Shrillomn, a brief expose

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

This is amazing.

Here we are in a thread that I believe began as a parody by someone who refuses to identify themself; and it has progressed into a pissing match about karma and he said / she said jabs by some of the more respected people on this site.

Is anybody else seeing the irony in all of this?

This thread is located in the General BS section for a reason - it is not real.
It doesn't belong on the BOI and the only purpose that it serves is that of entertainment value.
I think everyone needs to step back and remember what's important.

From it's inception it's been entertaining.

In fact, I am chuckling now, as I type because it is so very entertaining.

So many knickers knotted, plots exposed or supposed, motives questioned and mores assailed.

Anyone who hasn't been entirely amused throughout needs a humor chip update.

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

I think everyone needs to step back and remember what's important.

Wise words, Mike. (As usual).

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

This is amazing.

Here we are in a thread that I believe began as a parody by someone who refuses to identify themself; and it has progressed into a pissing match about karma and he said / she said jabs by some of the more respected people on this site.

Is anybody else seeing the irony in all of this?

This thread is located in the General BS section for a reason - it is not real.
It doesn't belong on the BOI and the only purpose that it serves is that of entertainment value.
I think everyone needs to step back and remember what's important.

Yet, as is human nature, the debate may well continue, and individuals reveal more of what is the essence of their character, perhaps as Rich expected when he relaxed the rules. Entertainment, waste of time or ridiculous, I'm OK with it as it all reveals a little of who we all are. In that way, it complements the BOI.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Some folks just can't get past their personal issues with others, and let it affect they way they post even on threads that have nothing to do with the issues in question....dragging those posts so far off topic it's shameful.

I'm not going to waste a post saying that I agree... without expanding on the idea.

I'd tend to say that the way people harbor grudges is a behavior inherent in all of us, it's an offshoot of how we learn and alter our behavior on the most basic levels; just translated through to concepts that aren't as concrete as a little kid putting their hand on a stove. Add some ego, conceit and a desire to be right and it can get pretty unpleasant.

Comes down to pattern recognition though. If interaction with ____ is a negative experience enough times in a row, the response to any interaction grows stronger and quicker each time. People, as rational, self aware organisms should be able to overcome those learned responses... and thus control their behavior... but it's not always easy.

Hell, in the last week I have typed out (and subsequently deleted without posting) a good half dozen responses to people I thought were being idiots because I reccognized that I was predisposed to get into a brawl with a couple people and that the end result would never be their sitting down and admitting that I am right about whatever the point of contention was- and that there's appropriate places and times to have an argument for the sake of expressing a viewpoint to undecided individuals... and there are times and places where it's just going to result in an even bigger explosion next time as the bad blood grows.

Appropriateness is a matter of perspective though. To cite a specific example- recently Lucille wrote a post on an innocent thread about member sponsered forums where she suggested being able to vote members into temporary suspension. Or pay for it, or... something. I disagreed with the idea behind it for a half dozen logical reasons but when I typed out my response, because Lucille and i have gone a few rounds in the past, I found that I had written a post that didn't really disagree with or attack her *idea* but one that had attacked her on a personal level. So I closed the browser window because, as much as I dislike her and disagreed with her idea, the strength of the response was not appropriate to the strength of the infraction. I felt that it would lead to nothing good and chose not to respond. Wes (who I have agreed with and disagreed with any every possible range inbetween the two on various issues and approaches) decided it was worth writing a post, again with similar antagonistic history between them, because he felt the idea was bad enough to warrant comment. Perspective; I decided Lucille writing a post wasn't enough to start a rumble over- my actions may have been different if it were taken seriously as a legitimate suggestion by the site staff, then I'd come forth with arguments against it- others saw it as being more important than I did.

When you start adding a history of long standing disagreements to any new disagreements, it can quickly spiral out of control since both sides will percieve any slight as an attack, intended or not. Anyone prone to debate and argument probably has their own list of people who they find themselves tangling with on a regular enough basis to provoke that stronger kind of angry response... some of us certainly have longer lists than others. Telling people to seperate the poster from the post isn't really a valid solution either, since there's a reason why those resentments build and without the memory of past interactions, everyone would still be buying hets from Jesse Underhill. Suggesting that people are at least aware of those grudges and bigger anger are present in a discussion and then making a decision to proceed or stifle from there might be a more workable concept.

I... can't edit... Got interrupted a few times while writing the above and there are a number of very odd syntax and tense errors. Please try to overlook them, if anything needs clarification, I'll do my best.

Your post made perfect sense to me Seamus..thank you.

Seamus,
I don't think it requires any clarification at all.
Very insightful post.

Originally Posted by lucille

Mike: I can understand what you are saying.

You and I have talked before, and gotten along. This here post was civil and to the point, and while we may indeed have different opinions, I think the way to go about voicing them is the way you did so here.

If we can talk together, we may in fact find there is common ground and a way towards achieving that ground.

My post was not aimed at you personally, Lucille. Although I can see how you would have taken it that way. I guess I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It just happened to be your post that set me off this morning. Next time I'll just go back to bed........

This entire thread is just ridiculous. I didn't intentionally mean to spin this thread off topic but what the heck, this thread at it's core is off topic. You can't respect or give credit to the words of someone with no name.

I got my warning point for cussing and will wear it proudly.

Seamus,
Good words. I would also suggest that many here familiarize themselves with the experience frequently enough, to include the pains of deleting what might have taken a decent effort to create, and be a masterpiece except that it fails for the reasons you mention. I have heaved many over the railing. As for many of the peeing contests being just continuations of feuds, even the one-sided kinds, who here was truly surprised at Wes' retort to the rather innocent post by Lucille, which she linked ? Hell, many of us expect it, as it seems it has always been that way.

As tiresome as the feuds are, I would suggest that the behavior cited in this thread is often not the product of some lingering grudge or ongoing feud. It shows up out-of-the-blue on a regular basis, against folks where there had been no prior exchange, and for which the majority of readers see no logical or mature rationale. It litters Fauna on any given week. In many cases, its signed by ____ ?

Some do not think this thread has merit, while a few of us see a continuation of the same arguments as were discussed in the "wild wild west" thread in the Feedback Forum, which had merit IMO. And as pointed out, this is the "BS Forum". Appropriate or not as a place to skirmish, I recollect that Gettysburg was a town with a shoe store, and a detachment of Rebels only wanted to ride in and take some shoes. Just wasteful historical speculation, but if not for them shoes, we'd be visiting the battlefields of Harrisburg, and that is only the first in along line of alternatives.

In the end, whether it be guided by some of the opinions in the "wild wild west" thread, or a few here, a modicum of folks would probably just hope that a few more posts go to the Twilight Zone after the spell check .

Originally Posted by lucille

Wes, take some responsibility here. If you feel your own words cast you in a negative light, perhaps you should not have said them.

Wise words... and if one realizes too late that one should not have said them, there's always the option to "quietly, without comment, delete the posts."