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

clink

I already know what he thinks. I'm a blah blah creep and others (at least one to my certain knowledge) are, too.

If 'attack the post, not the poster' is a consistently held tenet, then equally one may hope that posters themselves tend towards consistency in at least some of their values (those with children will continue to have those children, those with a particular faith will continue to adhere to that faith and so on).

Septimus' stance is not consistent, as shown by my message 131, across his postings on that particular thread. There may be good reasons for this such as his his alcohol intake and/or previous encounters; but we don't know what they are. All I know is that the poster is a usually bad tempered individual who seems to be male (can't say when I established this but he got moved from black to red and then to blue ircc, and now bold red).

The consistency is important because you may need to challenge the content of more than one posting by the same poster.

As I said, I think I can defend the inconsistency charge against Septimus, but I'm only talking about his stance on that thread. #131 can be interpreted as consistent.

'Attack the post and not the poster' seems like a useful maxim but on close scrutiny the distinction is unsustainable in my view.

clink

Yes, 131 is consistent inasmuch as the linked phrases are in the singular and his contempt is therefore applied to all posters, or each poster (to be more precise) and exceptions notwithstanding. If I am mistaken and he was specifically and only addressing me in his response, I shall have to get upset again.

The maxim is a useful reminder to address the content of the post rather than being drawn to what it tells you about the poster as an individual. You claim that it is unsustainable under scrutiny yet it's what you habitually do.

Let me clarify my view.

I think saying "Every poster deserves the same respect ..." can be interpreted as consistent with saying ". . . and what an offensive,self-opiniated little creep you are."

But it takes some doing, and so your "That explains so much, thank you." is most likely to be interpreted as pointing out the apparent inconsistency of the two statements, hence the sarcastic response.

I do think the maxim is useful and you are right, I do tend to stick by it. I don't think the policy of attacking the content rather than the poster directly is unsustainable, just the strict separation of criticizing posts and criticising posters.

Cheers!

But, you see, it doesn't necessarily 'take some doing'. First I offered the stated philosophy of each poster deserving respect; but note that it doesn't imply what level of respect. Then I add a specific upthread example of the same poster's response to an individual poster.

Rather disingenuous I know, but either the two text strings are consistent because the underlying attitude is of disrespect or are inconsistent for reasons that you would defend in this specific instance.

You've taken a studied approach to what I wrote but the poster didn't give it more than a cursory skim before using any reason - or no reason - to assume that I was in the same venomous mood and biting. He could, of course, just ignored the post.

Apart from which, I didn't post '... and what an offensive, self-opinionated little creep you are'. I posted '". . . and what an offensive,self-opiniated little creep you are."' which probably I should have put in a box. He read it without the quotes and the presence or absence of those quotes might be subtle but it is significant.

Ah you have assumed I would go for the equal respect for all = 0 option, but I have another trick up my sleeve.

All posters deserve an amount of respect that is equal in the sense that it is assigned on equal criteria. Everybody gets equal respect in the sense that everybody gets the respect they are due.

I think consistent box usage would have been desirable but I still don't think he misconstrued that aspect.

clink I may have been naive in assuming that all posters would acquire a baseline=0 in the first instance, after which they might acquire credits or debits commensurate with whatever set of criteria are used. What you're saying is that they attain commensurate rather than equal respect. Respect being an altogether private matter and not to be confused with courtesy. Consistent box usage would have helped except that I've had a problem with the Script before: putting text into a box when it's part of the post to which to you are replying is easy, and the Script adds 'quoted message nnn from whoever'; import text from elsewhere, or putting a quotation in a box, ought to give you the usual box but sometimes the 'quoted nnn ...' bit appears as well - which can be downright misleading. He didn't need to construe or misconstrue anything in that rabid mood, anyway. I've looked back and he was part of a cliquette from which one troll has recently disappeared and another is now using being borderline bi-polar and forgetting to take the meds as an excuse for being nasty ... so he must be getting lonely. There are a number of bi-polar posters who are known and not nasty (including the borderline one who withdrew, upset, last night) and I don't think the condition and the character trait are anything more than coincidental. Incidentally, I think the signature may be no more than a reference to the nickname because it was being used on his birthday thread, initiated by his now absent friend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F2693943?thread=5393294

Yes, I'm saying maybe he interprets it as giving everybody an amount of respect that is judged equally according to their due (in Septimusworld of course).

I couldn't work out the relevance of 7th to the nickname. I've never read Trollope.

clink

Well, he was overly quick and not using reasonable judgement when snapping at me (said she with pseudo-wounded defensive look) unless he'd already decided that all were eejits or he'd previously established that I was eejit grade.

Haven't read any Trollope, didn't know that it was a Trollope character ... just equating the 7 with sept blah blah.

Doh I was forgetting the Latin septem = "seven" so that's why, though I'm not sure about septIMus.

clink

I expect it was because 'viiimus' came up as spelling error or got trapped in the obscenity blocker

Or 'viimus'?

clink

But he'd be Seximus then

Er....vii = 7 though....

Oh I get it you want an extra 'i' so it sounds the same....

That would be an error 'cos vii = 7 = septem.

So septem + us = viius (without the 'm' too)

cheers!

Did you think I'd made him Hexmus?

What am I missing, cardinality versus ordinality is it? The difference between sevenmus and seventhmus? Guilty as charged. Good job I kept that peal handled revolver....

I just dispensed with the Latin niceties and took the 'sept'+imus ... as my training is not in Latin, I was just thinking of the French sept (with Latin root), and I worked from that.

Hence vii+imus, rather than 7+imus (I dispensed with the th, too).

Good grief you can be cavalier at times. In fact I'm now imagining you with a funny hat and thin waxed moustache. So that probably means it is time for bed....

G'night!