81 replies to this topic

[Brother Fox]

Aaah, so you get an idea they are posting still. Now i see.

 

So youre not really ignoring them, just not paying attention

[Catalina Park]

Aaah, so you get an idea they are posting still. Now i see.
 
So youre not really ignoring them, just not paying attention

Then you toss a coin and make the hard decision. It gets easier not to click it after a while.

BTW, you are not really on my ignore list just yet.

[Brother Fox]

Give me time

[Catalina Park]

The ones that make the cut are usually banned within a week or two anyway. I just can't be arsed reading their crap.

[panzani]

I've just figured out I don't even know how to ignore a peer!

[Slartibartfast]

I've just figured out that Panzani doesn't know how to put me on ignore…
 

 

[panzani]

Slarti dear, I wouldn't ever ignore you and not just because I wouldn't ever ignore anyone! Actually, I think those who ignore others in PC are usually just bigots who can't ever stand some people disagree with them. We two often disagree and thankfully that happens because we can read each other posts! Innit? Sometimes one of us even change thoughts about some subject. If I were to ignore everybody but those who agree with me I would have to read just half the posts in PC — and those would be the boring ones, for sure!

[sopa]

What about making life more interesting by doing it the other way around - ignore all those you agree with or whose contributions you like, and leave only those, who you argue passionately with. In this way you can design the BB as a proper warzone for yourself. Enemies everywhere, only shoot all the time.

[Option1]

sopa, if I did that I'd have to both ignore and not ignore everyone all the time.

Neil

[Zmeej]

sopa

Sanchani - ... usually ...

Thank God for qualifications.

Edited by Zmeej, 30 March 2014 - 00:50.

[DOHC]

I think those who ignore others in PC are usually just bigots who can't ever stand some people disagree with them.

...

If I were to ignore everybody but those who agree with me I would have to read just half the posts in PC — and those would be the boring ones, for sure!

 

Mmm... it would make you just half a bigot. 

 

You see, there's two kinds of people in this world, my friend. Those who read half of the posts, and those who write the other. Both are bigots, but only to each other. Hence you're a bigot, quod erat demonstrandum. 

 

Hostilities aside, from one bigot to another, I have never understood why there is an ignore list feature. I'm perfectly able to ignore quite a lot without making use of software support. I'm not joking -- I think we have a serious problem here. I don't like censorship, but I also realize that a lot of people are prone to go ad hominem over very small disagreements. That's deplorable. People are so belligerent, and rather than learning how to argue well and with strength, they fight it out as soon as they understand that they won't convince anybody.

 

I think that a good argument must speak for itself. If you agree with it, you also learn from it. If you disagree with it, you have to find out why. Is it incorrectly argued? Are there opposite arguments? Or if the argument appears to be correct, is the flaw in fact inside yourself, and of emotional rather than rational nature?

 

Who cares who wrote that argument? Is it better or worse because you know who held the pen? Seriously, is it the argument or the person who compiled it who should be judged?

 

This brings us to nicks and anonymity. Lots of people think that one shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous on the web. Why? Because these people basically want to be able to go after the person rather than the argument. They want to know who their enemy is. These are the people who want to wield censorship power. If they find an idiot, they want to punish him. I find that attitude deplorable, and more idiotic that the average village idiot's.

 

If you can't learn to read opposite opinions without getting into a web rage, you may actually need an ignore list. But for those of us -- the other half who write the brilliant posts of Fort Knox quality  -- it's not important to have an ignore list. Also, it's not so important if you are on somebody's ignore list. As long as someone cares to examine my arguments and responds in an intelligent, smart or witty way, I might go on writing. 

[Zmeej]

DOHC

"Liked" the above, because it is so well written and argued, even though we disagree on some points,
and feel chastened by others.

Reflexively disagree over anonymity (a topic which has also been picked over elswhere
but deserves focus here), but thinking about it additionally thanks to your post,
will admit that it does serve as a "freeing" principle, which has its upsides and its downsides.

It's quite true that in a more open forum of, say,
a media site's commentary section or a letter to the editor, am much more cautious
about creating an internal adhesive context to the item being written,
but primarily so any "takings out of context" are rendered more difficult.

But then, this points to one of the positive implications of the "freeing" nature of the Paddock Club
as a BB - one is less cautious because one is within the confines of a club, with two advantages:
- what is said in PC stays in PC;
- there's time to "patch up" antagonisms if one chooses to.

Specifically regarding the Ignore feature, as mentioned above, agreed with the thread's originator,
Catalina Park, who sez:

I use it to prevent me from falling for the bait and replying to an obvious troll
rather than to just avoid reading crap.
It is gagging myself and not the other person.

This should be expanded, in my case, to its function in furtherance of mental hygiene.
There have been and are some folks who are particularly adept at pushing certain buttons
which I apparently don't have the inner capacity to deactivate reflexively, but require
a moment or two of preparation, which the "View it anyway" feature provides.

There are also issues with which I become (and refuse not to become) emotionally involved,
so the thread is better off by letting cooler heads respond to certain posts and to certain individuals without my becoming embroiled with said individuals.

As such, these posts or the general contributions of the Ignored individual,
might well NOT be "obvious flamebait or trolling" to anyone else.

Within the confines of a club, with its "freed" nature, it's also a fact that "bad blood"
can accumulate, and the Ignore feature can provide a cooling-off period that substitutes for
going to war gangster style, and enables reconciliations that could otherwise prove impossible.

And yet, it is also true that some folks nurture such bad blood and will never be pacified,
so it's best for the BB and one's continuing membership in it that one puts them on Ignore.

(This observation could be an extention of the fact that fewer people are afraid
to and/or otherwise unwilling to piss me off than they are you. )

Re "who cares who wrote what argument?"

Put simply: humans.

Put wryly: members of pecking parties.

Put phenomenologically: those who are aware of the history of arguments.

Put ideally: good point.

Re "bigots"

One can only hope that your correspondent "gets" your exuberant cleverness on this point,
which could have been written by the late great Christopher Hitchens,
who had a better sense of humour than one of his idols, George Orwell.

There is, of course, a difference between "bias" (which everyone has) and "bigotry"
(which many do), but in the course of many a rhetorical exercise, whether here or beyond,
the two are confused:
- sometimes deliberately to show that a line has been crossed;
- sometimes with deliberate obfuscation;
- sometimes because of a loose grasp of distinctions in meaning.

There is a middle ground between bias and bigotry, which I've come to call a "parallax,"
which makes it very difficult for an individual possessed of a certain bias
to see the nature and extent of their bias, and equally difficult for them to see things
from any other perspective.

None of the three (bias, parallax, bigotry) qualifies anyone for my own Ignore List
per se, since even bigotry, whether cleverly expressed or not,
can sharpen one's critical and expressive faculties.

(The previous sentence is an exercise in "what goes without saying,"
which one hopes will prove shocking to many. )

To conclude with an echo of exuberance,

there's two kinds of people in this world... Those who read half of the posts, and those who write the other...

... and within those kinds there are those who:

- read half a post and feel they have enough ammo to write an entire post;
- read less than half a post, start out feeling they have enough ammo, but then run out of it and end up posting half a post, or less;
- read entire posts and write complete posts;
- read entire posts but run out of energy to write a complete post in response;
- read bits of posts and post bits of posts;
- read entire posts and post bits of posts which are nevertheless strikingly complete;
- read half a post or less and put people on Ignore;
- read posts in their entirety and put people on Ignore;
- read various posts in a series to various degrees and put people on Ignore.

TFTP

Edited by Zmeej, 04 April 2014 - 17:54.

[Buttoneer]

- read less than half a post, start out feeling they have enough ammo, but then run out of it and end up posting half a post, or less;
 

 

I sometimes d

[275 GTB-4]

DOHC

"Liked" the above, because it is so well written and argued, even though we disagree on some points,
and feel chastened by others.

Reflexively disagree over anonymity (a topic which has also been picked over elswhere
but deserves focus here), but thinking about it additionally thanks to your post,
will admit that it does serve as a "freeing" principle, which has its upsides and its downsides.

It's quite true that in a more open forum of, say,
a media site's commentary section or a letter to the editor, am much more cautious
about creating an internal adhesive context to the item being written,
but primarily so any "takings out of context" are rendered more difficult.

But then, this points to one of the positive implications of the "freeing" nature of the Paddock Club
as a BB - one is less cautious because one is within the confines of a club, with two advantages:
- what is said in PC stays in PC;
- there's time to "patch up" antagonisms if one chooses to.

Specifically regarding the Ignore feature, as mentioned above, agreed with the thread's originator,
Catalina Park, who sez:


This should be expanded, in my case, to its function in furtherance of mental hygiene.
There have been and are some folks who are particularly adept at pushing certain buttons
which I apparently don't have the inner capacity to deactivate reflexively, but require
a moment or two of preparation, which the "View it anyway" feature provides.

There are also issues with which I become (and refuse not to become) emotionally involved,
so the thread is better off by letting cooler heads do it
without my becoming embroiled with some individuals.

As such, these posts or the general contributions of the Ignored individual,
might well NOT be "obvious flamebait or trolling" to anyone else.

Within the confines of a club, with its "freed" nature, it's also a fact that "bad blood"
can accumulate, and the Ignore feature can provide a cooling-off period that substitutes for
going to war gangster style, and enables reconciliations that could otherwise prove impossible.

And yet, it is also true that some folks nurture such bad blood and will never be pacified,
so it's best for the BB and one's continuing membership in it that one puts them on Ignore.

(This observation could be an extention of the fact that fewer people are afraid
to and/or otherwise unwilling to piss me off than they are you. )

Re "who cares who wrote what argument?"

Put simply: humans.

Put wryly: members of pecking parties.

Put phenomenologically: those who are aware of the history of arguments.

Put ideally: good point.

Re "bigots"

One can only hope that your correspondent "gets" your exuberant cleverness on this point,
which could have been written by the late great Christopher Hitchens,
who had a better sense of humour than one of his idols, George Orwell.

There is, of course, a difference between "bias" (which everyone has) and "bigotry"
(which many do), but in the course of many a rhetorical exercise, whether here or beyond,
the two are confused:
- sometimes deliberately to show that a line has been crossed;
- sometimes with deliberate obfuscation;
- sometimes because of a loose grasp of distinctions in meaning.

There is a middle ground between bias and bigotry, which I've come to call a "parallax,"
which makes it very difficult for an individual possessed of a certain bias
to see the nature and extent of their bias, and equally difficult for them to see things
from any other perspective.

None of the three (bias, parallax, bigotry) qualifies anyone for my own Ignore List
per se, since even bigotry, whether cleverly expressed or not,
can sharpen one's critical and expressive faculties.

(The previous sentence is an exercise in "what goes without saying,"
which one hopes will prove shocking to many. )

To conclude with an echo of exuberance,

... and within those kinds there are those who:

- read half a post and feel they have enough ammo to write an entire post;
- read less than half a post, start out feeling they have enough ammo, but then run out of it and end up posting half a post, or less;
- read entire posts and write complete posts;
- read entire posts but run out of energy to write a complete post in response;
- read bits of posts and post bits of posts;
- read entire posts and post bits of posts which are nevertheless strikingly complete;
- read half a post or less and put people on Ignore;
- read posts in their entirety and put people on Ignore;
- read various posts in a series to various degrees and put people on Ignore.

TFTP

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

[Zmeej]

?

Warum?

[275 GTB-4]

?

Warum?

 Qué?

 

TMWDNR...  

[Zmeej]

Ah, sloth...

[skid solo]

I sometimes ignore myself

[Option1]

Ah, sloth...

Nah, sloth is using lots and lots and lots of words when brevity would suffice.

 

And skid, in contrast, I often find myself ignored.

 

Neil

[Zmeej]

Neil

Nah, sloth is using lots and lots and lots of words when brevity would suffice.

Nah, that's the result of a feeling of not having enough time to compose something that is succinct.

The use of lots & lots of words is sometimes play, which is often misconstrued as "sloth" by Aesopian Ant types, because they are strict adherents of "time management." Paradoxically enough, such types end up doing
lotsa stuff that can be readily perceived (and not only by Grasshopper types) as "a waste of time."

Edited by Zmeej, 09 April 2014 - 20:56.

[Option1]

Yawn.  Yet more verbal diarrhea combined with pretentious crap.

 

Neil

[Zmeej]

Hmmm. Another quote from the book How to Piss Off Your Friends and Act Like an Asshole.

Close, but not yet sufficient to provoke placement on my IL.

[panzani]

I see How to Make Friends is the book someone who has read thousands, including the above mentioned, haven't read yet... And How to Make Friends and Keep Them is on a very far Galaxy, apparently. Just sayin'... I know I am on your ignore list, something you are so proud you even call IL, but I know as well you won't spend more than 5 seconds to read what I've written — here or elsewhere!

[Zmeej]

Just spent the requisite 5 seconds.

[Slartibartfast]

"Forgive me for writing you a such a long letter. I did not have time to write a short one." - Blaise Pascal

[Zmeej]

Zackly,
or
as Obélix sez:

FARPAITEMENT!

Edited by Zmeej, 04 April 2014 - 23:14.

[paipa]

Could you guys add an "Ignore posts" button on that popup-box you get when hovering over someone's name? It would fit perfectly below "Find posts" and "Send message". The current process is:

 

Scroll up to the top of the page losing your position in the thread, click your name at the top bar, click "Manage Ignore prefs", wait for page load, remember the guy's name and start typing it in a box, select the autocompleted name, check "Posts", click "Save changes", wait for page load again, go back to the thread and find where you left off.

 

Is it itentionally user-unfriendly for some pedagogical reason like teaching users to deal with posts they otherwise wouldn't want to? Is it a technological challenge? I remember asking a moderator about this a couple of years ago for which I got some vague insults in reply. Are you actually interested in making the forums a more pleasant reading experience, or you simply enjoy breaking up cat-fights too much to do anything to mitigate the problem? Can we get an ignore button? Please?

[AvranaKern]

"Forgive me for writing you a such a long letter. I did not have time to write a short one." - Blaise Pascal

Not to be pedantic, but I believe it's Mark Twain's.

[Allan Lupton]

Not to be pedantic, but I believe it's Mark Twain's.

A pedant suggests that Pascal, being a couple of centuries before Twain, might well have got there first and Twain, ever the recogniser of a bon mot, wasn't too proud to use it himself - and I think Bernard Shaw used it (and I know I do so myself!).

[AvranaKern]

Way to go, Allan, on being pedantic.

[Tim Murray]

See the discussion here:

 

http://forum.quotela...41/m/5661997884

 

It provides chapter and verse for its use by Pascal, which as Allan says must have predated its use by Twain. However, there are suggestions that it was used much earlier than this, possibly as far back as Cicero. 

Edited by Tim Murray, 06 April 2014 - 11:57.

[Buttoneer]

I love it that in the linked thread, there is a perfect example in the last three posts.

 

He meant it's easy to ramble on; it takes effort to be succinct.

 

 

Or;

 

What he meant was that a short explanation is always better than a long one, because (if it is done right) it is more powerful and memorable and less diluted with distracting details.