even consider apologising. What assumptions? I posted my opinions, and labelled them clearly.

So this is the second thread you have started about yourself? So what did you learn from the first one? I think that’s pretty ego-centric Haus. In a way, I take my hat of to your brazen Haus-centricity.

Hmmm, the first ‘burning down the haus’ thread is gone from the archives, but I see you have answered the question ‘what did you learn from b.d.t.h’ in a thread you started, where you interviewed yourself…(?!)

Hmmm....something I should probably have realised - that those most likely to end up on the receiving end of what for want of a better term could be called a Haus job are those least likely to be able to deal with it well

A haus-job?! like a hatchet job, maybe…?

my response to this, is that you have put the cart before the horse. In my opinion, the people who are least likely to be able to deal with it, are those who are most likely to be on the receiving end of, as you put it, a ‘Haus job’, namely vulnerable newbies, people who are formulating their opinions, or people posting a subtle point, which you can then easily mis-interpret and turn into a straw man argument. (link optional)

along with yet another trot-out for the idea of dumping,

what you did was dumping. If you don’t accept that insulting someone and refusing to apologise is dumping, then… there isn’t a lot I can say to you.

It’s quite something to ask someone to spend five minutes of their time reading something that you think is interesting or pertinent

No, dude, it really isn't.


Shouldn’t that be ‘I feel it isn’t’, according to your own rules? in which case fine, but I would tend to disagree with you. And I certainly don’t think hectoring people to read a link, which is what I felt you and flyboy were doing, is particularly productive.

Another general point I’d like to make is that, in my opinion and from my own observations, you do not allow for people changing their opinion during threads. In my opinion, you like to nail some posters to one position, so that you can knock it down. I think many people post here because they are interested in developing their ideas and being influenced. I believe that this is another reason why people can be frustrated when engaging in discussion with you. At times I have found this most annoying. Again, I post this because you asked for feedback.

I have never seen you ‘lose’ an argument. This to me suggests something is wrong here, because no-one is right all the time. I am curious as to what you really think, or who you really are, because you come across to me as strangely 2 dimensional.

I had a very casual friend who was a martial arts expert. He was quite aggressive. One day I saw him, and he’d just had a fight the night before. He won. He said to me “I have never lost a fight. It’s a gift I have, to never lose a fight”
And I wanted to say “one day you will lose, and on that day you will learn something” but I didn’t, cos I thought he might pop me one.

Take that as you will.

I actually find you quite fascinating, as I wonder what motivates your behaviour. It seems to me you are so fanatical about starting and then winning arguments, that you are prepared to spend huge amounts of your time doing it, and the fact that you have created this thread would seem to indicate that you are aware that you are doing this. So what puzzles me, is “why”? I mean, I would guess you do not learn anything from doing a 'haus-job' on someone. You also seem to be more interested in the argument than whatever the topic is, in my opinion. And I have also noticed that you don’t seem to like a discussion to be summarised or wrapped up, or changes implemented- you often, in my opinion, post obfuscating questions that continually muddy the issue.

It’s like this very thread; I doubt you will take anything that has been discussed on board, and in a few months we’ll have the ‘burning down the haus 3’ thread, and round we go again… and again… I can only speak for myself, but after a while, discussing the subject of haus, with haus, becomes boring.

Many posters seem to see you as some kind of star of barbelith. I don’t suscribe to this opinion. I find your arguments sometimes interesting but often flawed (straw man/ semantic pedantics) and confrontational, and I think you win arguments here just because you are more interested in arguing and trying to appear to be right than anyone else I have met here. I also think you use underhand tactics and are willing to stoop to insults if a discussion is not going your way, and indeed this is amply demonstrated at various points in this very thread. I don’t feel there is anything else I can learn from you, and I find what I would call your ‘constant bickering’ tiresome. I shall be ignoring your posts from now on.

If you wish me to read your reply, feel free to PM it to me, and I shall. Otherwise, farewell, and good luck. fff


PS this seems a good enough place to say that I have no idea what you are saying to me, flyboy, as you’ve been on ‘ignore’ for a couple of weeks now.

I don’t have anyone else on ignore, and have no plans to. In fact, you 2 are the only people I have ever chosen to ignore in 6 or 7 years of using the net. So I guess that is some kind of achievement on both your parts…

PPS- this is a haus post- just wanted to say that I read the other posts, and the points made in them were digested by me… wonderstar (miss), I particularly agreed with the third paragraph of your post.

PPPS- I have tried my best to keep the above post straight and snark free...
 
 
Ex
20:27 / 12.07.06
Thanks, Dead Megatron.
(Also, my habit of saying 'dude' - it's mainly meant as punctuation but I just noticed it may look a bit patronising...)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:30 / 12.07.06
PPPS- I have tried my best to keep the above post straight and snark free..

I think he failed. Hmmm. Quick opinion survey, before I duck out again: does anyone else see a distinct difference in the style of some of these responses? I'm finding myself responding in very different ways to different approaches, which is fun and instructive.
 
 
Char Aina
20:37 / 12.07.06
I am aware that attack of the clones is a star wars film. However, the jokey title for the thread is, in my opinion (or if you like I feel) not conducive to a supposedly serious thread in Policy, where you are inviting discussion with people who may have felt slighted by you in the past.


well, he's onto something there.
who was it said something about jokes not being immune from being examined? something about if you crack a joke and it suggests something ropey that you'd best be prepared to back that ropey shit as much as if you hadn't said it in jest?


the title as it is does suggest that you feel those attacking you are clones of each other in some way.


everyone has thought of a great pun and had to discard it because the statement it needed to be part of said something crap, i reckon.
deal with the statement you made or apologise for it, i reckon.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:39 / 12.07.06
Fair enough. I'm very sorry if people thought that I meant that they were in fact clones. Less so if I thought they were attacking me, if they were, but more so if they weren't. However, anyone using the words "semantic", "rhetoric" or "pedantic" actually _is_ a clone. Not that this isn't a clone-friendly space. We celebrate your cloniness. Just... try not to kill any Jedi, OK?

How's that, toksik?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:41 / 12.07.06
And I certainly don’t think hectoring people to read a link, which is what I felt you and flyboy were doing, is particularly productive.

Hang on just a jiminy moment? You honestly think that telling a person, who is criticising something that they haven't even read to read it is not a productive thing to do? Are you specifically addressing the moment when Flyboy said Right. Could you then refrain from offering an opinion of it? to DM or was it Haus saying Dead Megatron, please read the article.At least twice. Slowly. Frankly considering DM's brazen approach to the requests that he read Bell's piece and the complete lack of interest in informing himself on a subject that both of them care about I think they were quite polite.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:45 / 12.07.06
Funnily enough, Anna, that does rather dovetail with what I'm thinking of, but yes, that's about right - see here. FFF feels that five minutes of reading is not a reasonable expectation. Consider how little attention he devoted to The Haus of Questions thread, not actually understanding how the Barb-interviews worked despite it being hilariously obvious, and how he has failed to substantiate his other accusations, just as he did here. In my opinion. In another whiny bit of badly-researched "look at me"-ism. In my opinion. Or of course this comedy bit of point-missing. In my opinion. Bonus points for the use of "semantic" and "pedantic" this time around, though. He'd clearly read this thread attentively.

Interestingly, I am learning from this thread, but obviously some teachers are better than others.
 
 
Char Aina
20:50 / 12.07.06
...which is not to say i agree with all of what the foolish and fat fingered one says.

a thread you started, where you interviewed yourself…(?!)

dude, i know it's a lit to ask, yeah, but could you maybe read the thread you are talking about? perhaps even just the first post? how about the first two sentences?
one of them is only two words long, if that helps.

i reckon there is prolly some form of alanic irony at work there.

i only wish i could tie it more cleverly to my earlier point.

you know, for the drama.
i love the drama.
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 17

 
  
Add Your Reply