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

Jordan:

"Jordan... That is EXACTLY what posting the words "Dumb Bomb" is aimed to do. '

Um... No, I don't think so."

Then you think wrong. Live with it.

Eventually you may understand. I won't hold my breath.

H.

'You may choose to keep things civil, but by your own admission you've done a less effective job of containing your feelings than you would like. An irritated poster will still convey their feelings even when they write with the best of intentions.'

Yes. Though I will apologise if I realise that I've been too rude. It might feel great to get carried away by my emotions, but afterwards I'm genuinely repentant. And if I'm not, I try my damned Catholic-upbringing best to be so.


'For instance, I find your implication that those of us who choose to employ the D-bomb tool lack self-restraint to be offensive. [Don't worry, I knew what you meant.] I for one am on record saying that I have made a conscious choice to forego my normal restraint in dealing with Della, due to her offensive behavior. I've also made a conscious moral judgement that people who are deliberately rude and obnoxious deserve no better in return...'

I know. It took me a while to amend that, to 'find it impractical or impossible [to show restraint].' Sorry about that. When people get angry and I make an effort to show restraint, one of the nastier side-effects is that I become insufferably superior.

It just sorta slips, don't it?


'This is not a lack of self-restraint, just a different set of principles regarding when it is appropriate to use.'

Perhaps, but it is a set of principles which exacerbates an existing problem.

And it's impossible to defend one set of principles above another without some external measuring-stick.

'Then you think wrong. Live with it.

'Eventually you may understand. I won't hold my breath.'

Perhaps you can use that breath to explain why?

I presented two reasons that I didn't believe this was the purpose of the D-Bomb. You have chosen simply to say 'you're wrong' without trying to back up the statement. That's hardly how debate works.

If I am wrong, then the D-Bomb *can* be used to respond to your own responses to Della. It would be nice to see the list of examples expanded to reflect this.

- Jordan

"I know that Insight isn't just trolling, he's posting an opinion. It's possible that's just what Vicky is doing."

And the phrase "Dumb Bomb" would be posted in response by someone who disagreed with those opinions.

Subtitle for the hard-of-thinking:

Here's an example:

Let's say Insight posts that obviously there were no rainbows before the flood. It's just his opinion.

Except it's an opinion so moronic and incomprehensible to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size that it demands a response.

Now, I have a choice. I could write a thousand words describing precisely how spectacularly stupid this idea is - that the very laws of physics could change on such a fundamental level as to make rainbows impossible, yet leave life on earth otherwise more or less the same. I could go into the mechanisms of internal reflection, and optics, and many other things. I could speculate on the bizarre doublethink required of members of a backward middle-eastern superstitious cult living in the 21st century, and what kind of psychological inadequate would be drawn to a philosophy which requires you to deny the evidence of your own eyes.

I could. And I might like to do just that, once. But as you know, Insight doesn't just post this kind of crap once. He's posted it repeatedly. And it gets boring for other people to see him rebutted, point by point, to see his feeble, ridiculous arguments forensically dismantled, to see his desperate twisting and turning and special pleading and self-delusion in response.

OR...

I could read his garbage, and just post "Dumb Bomb".

Has anything been lost? *I* know why I'm posting it. *He* knows why I'm posting it. Anyone reading with two braincells to rub together knows why I'm posting it. Therefore nothing has been lost, except some of my deathless prose. Like I said, nothing lost.

I do hope you are now, finally, three days behind everyone else, finally starting to understand this desperately simple concept, because frankly I'm starting to get bored of explaining it to you, and I'm getting even more bored of reading OTHER people trying to explain it to you. YOU are the only one who seems to be having any trouble understanding. Would it be too much to ask that you simply read the backlog of this thread again from the beginning, plus the "Dumb Bomb" entry, and THINK about it, before commenting again?

The answer, I predict, is "Probably".

H.

<>
<>

You can stick me down as a D-bomb proponent now.

I have retracted my comment above now that it should be backed up with some indication to a reply.

"Perhaps you can use that breath to explain why?"

Oh for f**k's sake...

"I presented two reasons that I didn't believe this was the purpose of the D-Bomb. You have chosen simply to say 'you're wrong' without trying to back up the statement. That's hardly how debate works."

No. Debate works when people of similar intelligence try to put their opinions across to one another to convince the other side of some point or other. It rather requires that each side show some basic level of comprehension. What's going on here is not a debate, it's me (and Ben, and Alfster, and Blatherskite, and others) p**sing into the wind.

Tell you what, if you're really so confused and unable to get your head round how the Dumb Bomb concept works, why not take a look at an example in action?

F19585?thread=606523&skip=391&show=1

There. A post MASSIVELY shorter and more civil than it might otherwise have been. Dumb Bomb working its magic.

If you really don't understand after reading that, and the rest of the backlog, please do me and everyone else a favour and DON'T ask us to explain it to you again, it's getting very, very tedious, especially as you seem to be in an uncomprehending minority of one.

H.

Perusing the backlog, I was reminded of this:

How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Just one - but the lightbulb's gotta really want to change.

'Tell you what then: why don't you shut up until you DO understand, then come back? So far all I see is uncomprehending whining.'

D-Bomb.


'Yeah. And we know how much respect people like that deserve.'

D-Bomb.


'1. Unnecessarily time consuming.'

That's the trade-off for presenting evidence.

'2. Doesn't register disapproval in the relevant place, i.e. on the thread.'

It does, for those who choose to look for it. Refer to my reply to FB.

I also didn't say you couldn't include the phrase 'Dumb Bomb'.

3. Pointless. By definition we're dealing with people whose behaviour is NOT going to be changed, people so pig-ignorant they don't even see that they've done anything wrong. The ONLY thing we're doing is registering disapproval. Taking "proof" to their PS is just giving them the chance to feel like victims. No thanks.'

So people on the thread are merely to take someone's word that this is a repetition of an old argument? You wouldn't take that. And before you say anything about credibility, why should people credit you?


'Hey! Good idea! Let's see... what could we call the signal... hmm... how about... "Dumb Bomb". Jesus H., have you been taking Della lessons or something?'

Fine. Then I'd like to see it explicitly included (consider that 'constructive criticism'). As you can see, it's working beautifully for me, so I have no objections.


'If you're not uncomfortable about having one of your postings referred to as a Dumb Bomb, Jordan, you really, truly, have completely missed the point.'

On the contrary. If someone makes a bad call, they're the ones who look bad.


'I think it would be fairer to say that you remain more or less completely uncomprehending.'

D-Bomb.


'And Vicky = Della. And Adele. And Adelaide. And Debbie. And ".". And "?". And "Winged Victory". But as the title of this thread attests, whether she likes it or not, as far as this community is concerned, she's Della, regardless of what her screenname says this week. It's the name she's used longest, it's the name most closely associated with her best known actions on this site - it's her name, where name means "what other people say when they mean you".'

Thank you for clearing that up for any newbies out there.


'Nonsense. There is NOTHING two-way going on here. "Mutual consent" is non-existent.'

By mutual consent, I meant in formulating the D-Bomb. And between the researchers who want to use it (and perhaps some of the community). I'm not necessarily including Apple. What's wrong with that?


'The other side has noted that this makes her feel like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden. '

D-Bomb.


'What "two-way" indulgence do you see here? '

The indulgence of the 'Dirty s' for the sake of the community (and the threads they are involved in), and self-indulgence (in making the term explicitly as well as implicitly pejorative).

Gee! These 'D-Bombs' certainly speed things up. I'm almost tempted to believe you were so insulting merely to illustrate how useful a tool it is.

- Jordan

- Jordan

'Would it be too much to ask that you simply read the backlog of this thread again from the beginning, plus the "Dumb Bomb" entry, and THINK about it, before commenting again?'

What?

There are over 450 posts in this thread.

Who do you think you are? Because I'd like to remind you that, in fact, azahar is my h2g2 mommy.

- Jordan

<<'This is not a lack of self-restraint, just a different set of principles regarding when it is appropriate to use.'

Perhaps, but it is a set of principles which exacerbates an existing problem.>>

You have a point. However, it's important to recognize that Della's behavior is also a problem, and one that mild disapproval or ignoring exacerbates. If she is not called on her rubbish, she is encouraged to post more of it. Yelling at her does not appear to solve the problem, though it does make me feel better about it. There's the payoff, as Ben would say.

Use of the D-bomb simultaneously discourages her from posting inflammatory nonsense while avoiding escalation and making me feel better.

'Tell you what, if you're really so confused and unable to get your head round how the Dumb Bomb concept works, why not take a look at an example in action?'

Fine. And I feel quite justified in my own use.

'* Deliberate misrepresentations of another's previous statement for the purpose of winding them up.'

Possibly the closest example.

- Jordan

'Use of the D-bomb simultaneously discourages her from posting inflammatory nonsense while avoiding escalation and making me feel better.'

I've just used it, and it felt good.

Now I feel dirty.

- Jordan

"Who do you think you are? "

That's "Hoo" to yoo.

And I think I'm someone who understands the point at issue. You have admitted explicitly that you do not. Therefore that places me in a position to advise you on a course of action. You may choose to follow my advice, or not. If you choose not to, and continue to post uncomprehending whining in place of thought-out criticism or, Bod forbid, a workable improvement to the solution we already have, then be prepared to be on the receiving end of our newly-acquired tool.

H.

'"The other side has noted that this makes her feel like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden. "

'D-Bomb.'

Probably a bad call, since she did say that. Though is it? Bringing something up just to be rude? Where should I draw the line?

- Jordan

Jordan, perhaps you could try reading the D-bomb link as a concept in itself, without attaching it to the context of Della or the dirty . I have a feeling that that might be what's creating some of the difficulty in communication here.

Perhaps a little bit of "Time Out" might be appropriote here folks?

Or at least an agree to disagree from Hoo and Jordan. I dont think you two are likely to come to an accord here to be honest.

'You have admitted explicitly that you do not.'

If you read, I point out that other researchers apparently share in this, and my postings are, also explicitly, an attempt to find out what the idea entails.


'If you choose not to, and continue to post uncomprehending whining in place of thought-out criticism...'

Where do I whine?


A D-Bomb won't just refer to postings along the lines of Apple's, but also to responses along the lines of yours. And the use is optional -- if a researcher (say, myself) feels capable of addressing Apple civilly, then they would be free to do so.

Question: if this did involve rehashing an old argument, albeit politely, would it be acceptable? Or should I have to take it to her space? (And why?)

- Jordan

'Or at least an agree to disagree from Hoo and Jordan. I dont think you two are likely to come to an accord here to be honest.'

It's entirely possible. The D-Bomb cut down on how long it took me to post to him by several minutes, because I was able to express my aggravation very quickly and succinctly. A very welcome improvement.

I think I'm fine with the idea now. (Especially after seeing an earlier posting by Hoo which explains his understanding of the situation.) It doesn't mean I don't have any questions left, but I'm kinda starting to like it.

- Jordan

All this talk has left me with the urge to actually read up on some of the history of the DWs. Can someone who was involved point me in the direction of a discussion thread where D/V/A/Apple behaved badly? I'm not sure how to track down a good one and I haven't come across any myself (I tend to stick just to the front page and Ask as I don't have that much time free).

In the interests of balance, can Apple or anyone else involved point me in the direction of a discussion thread where the dirty s were hounding her?

I have a few days off work from Wednesday using up my hols so I'll be home alone and have peace to settle down for a good read.

Thanks

Deb

>> It doesn't say this list is exhaustive, but I think it would take some stretch to say that 'D-Bombs' are to be used in RESPONSE to insulting replies. If so, I'd like to see this made explicit, because it's not at all clear.

Me too. Blathers, Hoo - have I got this right? Using the words "Dumb Bomb" (actually I prefer "Dim Bomb" myself), is intended to indicate that the post you are referring to is a conversation bomb, is probably intended to derail the debate, that it may be bigoted, that it is almost certainly stupid, and that it makes a point that has probably been replied to already?





>> >> 'The words are a *label* not a weapon. They alert other people to the fact that a Dumb Bomb has *already* been placed in a thread by another researcher and that the person posting the label is not - to mix a metaphor - rising to the bait.'

>> Wait -- to label the offending posting, or the attitude of the 'signaller'? I'd just like to clarify that.

As I see it, to label the original post as a conversation bomb. It will of course serve to signal that the poster has the self restraint not to raise to the bait laid in the original post, (damned mixed metaphors ), and that they have the courtesy not to bore other people in the thread with reiterated explanations, and that they have the awareness of nettiquette not to let the thread descend into a flamewar. But what they are labelling, if I have got this right, is the original conversation bomb.





>> By mutual consent, I meant in formulating the D-Bomb. And between the researchers who want to use it (and perhaps some of the community).

Um. I think we've got that. It's certainly been debated enough. Those of us who are using it understand it. Some of those who understand it don't want to use it.

What do you want?

A BALLOT?

You said a while ago that you wanted a democratic decision on the subject ('democratic' is my paraphrase). What you didn't answer was my question whether you wanted a majority of the 200,000+ people who have signed on to the DNA engine, a majority of the few thousand 'regular' users of the site, (whatever that means), or the majority of the posters in this thread. I think we've already got the latter, Jordan. You really *are* beginning to look as if you are whining, or disagreeing for the sake of it.





>> I've just used it, and it felt good.
>> Now I feel dirty.

Sounds like the definition of a perfect weekend to me!




>> It doesn't mean I don't have any questions left, but I'm kinda starting to like it.

temptress voice> Try it... you'll like it!





Jordan - in one sentance only because I am repeatedly missing your point here - what is your primary objection to people labling posts as conversation bombs?

Anyway - we are going around in circles here, and I have been wa-a-a-y too distracted by this today so I am unsubscribing for a while. I am taking FB's suggestion of 'time out' - it's nothing personal.

Ben