Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do read some stuff in here, but to be honest I

> usually skip over a lot of the 'point-by-point

> rebuttals'.

>

> The content might well be pertinent and useful but

> they just look really, really boring.

_____________________________________________________


Agree....


My eyes boggle & I "ZZzzzzz" out



W**F

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LuLu Too Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm with *Bob* on this one.

> > And Fisking makes my eyes go funny...

> >

> > What's happening in The Drawing Room?

> > Surely this thread should be lounged by now?!

>

>

> Agreed. Too much silly behaviour.



I've just seen this! A blatant "fisk" if ever I saw one! From our esteemed Chair too!


*shakes head and tutts twice*

Thought the OP was a bit OTT - just let people do it how they want to do it surely.


Having said that, along similar lines, I don't like it when people quote a lengthy post and than just say that they agree with it. No value added and also it takes a hell of a long time on my little phone to scroll down through a long post, and as I'm sometimes trying to wind down on the way home from work, it irritates me a bit.....just a bit though.

Totally agreed MM, that is one of the most annoying habits that plenty of posters are guilty of.

Keef's patented "what bob said" does the trick much more succinctly.


I have done the odd fisk when someone's tortured logic needs teasing apart thus making a converstational response impossible.

BUt on the whole I think it detracts from a conversational tone, you wouldn't fisk someone down the pub would you, you'd say "I don't know I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your dog clamping idea, but when it comes to taxing three wheeled prams I reckon you're on to a winner there."


On here it just makes for a more pleasant read and is a bit more aesthetically pleasing; better than all those damn ugly greater-thans ">" everywhere.


If you are going to quote, and its a perfectly valid thing to do, then I'd love it if people just picked the relevant bit more often and use either "sumfink" or

sumfink else
.


my two-penneths worth anyhow

Clearly I'm in agreement with Mockers.


To refer to earlier insinuations, I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate. If I consider on reflection I've got it wrong I'm happy to apologise.


Moos, I note that even your entire criticism was missing a direct reference. Do I assume then that I am 'misinterpreting' and you are actually talking about someone else? Or am I in fact spot on. Again. That that was snidey insinutation and directed at me?


As for aggressiveness.... well I guess that's subjective. I can only tell you that I don't feel aggressive at all. I usually shorten my posts to make them more objective. I can see that makes me appear terse, but mainly I think you're all big enough to stand up for yourselves..

While some of you find it annoying, it's clear that not everyone feels the same way. However "spot on" you think you are!!


Mockney... the '>' character is actually a feature of the forum, it happens automatically when you hit "quote this message". So perhaps you should be speaking to the admin about this? I agree that the "box" formatting is neater.

Sorry Jezza, I was responding to an ad hominem attack from earlier in the thread. It wasn't ontopic, but hell, we're in the lounge now ;-)


Disparate views on 'quoting' are of course subjective. I made the assertion to prompt a discussion, not to assume that I had the answer.

Misinterpretation is a common complaint - the record speaks for itself in that respect.


I?ve noticed the same problem regarding terse or brief (I would say precise or succinct) being interpreted as aggressive or, worse, arrogant.


Sometimes a subtle sense of humour or irony is either not perceived or misinterpreted.


We are what we are and we do what we do ? I guess.

Cheer up grump...err...Huguenot, this has turned out to be (I think) a rather entertaining thread.


Personally, I find breaking up long paragraphs and responding that way useful. To my mind, the practice also imparts order and neatness (though clearly, you - and others - do not agree). I shall attempt to try and cut down (a bit) seeing as it annoys some...but don't expect complete cessation!


As for your comment: "I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate., my automatic response was to burst out laughing (I found it funny because it is so typical of you), but I am now wondering whether...oh to hell with it...


*lobs another tomato at Huguenot*

Huguenot has asked me to clarify both in his post and in a PM that I was talking about him.


I sometimes find the debates too aggressive for my liking, and in my perception people sometimes pick up on others' responses and partially or wholly misinterpret them to score points rather than trying to move the general discussion towards a shared understanding. I didn't intend to be sly or snide - it would have been inappropriate to name Huguenot as he's not the only person who does it but to be clear he was someone I had in mind.

We shall have to agree to differ then ms muck.

I think of threads as conversations and dislike things being repeated ad nauseum. But that might be a reaction to Dpaniards who feel they have to say everything two or three times, preferably shouted over everybody else speaking at the same time.

Hmmmm, perfect description of the forum thinking about it!!

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dpaniards


I tried looking that up but Google suggested "Spaniards" - you almost had me there!


Re quoting: if one can respond immediately after another post - fair enough, but when the issue has migrated several posts to the north, or where several other posters have intervened, a brief 'so-and-so wrote what' is essential to provide context without forcing readers to scroll up - especially on this forum where threads are not sub-threaded. IMHO.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...