Opinions are like arseholes…

[Colin Zeal]

It'll be a real shame if Jim does decide to stay away. I don't know the bloke, but I've always enjoyed his contributions to this forum and he'll be missed.

[Lady Festina]

Jim likes Dancing Queen by Abba. It's his favourite song, ever, in the whole wide world.

Hey, if he's not reading this, then we can share all sorts of *facts* about him. For example:

Jim used to hold the British record for juggling pickled eggs - seven of them at one time!

[TordelBack]

Jim's first real girlfriend left him for Barry Scott!*



(*actor Neil Burgess)

[Tiplodocus]

Don't know Jim physically but his is indeed a welcome presence here.

However he did occassionally resort to unhelpful name calling e.g. on the Stront. thread said something like ' but i still thiink hes being a dick' which, in my opinion, isn't "telling iit like it is" or "cutting through the bs" but is just rude.

This is of course a very minor quibble and the positives far, far outweigh the miniscule negatives so please come back.

[Dog Deever]

Mind you Tips, not sure I agree- saying you believe someone to be a dick when they are being a dick isn't rude- it's just telling the truth as you see it. If being called a dick will make someone cry for their mammy, they shouldn't act like dicks. It's hardly brutal and no-one ever died or got ill from being called a dick. Actions have consequences and all too often nowadays people think they can act with impunity. Is it better to pretend to be accepting of behaviour, but call someone a dick behind their back?
There is a rudeness and antisocial element to being an erse- if a body canna afford other people the respect of not being a cockend, then how can they expect to be treated like anything other than a cockend. So fuck 'em.

Act like a fanny- get treated like a fud.
Simples.

[Tiplodocus]

True but all of these generic insults don't help nail down the specifics of why you think the person is behhaving poorly. People's definition of what constitues being a dick, a fud or a fanny can vary wildly.  What is key for you, isn't necessarilly key for them,

Saying "X is being a dick" doesn't help anyone. Saying "You've failed to back up a signgle one of your assertions.  You have taken one solitary story and extrapolated that as a template for all others in the series even though, those other stories do not fit that template.  You are asserting that a fans understanding of a story is more important than the creator's vision" all may help.

(TBF, I think you/Jim/everybody probably did say all of those things and the "dick" thing was just a little bit of "oh well, we tried").

It's the same argument we use for critizing the creators; saying "This art is shit" is no good but saying "This art had unclear story telling and ignored the basic rules of anatomy and perspective" could lead the person to improve/change.

[Tweak72]

True but all of these generic insults don't help nail down the specifics of why you think the person is behhaving poorly. People's definition of what constitues being a dick, a fud or a fanny can vary wildly.  What is key for you, isn't necessarilly key for them,

Saying "X is being a dick" doesn't help anyone. Saying "You've failed to back up a signgle one of your assertions.  You have taken one solitary story and extrapolated that as a template for all others in the series even though, those other stories do not fit that template.  You are asserting that a fans understanding of a story is more important than the creator's vision" all may help.

(TBF, I think you/Jim/everybody probably did say all of those things and the "dick" thing was just a little bit of "oh well, we tried").

It's the same argument we use for critizing the creators; saying "This art is shit" is no good but saying "This art had unclear story telling and ignored the basic rules of anatomy and perspective" could lead the person to improve/change.

What Tip said.

If you get to an impasse then stop arguing. you may have a million valid points but if some one does not agree with them because they see it a different way then leave it there. attempting to bend someone to your POV archives nothing.

Calling people names because your being matey and its a laugh and is amusing for all involved and ok.

But calling people names because they don't agree is rude. this is especially true if one is stating that forums are places of discussion and debate because there are rules for discussion and debate which turn it in to an art form and unless you are trying to follow those rules your just arguing badly or even bullying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

[TordelBack]

But calling people names because they don't agree is rude. this is especially true if one is stating that forums are places of discussion and debate because there are rules for discussion and debate which turn it in to an art form and unless you are trying to follow those rules your just arguing badly or even bullying.

Yeah, but after you're done with the attempts at rational discourse, calling a dick a dick is sometimes necessary too.  It's seldom about disagreement, which implies some sort of coherent but opposed position, it's usually about gross ignorance.  I'm all for politeness, it's essential to a pleasant society, but carte blanche to continue being a knob is taking it too far.  As some Burke once said, all that is necessary for dickery to triumph is that cranky goths do nothing.    And exposing a dick is fun.*




(*note: may be illegal in several jurisdicktions).

[Tweak72]

But calling people names because they don't agree is rude. this is especially true if one is stating that forums are places of discussion and debate because there are rules for discussion and debate which turn it in to an art form and unless you are trying to follow those rules your just arguing badly or even bullying.

Yeah, but after you're done with the attempts at rational discourse, calling a dick a dick is sometimes necessary too.  It's seldom about disagreement, which implies some sort of coherent but opposed position, it's usually about gross ignorance.  I'm all for politeness, it's essential to a pleasant society, but carte blanche to continue being a knob is taking it too far.  As some Burke once said, all that is necessary for dickery to triumph is that cranky goths do nothing.    And exposing a dick is fun.*
(*note: may be illegal in several jurisdicktions).

If I call some one a name like a dick (barring my closest friends) then I am being rude. I take the responsibility for my actions by admitting that fact and either apologizing or stating that I do not care and further stating they can Foxtrot Oscar See You Next Tuesday. I would not pretend I was engaged in debate or discussion so its OK.

I am not saying that I have not made mistakes myself, sometimes on this board, but I have learnt from them and attempted to modify my behavior accordingly. And I certainly do not hide behind excuses such as I used to post online back in the day when things where different so it is ok. That is shirking responsibility for your own actions which is poor behavior online or off line.

[Dog Deever]

Jim did actually use a very similar train of argument across several posts, though- check back and you'll see. I also trawled all through that thread and can't find any post by Jim calling the guy a dick, or 'being rude'. So I really don't see what the fuss is about. And even if he had- sometimes arses need kicked (because some people are dicks), and someone has to kick them.

I'm not surprised he's left as he's been accused of bullying and now calling someone a dick on the stront thread, AND NONE OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Wise up people, good folk (who have contributed more to the board than many of us added together) are being driven away by petty, hand-wringing bullshit perpetrated by posters who have contributed very little except 'discussion' which involves them being right and everyone else being wrong, regardless of what is actually being said (not you Tips, obviously ).

[Tweak72]

Jim did actually use a very similar train of argument across several posts, though- check back and you'll see. I also trawled all through that thread and can't find any post by Jim calling the guy a dick, or 'being rude'. So I really don't see what the fuss is about. And even if he had- sometimes arses need kicked (because some people are dicks), and someone has to kick them.

I'm not surprised he's left as he's been accused of bullying and now calling someone a dick on the stront thread, AND NONE OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

You missed this then

Hmf. As ever, you prove yourself a better man than I, TB.

Cheers

Jim

(But I still think he was being a dick.)

[TordelBack]

In the interests of full dicksclosure, there was also this from Jim, regarding Fatboydale's unwanted Tharg:

Don't want to get called a petulant twat? Don't act like one.

And here's the thing:  I don't think either of those comments were unwarranted.  It's not language I'd generally use myself on the forum (although I have), except (as Tweak puts it) in the interests of being matey, but I still think it's fair comment.  Walking on eggshells is a pretty irritating way to spend your comics-discussin' leisure time.  

[Dog Deever]

There is a difference between saying someone is a dick and saying someone is being a dick.

If you really, honestly believe that saying someone is being a dick once constitutes bullying then I'm afraid I'm in danger of saying 'don't be a dick'. And citing wikipedia as a set of rules for debate and discussion is laughable, you could have written that yourself 10 minutes ago. And who sets these rules for debate? I didn't sign up to it.

[Tweak72]

There is a difference between saying someone is a dick and saying someone is being a dick.

If you really, honestly believe that saying someone is being a dick once constitutes bullying then I'm afraid I'm in danger of saying 'don't be a dick'. And citing wikipedia as a set of rules for debate and discussion is laughable, you could have written that yourself 10 minutes ago. And who sets these rules for debate? I didn't sign up to it.

You do understand how wiki or in fact any encyclopedia works, right?

Any and all articulates should have citations and/or references. Those citations/references should point to your sources or evidence. If you have done a degree and completed a dissertation you have to do the same thing: show who and where you are quoting or citing and also list all references to back up any other points you have made.

Though I do not hold a degree and have never attempted to try, i understand this.

This would therefore be how you spot some one who quickly edited wiki, by checking the sources cited on the page. if there are "citations needed" then those points should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt. If you had taken the time to use the links at the bottom of the wiki page you could have found out more about the general rules of formal debate and how people approach it  

but if you need further clarification here is a starting point link to the Oxford Union,
http://www.oxford-union.org/debates/formal_debates

who are a long standing debating society (Founded in 1823) and like many societies the world over, which, as I mentioned happen to be cited at the bottom of the wiki debate page, have strict rules for formal debate most of which bare a very close similarity and differentiate an argument from a discussion or debate. but I will let you do all the donkey work to disprove that.

http://www.oxford-union.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/3074/Definitive_Rules_TT10_3.pdf
Rule 39(b)i which states

"(i) No expressions of a personal or offensive nature may be used at any meeting of the Society. The Chair may
call on any Member to explain any expression he has used; such explanation shall be received without question
as to the speaker's intention, but if unsatisfied the Chair may call on the Member concerned to withdraw and/or
apologize, and the Member concerned shall immediately and without question submit to the authority of the
Chair."

so there is just one example of what you are not supposed to do if you are discussing or debating. unless you think I made up all those websites as well as editing the wiki page

and on bullying, definition taken from taken from Cambridgeshire County Council website

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/education/parents/welfare/Bullying/whatisbullying.htm

"Types of bullying

There are various types of bullying, but most have three things in common:
1. It is deliberately hurtful behaviour.
2. It is repeated over time.
3. There is an imbalance of power, which makes it hard for those being bullied to defend themselves."

calling people offensive names or using offensive similes can be and is classed as "deliberately hurtful behavior" and is one of the basic tools of bullying.

To quote Michael Franti

"But dehumanizing the victim makes things simpler
It's like breathing with a respirator
It eases the conscience of even the most conscious
and calculating violator
Words can reduce a person to an object,
something more easy to hate
An inanimate entity, completely disposable,
no problem to obliterate"

And this is one of the main reasons civil discussion and debate has strict rules of conduct. And why anything else is just an argument.

[TordelBack]

Woah there Tweak old man.  I've spent an unhealthy amount of time dealing formally (as an employer) with bullying in the workplace, and have seen my wife subjected to it in hers.  I am painfully familiar with legal and practical definitions of bullying, and I can honestly not recognise bullying in any of the examples we're discussing here. Real bullying is something quite horrid to behold, and comparing telling someone on the internet (who is acting like a dick) that they're acting like a dick to actual bullying is way wide of the mark.