|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Dec 11, 2006 0:29:18 GMT
Here's a hint, Valerie: Instead of carrying yourself entirely on the strength of your PMS, why don't you try actually THINKING? It's not that hard, and you'll be able to come up with something a little more meaningful then "OMG this guy made a lame commenr LOL LOSER!" James, that was too much. PMSing? Try thinking? Geez.
|
|
|
Post by NumbuhInfinity on Dec 11, 2006 0:36:24 GMT
Yeah, that 'PMS' part made me cringe, too. :-\
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Veg on Dec 11, 2006 0:58:34 GMT
Yeah, that PMS comment was seriously harsh...
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Dec 11, 2006 1:21:24 GMT
Harsh? I can live with harsh. Harsh is fun. That ain't harsh. It's a comment an insecure, insensitive, idiotic twit might make. That's not a designation I hitherto thought applied to you, James. I'm still reluctant to apply it -- but only just.
A question presents itself: why is this discussion turning into one ad hominem after another? Or did someone declare a mud-slinging contest while I wasn't waching? If you have arguments let it rip -- even if it is harsh. If you don't have argumetns but only wish to spend time indulging in a playpen argument dressed in highbrow trappings -- don't, please. Life's too short.
How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 11, 2006 3:55:07 GMT
Of course it was harsh. That was the intention. Since page one, Valerie's entire arguement has consisted of demonizing anyone whose beliefs didn't conform to hers. She's never once articulated a civil reply. It was always, her opinion comes first and if you didn't agree with it, you were EVIL and BAD and HORRIBLE and WHATEVER OTHER DEROGATORY ADJECTIVES SHE COULD CAPITALIZE.
She's not the first person to behave like this, and last I remember, I had private conversations with several of you in which we agreed that this kind of behavior was a bad thing, seeing how it's given rise to several problem posters in the past (many of whom get away time and again with hackling up this forum). Some of our best members either have left or have considered leaving simply because of these people.
In light of that, I don't at all regret what I said to Valerie.
|
|
|
Post by valerie on Dec 11, 2006 4:17:55 GMT
Uh, yeah, hi. Everything I said? Was aimed at the article, which I still find ridiculous. It wasn't aimed at you. If I recall correctly it was you who started the mud-slinging in my direction because you didn't like that I was knocking this article. It's not like you wrote it, so I don't know why you got all butthurt about it in the first place. I didn't say anything about YOU.
Go ahead and act all high and mighty about it if you'd like. Unlike the author of this article, whatever petty insults you come at me about me "PMS-ing" or whatnot doesn't put a damper on my day. If anything, it gives me something to laugh about that you could get so worked up about something you didn't even write enough to insult me.
|
|
|
Post by diala on Dec 11, 2006 4:34:37 GMT
She's not the first person to behave like this, and last I remember, I had private conversations with several of you in which we agreed that this kind of behavior was a bad thing, seeing how it's given rise to several problem posters in the past (many of whom get away time and again with hackling up this forum). Some of our best members either have left or have considered leaving simply because of these people. Um, yeah. Please name these "problem posters," if you would so mind. And if it is such an issue, why haven't I heard many complaints about it? I thought 0xFF said that we were going to quit with the mudslinging.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 11, 2006 7:16:15 GMT
If I recall correctly it was you who started the mud-slinging in my direction You do not recall correctly. Here is your first post in this topic: "It turns out humans are social animals after all. And that ability to suffer fools, to tolerate annoyance, that's literally the one single thing that makes you a human being, that allows you to function in a world populated by other people who aren't you. Otherwise, you turn into a goth. Science has proven it." Really? Everyone that isn't social turns into a goth? Huh. If science has proven it, why isn't this person citing the research? Because it's bogus and part of his emo rant. "I didn't speak to him for six months. He sent me a letter, I mailed it back, unread, with a dead rat packed inside." Wait, who's supposed to be the goth here? Just because he misinterpreted three words? Haha, what a loser. "What's startling for me is realizing more than half of my "friends" are online-only. I've never talked to them on the phone or in person. So, if 40% of my personality has gotten lost in the text transition, do these people even know me?" That's your fault, loser, for not getting your lazy butt off the internet and MAKING friends. "Text = Less Communication" Oh dear GOD, do I even want to touch this section with a ten foot pole? Hi, the Communications major here. Let me tell you something. If you think text is less communication, it's because YOU are a bad communicator. Either that, or you just know some really bad communicators yourself. This guy keeps talking about the good old days. Uh, is he forgetting that a lot of correspondence was through letters? There was no other way of talking to your friends or relatives a long ways from you. Text is not less communication. It all depends on your communication skills (or lackthereof). Nothing to do with text communication itself. "It's seven percent. The other 93% is nonverbal, according to studies. No, I don't know exactly how they arrived at that number. They have a machine or something. But we didn't need it, I mean, come on. Most of our humor is sarcasm, and sarcasm is just mismatching the words with the tone. "No, thank you." The joke is all in the non-verbal." I'll agree with the nonverbal bit, but seriously. You're trying to establish credibility with the reader, are you not? Don't bring up a statistic you know nothing about. "Used machines"? Who the hell are you and why are you trying to sound smart. "In my time running a website, I've been called "fag" approximately 104,165 times. I keep an Excel spreadsheet." AHAHA, LOSER. You've already lost my respect, but now you're just making it sad. "There effectively is no "mass media" any more so, whereas before we disagreed because we saw the same news and interpreted it differently, now we disagree because we're seeing completely different freaking news." This guy's pissing me off now. He doesn't even know what "mass media" is. (I bet all he knows is they use machines.) "This is why office jobs make so many of us miserable; you don't get to see the fruit of your labor." Welcome to the real world, emo goth boy. James, I'm actually ashamed of you today. You always think things out so analytically and thoughtfully. So HOW did you not see how utterly RIDICULOUS and BIASED this is? It's an emo rant, that's all it is. It's one person's sad perception of how he sees the world. The 21st century is only making this person sad and deressed and miserable. Nothing he states holds any validity at all. He can't even quote or cite any of his "statistics" or scientifically proven facts. (God, THAT was a laugh.) What a joke. Here is your second. Note that this is BEFORE I posted a response: Also I call major BS on some of his statistical claims. 93% info is non-verbal? I...REALLY doubt that. It may provide a richness of context but without the actual WORDS it is meaningless. Furthermore, all problems with the lack of noverbal cues in written communication can be solved by simply endavouring to write better. EXACTLY. I already tossed out any statistics he mentioned after the "they used machines" line (seriously, who IS this guy?). While I do agree that nonverbal communication is important to have, I'm pretty sure it doesn't make up 93%. I should check my textbook on that one. You can have meaning in written communication. You just have to know how to communicate. Here is your third, again this is before I responded. Besides, my skimming would've been easier described as "reading the first parts of the article, then becoming bored with the logic and just passing over the rest." Wait. There was logic in this article? Wow, must have gotten lost in all the WANGSTING about how he has no friends and how many times he's called a fag. Now, finally, here is my response to you: Valerie, if he's a "loser" for mistaking "No, thank you" for an offensive remark, then what does that make you? His friend saying "No, thank you" was at least someone he and other acquaintances had known, someone who was known to use "No, thank you" in a particularly deriding way. His mistake is understandible. You, on the other hand, have read precisely one article by this guy, nothing else, you don't even know his freaking NAME, and yet you're trying to convince us that he's some sort of emo mad-at-the-world goth. Your conclusion is based entirely on that you didn't like this article. That is not reasonable by any means. Many of the statements he made in the article were sarcasm. Obviously, he didn't really send a dead rat to his friend. Obviously, science hasn't proven lonely people become goths. Obviously, the UCLA didn't use a machine to arrive at a 93% statistic. Frankly, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that these statements were meant to be taken literally. However, sarcasm like any form of humor exists to make a point, which he does and in my opinion, does well. And those statistics you dismiss so readily? He didn't invent those. In fact, I did Google searches for most of the claims he made, and actually got results (in your defense, I saw an article debunking the "93% of communication is non-verbal" claim, but saw nothing to counter his other statistical claims). I had actually read about some of these studies well before seeing this article. Frankly, the statistics were around before this article reported them. I find it rather disconcerting that you not only had such a huge knee-jerk reaction, but feel compelled to keep piping in with random "That guy's an emo freak" comments. Excuse my presumptuousness, but that reaction gives me the impression that something in the article was just a little too close to home for you. To which you responded: Many of the statements he made in the article were sarcasm. Obviously, he didn't really send a dead rat to his friend. Obviously, science hasn't proven lonely people become goths. Obviously, the UCLA didn't use a machine to arrive at a 93% statistic. Frankly, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that these statements were meant to be taken literally. However, sarcasm like any form of humor exists to make a point, which he does and in my opinion, does well. Sorry, James, but in the real world where the rest of us live, sarcasm doesn't do squat to prove a point. If you're going to make a theory, you need to back it up with something other than personal experiences, sarcastic remarks, flawed statistics, and a CLEARLY biased attitude toward the Internet and communication. You need solid facts and stats you can actually cite. You can't run around saying "OMG THE NETS ARE BAD" simply because you've had bad experiences. Everyone's experiences are different. Also, my dear, the only thing that hit close to home was his skewed view on communication, as that's what I'm studying and know that a lot of what he's saying is a crock. Everyone else sees it for what it is: emo wangsting. How do YOU NOT see it? D: To which I responded: If you're going to make a theory, you need to back it up with something other than personal experiences, sarcastic remarks, flawed statistics, and a CLEARLY biased attitude toward the Internet and communication. You need solid facts and stats you can actually cite. He did. Not only that, but I found independent verification for those stats in a Google search (in your defense, one of those pages said the "93% of communication is non-verbal" belief was rubbish). Here's the search results: Social IsolationMuch of what you say in E-Mail is misunderstood93% of Communication is Non-VerbalIf anyone is biased, it's you. Then why don't you cite some counter-examples instead of just saying "OMG he's a psycho emo loser?" Let's face it: While we don't all agree with his statements, he does have a huge basis for them. You, on the other hand, have nothing but petty insults against a guy whose points you can't disprove. Oh yeah, "everyone agrees with me, so I must be right!" THAT'S an objective, rational arguement all right. What was that you said about living in the "real world?" Because I just looked over this topic, and you're the only one who thinks the article is "Emo wangsting." You're also the only person in this topic who has insulted the author. Oh sure, there are people who disagree with the article, but disagreeing with it and seeing it as emo wangsting are not the same thing. Secondly, even if everyone DID agree with you, there's no way I'm going to side with someone whose entire counter-arguement consists of "He says things that speak against my preferred lifestyle so I'm going to insult him and call him names." To which you said: Y'know, before I step away from this ridiculous argument (because it's clear you're FOR the article and no one is going to stand in your way) I have to wonder, dear James, if this article hits close to home for YOU. You're defending it so much. Guess you can relate to it a lot. :/ Anyway, backing away before I say things I really shouldn't, because hell if you haven't tested my patience enough. Looking at those responses now, having given my head time to clear, I can see how comments like "If he's a loser, what does that make you?" can be demeaning[1] and maybe a little inflammatory. And yeah, I lost my head a bit by my second response. But considering I was under fire from both you and Diala, simply because I was explaining logical errors you both made that could've easily corrected that would not have required you to change your opinions, I think my frustration is pretty understandible. As for why I'm so hades-bent on defending the article--I'm not. In fact, I never said one word in defense of the article. What I did do, was point out flaws in your critique. Just because someone doesn't agree with everything you say, doesn't necessarily mean they're siding with the other guy. [1] That wasn't the intention. What I was actually getting at, was that you were criticizing the author for mistaking "No, thank you" for an offensive remark, when you yourself were actually making many very similar mistakes. No, this is not an attempt to sling mud--just a statement of fact.
|
|
|
Post by valerie on Dec 11, 2006 7:24:49 GMT
It wasn't so much the fact that he misunderstood "No, thank you" than it was "Why didn't this guy ask for clarification?" Even if he didn't send a dead rat in the mail (which was a horrible attempt at sarcasm, btw) the fact that he became so upset without asking the guy what he meant was ridiculous.
Also, you picked one insult out of several that you made. While I suppose you've clarified one, there's still the others that are there. I won't go around using the quote option, as you should know where they are.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 11, 2006 8:24:59 GMT
It wasn't so much the fact that he misunderstood "No, thank you" than it was "Why didn't this guy ask for clarification?" Even if he didn't send a dead rat in the mail (which was a horrible attempt at sarcasm, btw) the fact that he became so upset without asking the guy what he meant was ridiculous. He was in a bad mood due to other circumstances, and his friend was known to use it demeaningly. It's human nature--people let emotions cloud their judgement. David Wong would not be the first person who has gotten angry with a friend over a miscommunication, nor would he be the first who, in the heat of anger, didn't bother to ask for clarification. Neither of us would've responded any differently than Wong did[1]. Anyone who has followed this topic so far can see that. [1] Well, except for the dead rat part.
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Dec 11, 2006 12:49:32 GMT
All right, all right, all right!!!
I say we put and end to this and NOW.
Why? Because the argument is basically over. Most of us agree that this article was a pitiful attempt at sarcasm.
The writer was the only one who was attacked, and that was for his lousy sense of humor. Now, he's never going to see what was posted here, so who is getting hurt? Absolutely no one.
Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 11, 2006 14:41:32 GMT
Whoa whoa whoa!!! What's the angry outburst about? Me and Valerie were finally starting to get along!
|
|
|
Post by iguana on Dec 11, 2006 15:18:59 GMT
the argument is basically over. Exactly. Even if his sarcasm might be really unfunny to some of you, the rest of the article still made sense.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Dec 11, 2006 15:48:32 GMT
Sense as in it was intelligible Emglish text, yes. Sense as in 'right', well by my estimates, not so much. I still hold it is a pointless, poorly argued attempt at a pseudo-intellectual inconoclasm. It mixes its semi-humorous hyperbole with it's serious (?) points and conjures statistics and premises seemingly out of thin air. Methodology aside, I also strongly disagree with the article's conclusion -- I have a completely different view of the internet and, indeed, of human nature.
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Dec 11, 2006 16:11:39 GMT
Whoa whoa whoa!!! What's the angry outburst about? Me and Valerie were finally starting to get along! I noticed that. Since you two settled your differences, I say we end this by letting it die. Not locking it...doing the opposite.
|
|