"Don't argue with me!"

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:29 pm

Why do people put stuff in public livejournals and then tell anyone who disagrees with them to leave? If you just want to get your circle of friends to slap you on the back and agree with your opinions, they have friends only posting for that.

I have two more topics spawned from http://gmskarka.livejournal.com/ but I've been politely asked to stop posting there despite what I feel was my complete lack of aggressiveness or other attitude. I'll respect his wishes, but I'm shaking my head at them.

This topic is dedicated to the expression of ideas in the public realm. How much privacy do you expect when you're talking with your friends, online or IRL? Is there a difference?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:43 pm

If I truly am not interested in public commentary I make my entries private. If I am also interested in ensuring no one can know I posted, I edit an old private entry that way no one can see it on the info page that I updated.

Other than that I don't expect any real serious privacy in my public journal.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:54 pm

Well, for starters, anything posted on the web is public, really. Security systems like LJ's friendslocking help, but they're no guarantee that your information will remain where you want it to stay.

Secondly, the issue of "agree with me or go away"? Well, I think it's fairly ridiculous to post issues of *substance* and expect nothing but agreement, even in friends-locked entries. Friends are not supposed to be yes-men; you have to hire people for that. Friends are supposed to tell you when you're wrong, or misinformed, or simply have your head up your ass.

I've seen a spate of this sort of crap on LJ over the last couple of years - Person A posts a topic for discussion, Person B gives their opinion, Person A defriends Person B. I can think of two examples right off the top of my head, and I know there have been others. These were not cases of abuse or vitriol, simply civil discussions.

It's just ridiculous, I think. Don't post something - in any environment - and then cut off contact with anyone who disagrees with you, especially not if you've asked for reader input in your original post. It's rude, and it makes you look a) closed-minded and b) foolish.

jo_alex · Post by **jo_alex** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:07 pm

It's really childish to post something online and then expect only pats on your back for it.

I always take into account that anyone can read my livejournal - people I know as well as virtual strangers. If I post about something I obviously don't expect it to be kept a secret.

Is there a difference between talking to your friends online or IRL: I don't think so. If you mention that something is supposed to stay confidential it doesn't matter whether you say it out loud or write it down, your friends should keep it a secret either way. That's something I'm really strict about: respecting the privacy of others. And I expect other people to do the same in my case.

Oh yeah, there is one exception to it: BF. I'm of the opinion that you can tell your BF what your friends told you in secret. Unless requested otherwise in advance.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:09 pm

By the way, I wasn't calling for some kind of board hit on his LJ. I linked to give my post context.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:11 pm

jo_alex wrote:Oh yeah, there is one exception to it: BF. I'm of the opinion that you can tell your BF what your friends told you in secret. Unless requested otherwise in advance.

Hmm. I think that should depend on the closeness of the relationship. Five-year live-in boyfriend? Maybe. Maybe not. Four-week relationship with a guy from some of your classes? Not so much.

jo_alex · Post by **jo_alex** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:15 pm

Jestyr wrote:
jo_alex wrote:Oh yeah, there is one exception to it: BF. I'm of the opinion that you can tell your BF what your friends told you in secret. Unless requested otherwise in advance.
Hmm. I think that should depend on the closeness of the relationship. Five-year live-in boyfriend? Maybe. Maybe not. Four-week relationship with a guy from some of your classes? Not so much.

Yeah, I use the word BF when I mean a close relationship, someone I trust and care for. Not just a guy I'm dating.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:20 pm

jo_alex wrote:It's really childish to post something online and then expect only pats on your back for it.

I always take into account that anyone can read my livejournal - people I know as well as virtual strangers. If I post about something I obviously don't expect it to be kept a secret.

Is there a difference between talking to your friends online or IRL: I don't think so. If you mention that something is supposed to stay confidential it doesn't matter whether you say it out loud or write it down, your friends should keep it a secret either way. That's something I'm really strict about: respecting the privacy of others. And I expect other people to do the same in my case.

Oh yeah, there is one exception to it: BF. I'm of the opinion that you can tell your BF what your friends told you in secret. Unless requested otherwise in advance.

The real life analog to LJ, to me, would be having a discussion in a bar or other public social setting. Would you consider it a major breach of ettiquette for someone to overhear your discussion on topic X, and jump in? Assume that there's an "excuse me, did you just say _____" or equivalent involved.

jo_alex · Post by **jo_alex** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:28 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:The real life analog to LJ, to me, would be having a discussion in a bar or other public social setting. Would you consider it a major breach of ettiquette for someone to overhear your discussion on topic X, and jump in? Assume that there's an "excuse me, did you just say _____" or equivalent involved.

No, I don't think I would have considered it a major breach of ettiquette. Especially in case if someone would have knowledge on the topic being discussed, I would welcome such interruption. Then again, if I wasn't interested in your opinion on the given subject, I'd tell you this is a private conversation and ask you to mind your business. Just as I would ignore your entry on my LJ in that case. Only in case you wouldn't want to let go, I'd get annoyed.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:37 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:The real life analog to LJ, to me, would be having a discussion in a bar or other public social setting. Would you consider it a major breach of ettiquette for someone to overhear your discussion on topic X, and jump in? Assume that there's an "excuse me, did you just say _____" or equivalent involved.

Well, I don't consider public posting on LJ (or equivalent social sites, including forums) to be quite as 'personal' as a discussion with a bunch of friends in a public setting. I would consider it something of a breach in etiquette for a stranger to dive into the middle of a RL discussion, unless there were mitigating circumstances. I don't feel the same way about any posting on the internet. To me, LiveJournal is basically just a blogging service, and it's almost *expected* when you write blog entries that strangers can and will comment. Hell, with blogging proper, that's pretty much the aim of the exercise.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:10 pm

Jestyr wrote:Well, for starters, anything posted on the web is public, really. Security systems like LJ's friendslocking help, but they're no guarantee that your information will remain where you want it to stay.

What she said!

Secondly, the issue of "agree with me or go away"? Well, I think it's fairly ridiculous to post issues of *substance* and expect nothing but agreement, even in friends-locked entries.

What she said!

Friends are not supposed to be yes-men; you have to hire people for that. Friends are supposed to tell you when you're wrong, or misinformed, or simply have your head up your ass.

Okay that's it. Jestyr is my spokesperson for the day!

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:42 pm

I agree that once you post it online, you have no grounds to bitch about how someone replies to it. However, I do offer one simple course of action for those people who insist upon writing and only receiving praise:
Screen comments. Delete the comments you don't like. Then you never have to read them again, and nobody else gets to. Allow the ones you do like. Granted, it slants your journal and makes people think that everyone loves you, but at least you get your wish. It's that or turn off comments. Then nobody has a say.

If it's online, it's no longer a secret. Deal with it.

Moto42 · Post by **Moto42** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:31 pm

Who would've thunk it? It seems that everyone is SST agrees that debate and listening to dissenting opinions are a good thing.

Posting something in an online forum, or anything that allows for discussion of a topic (such as LJ comments) and then kicking out/editing away/sending pissy emails to anyone that has an opinion that isn't yours is self-deluding bullshit.

WillyGilligan wrote:The real life analog to LJ, to me, would be having a discussion in a bar or other public social setting. Would you consider it a major breach of etiquette for someone to overhear your discussion on topic X, and jump in? Assume that there's an "excuse me, did you just say _____" or equivalent involved.

I think the same would go for talking about someone (Or a group of people) when he or one of them can hear you from nearby.
Case in point. The security guards tend to get used as a buffer between the CompanyCo management and the HaulinCo truckers that drive trucks for CompanyCo whenever the CompanyCo managers have made a decision that would be unpopular among the HaulinCo drivers.
So the order come down from on high that all HaulinCo drivers who's duties include entering the plant, must wear long-pants, and security is tasked with delivering the news. (Long pants are considered safety equipment.)
So last night I'm sitting in the security office at the back-gate while, in a nearby room, one driver is complaining to the other about how "Security doesn't tell us what to wear, that's not their job and they have no authority too. I don't know where they get off tellin' us how to do our jobs and..."
At which point I piped up with "We don't have any authority to change your dress-code. But, we are frequently used by CompanyCo to relay any news that would be annoying, irritating or just plain stupid to you guys, to make it harder to find out where the order originaly came from."
The response being "Shut that damn door" creeeeeek, whump.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:45 pm

Jestyr wrote:<snip>
I've seen a spate of this sort of crap on LJ over the last couple of years - Person A posts a topic for discussion, Person B gives their opinion, Person A defriends Person B. I can think of two examples right off the top of my head, and I know there have been others. These were not cases of abuse or vitriol, simply civil discussions.

It's just ridiculous, I think. Don't post something - in any environment - and then cut off contact with anyone who disagrees with you, especially not if you've asked for reader input in your original post. It's rude, and it makes you look a) closed-minded and b) foolish.

That's true.
Devil's Advocate here...
There are also some folks who never have anything to say unless it's contradictory. We've all seen them. They never comment on anything unless it's to square off on you. Even if it's not even a discussion but simply saying how their day was, or explaining a good experience...amnd someone just HAS to come on and rain on your parade.

I understand when it's a discussion and all. Yes-men are worthless. Dissenting opinions are fine, but they have value when it's not the ONLY thing you do.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:10 pm

Ampere wrote:There are also some folks who never have anything to say unless it's contradictory. We've all seen them. They never comment on anything unless it's to square off on you. Even if it's not even a discussion but simply saying how their day was, or explaining a good experience...amnd someone just HAS to come on and rain on your parade.

That sort of thing can indeed be tiring. On a personal note, I'm thankful I don't have to interact with them - I get plenty of checks and "hey, what?"s when I'm being a doofus, as one would expect from one's friends, but no-one with whom I interact is that consistently negative or argumentative.

I understand when it's a discussion and all. Yes-men are worthless. Dissenting opinions are fine, but they have value when it's not the ONLY thing you do.

That depends on how you're defining their "value". I would imagine that even someone who's constantly negative or critical could teach me something or help broaden my views, in discussions where they were more right than I was.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:39 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:Why do people put stuff in public livejournals and then tell anyone who disagrees with them to leave? If you just want to get your circle of friends to slap you on the back and agree with your opinions, they have friends only posting for that.

The way LiveJournal breeds platitudes bothers me a great deal; I go out of my way to not post them. I'd much rather have silence than platitudes, and I'd much rather have a discussion than either. If I argue, I care.

I do screen comments on public entries, which I understand can be annoying, but after a charming little neo-nazi tried to worm his way into my life and my peer group, I thought it was prudent.

Moto42 · Post by **Moto42** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:51 pm

Then there are people like, your friend and mine, Jack Thompson who show up on boards to hurl insults, threats and slander at anyone they disagree with.
The man has earned multiple Flaming IP Banhammers across the internet and he is not unique in this regard.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Sun May 06, 2007 4:00 am

Jestyr wrote:That depends on how you're defining their "value". I would imagine that even someone who's constantly negative or critical could teach me something or help broaden my views, in discussions where they were more right than I was.

I place more value on someone who says both the good and the bad. If it's just one or the other they are simply yes-men or nay-sayers in a way.

If someone is simply going to be negative every time they post, and they really don't contribute anything else, it doesn't really matter what is said or done, they'll always simply disagree and I don't need the headache.

I don't mind when folks disagree with me. It's cool to get a different perspective. If person A is only going to object to everything I say, then really, I might as well ignore them and assume they disagree. "Yeah...I know...you disagree". If it's sometimes an agreement, sometimes not, I'm much more likely to listen because I figure they are actually thinking instead of simply trying to be antagonistic (which is what I figure some folks are doing after a history/ pattern of doing nothing else).

There are enough folks around to listen to without having to deal with griefers and trolls who have nothing better to do than argue just to argue.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun May 06, 2007 4:18 am

Ampere wrote:There are enough folks around to listen to without having to deal with griefers and trolls who have nothing better to do than argue just to argue.

So why make it a publicly available discussion? Frankly if I'm not interested in your dissent, the "your" in this case being anyone not just you, then I'll either A. Not say anything, or B. Say something in private, where we don't have the option of making it a discussion.

Live Journal is only public if you, the user, make it that way. Same with Blogs and Bulletin Boards.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Sun May 06, 2007 4:33 am

True enough. Sometimes posts are...posted and by default it's either public or Friends Only and open for comment. Doesn't necissarily mean I'm asking for commentary, just didn't click it to make comments not available. I can always go back and change that.

I've had a number of folks chime in about things for apparently no other reason than to argue. One such case was that I had a great customer service experience and wanted to comment saying "Hey I had a good experience". Of course the person in question just HAD to chime in about the evils of this company and their crappy service to the known world and how he'll never buy from them, blablabla. I'm sitting there...dude, whoa, jump back. Sorry you had a shitty experience and hate the company, but I just had a great one, and really didn't ask for someone to come rain on my parade. I had a great customer experience, period. It's not open to debate. This dude had a tendancy to often chime in, saying only negative shit. Never had a good thing to say. I ignored it for a while, and eventually de-friended the dude.

Actually, my FL is pretty malleable. I've taken several folks off when they talk about stuff I don't want to hear about at the time (spoilers, slash-fic, whatever). Doesn't necissarily mean I don't like them, or that I don't read their journal on occasion, just that I don't want to see most of it or I'm not interested in most of it. My interests change often too, so does my FL. Go figger.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Sun May 06, 2007 4:37 am

Adam wrote: I do screen comments on public entries, which I understand can be annoying, but after a charming little neo-nazi tried to worm his way into my life and my peer group, I thought it was prudent.

Whoa, never knew that. Makes sense to me now. I figure that's a damn fine reason to screen comments. I never understood why folks did that...well...shit...now I do.

crone · Post by **crone** » Sun May 06, 2007 9:38 am

I don't think that everyone who posts to Livejournal has the atitude that it's a public space, and it's open slather on anything they say. Some people might want to communicate with friends, and maybe not all their friends have LJs, or don't always log in. Or the primary audience is their friends, but they don't mind a bit of friendly comment from passing strangers. It doesn't necessarily mean they are up for a major debate.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun May 06, 2007 1:02 pm

Ampere wrote:I place more value on someone who says both the good and the bad.

Wait - are you saying that the consistently negative or positive people have _less_ value, or *no* value? Your previous post suggested the latter, now you're suggesting the former.

Just because they're always negative doesn't mean they're always wrong, or that you can't learn from them anyway.

crone wrote:I don't think that everyone who posts to Livejournal has the atitude that it's a public space, and it's open slather on anything they say. Some people might want to communicate with friends, and maybe not all their friends have LJs, or don't always log in. Or the primary audience is their friends, but they don't mind a bit of friendly comment from passing strangers. It doesn't necessarily mean they are up for a major debate.

This is true, but that doesn't mean they're _right_. Whether or not you expect people to see your LJ/blog/website does not change the fact that it _is_ public, and completely so.

Thinking otherwise is reminiscent of the people (especially corporations) who expect you ask their permission or follow their policies if you want to link to them. That's not how the web works.

Posting opinion screeds, inviting comment and then getting upset when people do comment, seems somewhat unreasonable to me.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Sun May 06, 2007 2:01 pm

Jestyr wrote:
Ampere wrote:I place more value on someone who says both the good and the bad.
Wait - are you saying that the consistently negative or positive people have _less_ value, or *no* value? Your previous post suggested the latter, now you're suggesting the former.

Think of it in terms of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
If someone ONLY has positive things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something positive.

If someone ONLY has negative things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something negative.

In the case of the former, I'm not likely to listen because they are simply yes-men or otherwise appeasing me, which is nice and all, but I can't buy it due to their bias.

In the case of the latter, I'm not likely to listen because they are simply nay-sayers who have nothing better to do but argue, which I can't buy due to their bias.

Who do I listen to?
People who aren't biased one way or another. Folks who aren't necissarily firmly entrenched in their position or simply trying to push their agenda.

I don't mind folks being of a different opinion, and I certainly don't mind hearing other opinions. I'm more likely to shift my own opinion when faced with someone willing to shift theirs. Two people screaming from their battlements accomplish nothing. I'll certainly listen to you if you're willing to listen to me. If your arguement makes more sense, then I'll go for it.

But if it's just a matter of Person X coming in and consistently talking negatively, and not really listening, considering, or otherwise simply getting up in my grill about shit, then why should I listen?

I think part of it is a matter of respect. If you pay me the respect of being positive on occasion or speaking at times when you don't want to simply antagonize me, then I'll do the same and actually listen.

If all someoenis going to do is ride my ass and contribute nothing otherwise, I see no point in giving them the respect of listening. It's got to be a two-way street.

Hopefully this is a little less ambiguous.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Mon May 07, 2007 2:31 pm

Oh dear... Skarka again. I'm still banned from that place after I continued to ask questions they refused to answer, preferring to mock me instead.

It also seems he is taking a jab at all of us with his comment:

(EDIT: Apparently, that's just a case of "dumb fucks flock together" -- the actual culprit (as per a comment in my "Queer or Female?" post) is apparently some forum filled with these asshats, who feel its their right to piss all over my journal because "it's public.")

Some things never change.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Mon May 07, 2007 2:45 pm

Daki wrote:Oh dear... Skarka again. I'm still banned from that place after I continued to ask questions they refused to answer, preferring to mock me instead.

It also seems he is taking a jab at all of us with his comment:

(EDIT: Apparently, that's just a case of "dumb fucks flock together" -- the actual culprit (as per a comment in my "Queer or Female?" post) is apparently some forum filled with these asshats, who feel its their right to piss all over my journal because "it's public.")

Some things never change.

Yeah, I was talking to Paul about this as well. It's sad he immediately jumped to the conclusion that it's Moo's doing...when Moo had absolutely nothing to do with it. Add to that Paul was overtly mild in his inquiry.

I'm dissapointed at Skarka's bullshit reaction, but I guess this is par for the course.

I don't know why I expected better. Maybe because he's widely respected by so many. I bought it. Sad.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 07, 2007 3:23 pm

He banned me for asking him why his journal was public.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Mon May 07, 2007 3:33 pm

Serious Paul wrote:He banned me for asking him why his journal was public.

Well...on one hand, it's no biggie, he's being a twat and you get banned all the time.
On the other hand, you didn't really do anything except ask a question. You weren't a dick. You were respectful and all. So really it's totally undeserved.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon May 07, 2007 3:52 pm

Adam wrote:I do screen comments on public entries, which I understand can be annoying, but after a charming little neo-nazi tried to worm his way into my life and my peer group, I thought it was prudent.

You shouldn't talk that way about Moo.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:02 pm

I said 'charming'

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:49 pm

Daki wrote:It also seems he is taking a jab at all of us with his comment:

(EDIT: Apparently, that's just a case of "dumb fucks flock together" -- the actual culprit (as per a comment in my "Queer or Female?" post) is apparently some forum filled with these asshats, who feel its their right to piss all over my journal because "it's public.")

It's interesting given that Bulldrek has, in the past (its much more vitriolic past, at that), seen a number of contributors that Gareth Skarka calls friends - or at least hangs out with, I can't pretend to know who his actual pals are.

(I also resent being tarred with the "right-wing stain" brush, on a personal level, since I'm most definitely the left-wing variety of stain.)

Ampere wrote:Think of it in terms of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
If someone ONLY has positive things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something positive.

If someone ONLY has negative things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something negative.

No, I understand the principle, and I would have thought my responses made that clear. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether you say people with one constant output have _less_ value, or _no_ value.

Who do I listen to?
People who aren't biased one way or another. Folks who aren't necissarily firmly entrenched in their position or simply trying to push their agenda.

That doesn't work, though. Everyone has biases - it's just that with some people, you don't know what they are.

I don't mind folks being of a different opinion, and I certainly don't mind hearing other opinions. I'm more likely to shift my own opinion when faced with someone willing to shift theirs. Two people screaming from their battlements accomplish nothing. I'll certainly listen to you if you're willing to listen to me. If your arguement makes more sense, then I'll go for it.

Has this always been your stance?

I think part of it is a matter of respect. If you pay me the respect of being positive on occasion or speaking at times when you don't want to simply antagonize me, then I'll do the same and actually listen.

If all someoenis going to do is ride my ass and contribute nothing otherwise, I see no point in giving them the respect of listening. It's got to be a two-way street.

Frankly, to me, respect's got nothing to do with it. Respect has to be earned; other than basic human rights, it's not something to which everyone is entitled, by default.

That said, I don't disagree with your point; constant negativity on every issue is certainly offputting when it comes to weighing someone's opinion heavily. However, expecting people to contribute equal measures of yay! and nay! is, I suspect, unrealistic. Many people do not respond when they simply agree with something, because the old <aol>Me too!</aol> is seen as bad form. Typically, you'll only get a response from people like this if they want to discuss the issue with you - which often, if not usually, means they disagree with you to some degree.

If they're replying to every post you make to critique you, sure, they're probably too negative to be worth the effort. However, if they're mostly silent and occasionally controversial, then it would seem to me they may be worth listening to.

Ampere · Post by **Ampere** » Mon May 07, 2007 6:05 pm

Jestyr wrote:<snip>

Ampere wrote:Think of it in terms of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
If someone ONLY has positive things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something positive.

If someone ONLY has negative things to say, then what is the point of listening to them, they are going to say something negative.
No, I understand the principle, and I would have thought my responses made that clear. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether you say people with one constant output have _less_ value, or _no_ value.

I imagine it would be less value. If it's always the same thing, then I have a hard time buying it. If it were to be worth "nothing" then I imagine there is no point in me keeping the commentary around or having them have access to comment in the first place.

Lets go with "less value" with a side of "taken with a grain of salt" for 500 Alex.

Jestyr wrote:
Who do I listen to?
People who aren't biased one way or another. Folks who aren't necissarily firmly entrenched in their position or simply trying to push their agenda.
That doesn't work, though. Everyone has biases - it's just that with some people, you don't know what they are.

In this example...whether I listen to someone's commentary or not, it's often easy to see whether they are biased (for example my wife, who often chimes in along with me due to bias). My concern isn't so much whether they are biased towards an issue one way or another, my concern is those that are simply argueing for the sake of arguement or who have specific issues with me personally.

Let me see if I can explain this better in an example:

My journal, and I post about the definitions used for Racism. Now lots of folks may comment, and view may differ. There are a few people whose opinions I have to take with a grain of salt (my wife and a couple others) who tend to simply agree with me all the time regardless of the bullshit I write. I'd have to say I value those opinions...frankly...less.

On that same token there are a few folks who never post on my journal unless they have negative to say. Whether they complain about my artwork, or my spelling, or that my interests suck...a few folks who apparently have a beef with me, and their opinions...I'll take them with a grain of salt as well. I can't be sure if what they are saying is valid opinion or just crap spewed my direction because I left the topic open to discussion.

Unless a person falls in to one of those categories of course, I tend to actually listen and their commentary gets full-weight.

I hope this makes more sense. I'm sure you and everyone else can acknowledge that there ARE folks out there who come along only to spew vitrol and grief people. I may be alone in not wanting to listen to them.

Jestyr wrote:
I don't mind folks being of a different opinion, and I certainly don't mind hearing other opinions. I'm more likely to shift my own opinion when faced with someone willing to shift theirs. Two people screaming from their battlements accomplish nothing. I'll certainly listen to you if you're willing to listen to me. If your arguement makes more sense, then I'll go for it.
Has this always been your stance?

Danger! Danger!
My spidey sense is tingling!

I don't know Jes. I'd like to think I'm evolving. Improving over time and learning from experience. My "stance" changes by minute degrees all the time. Often as I'm shown that I'm off my rocker by people who seem to be good folks, concerned, friendly, but also honest in calling me on my bullshit.

Jestyr wrote:
I think part of it is a matter of respect. If you pay me the respect of being positive on occasion or speaking at times when you don't want to simply antagonize me, then I'll do the same and actually listen.

If all someone is going to do is ride my ass and contribute nothing otherwise, I see no point in giving them the respect of listening. It's got to be a two-way street.
Frankly, to me, respect's got nothing to do with it. Respect has to be earned; other than basic human rights, it's not something to which everyone is entitled, by default.

That said, I don't disagree with your point; constant negativity on every issue is certainly offputting when it comes to weighing someone's opinion heavily. However, expecting people to contribute equal measures of yay! and nay! is, I suspect, unrealistic. Many people do not respond when they simply agree with something, because the old <aol>Me too!</aol> is seen as bad form. Typically, you'll only get a response from people like this if they want to discuss the issue with you - which often, if not usually, means they disagree with you to some degree.

If they're replying to every post you make to critique you, sure, they're probably too negative to be worth the effort. However, if they're mostly silent and occasionally controversial, then it would seem to me they may be worth listening to.

Well, maybe not "equal" measure of yay and nay, but at least an occasional kind word would alert me that you aren't simply a ball-buster. I mean...we post a lot of stuff on our journals, and the constant "me too"...yeah, that's lame and IMO nigh worthless too. But when my nephew is being verbally and physically abused and Child Protective Services are involved, and I'm trying to gain custody of the child...dude, something...anything to indicate you're my friend and responding as a friend is totally welcome (and in some ways at least on this end needed). Just as if your best friend, lover, spouse, child got sick and is in the hospital, maybe dying or being abused, and you just need to vent and have a pat on the head from a few folks you consider friends...those count as positive responses.

We all have posts that are easy to chime in and say something/anything positive. Assuming we're all human and we're friends and caring at all, saying something at those times isn't the same as "yeah me too" to a joke or meme.

Another part of listening to people is in how they come across.
I don't mind disagreement. But unlike many here, I'm almost always respectful in how I speak to people and how I discuss matters of importance. I don't sling names and say they are stupid. I discuss. I say I don't agree and X is why. I'm a 36 year old man, and I have no tolerance for name-calling and agressive behavior. (okay, I'll play when others are playing, but when we're talking like grownups, I talk like a grownup).

I don't know how many people here can attest that I have never, EVER jumped in to anyone's journal and told them they or their idea, or opinion was stupid. Ever. I've always come in to a discussion with a simple (or often convoluted) explanation of my own position and how I disagree (or even agree). I avoid value statements about whether a person is a fucktard, or juvenile, or whatever. If I'm dissapointed...then I'm dissapointed. If I disagree...then "I disagree".

Online agression really gets nowhere with me. I tune it out. THAT sort of thing I don't do, because I don't want it done to me. Golden Rule stuff here.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:20 am

Paul: Got any questions you want to ask him before I post my own? i've never been banned before...looking forward to it.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:26 am

Adam wrote:I said 'charming'

Exactly my point

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:26 am

Daki wrote:Oh dear... Skarka again. I'm still banned from that place after I continued to ask questions they refused to answer, preferring to mock me instead.

It also seems he is taking a jab at all of us with his comment:

(EDIT: Apparently, that's just a case of "dumb fucks flock together" -- the actual culprit (as per a comment in my "Queer or Female?" post) is apparently some forum filled with these asshats, who feel its their right to piss all over my journal because "it's public.")

Some things never change.

I almost apologized to him, because I actually wasn't trying to troll his LJ or bring all of you guys over to fuck with him. Then I realized that not only would he not believe me, but I tried to be polite and he reacted like I shit in his drink. I actually friended him back in the original go round (Pimp: the backhanding days) because he had an alternate viewpoint and I was trying not to assume that he was a reactionary moonbat. I've actually heard of a few things here and there from the guy that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise along the way, some of which I agreed with and some of which seemed to have too much ire and not enough "so what".

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:34 am

Now... Come on. Are we really going to sink this low? Are we really going to descend en masse onto this poor dingbat and his LJ, being snarky and rude and fucking with his ego in an exceedingly public and humiliating way?

....

I almost managed to keep a straight face typing that. Can I get in on this as well, or do you need some sort of permit? .

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:44 am

I wasn't going to. He's convinced that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid. It'd be like trying to reason with or torture a plant. I'm content to just let him be and avoid the drama.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:48 am

Wait...you posted this on Bulldrek, and expected it no drama to result? That should be the official slogan of Bulldrek.

"More dram-ma!"

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:51 am

The board was down for a while...I got rusty in the downtime.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:52 am

I think it is safe to say that nothing anyone here can say or do will cause Gareth to change his mind, have his ego dented, /or/ get him to engage in meaningful dialogue with you. I think he's mistaken in discounting some of your opinions and ideas, but when you stand in the bar near MooCow, you're not going to look better compared to him, you're going to look like a fool for standing near MooCow. ;-)

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:53 am

But MooCow is just so sexy when he does the zombie look. Who could resist humping his leg....I mean, standing near him?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:09 am

Adam wrote:I think it is safe to say that nothing anyone here can say or do will cause Gareth to change his mind, have his ego dented, /or/ get him to engage in meaningful dialogue with you.

This too. I've never seen a satisfactory outcome from these things. Just no bang for the buck.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:14 am

After reading his lj, he's just the other side of the same nutjob coin as the right wingers and the only way to get him to listen o you would be to defriend everyone here and I like all of you much more then I want to spam his lj with Homer Bombs (that and not wanting to have my own lj account suspended might have something to do with it...)

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 08, 2007 2:15 am

WillyGilligan wrote:I almost apologized to him, because I actually wasn't trying to troll his LJ or bring all of you guys over to fuck with him.

Which I kindly pointed out in one of my posts by linking him to the post where you said just that.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 08, 2007 2:43 am

It doesn't matter...he's already made up his mind about the people that would associate with Moo...

GMSkarka · Post by **GMSkarka** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:15 pm

Folks -- I registered specificaly to address this point (ironic, though, that I have to register to post a comment in your discussion....).

As I said to "Serious Paul" --

What those of you who came over to post your contrary views were doing is the equivalent of walking up to a group of friends gathered in a public place (say, a bar, for example) and butting into the conversation.

Yes, it's public. That doesn't however, give you the right. You don't know the people who are talking, nor were you invited to participate.

Is the porting--over of real-world basic social skills to an internet environment really that hard?

Want to participate? Fine -- introduce yourself, get to know the people talking....just like you would (hopefully) in the real world.

But yeah, I'll fully admit that seeing themoocow listed as a "friend" on your LJ user info doesn't really reflect that well on you, in my opinion, and probably led me to view your posts in the worst light possible. After having him and his friends calling me "faggot" and the like back during the "Pimp" fiasco, I'm not really likely to view association with him as a positive thing.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:32 pm

GMSkarka wrote:Folks -- I registered specificaly to address this point (ironic, though, that I have to register to post a comment in your discussion....).

I'm not certain how that's "ironic," but it cuts down on pointless spam.

GMSkarka wrote:What those of you who came over to post your contrary views were doing is the equivalent of walking up to a group of friends gathered in a public place (say, a bar, for example) and butting into the conversation.

I'm not sure I agree with the metaphor, but I'll accept it as a given. Personally, if I overhear someone having a public conversation in a bar, I don't think it's exceptionally rude to comment. It's...well, it's how people meet people, if nothing else. And metaphors aside - and I can't say this enough - if you only want your friends to reply, simply only allow your friends to reply. One advantage LiveJournal has over a bar is the freedom to be as pointlessly insular as you'd like to be.

GMSkarka wrote:Yes, it's public. That doesn't however, give you the right.

Yeah, actually, I believe it does. So does more-or-less everyone here. It's a commonly held right on all blogs; it's what public comments are for. If you don't like it, use private commenting.

And also: please grow up. Gods, I can't remember the last time I heard someone whine that - gasp! - someone bothered to talk to them that they didn't know. Cor.

GMSkarka wrote:But yeah, I'll fully admit that seeing themoocow listed as a "friend" on your LJ user info doesn't really reflect that well on you, in my opinion, and probably led me to view your posts in the worst light possible. After having him and his friends calling me "faggot" and the like back during the "Pimp" fiasco, I'm not really likely to view association with him as a positive thing.

The simple inclusion of him on a Friendslist causes you to leap to these sorts of conclusions? That's like...I'm having trouble with the "real-life" metaphor [what a ridiculous division; is the internet not real?], but that's like being pissed at me because I know someone who knows someone who knows a shithead. I think MooCow is on my friendslist, and I hate the fucking guy. So I'd recommend you withdraw from the polevaulting competition at the Leap to Conclusions Olympics, and judge people on their own merits.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:45 pm

GMSkarka wrote:Folks -- I registered specificaly to address this point (ironic, though, that I have to register to post a comment in your discussion....).

There's no irony. That's the limit we as a community agreed upon. Just like when you registered for your live journal account, you clicked on a number of boxes that allowed you as a registered user of Live Journal to decide whether your journal was publicly searchable or not, or for instance if you'd allow anonymous comments.

There is no difference here. As a community we have in effect disabled anonymous posting. It's a standard we all agree upon, and on you agreed upon by registering.

As I said to "Serious Paul" --

And none to politely I should add.

What those of you who came over to post your contrary views were doing is the equivalent of walking up to a group of friends gathered in a public place (say, a bar, for example) and butting into the conversation.

See I think that's a flawed example. In effect Live Journal is a bunch of bill boards advertising individuals. The internet is the highway, and live journal is just another billboard alongside the road. Except in this case people are allowed to make comments-which you as the LJ registered user choose as an option.

No one made your journal public. No one forced you to accept public commentary. You choose it.

Yes, it's public. That doesn't however, give you the right. You don't know the people who are talking, nor were you invited to participate.

That may be how you feel about it, and I am certainly not saying you're entirely off base-even if I feel you're somewhat childish in your approach to this whole deal. You lack basic communication skills, which is ironic (Real irony, not irony twisted to fit an example as a method of making a point) since you list amongst your interests and descriptions of yourself "writer".

And while no one was specifically invited, in this case by you, no one was specifically barred either. This is a lot like complaining about how people stare at the gigantic bill board you've erected in your yard.

Is the porting--over of real-world basic social skills to an internet environment really that hard?

I'd ask the same of you Mr. I have a potty mouth.

Want to participate? Fine -- introduce yourself, get to know the people talking....just like you would (hopefully) in the real world.

But yeah, I'll fully admit that seeing themoocow listed as a "friend" on your LJ user info doesn't really reflect that well on you, in my opinion, and probably led me to view your posts in the worst light possible. After having him and his friends calling me "faggot" and the like back during the "Pimp" fiasco, I'm not really likely to view association with him as a positive thing.

Luckily you also never asked any questions, or bothered to do anything beyond act childish and angry. I know as a potential reader, and potential target in what may eventually be your sales goals I'm impressed.

I'll be sure to spread my impressed-ness to anyone who mentions your name, or who may be thinking about buying something with your name on it.

I said it before, and you of course deleted it (Which was your right as it is your public web site) communication involves shutting up, and listening on occasion. You also may want to consider that there are ramnifications for what you say and how you say it.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:49 pm

Oh, and welcome to Bulldrek. You can see we're pretty easy going, and love to debate as well as have fun. Come on in. Make yourself at home.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:52 pm

GMSkarka wrote:What those of you who came over to post your contrary views were doing is the equivalent of walking up to a group of friends gathered in a public place (say, a bar, for example) and butting into the conversation.

Yes, it's public. That doesn't however, give you the right. You don't know the people who are talking, nor were you invited to participate.

If you look back over the pages of this discussion, which I assume you've already done, you'll note that we were actually debating this point anyway. You may treat LJ as a personal social discussion that just happens to be out in the open, but that is not a universal approach. LiveJournal is basically just a blogging service, and it's pretty much *expected* when you write blog entries that strangers can and will comment.

"Don't argue with me!"

"Don't argue with me!"

Re: "Don't argue with me!"

Re: "Don't argue with me!"

Re: "Don't argue with me!"