Messages

More bum-talk!

At least this one is a bit more tasteful.

Ian Gibson's Anderson was always nicely rounded.

"and that you now argue that internet interactions are significantly similar to 'real life' interactions"

Significantly similar? In the sense that one should not turn into an abusive malcontent when in front of a keyboard? There are few interactive methods with other humans where one would be expected to become abusive. You could shout `significant similarities` because the english language is conveyed.

In fact you can probably find your own `significant similarities` in anything if you want to look hard enough - obviously you feel the need to look hard enough in the search for my inconsistencies. But it is not significant that a man wishes to remain civillised even when interacting through the computer medium.

I don't know whether you are referring to my on-topic posts or retorts in argument with your last paragraph, but their tone and content are justified by freedom of speech, a great flexible website and defence of my name where necessary.

lol! And people call me pedantic!

I think it likely I would respond to insults in real life - i.e. "down the pub".

How I would respond to insults in the pub or on the internet is my own business, and your narrowing down categories play no part in what I choose to type on this website.

Would I consider my responses more carefully if faced with insults from a number of different people at the same time? I should imagine so. You have to be wary of gangs of abusers in real life and on the internet.

"[1] that internet interactions are unlike 'real life' to the extent that the rules that would apply in a pub are not applicable.
[2] you are unable to ignore an insult delivered over the internet"

But as I have also stated, civillised and unabusive behaviour is expected in both - hence my reasons for not ignoring slurs or insults.

;)

Your post is strangely based on assumptions about my personal conduct in pubs in real life, General Contrary.

The "pub-fight" scenario is one I have heard before from internet users - as if it is a wild and crazy symbol of how tough a user really can be when they are not hunched over a computer keyboard.

I don't get insulted in pubs General Contrary - do you?

My internet-personality has an ego, just like everyone else's does - witness irritated and angry boarders for that.

To save anyone coming back about that one, my internet-personality consists of my choice of words to type - nothing more, nothing less.

Go pick at it if you wanna!

Bone Machine:-

Yes, but between human beings unseen and largely unknown to one another. That is precisely the reason why there is so much concern about children talking to "other children" on the net.

It was QFB who brought up the comparison idea, and I do not have to subscribe to that either.

According to my dictionary, a "troll" is homosexual slang for one who strolls around looking for sexual partners. If you are instead referring to the new and not established meaning of an "internet troublemaker", then I suppose you could make up any silly word to mean whatever you like.

Art's "squeaky-voice" metaphor was not even close, for the reasons I highlighted.

"Bonehead"? lol! It isn't quite as in the gutter or offensive as PRICK, TWAT or WANKER though is it, hmmmmm..?

Bonehead.

Bonehead:-

The "being in the pub" comparison used by QFB suggests the interaction between human beings is the same as it is through the internet.

It is not, as one may have faceless discussions with typed words only. Typed words do not convey emotions or humanity as a face-to-face conversation does - it is even less personal than the telephone. You cannot be so sure of your ground during internet "conversations", due to the lack of those important elements. QFB and others, however, appear quite sure of their ground.

"So, you're saying that somehow the people who post here aren't actually real?

If you are holding out for a more intense answer, you'll have a long wait brother.

Art:.... is just being Art, isn't he? `Psychopathic Troll`? lol!

"Saying something in a squeaky voice" is a rather stupid comparison to using the net - you would still have to be on the telephone or in the presence of the squeaker, and thus have other elements of humanity present to make your judgements.

Now will you two stop this silly baiting? Anyone listening would think you were trying to get me to slip up and be banned from my fave forum!

;)

I've had to re-post this, as it was broken off.

"How, exactly, is communicating with a group of people over the internet (some of whom Bou knows 'in real life') any different to talking to a group of people in a pub?

I've already explained this to you: through a computer we can only convey robotic emotion - human physical presence and contact is not present.

Of course I am responsible for what I type, Art - that is why I do not fire cheap personal insults at boarders who may take such names personally.

"I'm on the case. As are a number of others."

You go girl - you do what you have to do.

We are all probably real people typing in our words, Bone Machine, but who are we?

Our nicknames?

If one boarder knows another personally then that is fair enough, but it should not then elevate them above more "anonymous" boarders who no-one "knows". If you have met in real life, and now take the typed word on a forum more to heart, then that is your problem.

Probably does shine through to a degree Oddboy, but a person's thoughts and words are not always best conveyed through a keyboard and a computer screen.

There are folk who make excellent use of the typed word, but communicate poorly in real life.

And vice-versa.

And those who can manage both.

It also usually depends upon the nature of the website as to what subjects are discussed - I would not be apt to talk about history and religion and sci-fi to everyone I know in real life. And I would not expect to bore websites with my thoughts on my football team or what happened this morning when I was making toast.

So ultimately, personal insults should really not be fired through computer screens in response to views and opinions - they are purile and mean literally nothing, as have no bearing or impact on a man's personality.

johnnyeyebrows: unfortunately when some boarders have "tried to agree to disagree" with me, it is usually accompanied by parting shots of condescending drivel or casual insults - and that just is not very fair, now is it?

Will YOU try to get me banned, Art? Have I slipped up enough for you yet?

;)

You pointed out the fact I was subtly threatened with physical violence, Tulkas - QFB likened this to my vaguely amusing exclaimation in the kung-fu thread!

Of course we are all real people, Bone-Machine (apart from the robots of course), but the medium of the computer screen does not operate by the same rules as direct physical contact, does it?

You are not your internet alter-ego!

Where are these outted tits we were promised, Oddboy?

"Subtle fight threats"?? Do me a favour, lady - you may think you have to shout louder than everyone else in here because you're in the sexual minority, but if you're resorting to more demonising of a perfectly innocent jocular posting of mine (in a comedy kung-fu thread of all places) then you should maybe just keep quiet.

You keep using this pub metephor - more evidence I think that you struggle to seperate this website from real life.

You haven't liked me since I butted into WoD's "metaphysical" discussion with some rather flippant (but non-the-less strongly believed) points about the supernatural, followed by a bout of intentionally light-hearted banter.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that is where the snowball started, quickly picking up other instantly annoyed and irritated boarders along the way.

I'm not going to apologise for not instantly understanding your level of tolerance or humour - after all, as has been repeatedly pointed out there are no "cliques" in existence here and everyone is welcome to join in; therefore there should be no status quo outside of civillised discussion and fun.

Afternoon, boarders.

Seeing as most of this thread concerns myself, guess I should say a few words.

Posters here seem split down the middle about whether I should be held responsible for a mass exodus - you know my position on it, I think it is a bad move to "go" from an internet forum in reaction to erupting disagreements. Ignore them, don't fan the flames, and these things usually blow over.

I have to say Darryl has jumped to rather sinister conclusions, and johnnyeyebrows is clearly exaspirated with the back-&-forth petty slanging we've had - I've said all I can say to him about debating, attitude, insults and retorts, and as he himself admits he cannot agree to disagree (I reserve that right also) then perhaps it is understandable that something had to give.

Logan sensibly points out that I do not have to answer to personal slagging from other boarders - a big reason for a lot of these back-&-forth arguments - so perhaps I should just move along the bar instead like he suggests in future.

I'll try my best to do that, but it is hard to turn a blind eye to the insults and personal abuse I have had to endure.

If there were more posts like this one on this business and less high and mighty, reactionary abuse then we may all just be able to live in harmony.

You're right about the snowball effect, and I can't help but think that many people who have used their Killfile and do not read my posts are reacting to only what they see in an antagonised post from someone else.

This is the problem with filtering only half of the argument through - if you have me Killfiled, you cannot take my point of view into consideration.

I want to talk about the comic, and about anything else that may be relevant to a group of obviously intelligent people.

But I regret I am not above retorting to insults or misinterpretations, at least not from some who appear undeniably self-satisfied and pompous.

Am I Scojo?

lol - NO!!!!

;)