Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^17: What is "aggressive" argument?

by Argel (Prior)
on Nov 10, 2010 at 19:20 UTC ( #870654=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^16: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

If anything you have it backwards. The first part is fairly tame, maybe even admirable to some. The latter part, whether true or not, is easily seen as inflammatory, etc. Not to mention that if he is as bad as you think he is then all you are doing is boosting his ego -- and to your detriment no less!!

You say there is nothing you can do about it, but you're like an American football coach who keeps calling the same play over and over again and then wondering why your team lost. The conclusion is obvious -- if you want to do something about the situation then you need to change your approach. As an example, do you really think the rest of us care about your inflammatory sock-puppet diatribe? Try leaving inflammatory comments like that out next time and see where things go.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks


Comment on Re^17: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^18: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 10, 2010 at 23:12 UTC
    The latter part, whether true or not, is easily seen as inflammatory, etc.

    And we come full circle. That you are going to bat for a sock puppet id who's sole purpose in existance is to allow its cowardly controller to ply his 'art'--the very things you are judging me for, but 100x worse--safe in the knowledge that his real id is thus protected from any fall out. That speaks volumes.

    The conclusion is obvious -- if you want to do something about the situation then you need to change your approach.

    Firstly, changing my approach won't correct the prejudgement that you apply when you see my name attached to a post. That boat sailed long ago. It might have some small effect on the perceptions of me by newbies; but I don't have run ins with them.

    Secondly, I don't perceive the need for change. You're the one sitting in judgement of me, but you make no attempts to apply your standards to my sparring partners. Not even the non-contributory, wholly vacuous, deeds of an insipid, cowardly sock puppet.

    do you really think the rest of us care about your inflammatory sock-puppet diatribe?

    I wasn't talking to "the rest of you", only you.

    Do I think you care? I don't have to "think", you've made it very clear. And confirmed everything I've been saying all over again.

    A more interesting question is: Do I think you should care about the actions of someone holding (at least) two accounts, and using one of them to get away with spewing foul, if vacuous and insipid, rancour, safe from redress. Yes. I think you should.

    That you seek to protect him from me; that should give you pause for thought.

    I'm not keen on bible quotes, but there is one that comes to mind: judge not others lest you too be judged.

    What I do, I do in my own name, and take full responsibility for whatever consequences arise--good or bad.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      I personally do not like the idea of multiple accounts, save for having an "official" / "admin" type account and then one to post under regularly as a normal user. But I do not make the rules here. :-(

      But more importantly, this thread is about you and things you can do to improve your situation. And that's because while you cannot control the actions others you can control how you respond to them! And that is why your sparring partners are irrelevant to this discussion, save for their ability to egg you on and your unhealthy fixation on them. Which brings us back to changes you can make to your behavior.

      I think I need to clarify:

      [D]o you really think the rest of us care about your inflammatory sock-puppet diatribe?
      What I meant was that the rest of us will likely see you being overly abrasive (and thus startign a minor flame war), see you falling for flamebait, or even worse, see you feeding a troll. That doesn't mean we do not notice who you are sparring with. What it means is that an individual's perception of you will be based on your actions, not your sparring partners. Staying above the fray will likely leave a positive impression. Falling/jumping into, or worse, starting the fray will likely leave a negative impression.

      Or to put it more succinctly -- we don't care about them, why do you? The Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread might offer additional enlightenment.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        But more importantly, this thread is about you and things you can do to improve your situation.

        No. It isn't! I started this thread, so I reserve the right to decide upon its purpose, and that is not it!

        It might be the purpose you think it should have; or even the purpose you've decided to try and bend it to; but it is not my purpose.

        So let me try (one final time) to clarify my purpose.

        You see, I do not believe written argument can "be aggressive". Words cannot leap off the screen and punch you in the face; nor lie in wait in a dark alley to confront you. If you google "physical aggression", you'll get ~1/4 million hits; "verbal aggression" much the same; but "written aggression" and you'll get a paltry 643.

        But, a tiny proportion of the perlmonks community have taken it upon themselves to accuse me of "aggressive argument". So, in respect to the community, I attempted to get a feel for what, if anything, constituted a "community consensus" on the matter.

        I did this because if there was any such consensus, that could be adequately codified, then I would

        1. Attempt to get it clearly codified.

          For rules to be followed, they need to be defined--rather than made up on the spot at the whim of individuals

        2. Attempt to bind myself to that codification. But with caveats!

          The codification would need to be clear; ie. written.

          The rules would need to be applied universally--with equality of application and sanction--to all participants of this place.

          Not capriciously, by a few self-appointed guardians of morality, to a self-selected few of the rest of us.

        To date. I see a) no consensus; b) no universal application of (even) the capricious, unwritten judgements being applied to me; c) no modicum of realisation by those sitting in judgement, of the arbitrary and capricious nature of their judgementalism.

        When tirwhan used the (widely recognised) most offensive word in the English language, nobody turned a hair. Indeed, he got upvotes for using it.

        I was more than happy to allow IBGS to continue cowardly spewing his tiresome venom in my direction, for as long as he felt the need to do so, because his unchallenged and upvoted fifth was making my point for me, far more strongly than I could have done alone. The fact that you came out to bat for him was just the icing on the cake.

        I've said this (less formally), at least twice before in this thread, but for the sake of completeness, and in the hope of putting this now meaningless dialog to rest, I'll repeat it one last time.

        If, as and when I see you and others applying the same censorship & censure to others--not just my sparring partners, but others too--as you seek to apply to me, then I will take said censoring and censure under advisement. That is, I will attempt to avoid the need for censure, by applying self-censorship commensurate to my understanding of your 'rules', to my writings here.

        But while it remains unwritten, decided arbitrarially by a self-appointed minority of individuals, and applied capriciously, to only me or some small subset of those writing here, I feel no obligation to be so bound.


        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://870654]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (15)
As of 2014-09-23 16:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (231 votes), past polls