h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And if they don't you can reply to the e mail and the Eds will be able to see the post in context.

<>

There was quite a kerfuffle over the correct pronunciation of my name. So I asked a Greek how it should be pronounced. When I relayed his answer to my friends, they told me that it didn't matter because he spoke modern Greek, not classical Greek. >laugh>

How do you pronounce azahar? Not that I'm trying to provoke anything.

athaar (dipthong on the last syllable)

and you are hi-pat-iyah . . . I think? Short i.




az

P:

P-C: <...to see ourselves as others see us.>

P:

But I did. Here's the extended version:

I was trying to say, without offering offence, that *someone* in the described situation probably couldn't see themselves as others see them. [Without further evidence, there is no reason to conclude that the person at whom the insult was aimed is the 'unpleasant' one.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Shall we take this 'outside' Hyp? Like over to my place, for example.

*waves to Z*

az

too

<> (P-c)

Except that insults are often presumed when no insult was intended.


az

>Except that insults are often presumed when no insult was intended<

Particularly with people who feel their entire being is tied up in one or two aspects of themselves, or that the entirety of their lives is defined by that/those aspect(s). As a result, any mention of that/those thing(s), whether slightly critical, provocative, or even rude, is seen as a *personal* insult to that person. Which, in fact, is usually isn't.

It seems many of these same people are also so self-centered as to think that everyone else pays them enough mind to think them worth insulting to begin with. Which also isn't always the case.

While I pity these people, I don't feel obligated to handle them with kid gloves.

>>"But I did. Here's the extended version"

Had you actually meant to say
"Maybe JtP didn't see himself that way"
possibly it would have been better if you had said it directly, especially since it would have been shorter and clearer.
However, I'm not sure how much information content your statement would have had, being rather a declaration of the obvious.

In any case, it's not really relevant whether JtP did see himself as bigoted and unpleasant, or merely superior to the damned masses (including most other Christians, dismissed as mere 'nominals', either self-deluded or misled by the devil like the rest of humanity).
Once it got to the point where *most people* saw JtP as an unpleasant bigot, as most people seemed to do, and they really wanted JtP to go away, JtP's own opinion on the matter isn't likely to be given much weight.

I dare say that more than a few of the comments aimed at JtP were at least partly chosen in an attempt to enlighten him about how others *did* see him.
Unfortunately, some of the more sensitive readers would fail to see that attempted 'gift' as anything but mere rudeness devoid of any information content.

>>"[Without further evidence, there is no reason to conclude that the person at whom the insult was aimed is the 'unpleasant' one.]"

Well, of course, often there's a significant amount of history involved, and in an arena with regular participants, the majority of the time most people *can* reach informed conclusions, and people lacking enough information to make such conclusions can always wait until they are better informed.

">>"Ste, how rational is your immediate dismissal of my view?"

Given the spirit with which you seemed to start off, I don't really think you're in much of a position to complain about the style of other people's replies to you."


Indeed Potholer. What have I achieved by putting people down for the contemptuous attitude of those they consider inferior in thought and deed. Have any of them given the idea that they aren't doing anything contructive? Have they considered that their treatment of people whose thinking [or to their view lack of thinking of any merit] just erodes the enjoyment of the site for the wider community here? Have they doubted for a second that offending the offensive is quite justifiable no matter how unwelcoming it makes the site, no matter who's enjoyment of h2g2 they detract from.? Are they any less certain not approving of their attitude to certain people, situation and issues is a sign of the mental weakness in the disapprover?
What did I achieve by starting out with a post that seemed to say nothingt more than I'm right and they are wrong, and, they are lesser people for it?
>>"... is that because he was enjoying the exchange of ideas and views or was it because he enjoyed picking on the deluded?"

"That's not an either/or question.
At least one other option is that (like many other people) Hoo wanted a deeply unpleasnt and bigoted individual to £$&! off somewhere else, and replied accordingly.
In that context, causing *some kind* of offence seems quite justifiable, even if causing similar levels of offence in other individuals might not be. Any amusement caused might simply be a bonus."

So he picked on a deluded person with the purpose of hounding them off the site. And just happened to enjoy it.

When Hoovooloo was 'suspended' from the site I happened to think that a deeply unpleasent and bigoted individual had been told to £$&! off somewhere else. And it's my feeling I wasn't alone in that, but I can't say I've ever canvassed for opinion.
Mention has been made of civilised debate - I see nothing civilised in 'going at it' the way some do, I see that as self-indulgent, I see some's deliberate 'provoke' technique as gratuitous and part of why so many start out with a view that this site has aspecial friendliness and later come to see it as possibly full of even more long running pointless feuds as any other.
I think Hoovooloo and others like him have appointed themselves as defenders of the intellectual purity of h2g2, they see the site as belonging to them, they think that there is a problem with this site - that problem is too many emotional fragile and intellectual weaklings intruding from the real world.

Pattern-chaser: I guess what you're trying to say is that we're expected to accept any statement uncritically. "That's nonsense" is an attack on the statement, and not the person, so if we can't say that, what can we say?

My daughter represents the first of a new, more highly-evolved species of homo sapiens. Is there anything you'd like to say to that?

azahar: <>

It's that curious lisp that causes Latinos to think of the Spanish as effeminate. It wouldn't be spoken with that "th" sound outside of Spain.

"In any case, it's not really relevant whether JtP did see himself as bigoted and unpleasant, or merely superior to the damned masses (including most other Christians, dismissed as mere 'nominals', either self-deluded or misled by the devil like the rest of humanity).
Once it got to the point where *most people* saw JtP as an unpleasant bigot, as most people seemed to do, and they really wanted JtP to go away, JtP's own opinion on the matter isn't likely to be given much weight.

I dare say that more than a few of the comments aimed at JtP were at least partly chosen in an attempt to enlighten him about how others *did* see him.
Unfortunately, some of the more sensitive readers would fail to see that attempted 'gift' as anything but mere rudeness devoid of any information content."

I'm sure Justin the Preacher thought he was bringing a gift of his own to people and that they were failing to appreciate it.
And Justin the Preacher's behavior wasn't alone in being motivated by a sense of being superior to the damned masses.

Rudeness isn't devoid of information - it says a great deal. But does rudeness aimed at someone who isn't going to hear more than part of that information serving anyone's needs beyond that of the person being rude?
And if others are sensitive to that rudeness [why does ensitive equate with idiot in you're idiolect anyway?] the you acting as a detriment to the wider community.

Yes, I can see how letting him spew his offensive and hateful drivel unchallenged would have had a more positive net effect on the community.

Wait... no, I can't.

''

That's given me more good cheer thany any number of bogbrushes could

"When Hoovooloo was 'suspended' from the site I happened to think that a deeply unpleasent and bigoted individual had been told to £$&! off somewhere else."

Your opinion, to which you're entitled. Duly noted. One point: I was not *told* to f**k off. I was forced to, not offered a choice. That's all.

"And it's my feeling I wasn't alone in that, but I can't say I've ever canvassed for opinion."

I do not have, and have no wish for, a fan club. Frankly, I take the opprobrium of certain people as an indicator I'm doing something right.

"I think Hoovooloo and others like him have appointed themselves as defenders of the intellectual purity of h2g2"

Then you're wrong. I have no such high-minded ideas. I'd just like to think that in ONE place it would be possible to have conversations unpolluted by shrieking children. Is that too much to ask?

"they see the site as belonging to them"

Ah, supreme ignorance. It usually turns up, and here it is. If there's anyone here who is under NO illusions about the relationship between this site and its users, it's me. I'll bore on for as long as you like to anyone who will listen that any ideas about "freedom of speech", user input or any of that happy clappy crap are at best an illusion here. This site is NOT a democracy, it's a dictatorship. No user, no matter how much they may have contributed to the site in the past, is of any more value to it than someone who turns up, posts the word "F**k" and leaves. This fact is demonstrated again and again, and I've pointed it out again and again. To suggest I have any sense of ownership over this place is laughable.

"they think that there is a problem with this site - that problem is too many emotional fragile and intellectual weaklings intruding from the real world."

I *do* think there is a problem with the site. That these fragile emotional and intellectual weaklings turn up here, treat the place as though it is their personal therapist and support system, then get all whiny when *horrors* it turns out that there are people here who don't get all huggy when they behave unreasonably. And worse, they are indulged, not just by other users but by the site as a whole.

This site is many things, but it is NOT, never was and never will be a PTSD survivor support network, a safe house for child abuse victims, or a talking shop for sufferers of domestic violence. The internet is stuffed with such sites, but this is not one of them and it consistently baffles me that people cannot or will not accept or understand that simple fact.

"I think Hoovooloo and others like him have appointed themselves as defenders of the intellectual purity of h2g2"

And now I'm laughing so hard the beer is coming down my nose. "intellectual purity of h2g2"??? Are you for real? Seriously? Have you READ this site? Do you have ANY idea what it's about?

All I (and I hope it's not out of turn to speak for the "others like" me) and those others want is this tiny, little corner of h2g2 to be able to continue having grownup conversations without having them dragged offtopic and ruined by whining self-centred children. There are plenty of places elsewhere on the net and even elsewhere in the wonderful jungle that is h2 where such people can exchange banalities to their hearts' content. I'd just like it if when they get a robust response here, it is THEY who have to leave, rather than those of us who were doing just fine until they turned up.

*I* don't go polluting Askh2g2 or MiscChat with heavyweight political or ethical questions. I don't barge in on other people's convs in those fora and post offtopic rants about my personal problems. If I did, I'd expect short shrift. But try giving the Usual Suspects short shrift, and what do I get? It's *my* fault for not being "sensitive". Well f**k that, and f**k them.

SoRB

"Yes, I can see how letting him spew his offensive and hateful drivel unchallenged would have had a more positive net effect on the community.

Wait... no, I can't."

So Justin the Preacher was provoking you was he? With offensive posts?

Did he drop by your space often with these provoking posts? Or did you have to go to his space?

Was his offensive drivel so eloquantly phrased that it was likely to 'trick' people into thinking that what he was saying had any validity or was it so patently obvious that any 'fool' could see it for what it was?

How long many debates did you have to have with him before you realised that he was never going to comprehend the counters to his 'reasoning'.

Do you think that by cornering him you made him doubt himself or do you think that you only made him more entrench in distorted views?

Do you think that the approach you used against Justin the Preacher is an one appropriate to for use against anyone who's view you don't like?

Dipthong - Minimalist laundry, to that great radio show I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue

Last off topic post from me