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

Deb: I was going to provide you with a link to one of those conversations for balance. It's the one that first turned me into a dirty angel. As I remembered it, she had made a long series of offensive statements in a particular forum which I wanted to keep unpolluted, and the dirty angels descended into the conversation and started bringing up old garbage. It was where I first learned of the death-threat episode.

But I went back and read the first few posts, and the thing that startled me was this: certain dirty angels are often accused of dragging up old stuff into new conversations, but in this case, it was Della herself who dragged it up. See Post 3: F71014?thread=449157&skip=0&show=20

Jordan honey, when was the last time you slept?

Hoo, don't you think you are focussing on Jordan's postings a bit too heavily simply because he is backing up Della? Just wondering.

Anyhow, both of you are getting quite tedious! So please knock it off already.




az

<>

This thread IS tedious but necessary so blaming people for continuous tediousness is a bit irrelevant and tedious.

I think a general consensus has been reached that some sort of 'dumb bomb' is required for the reasons mentioned above. Is anyone going to make a suggestion regarding how we implement this and curtail this thread so we can get back to general discussion and pulling people up on revising history...cough...the APPLE of my eye for an example recently *cough* . PS *cough* 14th March *choke*.

Instead of using 'bombs', what about simply posting something along the lines of:

"I perceive posting number XX to be homophobic/bigoted/erroneous/rascist/"

(obviously, select whichever word applies)

In this way, the objector has made their point without getting drawn into 'wars' and without intrusive thread disruption or the need for long explanations which involve chasing links to other threads.

<>

Because without the accompanying explanation of why it is exactly the same as the vague generalisations that is trying to be stopped.

Soap opera, would be my guess....

Post 486 refers back to posting 408

Noggin

Thanks for that, Blatherskite. However, the link you gave me seems to have come from another conversation and, to be honest, just reading the first 3 posts, you do seem to be having a go. I understand that there was some exchange of views prior to your linked postings, so again I'm not seeing the whole story.

However, Ferrettbadger posted some links in my PS (for which, thanks) and I'll be checking them out on Wednesday.

Deb

Deb: be warned, once you started looking at old conversations - and the links to other conversations within them - and then the links within the links - and then you think, well hey now, who IS this person and visit their PS, and then that doesn't seem fair so you visit some of the others ... well, a few days may not be enough.

Mol

>>Because without the accompanying explanation of why it is exactly the same as the vague generalisations that is trying to be stopped.<<

One of the main points repeatedly made throughout this thread is that accompanying explanations don't seem to make any difference whatsoever and serve little purpose, except to p*ss off some other researchers.

From where I'm standing - one side has agreed they are willing to alter their behaviour; the other side does not acknowledge their behaviour needs to change.

We can't force anyone to change their behaviour; they have to make the change themself.
That's the point I was trying to make earlier with the light-bulb 'joke' which no-one noticed (or y'all ignored because it was so bad).

I am suggesting that this "I perceive etc" standard objection only needs to be used in 'certain cases'.

For discussions/debates involving different participants (to those involved in the DWs) the standard objection should not need to be used as the normal 'rules of engagement' would apply.

<

Shakes head. Truly stunned...not by Della's reply...that someone has actual used the wierd pawnbrokers sign by the post to see where it is linked from. It does have it uses.

Shakes head at the rest as well.

<>

As a Warner Brothers' character saysto Daffy, "au contraire, ducko"... Kea and Hoo have shown me exactly how much notice anyone takes of what I say. So, really, why should I bother trying? I am amused watching the 'Dirty s' having both sides of an argument amongst themselves. Some people have invented a character called 'Della' and they say things their character might say, and the others refute that.

Very amusing!

<<>>Because without the accompanying explanation of why it is exactly the same as the vague generalisations that is trying to be stopped.<<

One of the main points repeatedly made throughout this thread is that accompanying explanations don't seem to make any difference whatsoever and serve little purpose, except to p*ss off some other researchers.

From where I'm standing - one side has agreed they are willing to alter their behaviour; the other side does not acknowledge their behaviour needs to change.

We can't force anyone to change their behaviour; they have to make the change themself.
That's the point I was trying to make earlier with the light-bulb 'joke' which no-one noticed (or y'all ignored because it was so bad).>>

Hence, some sort of Dumb Bomb PLUS link. No generalisation. No long post BUT with a point i.e. the link if someone does want to revisit the original discussion at some point.

Re: the joke - the answer is the latter.

We do not care if the lightbulb does not want to be changed - we are assuming it is steadfastly cross-threaded and will not move at all. What we do need is some way of continueing to highlight homophobic/racist/non-sequiters/conversation bombs without de-railing a thread because it has been said above we are not willing to let it go unchallenged but we accept that a short-hand method is required for the good of all of us.

<> ***Dumb bomb*** Not what you say in post 1, line 7 of following link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F70877?thread=610929&latest=1

<>

Dumb bomb. The fact that we have a public thread approaching 500 posts shows exactly how much notice people take of what you say. We just don't react the way you'd prefer. You seem to have failed to notice that nobody is standing up for you except your own spawn Bain (whose behavior is even worse than yours), and Jordan (and he appears to be defending you more on principle of fairness than any real sense that you're innocent).

<>

Dumb bomb.

<>

Dumb bomb. Change your name all you want, but you are still you.

<>

Dumb bomb. You say it's amusing now, but only because your victim pose wasn't convincing anyone. Who is to say which is your true reaction and which is the pose?

Hoo, this posting is just pure ad hominem, you don't argue, you just abuse Jordan. This puts you in a very bad light, to anyone genuinely objective, such as he is. So - and this gives me ironic pleasure

Dumb bomb! A3771443

I've just finished reading the backlog of the last 300 posts or so.

Ye Gods.

That was an hour and a half of my life when I was in need of an early night... and I'd quite like it back, if anyone's in a position to do that for me.

<>

"Genuinely objective" is here used to mean, "sympathetic towards me".

"I perceive several of the above postings to be tedious" and shall unsubscribe and leave y'all to it.

I don't know if I'm using this correctly, but in reference to the exchange between Hoo and Jordan...

Dumb bomb A3771443

I thought this thread was about finding solutions, not reenacting an episode of the DWs by derailing the conversation so you two can yell at each other repetitively and bore the rest of us to death. Now all you're doing is saying things to provoke each other. A lot of parties are culpable in this conflict: that includes you, Hoo, and you, Apple, and maybe even you, Jordan, and I dunno, maybe me too, because I've now butted in here and put in my What do I know?

I'll leave it for you responsible adults to decide...