TROLL ALERT! - IF YOU ARE BORED HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO TROLL

jnk wrote:What if all the posters with "N/A" for gender actually do have a gender? Is that "dishonest"?

before the board got redone gender was not an option (and I was registered already)

now you can say put one in - and my answer would be why do I need to add another one of those damn hot pink F's that give me headaches that would see every time I read one of my own posts - it is bad enough to be exposed to all the other hot pink F's

so I will remain gender unspecified not to be lying

oh did I read the rest of your post - probably not

Would that help? lol

I remember being in Biloxi, MS back in the day and one Fri. nite a group of us bored AF trainees put a $1 in a kitty to see WHO could get the ugliest girl up on the dance floor.

I have no recall of WHO won but I know it wasn't me. I did have me a winner but I wasn't strong enuff to reel her in.

I am not gonna ask any more questions about anyone who would willingly answer to such a name.

jules wrote: oh did I read the rest of your post - probably not

Liar!

No worse than me, though. I obviously had to read my own post to make the three spelling corrections I bothered to make before I gave up trying to fix the convoluted grammar.

ozij wrote:

ozij:
> Abolutlely no need for you to hang about here. No need at all.

That's a rude remark. (Behavior, again.)
Are you able to discuss an issue without insulting someone?

That's the kind of question you can find an answer to if you read my responses in discussions.
Or the kind of question meant to be insulting.

Having read your other responses, e.g. in tattooyuo' s poll viewtopic/t54375/FORUM-CATEGORIES--Just ... e-out.html I have a clear opinion of your question.

I am just as impressed with your glossing over the fact the the OP, whose opinion you happen to support, blatantly ignored the results of the above mentioned poll, and less than 2 weeks later created a thread called "Forum CATEGORIES NEEDED!" in which he pseudo referred to the poll, and pronounced that:

This is a very DATED format, I can't think of not even one other webite that has only ONE Category, not one and there is a very good reason for that, because its just plain terrible.

. YELLING at us, in both the thread heading, and in the text. And then started a discussion of "which categories" as though the poll had not existed.

In my opinion,trollish, rude patronizing and controlling behavior by the OP, from the very first step.

Which is why I told him he had no need to hang around a forum that was so badly run, in which the majority of poeple were too foolish, idiotic and old fashioned to see how plaint terrible a format it was using.

Eventually, his spitting in our faces became far more blatant.

Behavior has meaning in context. You seem to think you can give valid descriptions to behaviors while ignoring their context. I disagree.

O.

Once again. I Concur.

Dori wrote a very nice post about how she felt too. The OP is likely an alter ego IMO. IF NOT - would you consider it rude for someone to come into your home and tell you they don't like how you have things arranged? The color of the walls, etc.?

This has been 'disgust' over n over. It seems to me it is a dead horse rising.

The are plenty of other places that fit that format, if that is what you want go there.

I thought it was settled when is was said (Lo Q) the rest of the internet has categories, have fun.

i have been following this thread for the day and wow you all have strong opinons but that's a good thing. i also am one of those members that do not agree on having an alter ego to come on and cause issues among other members. this is supposed to be a support group, is it not? some stuff is in humour and that's fine as long as others share your humour. i'm pretty open minded so find most of it entertaining.

i voted in the poll to make categories cause that's what i'm used to. however this msg board has proven to me that it's unique including a wide variety of members from varying backgrounds all willing to help newbies out. some with wacky senses of humour, but heck that's alright with me. i'm still learning the boards including search engine. i think that i would keep the board the way it is. it does seem to work in it's own little way and it's not hard to find others to help you find what your looking for. i thank the long time members for helping this journey (although the machine part is to be decided lol) along for myself.

ok i'm just so full of love tonight listening to easy listening online and sleepy meds have kicked in. have a good night everyone. try to keep hands and feet to yourself. i work with behavioural teens so i'm quite trained in the art of restraint incl. time outs lol

jnk wrote:I am a coward in that sometimes I post as myself.

Isn't calling cowardly people "cowardly" just another form of name-calling?

Nope. That's describing.

However, when a person exist (or does not) in a post modern world that makes him distrust everything named by himself and anyone else, that person wouldn't know the difference.

Many online interactions involve identities that are "assumed" for privacy reasons unless true identity is needed for professional reasons. Do we all need to post our real names and addresses for purposes of social accountability?

As assumed identity is one thing -- we all bring along assumed identities. However, at least part of the interaction assumes there is a certain validity to that identity. Remember the single assumed identities who came here attempting to waste our time with lists of symptoms and descriptions of spouses? The time wasted on them was time that could have been give to real people with real problems. And yes, reality exists, which is why even you use one real type of machine and not another. You could of course name your ResMed VPAP "My Resprionics non plus ultra" but that wouldn't change its function one bit.

And if "cowardly" is the question, wouldn't it be the thing now to do to be brave enough ourselves to list by name the suspected cowardly/cruel alters so that we can choose who casts the first stone? Or would that be hurtful? And who's to judge which it would be?

As a matter of fact, we all judge, starting with "pleasant / unpleasant", from day one. Judging is actually far more natural to human beings than chronic de-rigeur "non-judgemental" political correctness. That's why "who" is having so much fun being a meglomaniac moderator -- fulfilling a need to say some things clearly.

Is there any chance in Hades we would all draw the same lines in the same places? I doubt it.

No, but that is no reason to assume lines can't be drawn, or should not be drawn. Each person has responsibility for the lines he or she draws. And for those he or she avoids.

Some people don't seem to know what they are doing, let alone anyone else.

True.

And things seem to mostly work around here anyway.

That doesn't mean they are not - or could not be - in danger of falling apart.

-SWS wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:The notion that one insults only when one cannot rationally debate is about the most shopworn cliche imaginable, and fails to do any kind of justice to the complexities of human interaction.

Well, there are ordinary spur-of-the-moment insults that we all wish we hadn't said (or so I would hope). But I'm talking about those insults under the cloak of anonymity. Those last insults are highly premeditated. All the cognitive effort that went into arranging cloak-and-dagger style assaults could have been redirected toward using the primary identity to openly and honestly argue a point. That verbal attack in secrecy is nothing more than premeditated assault committed by the second identity---so that the first identity can get away Scott free with the well-planned assault. No excuse for that IMO.

I think I just enjoy insults more than you do.

sws:
> I fail to understand using alternate identities that are just as ADVERSARIAL as they are COVERT.

Would you please be _specific_, because I hadn't noticed it.
Specific as in, "sleeplessinseattle is the same poster as awakeinatlanta".

I thought ip addresses that identify the poster virtually eliminated that problem.
Thanks.

Okay, I'll have a go, Jeff. Please bear with my position.

jnk wrote: Is it somehow MORE cowardly to be insulting as an alter than to be insulting as a non-alter? Or less? Or equal?

This is very clear in my mind: it's more cowardly to intentionally insult others using an alter identity than it is to honestly debate using a primary identity. When the secondary identity shows a pattern of insulting others, then it becomes clear those insults are VERY intentional.

jnk wrote:Is it assumed someone is "lying" when they choose to use the board a way that others do not? What if all the posters with "N/A" for gender actually do have a gender? Is that "dishonest"? Many online interactions involve identities that are "assumed" for privacy reasons unless true identity is needed for professional reasons. Do we all need to post our real names and addresses for purposes of social accountability?

True that we ALL necessarily bring SOME anonymity. Those preferences and reasons have absolutely nothing to do with insulting people---unlike secondary identities who present a pattern of harsh attacks.

jnk wrote:And if "cowardly" is the question, wouldn't it be the thing now to do to be brave enough ourselves to list by name the suspected cowardly/cruel alters so that we can choose who casts the first stone? Or would that be hurtful? And who's to judge which it would be?

That analogy falls down IMO. According to the Bible we are all sinners and should not cast the first stone. The issue at hand is that of VERY few here who have reserved second identities for harsh behavior. As it turns out, the vast majority of us qualify to lob that particular stone but nobody wants the job... understandably IMO.

I would assume anyone being cruel as an alter with a name that makes it clear he/she is an alter must be doing it for an attempt at humor. Or else they need as much professional help as I do.

I'll agree that any alter-identity who THINKS cruel is funny needs help.

So the question is, perhaps, 'Is it OK to be cruel if ...

Okay, I follow that... The obvious answer is that it's NOT okay to be cruel... The sad fact that nearly anyone can point out at least one cruel post does not justify others.

brain_cloud wrote:

-SWS wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:The notion that one insults only when one cannot rationally debate is about the most shopworn cliche imaginable, and fails to do any kind of justice to the complexities of human interaction.

Well, there are ordinary spur-of-the-moment insults that we all wish we hadn't said (or so I would hope). But I'm talking about those insults under the cloak of anonymity. Those last insults are highly premeditated. All the cognitive effort that went into arranging cloak-and-dagger style assaults could have been redirected toward using the primary identity to openly and honestly argue a point. That verbal attack in secrecy is nothing more than premeditated assault committed by the second identity---so that the first identity can get away Scott free with the well-planned assault. No excuse for that IMO.

I think I just enjoy insults more than you do.

You do okay here B_C...

But here's a basic truth: most of our posters understandably don't WANT to be insulted. And another basic truth: most of our posters DON'T reserve alternate identities for the sake of harshly pouncing on others.

xyz wrote:sws:
> I fail to understand using alternate identities that are just as ADVERSARIAL as they are COVERT.

Would you please be _specific_, because I hadn't noticed it.
Specific as in, "sleeplessinseattle is the same poster as awakeinatlanta".

This response that you received earlier, xyz, was your dead giveaway clue that the poster REALLY has a primary user ID around here that is considerably less adversarial:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54768&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 50#p512267

Several people in this thread seem to already know who REALLY is. He's even posting in this thread using his primary identity.

I thought ip addresses that identify the poster virtually eliminated that problem.
Thanks.

Not at all. The cross-identification feature works only when people post anonymously without logging on. You can register for two separate user accounts around here and the IP identification feature won't bother to cross-reveal those two.

SleepingUgly wrote:

NotMuffy wrote:How ugly are you?

Are you by any chance near-sighted?

Hey, I can be the straight guy.

"Yes, I'm quite near-sighted."

-SWS wrote:

xyz wrote:I thought ip addresses that identify the poster virtually eliminated that problem.

Not at all. The cross-identification feature works only when people post anonymously without logging on. You can register for two separate user accounts around here and the IP identification feature won't bother to cross-reveal those two.

Why not just PM Trinh? phpBB tracks IPs, do a WHOIS and voila! you've found her!

For those posters who go to great lengths to hide IP identity just hit the Spam button.

NotMuffy wrote:"Yes, I'm quite near-sighted."

Then I think you will find that I am not Really_Ugly at all. Just make sure and stay back a few feet.

SleepingUgly wrote:

NotMuffy wrote:"Yes, I'm quite near-sighted."

Then I think you will find that I am not Really_Ugly at all. Just make sure and stay back a few feet.

Why?

Are you Really_Stinky?

I think I need to change my location...