|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,356 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Well, I wasn't going to post to this thread any more, but I can't resist asking:
Yeah, so? Is that what you would call an example of me being uncivil or disrespectful to an RKMB conservative?
So, by your own words, you're absolutely full of shit when you say you strive for civility.
And also absolutely full of shit when you say you don't treat other conservative posters here with the same antagonistic crap you give me.
As I began to say before about the ten topics you gave, that allegedly demonstrate your civility, I see them as more incriminating of your posting style than as proof of your tact and civility.
And as critical as you are of my examples, there are only maybe two of the topics you list that demonstrate a sustained back-and-forth political discussion. And more often with zingers from you of 10 words or less, where it's more of a humorous one-liner or snide remark than a serious political discussion on your part.
These topics show mostly just random comments by you in response to others' posts, rather than a serious and prolonged back-and-forth by you on a single controversial issue.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Same sex marriages banned in 11 states with Pariah
The first page is all one-liners by you, like I described.
Around page 6, you made a long post about several U.S. founding fathers, that I found interesting and insightful (although I think you make the point well that some of the founding fathers had limited respect for Christianity, or even open contempt for Christianity, I think this post of yours and its source gloss over the extensive writings of the various signers of the Declaration and Constitution who did value Christianity, and who considered Christian teachings as essential to good government and preservation of democracy, some of which I've quoted elsewhere).
You make your point about opposition to Christianity, but with quoted material that ignores the widespread support of the founding fathers for Christianity in U.S. government institutions, short of a single state-imposed religion such as the Anglican Church of England, or the Roman Catholic church they scorned, from which many of them fled Europe in order to practice freedom of religion in colonial Americs in the first place.
But back on point, this I thought was interesting, and some mostly friendly back-and-forth exchange after, then the focus of the topic drifted in many other directions over the remaining topic pages. Some sustained back-and-forth in spots, but also a lot of smart remarks and non-political levity, rather than sustained discussion.
Quote:
Did the election reveal a religious division in US? with you and with wbam. Perhaps the snarkiest I've been, but, in my defense, I felt provoked by being called a "pro-abortionist." Still, I was civil with you both.
No argument there. But again, a lot of brief posts and smart remarks, rather than a sustained in-depth discussion. A total of five posts by you, most less than 10 words.
Quote:
Winners & Losers In The 2004 Election with the G-man
Again, not a lot of detail or sustained back-and-forth through many posts.
You made a total of four posts. All were 10 words or less.
Quote:
Post Presidential Debate Questions Here! with Pariah
This isn't even a political topic, it's a light humor topic, using Warner Bros cartoon characters as presidential candidates.
Your four posts to this topic on page 3 are about selecting an RKMB board moderator, and not a political discussion where there was any potential heated difference of opinion.
Again, very brief remarks, no sustained in-depth back-and-forth discussion of politics.
Quote:
THE REAL DEBATE THREAD with wbam (and several replies to others)
Again, despite that you were there in the auditorium for the Bush/Kerry debate, no deep exploration of a single issue, beyond smart remarks, and how you think Kerry "wiped the floor" with Bush.
Just a lot of remarks of 10 words or less.
Quote:
Edwards' Wife Has Breast Cancer with wbam.
Let me point out here that I made one of the most antagonistic post towards anyone in a long time (if you don't include my replies to you DtWB) to PrincessElisa here. As I said in that post, however, I was holding back (and please believe me, I was). Also, that didn't carry over to wbam, the conservative who jumped in to calm things down. I was cordial with him and even posted a dancing banana.
You had three posts total to the topic, two of them less than 5 words, hardly a sustained political discussion.
In any case, it wasn't a model of civility. But it does have the redeeming quality that you lightened the mood of the topic when you posted the dancing banana. I actually enjoyed that quite a bit, and thought it was very funny. The comedy relief was very well received.
I like it a lot when you and others lighten things up like this, and while I do post humor myself (for which I'm never given credit by those who like to rip on me as "humorless") I would like in the future to do so more often.
Unrelated to your posts, I was especially annoyed that I said something very nice about Edwards' wife (a moment of non-partisanship on my part) and for my trouble, I was partisanly harassed by Steve T.
Quote:
Al-Quaeda urges people not to vote for Bush. with wbam.
A total of 11 posts by you, spread out over a 5-page topic.
PAGE 1 and 2: a smart-assed comment by you about Bin Ladin not being captured, and it took several inquiries by others and nearly an entire topic page for you to give like 5 words more of clarification of what you meant.
PAGE 2: a condescending shot at batwoman, comparing her to Whomod
PAGE 3: four posts about how Kennedy supposedly apologized for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, presumably implying Bush should apologize for Iraq, or for not yet capturing Bin Ladin, or something.
PAGE 4: two posts by you, where you made a mocking bet with Animalman about WBAM's predicted response to a post (which I posted above, in my last post).
PAGE 5: no posts
Again, more very brief responses, from which your political views can barely be discerned, except when you voice condescending disapproval for what conservatives have posted. I didn't see this topic as a model of your civility either, let alone your sustained friendly back-and-forth discussion of a single issue.
Quote:
Kerry's response to BinLaden: A POLL?!?!? with wbam.
Six posts by you to a 20-post topic.
Many of your posts are similarly brief, but in this topic you do make more of an effort to clarify what the issue is, what Kerry's political alternatives may have been, and are at the same time more friendly and respectful than in other topics where you normally express vague annoyance with conservatives, without really detailing a position.
In contrast, I felt you clarified your position more in this topic, and were friendly about it while politely disagreeing with others.
So I'll give you this one, a friendly back-and-forth.
Quote:
I VOTED TODAY! with wbam.
Seven posts to a two-page topic. This is hardly a political discussion. This is more a collection of random comments to several posters who mention different things, and your saying "yeah" or "no".
No in-depth back-and forth of a single issue. Friendly, yes, to WBAM and others, but there was nothing in the topic to disagree about. And again, not an example of an impassioned but friendly back-and forth discussion of a single theme through your posts, just random stuff.
Quote:
But it doesn't look a day over 5000... with wbam.
A topic you began, where you made three total posts to an 11-post topic.
There is no back-and-forth here on your part, you posted an article, WBAM made a sarcastic remark, you asked "what do you mean by that?" in your second post. he clarified, and you said "oh, OK" in your last post.
To your credit, you were courteous and politely asked for clarification, instead of getting hostile. But it's not a back-and-forth, as you yourself describe the standard of one to be.
Quote:
And there are threads which are more like yours, where I only responded once to conservatives. I won't list them (unless you ask) but I'll give an example:
FOR MY LIBERAL FRIENDS
?!?
You actually have 5 posts here, spread across pages 1, 2, 5, and 7, of this 7-page topic.
Perhaps you see it as the same, when you make a single post and when I make a single post to a topic.
But I think it's pretty clear that even in a single one of my posts, I lay out in at least a paragraph or two, usually, the background for my perspective of the issue, often a link, and precisely why I beleive what I believe. In most of these topics, I lay down more details of my position in a brief editorial, and as often as not, move on after that. Although I prefer sustained topics where there is more interaction.
Brevity can be both good and bad.
Posting at length and editorializing can be both good and bad.
Two different approaches.
Captain Sammitch said in one topic that he posts less in DEEP THOUGHTS now, because rather than a friendly discussion when he posts, his posts to this section either start a flame-war, or are completely ignored.
As civil (or as impassioned) as any of our responses are, there's no guarantee that any of us will get the reaction we want, or any reaction at all.
That's why I've posted less as well. Sometimes a spirited debate is invigorating, but often I find it exhausting when it become bitter and overly personal, to the point where I'm just fielding someone's opinion of me, rather than being able to respectfully debate the topic issue at hand.
I've gone on at length in my response here for several reasons.
First, in reaction to the 10 topics I posted that you "graded", Wednesday, I wanted to similarly "grade" and give feedback to the ones you gave of your own "friendly back-and-forth topics. I frankly was annoyed at how dismissive you were of the topics I dug up for you. But even if the topics display just one or a few of my posts, they were examples where I laid out my position in detail, others disagreed, and I didn't spark it up into a flame war when I didn't agree.
I just wanted to point out that many of your own examples also don't demonstate a polite back-and-forth discussion of an issue when you've disagreed with them, that in fact you often make antagonistic remarks, and that you can't condescend to me, because neither your posting, or your example topics, are any closer to the standard you condescendingly hold me up to.
As I said, I think about 50% of the time you are polite, and I daresay, you more often ask for clarification before reacting than I do.
But you just as often immediately cut in with an inflammatory digging condescending remark.
We both offend in our own way and style, often perhaps not even meaning to. But people with divergent approaches inevitably rub each other the wrong way once in a while.
I think many of us here have gotten into a pattern, an expectation, of annoyance with the views of certain posters we consistently disagree with. That cumulative memory of disagreements and small annoyances influences the way we react to each other now. And it's difficult to re-set the brain and just flush away that past experience, and give someone you've clashed with so many times the same benefit of the doubt you did when you first encountered them online and exchanged posts.
Many here on the liberal side (yourself included, Wednesday) the first time I ever saw them online was when they jumped in and started flaming me. That doesn't exactly engender trust and goodwill !
But as I said earlier, before a certain mocking bet threw a wrench in the machine (two bets, now !) my first impulse is to be conciliatory and desire to extend mutual courtesy, if the other side will do the same.
|
