Who's the meanest user in The Cellar?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sycamore

LJ can come across as a total dick, but I think he's more of a playbaby than anything. I don't think he's a bad guy...like Maggie, he means well more often than not. He just likes to stir up shit.

what's a playbaby? is that like a mouthbreather? I do come across as a dick sometimes, but it's only in response to the insufferable behaviour of those around me. dick is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. when you think i'm being a dick, some others may think i'm saying something that needed to be said.

oh, and.....
cock

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

what's a playbaby? is that like a mouthbreather?

Nah...you like to fuck around and fuck with people. "Playbaby" is not an insult.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I do come across as a dick sometimes, but it's only in response to the insufferable behaviour of those around me. dick is in the eye of the beholder, anyway.

True, but so is insufferable behavior.

What are you, British now? It's behavior, you tard!

[billybob]

Internet communities............The safety valve for those too polite or to timid to rant in public. The tendency is to be that bit less tolerant of your antithesis and a bit more forthright in your opinions. I've barely been at this forum a couple of weeks, not long enough to assign character analyses to any of the regulars, but I guess if I stay long enough, I will. When I do, I might end up focussing my pent up frustrations on one lucky member, or I may end up spreading a thin layer of dull negativity over a wide audience. I've yet to meet anyone who can piss on all and sundry with any degree of enthusiasm and venom and still retain their membership on a board. And I really don't think I want to. Forums are interesting enough places without wasting time on vendettas and grandstanding.

[skysidhe]

@ Billybob, anthithesis? I've never heard that word before.


I joined because I thought I found Nirvana or something. Then_______showed up.:P

*runs*


ok, all kidding aside. I don't think it is grandstanding when someone is being made to defend a point.

It is granstanding when someone dosn't have a point.

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It's amusing to note that some folks who complained the loudest about "don't tell me how to post" are so full of advice for others on that very topic...:-)

Hey, I was answering Flint's thread, not expounding on my personal philosophy of posting. What you did to me before was try to tell ME how to post about something I knew more about than you. So then when that didn't work you tried to take the discussion into another area. I replied that I had said what I had to say and if you wanted to go anywhere else you could go without me. Even if Switzerland is not your forte, I am fully aware and acknowledge that you know more about everything else in the entire Universe and all alternate universes than I do and therefore I have no intention of getting myself into a position to become your roadkill. So get back on the track, I'm much too soft for you to sharpen your claws on

[skysidhe]

Well I am NOT going to vote for LJ because I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.


I also think this thread topic is a cry for help.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Really? Cry for help? Not just shit-stirring?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Flint

So far, your assumptions about me have been wrong.But, I think you do it on purpose. You know, cherry-picking an arguable interpretation with the express purpose of crafting a vicious reply? You know, what you always do, every time you post? So, I think you know your assumptions are incorrect. You do it on purpose. If you enjoy doing that, then fire away! I'm not being sarcastic, I hope you're enjoying yourself. just don't start to blur the line between what I actually post and the bizarre twists you put on it.

Why are the assumptions wrong?
How do you know she does it on purpose?
Don't we all cherry picK?
How do you know it is with deliberate attempt at being vicious?
Don't you think vicious is a word that could have been left out? It dosn't add anything objective. What is vicious to you?
Why would you assume she knows her assumptions are incorrect?
Why do you say Bizarre? How is it bizarre? It dosn't help the reader understand anything to use emotionally charged adjectives like bizarre and vicious.

It seems as though you too cherry pick information but no one has called them bizarre or vicious so.....I think that is the mean thing to do to a person is reduce things to what seems to be insults.


Just my opinion that probably should have been left unsaid. We shall she.[* edit= we shall see.]

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Really? Cry for help? Not just shit-stirring?

Perhaps. I don't know. You see, I could be making false assumptions too. I didn't know he was a shit stirrer but I don't really know him.


About shit stirring. One could say my last post was shit stirring but then when things confuse me I just HAVE TO ask why.


I just wanna know this one thing.....

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Hey, I was answering Flint's thread, not expounding on my personal philosophy of posting.

Nor was I referring to you. Methinks the Tonchi doth protest too much. The wicked flee when no man pursueth. :-)

[xoxoxoBruce]

I mean the topic of the thread is a question that can only be responded to one of two ways, except for hijacks and asides.
1- Claiming the honor(?) for ones own.
2- Name(attack, criticize, etc) someone else, presumably with examples of them being mean, usually forcing them to defend themselves and others to choose sides.
That strikes me as shit-stirring.

[Cheyenne]

"What man says to Ginger (dog or internet user): This that and the other" What Ginger hears: Blah blah blah blah"

People who argue or debate for the sake of hearing themselves is a real waste of time in my book.


*goes to plant flowers in garden*

[MaggieL]

"It's so unfair and mean for you to cherry-pick; my arguments don't survive close inspection. They just have to look good when I type them."

Sorry kids, but the techniques that got you a passing grade from the TA in Freshman Comp may not hold up as well in the real world.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I mean the topic of the thread is a question that can only be responded to one of two ways, except for hijacks and asides.
1- Claiming the honor(?) for ones own.
2- Name(attack, criticize, etc) someone else, presumably with examples of them being mean, usually forcing them to defend themselves and others to choose sides.
That strikes me as shit-stirring.

I think I'd take your word for almost anything Bruce.

lots of respect in my book.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

"What man says to Ginger (dog or internet user): This that and the other" What Ginger hears: Blah blah blah blah"

In the Far Side cartoon (which caused the invention of the term "Larson's Dog Effect" in the field of user interface design) Ginger actually can hear her name in between the "blahs".

Originally Posted by Pink Freud

The first panel is titled "What we say to dogs." A man is scolding his
dog. The man's word-balloon says this: "Okay, Ginger! I've had it! You
stay out of the garbage! Understand, Ginger? Stay out of the garbage,
or else!?"

The second panel is titled "What they hear." The drawing is exactly
like the first panel, but this time the man's word-balloon says "Blah
blah GINGER blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah
blah blah blah."

Too bad I can't find an image of it...but I did find the next evolution in human-canine communication:

People who argue or debate for the sake of hearing themselves is a real waste of time in my book.

Ginger probably can't make subject and verb agree in number either, though. :-)