|For Those Non-Moderators Who Had A Problem With Nathan Hawking's posts:|
(This applies to those who have a 'problem' with any poster-X's responses to them)...
Wouldn't the 'productive' thing to have done in THIS thread be to...ignore his accused-as 'unproductive' and seemingly-antagonistic posts? He clearly knows how to do subtle insults; as do quite many here. I suggest any re-reading of his posts include reading the post(er) that(whom) he's responding to; else, one's reading him out-of-context. He's the only one who indulged in...in effect...'flaming' others? And, he initiated most of bona-fide insulting? This isn't the way I've read (as neither Gaede nor Bidinotto, also) this whole thread (or, some of the other threads Nathan's posted on within this site.)
Yes, he clearly seems to have felt the need to 'have the last word on A, B, or C subjects (including 'who insulted whom' [in that case, who wouldn't?]) in his responses to X, Y, and Z (apart from 'insults,' again, who doesn't?); ...uh...unlike those posting to him?
Yes, he seems, on the one hand, to chronically call for and complain about the lack of 'civility' in postings, yet, o-t-o-h, 'there he goes again,' (unlike, heh, those he's responding to about it.) He is definitely flawed: he has his hot-button threshold limits...like ALL of us.
As an aside, my 1st experience in forums was in the old ATL (WTL) when run by Kirez Korgan (hope I spelled his last name correctly.) I remember calling for the same thing by so many there: 'civility.' Boy, did I get flamed left and right...for weeks. And 'name-calling' wasn't really the chronic (frequent though it was) 'style' of insults bandied. More often than not it was via innuended/implied ways (condescension, intellect-evaluating-derogation, and other, less blatant styles); boy, did handling (and learning about/from) those get tiresome...and finally, enough. --- I used to try to give fair-warning to stop, else I'd put them on my 'block sender'/kill-file list in hotmail, via "That's Strike One !" after explicating how such was an insult. All that did was put gas on the fire. I no longer do that (like, it's relevent in THIS forum) in the other e-m 'forums' I frequent; I just immediately put them on that list, and no longer have to deal with even seeing their name, much less their provokings. In SOLO, well, if one has the will power, there is the scroll bar! (Ah, 'will-power': volition and addiction thread cross-referencing here methinks.)
Back to Nathan: I saw his posts, not as 'trolling,' but, as more a 'provocoteur' type of questioner/debater, (apart from those involved in returning actual and innuended/implied insults.)
But, if troll he was, then the...'most productive'...way to have handled him was to stop reading wherever his name showed up (or, stop reading whatever thread one's tired of reading him on, like, THIS one), non? Besides, one's otherwise just asking for one's own buttons to get pushed to, um, have-the-last-word. Consider this, well, 'rationally': What's a 'troll' (actual or [mis-]perceived) to do, if there are no responses, especially 'insulting' ones? Whereas otherwise... ---. I avoid such problems now by...well, read 2 paragraphs above.
True, he (amongst some others) got a bit carried away in his 'put-downs', finally, (wonder why?) in implying insults (as, another blog or two has about SOLO) re (some of, most of?) those on this SOLO group (with an intended-or-not implication of 'the group as such). Given the latter interpretation of his later responses, therein he just asked for a moderator coming in to...make some relatively immediate decisions that unavoidably some will then also disagree with.
2nd Aside: What is it with everyone's need for insults re disagreers, anyway (nm insults re 'insulters')? Is 'Randroidism' a mental virus? Insults just ask for insults (and chronic resentment, especially amongst 'groups') back, but, such is just flame-trades with someone finally getting burnt-out on it all (ergo the last one 'won'), and all participants forgetting that rational argument (and the forgotten-by-now original subject) not only gets shoved to the back seat, but finally is thrown out the window.
Maybe someone should write an Article on the whole subject of "Insults: Types, and Rational Justification of," or, "When is a 'Criticism' NOT an 'Attack'?" (Maybe both. There's a lot relevent to one that's not to the other.)
Uh, for those familiar with my postings (indeed, this one is a clear example), you must know that any Article by me would have too many parentheticals and emphasizings for what the length of it would be called for by the subject-matter, so, don't call for me to write it: it'd (properly) never get past Andrew. As I said in my Profile: I'll never be a writer (and I'll add: nor a good editor.)
Besides, doing such calls for time to do a few things:
1) research the subject re a few books/essays (there must be some) on Insults per se
2) analyzing when each 'style' of such is appropriate/rationally-justified
3) how to identify/distinguish between a clear, blatant insult, and a possibly merely
4) THEN, the question: Other than for the sake of it (ie: I 'feel' like it), why even innuend a condescension much less name-calling blatant insult with a disagreer? All I can think of is: purposefully emotionally-provoke the other into a flame-back, or, give in to one's anger-feeling at an actual (or, mis-perceived) 'insult' and, primarily from thereon, not care about rational discussion as much a 'getting even' in insults (and, we all know that there's NEVER mutual agreement about what's 'even.') --- It's unfortunate that, in any 'insult-trade'...discussion...those who follow Rand's dictum of "Think Twice" are always unnoticeable.
Some will no doubt disagree with most of the aforesaid. I'm sure I'll find some worth reading. I'm also sure...well...depends how it's put, hmmm?
P.S: Well, I just can't avoid 'edits,' either. Here I distractedly clicked "POST" before my final point. So, 'Addendum':
None of the above is to say that no one 'deserves' insults of any type. Far from such. But, the other side of giving such (presumably accurately assessed) 'deserved' insults, rationally requires that one merely THINK TWICE about just what one expects a response 'style' to be...and whether such would be worth checking out to read (and, hopefully not as an excuse to, well...maybe...'respond' to.
Th-th-th-th-th-that's all, folks !
(Edited by John Dailey on 10/08, 2:06pm)