|
U-Know! Forum » NEW FEATURE: Advice to Demonstrators After the Trashing of Millbank |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 01:43
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: Or perhaps nasty insults are just your default method of communication. As opposed to nasty patronising?
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 01:50
|
||
|
I don't find you even vaguely interesting. I never have. Your style of passive aggresiveness is legendary in its own right here. You argue just for the sake of argueing. The horrific posting style of Stray is also un-fucking-believable. He gets a pass though. Or ToneStone....or a few others too. But lets have a group dynamic consensual mob up on the YANK. I know the routine. You are no free thinker. I cant be bothered to post anymore tonite, been a Looong week. So you get the last word.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 01:51
|
||
|
keith a wrote: grufty jim wrote: Or perhaps nasty insults are just your default method of communication. As opposed to nasty patronising? I don't see myself as patronising. If others feel that way about my posts then I can only say that's unfortunate as it's certainly not my intention.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Nov 20, 2010, 02:22
Nov 20, 2010, 02:21
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: I don't find you even vaguely interesting. I never have. Your style of passive aggresiveness is legendary in its own right here. You argue just for the sake of argueing. There's certainly no rule here that says you have to find me interesting, but there are rules that say you should remain civil. And that's all I'm asking. I'm aware that some people believe I'm being "passive aggressive" or "patronising". Leastways that's what they say. As I've said, it's certainly not my intention, and for that reason I make no apologies (though I do think it's rather regrettable). I could speculate on why some people view me in that way, but doubt it would be particularly productive. dodge one wrote: The horrific posting style of Stray is also un-fucking-believable. He gets a pass though. Or ToneStone....or a few others too. Stray and I have had our disagreements, but I completely respect him as someone who argues from a position of good faith and who places a higher priority on honest discussion than he does on cheap point-scoring. I've certainly not seen him being downright nasty (though I do spend very little time on the other boards on this site, so maybe I'm missing something). As for Tonestone; he's a fairly irregular visitor to U-Know these days. Someone did draw my attention to a thread in which he made some pretty vicious remarks and had I been posting here at the time, I can assure you I would have responded to him exactly as I respond to anyone who says those kinds of things. dodge one wrote: But lets have a group dynamic consensual mob up on the YANK. I know the routine. Well clearly you don't. I have nothing against American people. As with a lot of us Irish, a branch of my family are New Yorkers, I have quite a few American friends and I've lived in different parts of the USA for varying periods of time. There's much about America that I have a problem with, and there's much about America that I adore (and I can say the same thing about most places I've lived). However, I think it speaks volumes that the other Americans on this site don't complain about a massive anti-American bias. dodge one wrote: You are no free thinker. Few of us truly are. We can but try to escape what Leary called our "robotization". And it's the struggle of a lifetime. dodge one wrote: I cant be bothered to post anymore tonite, been a Looong week. So you get the last word. Ah, the last word in an online discussion... such a rare and precious commodity. Let me use it wisely... How about... aubergine!
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 08:35
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: Ah, the last word in an online discussion... such a rare and precious commodity. Let me use it wisely... How about... aubergine! How about... do not feed the troll! It only makes them hungry for more.
|
|||
Myers 152 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 09:01
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: dodge one wrote: I don't find you even vaguely interesting. I never have. Your style of passive aggresiveness is legendary in its own right here. You argue just for the sake of argueing. There's certainly no rule here that says you have to find me interesting, but there are rules that say you should remain civil. And that's all I'm asking. I'm aware that some people believe I'm being "passive aggressive" or "patronising". Leastways that's what they say. As I've said, it's certainly not my intention, and for that reason I make no apologies (though I do think it's rather regrettable). I could speculate on why some people view me in that way, but doubt it would be particularly productive. dodge one wrote: The horrific posting style of Stray is also un-fucking-believable. He gets a pass though. Or ToneStone....or a few others too. Stray and I have had our disagreements, but I completely respect him as someone who argues from a position of good faith and who places a higher priority on honest discussion than he does on cheap point-scoring. I've certainly not seen him being downright nasty (though I do spend very little time on the other boards on this site, so maybe I'm missing something). As for Tonestone; he's a fairly irregular visitor to U-Know these days. Someone did draw my attention to a thread in which he made some pretty vicious remarks and had I been posting here at the time, I can assure you I would have responded to him exactly as I respond to anyone who says those kinds of things. dodge one wrote: But lets have a group dynamic consensual mob up on the YANK. I know the routine. Well clearly you don't. I have nothing against American people. As with a lot of us Irish, a branch of my family are New Yorkers, I have quite a few American friends and I've lived in different parts of the USA for varying periods of time. There's much about America that I have a problem with, and there's much about America that I adore (and I can say the same thing about most places I've lived). However, I think it speaks volumes that the other Americans on this site don't complain about a massive anti-American bias. dodge one wrote: You are no free thinker. Few of us truly are. We can but try to escape what Leary called our "robotization". And it's the struggle of a lifetime. dodge one wrote: I cant be bothered to post anymore tonite, been a Looong week. So you get the last word. Ah, the last word in an online discussion... such a rare and precious commodity. Let me use it wisely... How about... aubergine! HI Jim, I've said before - and I dont mean this as an insult - that a lot of your posts have an (as you say unintentional) tone to them. It's a tone that sometimes does come across as a bit unpleasant and patronising. Having conversed with you a few times, I have realised that this is not how you are. But when I first had a reply from you I did wonder what your problem was! Saying that, tone is really hard to get from typed text
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 09:37
|
||
|
"But lets have a group dynamic consensual mob up on the YANK." Yet this seems to happen to no other YANKS. Funny that. None of them behave like you though. Don't you ever feel embarrassed? I would. You dare to call others aggressive or patronising after what you've posted? You have the cheek to say posters on here are other people's poodles whilst trying to suck up to others shamelessly? Try reading what you've written before you press "Add Reply", just once. Please. You have single-handedly fucking ruined this board Dodge. It's shit now. I hope you're really proud of yourself you big brave iconaclast. x
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 12:18
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: You do not have any consistency at all. You clearly support felony action at what should have been a peacefull student demonstration. Firstly, I don't think it was 'meant to be' a peaceful demonstration. Secondly, the actions of the hunsdreds who occupied the building were supported by thousands outside being held back by police. But, thirdly, supporting this action is in no way inconsistent. I have supported such actions for many years now, and been very clear about that on HH and elsewhere. dodge one wrote: It 'IS' a guideline to avoid prosecution for criminal acts that were caught on media, Red handed at something Yes, I agree. I never said it wasn't, and I'm sorry if I somewhow implied that somewhere. However, that is not morally inconsistent of me either. You think it is irresponsible, but that is another matter. Again, it leads me to ask you, and please answer this time: are you really saying there are no morally justified crimes? Do you apply this to every country, or just English law? Is that English law at present, or throughout history? that was quite a diffrent thing than demonstrating. dodge one wrote: Also regarding Susan B. and others of the suffragette movement. I doubt that you would know much about it, but they achieved MUCHLY through peacefull coersion I agree with that, too. I didn't say they only damaged property. It was, however, a key part of their strategy. And from them to the people who tore down the fences round the threatened Epping Forest to the Poll Tax riot and the ripping up of GM crops, there are uncountable examples of direct action damaging property being essentail to the success of political campaigns. I find it extraordinary that anyone can question that. dodge one wrote: Now the BONO thing. You seem to be the self appointed moderator on this board, allways on the look out for the opportunity to be the Moral conscience. You failed willfully on that one. I knew it was a bullshit lie, word for word as soon as i read it. You couldn't be bothered to go a slandered mans bond. YOU STINK. So let me see if I finally understand now. There was a thread where someone posted a link that contained false allegations. Other people came on and comprehensively showed that the allegations were indeed false. And I am wanky for all eternity and malodorous because I didn't repeat that point. Do you expect me to read every post here? And to reiterate every already stated correction of facts?
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 12:49
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: landells wrote: Dodge, Merrick made his post at 18.50 and edited it at 19.12 but your response to his post wasn't made until 19.18 - so Merrick's edit wouldn't have been anything to do with your comments Do you really think that i typed up my post in 1 minute flat? I don't think that's the suggestion; what is being said is that my edit had nothing to do with responding to your comments, given that it came before any of your comments. Like many people, I edit comments not just for typos but for clarity of expression. Occasionally people edit to remove volatile knee-jerk responses that, on reflection, don't help the discussion. In this instance, I'd included an anecdote about things that happened to other pole. I realised that people might well, quite reasonably, want more details than I would be prepared to give. As such, I felt it might derail the discussion which did not need the anecdote in order to get to grips with the issues around legality/morality, the justification of property damage for political ends, state responses to such people, etc. I do have to wonder if you use such aggressive tones with people you meet in the flesh. The community and neighbours that you tell us respect you, how do they respond for being called cunty and wanky for having different views from you? dodge one wrote: Having read and participated on this board over the last 3 years, i've learned NOTHING that i can use to further my causes. Then please ask yourself why you bother coming here.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 20, 2010, 13:32
|
||
|
You've gone back ten months to a post. To me that implies that perhaps examples are not legion. I think you're overstating it a little but basically right to say keith a wrote: "We noted in our report that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is sometimes being used against protesters"... is a million miles away from... "The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is most commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests." However, as Stray points out, the Parliamentary publications will be couched in very cautious terms, especially compared to an activist talking on a message board. But if we just remove the word 'most' we get "The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests", which is pretty much a rephrasing of what the parliamentary quote says. 'Most' is a very potent word though, and unambiguous. I readily concede that yes, I don't have figures for that and the statement is quite probably wrong. I would go and edit it to remove the word 'most' but after all the kerfuffle about editing I fear what I'd be accused of; on this thread you yourself have made insinuations about it being some sort of underhand thing I do, even though I have never done it for such reasons. Finding errors and exaggerations in things I've written is one thing. I'm sure, in over 2000 posts and dozens of Features and News items on U-Know, there are many to be found. This is a board for frequent discussion which means we should stick to what we believe but we also shoot from the hip. But there's a clear implication in what you've said on this thread. Saying I lack integrity, repeatedly saying that I write things that are untrue clearly implies that I deliberately lie as an ongoing strategy. Posts here are written quite conversationally. This does not in any way mean people should say things that are demonstrably false. I really value - in fact, it's the only reason I'm here at all - the way we pass news and ideas and test their veracity and worth. We all have opinions that don't stand up, we all believe things to be fact that are untrue, and it's important to disabuse one another of these things. Also, even for the stuff where you know you're right, it's good to have all your ideas tested so that you can be confident that it is in fact watertight. I didn't reply, and to be absolutely honest I have no idea why, and I apologise for that. I know you believe me to be a devious liar, but I have no memory of ignoring you, and anyway I think that when you ask for evidence and receive silence as a reply, that is pretty much as good as an admission. Sometimes people don't come back to the site for a long time and so miss any replies that have been said, so we can't always draw that inference. But on this occasion it certainly wasn't the case with me, I was back on the same thread a few days later. Because silence is effectively the same thing as an admission of being wrong, I'd choose to concede any points that I can't defend, as then the stuff that is right and defensible still stands; ignoring or abusing those who question you undermines the credibility of everything you've said in a discussion. In this instance, the post did not rely on the use of 'most', it was not a discussion about the relative levels of injunctions granted against various categories of people. With the alteration of 'most commonly' to 'commonly', I stand by everything being said in that post.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
