Re: Pothead Losers: Take Note

On Jul 29, 10:55 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2:51 am, Lfh <onetaste2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've seen you dilineate the difference between this type of response
and that, when it comes to trolls, but to me it's all the same.
Baiting or playing trolls is no better than being baited or played by
them, for it all serves as fodder for the breed. But folks are gonna
do what they do and so it goes.

You've seen me say this about other trolls before? No, I don't
believe that you have. (If you have, please jog my memory.)

Uh, how 'bout the post before the one where you responded to me, as
that is what I was referring to:

Uh, my question was if you had (direct quote): "seen me say this about
other trolls." Obviously I've been saying it about our current lover
boy.

I almost never advocate feeding the trolls. Self control is damn hard, I'm
always amazed when our group can just ignore the wereos of the world
and get on with our bidness.

I guess it's a mileage thing, because I'm amazed that they can't
ignore them.

For most folks, me included, it's all too easy to get hooked. It
requires self control to disengage. Which is why even the most
inelegant trolls tend to be able to wreak a fair amount of havoc.





This guy is the first one I believe I
have run across that is actually so sadly deluded that he's easier to
play than be played by. But still, no doubt, there are indeed far too
many here who are feeding one of the more inept attention seekers ever
to show up here.

Yup.

Appalled? Wow. That whole exchange was misunderstood, if that's the
way it's being perceived. It was just banter and word-play on my part,
nothing personal. It certainly wasn't intended to be harsh or mean

It's certainly possible that I misunderstood, but I suspect a lot of
readers did. I didn't see the humor in your posts, they just seemed
oddly hostile to me.

I stopped playing with her as soon as she took offense.

After she took offense, what you did is start ragging on her. You
wrote:

"Lighten up, Mary. If you are going to get all lit up about some
breezy
banter you have obviously taken way too seriously, then you either
should get a little more familiar with the way this place rolls or
move along."

FWIW, that doesn't seem like lighthearted banter to me. Nor did what
came before. Just a guess, she ain't gonna be around here longterm,
that thread is mostly why.

Oh, please, Neil. The nastiness that was in that exchange was a swipe
at Brautigan way more than it was at her. However, this medium is rife
with the opportunity for misunderstanding, and I can see how what I
was up to was taken too seriously. Regardless, since then, we've been
fine, and she's had no problem with me.

Hey, my perception of your words, and what you were actually trying to
convey may well be very different things. But it is what it is. I
would never write to a woman the things you wrote to her. Personally,
I really try extra hard to not make posts that could be misconstrued
as being sexist in nature, so what I saw in your exchange may not have
been seen by very many others.

I will happily banter with folks and challenge arguments and such, but I'm
not much for really attacking anyone.

I think there are ample counter-examples to this statement. See above
for one. You were actually on quite a roll in early July, Mary is
only one example.

You call that an attack? Compared to the *** that is routinely flung
around in this place? Golly.

Pray tell, who are the others? Me and JC did our semi-annual slam
dance and I was swatting at some folks who were mischaracterizing my
changing headers on the cross-posted stuff as a bid to control what
folks could read, but other than that, I just recall bantering.

Well, there was a pretty good slam at Rox, too. I haven't noted in
the past that you like to smack folks nearly as much you have in the
last month or so. Hence it seemed really noticeable to me that it
happened so often in such a short period. I actually wondered if
there was anything going on in your personal life that might have been
a trigger for it. Of course, it also could be purely coincidence.





that I did not say "lighthearted," as that was your addition. Look,
I'll happily cross verbal swords and riff on the *** folks write, but
unless I'm just unbelievably self-unaware, I'd have to say that in
general, I don't do a whole lot of ad-hominem. I'm sure there are
exceptions to this, but I'd say not many.

As for chastising you, or anyone, no thanks. I only meant you were
wrong as in inaccurate,

You said I was wrong. You were correct.

You also said I was "harsh." That's not a matter of fact, that's a
subjective value judgment, and qualifies as a rebuke, as opposed to
simply correcting an error in a completely objective matter of a
factual nature.

Uh, *you* said you were harsh. I just echoed your "not to be harsh"
statement and added the part about being wrong.

That's right, that's exactly what happened. But that still makes it
beyond a simple matter of fact, it's also a value judgment, as it was
with your "advice" to Mary, and your comments to Ken, Rox and JC. But
that's fine, I have no problem with that, sharing one's values is an
integral part of the communication here. I do it regularly, as well.





So "chastise" is an accurate word to describe your

post. NTTAWWT. You were right.

I'm no one's momma.

You enjoy scolding folks. Your posting history establishes that
beyond any reasonable doubt. Usually, you're right when you pick a
battle. I think you were off base with Mary, but you were completely
correct with your comments to me yesterday.

I enjoy scolding people? Wow. The things I learn. Either we have a
different definition of scolding or one of us is out to lunch. Could
be me, but I gotta wonder.

I always want to hear it when folks that think I'm misbehaving, so I
am grateful for your mother hen-ish nature.

My mother-henish nature? Dear God, man, what *are* you talking about?

You really don't see it? You maybe ought to go back and reread some
of our own posts. If you truly think you are dwelling purely in the
realm of "fact," you have a very different definition of fact than
I've ever encountered before. But again, sharing opinions, values and
impressions is part of the game here, so please don't take my comments
as an attempted insult, because they most assuredly are not.

Peace,
Neil X.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Neil, with all due respect, an I mean that, I do both like and respect
you!

.

Loading