|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Flaming
#4933693 - 11/14/05 06:28 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject. Finally, some consider flaming to be a great way to let off steam, though the receiving party may be less than pleased.
Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame ?it may be hostile, for example ? but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion.
After the forum split, it was decided that the only rule for P&S would be "no flaming."
Do you think this limits discussions, or adds to them? By the Wikipedia definition above, a flame is not only hostile/insulting, but is expressed without intent to advance the discussion.
Do you agree with this?
What about posters who admit to immoral/unethical behaviors: have they forfeited their right to protection from personal attacks?
*This is carried over from dblaney's Work thread (sorry we took it so far off-topic, d! )
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4933716 - 11/14/05 06:31 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Flames add nothing constructive nor beneficial to a debate and should therefor be avoided.
Do to the argumentative nature of P&S and the predictable nature of man, they are somewhat expected here and there.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4933727 - 11/14/05 06:33 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If I posted something trying to prove that Blacks are significantly inferior to Whites, would it be flaming if someone called me a racist?
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933730 - 11/14/05 06:34 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
No.
By definition, you would be a racist.
It would be redundant though.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: spud]
#4933739 - 11/14/05 06:35 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If someone receives abuses the welfare system by collecting when he is not injured or in extreme financial need, is it flaming to call someone a leech?
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933749 - 11/14/05 06:36 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Analogies aren't as clear cut as definitive words, but IMO, no it wouldn't be flaming.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933757 - 11/14/05 06:37 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yup, it has a negative personal connotation. If that was the only word that described this behavior that would be one thing but I don't know of anyone who wouldn't take the word leech personally unless they were enlightened to some extent and you could say anything to them and they wouldn't care.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
|
Well, "racist" has some pretty negative baggage with it as well. Would calling someone that be a flame?
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
A negative connotation is justified in a situation where someone abuses the welfare system, therefore it wouldn't be a flame but rather pointing out a fact.
If someone kicked a baby in the face and I called them "evil", I wouldn't be flaming.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: spud]
#4933785 - 11/14/05 06:42 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
According to some of the members here, it is a flame even if you are pointing out the truth, if the words you are usuing could possibly have an inflammatory effect.
|
TheShroomHermit
Divine Hermit of the Everything
Registered: 02/19/02
Posts: 7,575
Loc: border of Canada and Mexi...
Last seen: 9 months, 20 hours
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933807 - 11/14/05 06:45 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>If I posted something trying to prove that Blacks are significantly inferior to Whites, would it be flaming if someone called me a racist? -Ad hominem attacks doesn't further an arguement, it weakens it. If you were seeking to prove that Blacks are significantly inferior to Whites, the only reason in pointing out that you are a racist would be to derail the topic.
Pursue the issue, not the person behind it. Otherwise, take it to OTD... imho.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Yup, it has a negative personal connotation. If that was the only word that described this behavior that would be one thing but I don't know of anyone who wouldn't take the word leech personally unless they were enlightened to some extent and you could say anything to them and they wouldn't care.
"Parasite" would be equally fitting, but I'm sure you would consider that a flame. My question to you would be if you considered it a flame to call someone immature. I'm sure most people would take it personally, but I don't believe it constitutes flaming, as it describes their behavior, rather than simply calling them names. I would say the same is true of "leech" or "parasite," though of course it depends on the context.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933817 - 11/14/05 06:47 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think it well could be. If I called you a racist it would feel different than saying you are indulging in racism, or your behavior is racist. I guess it's all in the delivery and intent. Usually you can read the attitude as it bleeds through. If you're pissed at someone you say things in a different way then if your just debating without massive attachment.
Almost everybody flames from time to time and we almost all hate to get called on it. It's an ego thingy. I do it all the time. I got this ego thingy that gets in my way from time to time.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
|
That still doesn't determine whether or not it would be considered "flaming". Ad-hominem attacks do not neccesarily equal flames.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I think it well could be. If I called you a racist it would feel different than saying you are indulging in racism, or your behavior is racist. I guess it's all in the delivery and intent. Usually you can read the attitude as it bleeds through. If you're pissed at someone you say things in a different way then if your just debating without massive attachment.
Almost everybody flames from time to time and we almost all hate to get called on it. It's an ego thingy. I do it all the time. I got this ego thingy that gets in my way from time to time.
What if I said his actions were "leech-like" or that he was "leeching from society"? Leeching is a verb that is often used to define human actions.
If saying my actions are racist is ok, I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to say his actions are leeching from society.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: If I called you a racist it would feel different than saying you are indulging in racism, or your behavior is racist.
But that could very well dillute the meaning, and I'm very intent on conveying proper meaning. If someone believes that blacks are genetically inferior, they aren't merely "indulging" in racism. They are, in fact, racist, and it would be totally appropriate to point that out.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4933876 - 11/14/05 06:56 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What if I said his actions were "leech-like" or that he was "leeching from society"? Leeching is a verb that is often used to define human actions.
I got to tell you that this sounds different than saying someone is a leech. I don't think there would have been a problem if it had been presented like you stated it, and anyone saying that probably wouldn't have been so pissed off at him. Like Phred seemed to be.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
What if I said his actions were "leech-like" or that he was "leeching from society"? Leeching is a verb that is often used to define human actions.
I got to tell you that this sounds different than saying someone is a leech. I don't think there would have been a problem if it had been presented like you stated it, and anyone saying that probably wouldn't have been so pissed off at him. Like Phred seemed to be.
In my opinion, it doesn't seem like much of a difference at all. I suppose it's all in the eyes of the beholder.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I got to tell you that this sounds different than saying someone is a leech. I don't think there would have been a problem if it had been presented like you stated it, and anyone saying that probably wouldn't have been so pissed off at him. Like Phred seemed to be.
I don't see why it's different to you. All of those words are decribing a behavior.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
Icelander said: If I called you a racist it would feel different than saying you are indulging in racism, or your behavior is racist.
But that could very well dillute the meaning, and I'm very intent on conveying proper meaning. If someone believes that blacks are genetically inferior, they aren't merely "indulging" in racism. They are, in fact, racist, and it would be totally appropriate to point that out.
Well honesty I had trouble considering the term racist flaming. It's a pretty proper word and has not any slimy bloodsucking insectoid fear provoking connotations. So I think using racist is different then leech which has another meaning which most find derogatory.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
"Racist" does carry derogatory connotations, and in fact, many people with extreme racist views prefer the term "racialist."
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
BTW, would you consider the term "mooch" a flame? That carries pretty much the same meaning and connotation as "leech."
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: "Racist" does carry derogatory connotations, and in fact, many people with extreme racist views prefer the term "racialist."
Can you give me a dictionary defination of Racist that decribes something that is other than the one defination of racist? With leech I can and that's how it gets personal IMO.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Can you give me a dictionary defination of Racist that decribes something that is other than the one defination of racist? With leech I can and that's how it gets personal IMO.
So words with more than one meaning are flames? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. By that logic, the word "flame" is a flame.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: BTW, would you consider the term "mooch" a flame? That carries pretty much the same meaning and connotation as "leech."
The problem with terms like mooch is that they have more than one meaning. Like mooch can mean to steal or filch which might not be accurate. But really friend I can usually tell when someone is flaming by the attitude expressed in context of the whole post. Maybe you could use the term leech in a non flaming manner. I think you could actually and I would easily know it. So maybe I'm wrong about you here. But it was obvious to me that Phred was pissed and was flaming. Now I know thats a subjective call on my part but frankly I trust my instincts and that was a no brainer.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
If someone starts thread about "Why I rape women", and I use the word "rapist" in my responses, e.g. "You're a rapist, and therefore..."
Is this flaming, or is it accurately defining and identifying the nature of their actions and behavior?
What I'm getting from some of you, is that if a person's behavior and actions are malignant, controversial, etc. then we should refrain from referring to their behavior as such [e.g., rapist, racist, etc], because doing so would automatically carry a negative connotation which is directly related to the negativity that their actions and behavior already carry in the first place. Garbage in, garbage out.
If someone comes along and talks about how much they love books, and I refer to them, in my responses, as a bibliophile, [e.g. Well, since you're a bibliophile..], I am describing and identifying their actions and behavior with that very noun, that pertains to the love of books.
In both cases, I am doing the exact, precise same thing. The only difference between the two is the consensual view of positivity and negativity which is entirely contingent upon the impetus of the original poster's behaviors and actions.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4933980 - 11/14/05 07:16 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey everybody! I found a picture of budsicle. Look at him go!
Is that a flame?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Rapist has one definition. If I call him a fucking rapist that could be flaming.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said: Hey everybody! I found a picture of budsicle. Look at him go!
Is that a flame?
Lucky guy. No wonder he pisses people off. My brother in law is this ultra conservitive ex-marine. He could join in and really tear someone a new asshole. So I've dealt with some real pros.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
VirgilKane
Miner for truth and delusion
Registered: 05/17/05
Posts: 1,131
Loc: lowdown
|
|
Quote:
Look at him go! Is that a flame?
Who knows?????
BUT...it's funny as Hell!!
-------------------- Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense... "Religion is a defense against a religious experience" Carl G. Jung "So really, ordinary reality is a kind of chemical habit, sanctioned by culture, which says it's okay to use certain drugs, eat certain foods, and have certain sexual behaviors. However, when you transcend all this pre-conditioning by returning to the original wisdom of the animal body, then you discover this immense dimension of opportunity. For some people, it is a frightening risk. To me, that's the psychedelic experience." Terence McKenna
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
More like trolling to me.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
VirgilKane
Miner for truth and delusion
Registered: 05/17/05
Posts: 1,131
Loc: lowdown
|
|
Doh!
-------------------- Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense... "Religion is a defense against a religious experience" Carl G. Jung "So really, ordinary reality is a kind of chemical habit, sanctioned by culture, which says it's okay to use certain drugs, eat certain foods, and have certain sexual behaviors. However, when you transcend all this pre-conditioning by returning to the original wisdom of the animal body, then you discover this immense dimension of opportunity. For some people, it is a frightening risk. To me, that's the psychedelic experience." Terence McKenna
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
'The terms racialism and racialist is sometimes used by those who think it is a different concept in which negativity or hatred is not prescribed. People who call themselves "racialists" tend to be separatists (white nationalists or sometimes black nationalists) and sometimes see a difference between themselves and racial supremacists.'
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Yes, I certainly see how that could be flaming. When you add combine words with other words, it creates a contextual change.
Saying the word "Christian" alone remains in neutrality, until the colorful slang "fucking" is introduced: "Fucking Christian". The word Christian can also be colored in the opposite manner by combining it with lovely: "Lovely Christian".
But I'm talking about the non-adverb influenced use of descriptive words, here.
Edit: Meant to reply to Iceman.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (11/14/05 08:11 PM)
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
|
Semantics 101
--------------------
|
TheShroomHermit
Divine Hermit of the Everything
Registered: 02/19/02
Posts: 7,575
Loc: border of Canada and Mexi...
Last seen: 9 months, 20 hours
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Redstorm]
#4934211 - 11/14/05 08:08 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
All ad hominem attacks would be flames. But not all flames are ad hominem attacks.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,007
|
|
i run hot but disdain torching i run counter and press those ideas forward sometimes a thread has redgreenvines at the tail end was I a conversation stopper or did I just help them get to bed. I ask because once I shattered a fragile thing and have felt the repercussions since
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4934306 - 11/14/05 08:31 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps, instead of having "No Flaming" as the only rule in S&P, it should be "No ad hominem attacks".
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
That picture was taken after his nightly walk to the bathroom.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4934613 - 11/14/05 09:27 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
flamming is the ultimate expression of the truth!!!!!
maybe i'm crazy but...
even lying is the ultimate expersion of the truth...
example: if you mind is telling you to deceive another person...then listening to it and actually lying is being more truthful to yourself...
flaming...is expressing your true thoughts/feelings/emotions...
to not flame..is to hide/deceive/lie!!!!!
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
TheShroomHermit said: All ad hominem attacks would be flames. But not all flames are ad hominem attacks.
Wrong. And ad hominem is an argument fallacy which uses who a person is as an argument against their ideas.
Example: "You're a Republican, so what would you know about poverty?"
Is this a flame? I think not. Similarly, a flame need not be an argument at all, and thus not all flames are ad hominems.
Example: "Check your rates, dumbass."
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Rapist has one definition. If I call him a fucking rapist that could be flaming.
Wow you're strict. Can I call you Tipper Gore?
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
He isn't committing an ad hominem simply because he wasn't arguing anything. There was no debate, rather he was merely making an observation.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: spud]
#4935451 - 11/15/05 12:10 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What about a statement that is slightly flame-like that includes a large amount of people, not directly named. Something in the manner of "all the british people on this forum cook bad".
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Usually you're safer with more general comments. What's great is if they're not a Shroomerite, nothing counts as flaming. I can talk all I want about what an evil dumbfuck piece of shit goat-fucking turd sandwich the president is, and there isn't a goddamn thing they can do to me.
--------------------
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Unless GWB is a member of the shroomery!!!!! boy, that would fuck up the political forum.
|
Mcdoopy
Fungus Face
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 3,296
Loc: Varrok Center
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
|
It sure is fun though.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Flaming [Re: TameMe]
#4936141 - 11/15/05 06:30 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TameMe said: flamming is the ultimate expression of the truth!!!!!
maybe i'm crazy but...
even lying is the ultimate expersion of the truth...
example: if you mind is telling you to deceive another person...then listening to it and actually lying is being more truthful to yourself...
flaming...is expressing your true thoughts/feelings/emotions...
to not flame..is to hide/deceive/lie!!!!!
It's not all about you and your "truth"
It's about having a forum where we can actually debate ideas. Flame wars are distractions and so IMO only show the immaturity (truth) of the flamer.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
|
so it's bad to show one's immaturity? how can one mature with out knowing (knowing through feedback after expresion) their immaturities?
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: TameMe]
#4936252 - 11/15/05 08:03 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
((as far as i'm concerned...if you're thinking i'm a "god damn mother fucking bastard" then you might as well say it))
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Flaming [Re: TameMe]
#4936285 - 11/15/05 08:21 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TameMe said:
so it's bad to show one's immaturity? how can one mature with out knowing (knowing through feedback after expresion) their immaturities?
Once again it's not all about you here. Anytime you want to PM me and have a flaming good time, let me know, but here in the forums it can really disrupt the flow of a topic, which is always in danger of going off track anyway.
I agree with you in theory, lets practice it in PM.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I'd get banned if I always said what I was thinking and not just for flaming.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
|
good point.
muuuuthaaa fuuuuckaaa
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I think it well could be. If I called you a racist it would feel different than saying you are indulging in racism, or your behavior is racist. I guess it's all in the delivery and intent. Usually you can read the attitude as it bleeds through.
So, after all the forum split and the reduction of subjective rules in this forum, we are once again going to decide what constitutes flaming or not by delivery and intent? Swami must be rolling in his sleep.
Quote:
par?a?site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st) n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
To follow through with the recent example that this thread has branched off of, the person in question openly admitted to undergoing action that fits this definition of a word perfectly. Is there anyone here that is going to dispute this fact? Come on, anybody?
Therefore, using a word that describes perfectly the situation that this person in question has admitted to being in is not out of bounds. What arguement has been presented agansit this?
Quote:
Yup, it has a negative personal connotation. If that was the only word that described this behavior that would be one thing but I don't know of anyone who wouldn't take the word leech personally unless they were enlightened to some extent and you could say anything to them and they wouldn't care.
It doesn't matter how the person will take it. Haven't we been through all of this already? We specificially went through a huge fucking hassle in order to make it so that it doesn't matter how the person will take it in this forum. How the person takes it doesn't constitute the statement as being a flame. Its what was said itself, and in this case, the dictionary has proven that using such a word as it was used, in the situation that it was used, is apt and just.
Now, can it be anymore clear than that?
I will now carry on and read the rest of the replies.
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Annom
※※※※※※
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 9 months, 28 days
|
|
I learned from the Work thread that it's pretty hard to decide what is a flame and what isn't in this forum. The flames in the Psychedelic Experience are always clear flames, but in a forum like P&S the discussion can get personal, without going off-topic or ad hominem, if someone uses a personal situation or experience as an example and other people react or label that situation or experience.
You guys even use words I've never heard of (Dutch is my first language) and while I always use an online dictionary it's hard to find out if something is a flame because I don't know how the word is used in normal language.
I agree with fireworks_god on the following:
Quote:
it doesn't matter how the person will take it. Haven't we been through all of this already? We specificially went through a huge fucking hassle in order to make it so that it doesn't matter how the person will take it in this forum. How the person takes it doesn't constitute the statement as being a flame. Its what was said itself, and in this case, the dictionary has proven that using such a word as it was used, in the situation that it was used, is apt and just.
I once had problems at highschool because I had a (word)fight with a girl for a long time, but she ended up crying at the principal. The principal called my parents and said that I was bullying a girl at school etc, etc... while she said equal bad things to me, but I didn't care as much as she. That's not fair IMO.
I'm listening to what you all have to say about flaming in this forum!
Edited by Annom (11/15/05 10:11 AM)
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Quote:
This forum is debate oriented and designed for those who seek a lively discussion full of dissenting opinions and rebutted arguments. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
If we are here, by agreement, to debate ideas, why allow negative personalisms AT ALL?
This goes beyond what budsicle's lifestyle choices are. If it is OK to focus our remarks on the poster, rather than on the beliefs/ideas presented by said poster, then this forum will degenerate into a flame war, IMO.
I agree that the subjective nature of personalisms makes it nearly impossible to distinguish intent. So why not leave them out entirely?
If I say, "welfare fraud puts an undue burden on the employed. I resent the fact that a portion of the taxes I pay from my hard-earned wages go to support able-bodied citizens." That may lead into a civil debate.
If I say "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!" That seems likely to lead into a flame war.
|
Annom
※※※※※※
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 9 months, 28 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4936582 - 11/15/05 10:22 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If we are here, by agreement, to debate ideas, why allow negative personalisms AT ALL?
Because people sometimes use their personal situation or experience as an example, while it still is on topic. People are allowed to give their opinion about this personal situation or experience if it is part of the thread topic.
It doesn't make sense if someone is just telling someone to "shut the fuck up you stupid bunny". But if someone tells us how he/she doesn't allow asian people in his/her store because they are asians, it is totally on topic and an allowed reaction to let this person know that he is a racist. I don't think it is need that you say "In my opinion you are a racist in that particular situation", in my opinion isn't needed in a philosophy forum, because everything you say is your opinion and I think we are all smart enough to understand that.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Since this appears to be the topic for the discussion of what was going on in the other thread, I will continue here with something that I feel gets to the point of what is going on over here.
Quote:
Veritas said: Yes, I believe that ethics and morality are part of spirituality. If you, or any other member here, chooses to sit in judgment of another member, that is your business. However, if said judgment is expressed in the form of a personal attack, I will object.
I do not believe it was expressed in the form of a personal attack, as the word that was expressed itself implies nothing other than what the dictionary defines it to imply, and that its usage in the context of the post and the situation was certainly applicable. References towards the person using the word as being angry and upset lie seperate from all of this, and in terms of the rules of this forum, are baseless and do not constitute flaming themselves. The viewpoint as it was originally stated was casual and accepting of such behavior, and one single word illustrated the true nature of the behavior. Is it easier to say "a person who is receiving funds from a structure but who does not contribute or act as a part of that structure, but who feels superior to that structure for taking advantage it", or, simply, invoke either the word "parasite" or "leech", which instantly conveys the exact same meaning?
In regards to the first section of the quotation, I do not understand how the person themselves can lie seperate from their behavior, their spirituality, and the concepts of morality and ethics. That is sincerely baffling. Obviously personal attacks on a person are out of bounds, but it is entirely conducive to productive, on-topic discussion to call into question the person as they relate to their expressed ideas, their concepts of spirituality, as they are the source of these thoughts and concepts.
Thus, as I have seen no actual flaming occur throughout this incident (with the possible exception of all of the couch pictures ), but only subjective intrepretations of how words might have negative connotations (despite that they accurately represent the situation ) and concern on how people might take certain things, I simply suggest that we move on and keep our eyes open for actual flames, such as "fuck you faggot", "you fucked your grandmother", or, the classic, "are you related to George W. Bush? ". We removed subjectivity from our forum rules for a damned good reason.
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4936648 - 11/15/05 10:42 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said:
Quote:
This forum is debate oriented and designed for those who seek a lively discussion full of dissenting opinions and rebutted arguments. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
If we are here, by agreement, to debate ideas, why allow negative personalisms AT ALL?
This goes beyond what budsicle's lifestyle choices are. If it is OK to focus our remarks on the poster, rather than on the beliefs/ideas presented by said poster, then this forum will degenerate into a flame war, IMO.
I agree that the subjective nature of personalisms makes it nearly impossible to distinguish intent. So why not leave them out entirely?
If I say, "welfare fraud puts an undue burden on the employed. I resent the fact that a portion of the taxes I pay from my hard-earned wages go to support able-bodied citizens." That may lead into a civil debate.
If I say "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!" That seems likely to lead into a flame war.
Quote:
Redstorm said: Perhaps, instead of having "No Flaming" as the only rule in S&P, it should be "No ad hominem attacks".
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Well said, Fireworks.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4936801 - 11/15/05 11:26 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Veritas, the problem here is you perceived something to be a flame which the majority of the people involved in the thread in question AND in this one do not. It's not a question of (as you say in your opening post in the thread) whether flaming limits discussions or adds to them -- that question has been settled already: flaming is not allowed, whether or not it limits discussions or adds to them.
For some reason not apparent to me (nor to many others, it appears) you, Veritas, have decided that my expression of surprise at budsicle's barefaced admission of immorality "... the leech dared to say in public," followed immediately by my philosophical take on his enslavement of others to support his existence (which, by the way, is virtually identical to your own proposed substitution) somehow constitutes "flaming".
The consensus so far would indicate that this was not in fact flaming. It's not that we support flaming -- we don't -- it's just we find Veritas's personal interpretation of what constitutes a flame to be overly broad. As fireworks_god points out, we've been down that road enough times already with the Swami situation to want to go there again.
Further, you do your argument no favors by misrepresenting the nature of the communications to which you object. An objective review of the exchanges between budsicle and myself does not reveal an instance of my writing any such string as "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!"
Instead you will see I stated my position re parasitism, and asked (in succeeding posts) a series of reasonable questions (to which budsicle has yet to respond) in an attempt to clarify just why budsicle feels he is owed a living by the rest of us.
While budsicle didn't see fit to answer any of these questions, he did manage to burn enough of his precious time to call me a "fuckshit". May I ask the readers of this thread if calling a debating opponent a fuckshit qualifies as flaming?
As budsicle's evasions continued, my tone in prompting to him answer at least one of my questions did grow more sarcastic, true. Since when is sarcasm flaming?
As for your "personalization" tangent, let's face it -- if the user "Shorteyes" admits in a thread he is a pedophile and receives a blizzard of responses to the effect that "pedophiles are scum" and "pedophilia is one of the worst crimes I can imagine", etc., no one can pretend these judgments aren't being made against Shorteyes even if his screen name is never used. The fact that as a linguistic quibble we justify ourselves by pointing out that the third person is being used doesn't alter the fact that the respondents are indulging in "negative personalism" against Shorteyes. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Yet unless I have misunderstood your argument, you feel such linguistic gymnastics somehow evade the no flaming rule.
As I and others have pointed out, once a member moves beyond the hypothetical -- "I see nothing wrong with collecting welfare rather than working" into the personal -- "I live off welfare because I deserve it", the rules change. That member has by his own admission personalized the discussion and must therefore bear the consequences -- i.e. being accurately identified for what he is. That's not to say it is okay to call him an asshole or a fuckwit -- clearly it is not okay, because that would be flaming him. But it is perfectly acceptable to point out that he is a parasite because he is by definition a self-admitted parasite (or "leech", in the vernacular).
If you choose to continue to buck the consensus, that is of course your right. But as fireworks_god pointed out so adroitly earlier, if we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we end up once again at the whole "but he intended to make me sad," mess that prompted the forum split in the first place.
Phred
--------------------
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
#4936850 - 11/15/05 11:42 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Da Rules said: You can say pretty much anything you want as a spiritual or philosophical idea -- you can even espouse ideas most people would find ludicrous or repugnant.
What you can't do is attack the person making the ludicrous or repugnant statements.
You can bring to bear all your rhetorical skills and articulate arguments in an attempt to expose the idea under discussion as ludicrous, repugnant or whatever -- as a matter of fact you are encouraged to do so -- but the acceptable method is to direct all your weaponry at the idea being presented, not at the one presenting the idea.
Example of directing weaponry/comments at the one presenting the idea:
Quote:
Phred said: News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior.
Examples of directing weaponry/comments at the ideas:
Quote:
Redstorm said: I have absolutely no problem with people not working, or working in nonconventional ways. When one chooses a lifestyle like this, though, they must except the financial hardship that may come with it. Most people are rational, and realize that it will be hard to gain a good enough living expense by either being unemployed, or small-plot farming for subsistence. This can be combated by the farmer joining a co-op, or the unemployed person finding a source of income that is based on some sort of labor completed by the person.
I apologize for the harsh language I used earlier towards you, Budsicle.
Quote:
schapper said: I'm with ya Redstorm, I too apologize for my comments, Budsicle.
I also definitely don't hold it against anyone for pulling off an alternative lifestyle. I don't think that anyone here actually would...in fact I'm jealous of the people that can.
I had been following this thread from the beginning and felt no need to respond because I don't hold it against anyone for doing this, but it just seemed that yesterday what I "perceived" to be arrogance got the better of me and I lashed out. I realized last night that it was whats inside of me and not the views Budsicle has that made this response in me happen. I guess, for me, it was a good thing to happen in the fact the we can always learn from our mistakes.
Thanks for being Human enough to apologize first Redstorm, thus making it easier for me to spit this sour taste out of my mouth and follow your lead.
P.S. I did not "quote" you as having said "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!"
I prefaced this with "If I said..." and wrote it to include all of the personalisms which followed your original "leech" comment, not merely your comments.
IMO your use of personalisms gave others permission to begin a feeding frenzy, so I created an amalgam sentence of all the comments posters made to budsicle.
Edited by Veritas (11/15/05 12:39 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4936930 - 11/15/05 12:17 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Veritas writes:
Quote:
Example of directing weaponry at the one presenting the idea:
Quote:
Phred said: News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior.
Nice attempt at taking a fragment of an argument out of context. Here is the exchange in its entirety --
budsicle --" "good citizens" will feel satisfied by the system, they dont feel it so repressive and suffocatin... primitive and low intented attitudes imposed by the western culture has been and is such a pain in the ass that the least they can do is pay me welfare, its absurd idea that i should work to keep up this shithole instead of spending my time free exploring and searching for anything fun and perhaps changing peoples attitudes while at it."
Phred: "What are you saying? That you're so much more sensitive than the rest of us you should not be subject to the same laws of reality the rest of us are? Your "sensitivity" gives you a mortgage on the lives of the rest of us? With every post you illustrate more clearly your superiority complex. News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior."
When someone recklessly flings such unsubstantiated semi-coherent charges as "...primitive and low intented attitudes imposed by the western culture has been and is such a pain in the ass that the least they can do is pay me welfare,"
and
"its absurd idea that i should work to keep up this shithole,"
in an attempt to establish his superiority over those who make his continued existence possible, does this not invite a response disabusing him in no uncertain terms of his misperceived superiority? The fact is (and yes, Veritas, it is a fact) that he is not superior. Quite the reverse.
Or would it have been okay with Veritas if I had said something like
"News flash, welfare manipulator -- welfare cheats are not superior to those who support themselves, they're decidedly inferior,"
and we could all pretend to ourselves that I wasn't dissing budsicle specifically, I was just making some unconnected statement about generic welfare fraud artists? Because if that's the point you're trying to beat to death, I'd be perfectly happy to substitute the above for my original sentence. No one's being fooled but if it eases your sensitivities I'm willing to go back and edit the post in which the exchange occurred.
As for your two carefully selected examples of "directing weaponry at the ideas", I suppose it's nothing more than coincidence that they are not in fact directing weapons at all but agreeing it's okay to leech off others.
Phred
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
#4936942 - 11/15/05 12:22 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"does this not invite a response disabusing him in no uncertain terms of his misperceived superiority?"
Yes. Invites, asks for, RSVP.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
#4936981 - 11/15/05 12:36 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, but calling someone "leech-boy" is not an argument against his ideas.
I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)
Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.
My request was that we debate ideas, not personal qualities. If that is not possible, unpopular, not supported by the administration/moderation of this site, etc...then so be it.
IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate. Perhaps this is not popular opinion, but the forum rules do seem to direct us to avoid both outright "flaming" and personalisms. If this is not the case, perhaps a full revision of the forum rules is in order. My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937058 - 11/15/05 12:55 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
you know what...i haven't read shit on this thread...
but fuck the consensus bullshit phred...
horse shit.
THE LEECH....that is a derogative label placed onto that man...it's obviously derogatory because he said "dare say in public."
like how fucking dare you speak you shitty little leech.
see? but i guess he wasn't speaking to the poster...but just about leeches?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937060 - 11/15/05 12:56 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said: I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)
It is obvious that everyone's expressed ideas are associated with the poster themself. Above that, if they specificially refer to their own personal life and such a reference is intricately linked with the ideas they are presenting, then it automatically follows that such aspects of what they feel to be themselves have been presented for debate.
I cannot imagine this forum if we were to not focus on other posters AT ALL, especially on points that those very same posters present to everyone else to discuss. Why should we even distinguish ourselves from each other with various usernames if such were to be the case? This forum should just be random thoughts by unknown?
Quote:
Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.
The issue of whether or not welfare fraud is ethical/moral was never presented. The qualities/lifestyle of the person is exactly what was presented by the person himself. If this was not the case, then that twelve page post would have never been sparked, am I not mistaken? He specifically presented the virtues of his lifestyle in a thread about work and he presented it as being his lifestyle, thus proposing it for open debate.
Quote:
IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate.
It might not be, but this specific example was not mudslinging.
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937089 - 11/15/05 01:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, but calling someone "leech-boy" is not an argument against his ideas.
What about calling him "welfare-manipulator"? Even though he is a self-admitted welfare cheat he is to be addressed as some neutral arguer presenting hypotheticals? Please!
Quote:
I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)
And you appear to be very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in addressing the concept of (if I may coin a phrase) "flaming at one remove". Would you care to comment on my example a few posts above of the mythical pedophilic poster "Shorteyes"? If not, why not?
Do you not grasp that substituting the phrase "welfare cheats are not superior to those who support themselves, they're decidedly inferior," for the original "you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior," when discussing the point with a self-professed welfare cheat isn't fooling anyone? It just involves hitting more keys.
Quote:
Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.
And where, pray tell, did budsicle propose what he was doing was not immoral? I've read through his comments several times and as best I can decipher his fractured syntax he seems to be professing he is above such petty concerns as morality -- or that the morality which applies to the producers does not apply to the parasites, I'm not sure which.
Did that one remark of mine you chose to highlight directly address the immorality of welfare fraud the act as opposed to welfare frauds the individuals? No, it did not. But virtually every other point I brought up in my many posts on the matter did. I treated the matter seriously, budsicle brushed my points off as irrelevant to him. He didn't debate the ideas I raised at all -- he personalized it from the very beginning. Budsicle is above all that, you see -- he deserves welfare as the least we can do.
Your proposed strictures are unreasonable and (in the case of "flaming at one remove") hypocritical.
Quote:
My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.
My point exactly. What you read into the rules.
If you feel the "no flaming" restriction should be broadened to the point where critical debate becomes impossible the moment someone drops the "I" bomb ("I am a pedophile so I resent you dissing pedophiles") into the debate to shut it down, you are of course free to make a suggestion in the sticky post at the top of the forum titled " New Rules for the Philosophy & Spirituality forum: your help needed!" Who knows? You may even get some support for your position.
Or we could just adopt the MR&P forum rules and save us all the effort.
Phred
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937203 - 11/15/05 01:36 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate. Perhaps this is not popular opinion, but the forum rules do seem to direct us to avoid both outright "flaming" and personalisms. If this is not the case, perhaps a full revision of the forum rules is in order. My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.
Full revision of the forum rules is in order? Propose away...
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
|
What we need is not bureaucracy but effective leadership...and maybe better members.
fucking shroomerites.
fighting can be good though...it just depends on how you view it.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Flaming [Re: TameMe]
#4937274 - 11/15/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"What we need is not bureaucracy but effective leadership...and maybe better members.
fucking shroomerites.
fighting can be good though...it just depends on how you view it."
That is about as vague as can be. Care to elaborate on just what you think it would take to have more "effective leadership" and "better members" on the Shroomery?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
|
no i don't care to.
-sorry
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
#4937490 - 11/15/05 02:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You know, Phred, I think I have taken this whole situation way too seriously.
If budsicle has a problem, he can take it up with you or with the moderators of this forum. Same goes for anyone else who resents personal remarks being made about what they choose to share in any thread here.
Obviously, I need a break from this scene. Sometimes it is a relief to get caught up in the drama here, and forget about my "real life" dramas, but in this case I think I've been here too much.
See ya'll later...much later.
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937863 - 11/15/05 04:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
awww....
i will miss you.
peace.
|
VirgilKane
Miner for truth and delusion
Registered: 05/17/05
Posts: 1,131
Loc: lowdown
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4937941 - 11/15/05 04:23 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As for your two carefully selected examples of "directing weaponry at the ideas", I suppose it's nothing more than coincidence that they are not in fact directing weapons at all but agreeing it's okay to leech off others.
Uh, not to or anything, BUT I do not agree that it's OK to leech off of others. It's my fault that this is unclear in my second post. I stated my true thoughts in my first post, but felt like shit for getting caught up in the drama that resulted from Budsicles attitude and unleashing on him. I totally disagree with his philosophy, but his attitude is his problem and mine is mine and I shouldn't have let his get the better of me. My reasoning for saying that I "had followed the thread from the start and not feeling the need to reply" was because my feelings were being stated by just about everyone else. Sorry for the confusion.
And I know that I shouldn't speak for Redstorm, but I didn't get an inkling from his post that he accepts Budsicle's actions either. What I saw was not him agreeing with Budsicles actions, but offering alternitives to living an alternative lifestyle without being parasitic to others who do work and pay taxes.
-------------------- Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense... "Religion is a defense against a religious experience" Carl G. Jung "So really, ordinary reality is a kind of chemical habit, sanctioned by culture, which says it's okay to use certain drugs, eat certain foods, and have certain sexual behaviors. However, when you transcend all this pre-conditioning by returning to the original wisdom of the animal body, then you discover this immense dimension of opportunity. For some people, it is a frightening risk. To me, that's the psychedelic experience." Terence McKenna
|
Annom
※※※※※※
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 9 months, 28 days
|
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
#4938014 - 11/15/05 04:40 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you've lost the fun in taking Shroomery things serious it is time to take a break. Same goes for all things in life you can take a break from.
Enjoy your break and don't make it too long! A few hours might be enough
|
|