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

<> (Teasswill)

<> (Apple/Della)

You forgot to add 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo', Apple/Della.


az

<>

How the heckity does Teasswill disagreeing with you result in a *world of hurt* for you? I mean honestly. Her posting was very unemotional, just stating the facts as she sees them. And if I can say, how many people here seem to see them.


az

Just to let everyone know, I yikes'd the posts on the last page because they were just flame bait for each other. Why must this pointless little spat appear everywhere
Iago

... Or at least I thought I'd yikes'd them

Which postings did you yikes, Iago? Oh, I hate yikesing - much better to leave things so people can see what has been said, however distasteful.

Anyhow, yikesing doesn't mean the posting is immediately removed - it needs to go through the moderation process to assess whether the yikes'd posting actually broke the house rules.

az

I yikes's 58 and 59 as I thought falme baiting was against the rules. It isn't apparently. I hate yikesing, that was the first time I've tried since I came over from Talk Buffy nearly two years ago, but I'm really sick of this dispute and asking people to leave it alone didn't work

*flame* baiting even

I think arguementative and indeed writing style has more effect than whether your opinions actually differ from someone else's.

Loaded words, the order in which you mix controversial and non-controversial points, tone, the way in which you address people etc. all have a huge effect on how people respond.

As an aside, ever noticed the difference in the ways in which people will respond to words they don't understand? Some will make an educated guess about what it means, some will become awed/respectful, some will ask what the word means, but most (in my experience outside h2g2) will make accusations of over-intellectualism.

<>

Aaaaccck, this has happened to me here more times than I can remember, and I'm not any sort of 'intellectual'. Meanwhile, Noggin *is* an intellectual and nobody ever *accuses* him of being one.

Go figure.

az

I agree with Bouncy that it's not just what you say that matters, it's how you say it too.

Apple

*sigh* You are making incorrect assumptions.

>> Donald what makes you think that a lot of consensus goes on here because its too easy compared to rocking the boat? <<

Too late Blicky. If you had asked me around the time I made the statement I would have repplied. However, seeing as you only asked after being prompted by someone else it doesn't warrant a reply. It just serves to confirm what I have suspected for a long time. That you just challenge Apple in the aggresive manner you do because she is an easy target, which just amounts to bullying. Nothing at all to do with challenging inacuracies or misplaced opinions.

My source for my opinions - The University of Life.

Donald

<>.

Huh?

An expression I first heard when I moved to Bristol, Apple/Della, pretty much similar to .

It was a reaction to your response to Teasswill (the two postings that Iago yikes'd - unsuccessfully).

Just pointing out that I thought it a bit childish. In all my experience with Teasswill I have always found her to be a very thoughtful, reasonable and intelligent debater. Your reaction (post 59) to her challenges was not debating - you simply replied in a very defensive manner and accused her of doing things she does not do.

Thereby proving the point she had previously made, btw.

az

<>

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies "(you) would say that, wouldn't (you)?"

You're hardly the unbiased observer you make yourself out to be, are you?

That sounds like a 'Miaouw'from you, Apple.

But the question is Apple: would she have been an unbiased observer before she met you? If so then what changed that position?

For s sake

<> (Apple)

I don't remember saying I was an unbiased observer - I don't think anyone can ever be totally unbiased.

Meanwhile, getting back to not going along with the consensus, it seems clear that doing so is often difficult and creates a certain amount of stress. Which then has to be balanced with the stress created by not speaking one's mind for fear of being ostracised.

I think a major factor is how much someone is a group person, group joiner, team player, etc as opposed to someone who is quite comfortable being a bit of an outsider. I fall into the latter category. Which is probably why I find it more stressful to pretend that I am going along with the consensus rather than speaking my mind and dealing with the consequences.

To quote Robertson Davies: "Anybody who is anybody is likely to be unnaceptable to the nobodies."


az

ps
yes, that was me joking . . .

. . . sort of




az

Some people do seem to want to deliberately go against the flow, to be seen as different, standing out from the crowd. My mother-in-law is one, who in almost any conversation, will take a controversial viewpoint.

There are others who seem reluctant to make up their own minds & will usually kowtow to the dominant member of a group. I have seen this happening in committee meetings.

As has been said earlier on, it all comes down to personality, how important a particular issue is to you & how you regard the people with whom you are discussing the issue.