Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
FuzzyMerkin

"Ignore User" function

Recommended Posts

I never use it one here BUT on my Philly sports forum, I use it A LOT...we get so many trolls (fans of other teams) that just come on to say the Eagles suck after a loss or something....screw them!!!

But the Eagles DO suck(but they held their own pretty well against the pats, I gotta give em that)

don't shoot the messenger

Go COWBOYS :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Running away from confrontation becomes habit and doesn't lead to wonderful conditions when ones older

same can be said for using a PC..

:whistling:

:P

btw,.. good to see you, wannabe.

'bout ferkin time you showed up.

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hermit, I told you on the other site (which no offense to Ev but i wont use because I'd rather just stick to one) that my good computer was getting fixed and this website didnt even come up with my laptop :lol:

And hey, Mac commercials show that dweeb as a PC but did you see Live Free or Die Hard? Yeah, he was a real tough guy that whole movie. Thank god he had Bruce to watch his ass :P

Back to the subject of being off-topic, my old Masterr Chief av aint workin :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the subject of being off-topic, my old Masterr Chief av aint workin :huh:

here.. this one should work.

chief.jpg

and this one..

cyborgrun.gif

:beer:

[don't thank me,.. thank my Mac. B) ]

the file size on this one's too big,

but its good for a chuckle anyway.

masterchiefdance.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thank you and your Hac...erm, Mac rather but I'm referring to this new inability to just plug in any pic you find on the internet and post it in a slot.

Just kidding about the Slac...I'll stop now :ph34r::lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I don't think I'd ever use it.

Yeah, there are some people who are too crude/annoying for their own good, but it's not in 100% of their posts. They make valid points from time to time, and I don't wanna miss them because I decided to shut them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the fuck is this? :blink:

1. I'm not sitting here 24/7. There are also other things I want/have to do.

....I indeed wasn't trying to "prove" anything, I had to finish reading Tom Jones. So your accusation was completely unjust.

It was an evaluation based on two things:

1) If you view a person's profile you can check where they were "last seen", i.e. which threads they read at a certain time. I replied to your post pretty much imediately after it was made, went to check your profile - it said you were viewing a different thread - went to check your profile again after a while - it said you were viewing this thread. To me this means that you viewed this thread after I'd asked you to explain what you meant by your post. You then went offline.

2) Posting a comment stating that you consider what somebody does "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" without explaing what you mean by it in itself can be considered trolling. Not replying to a request to explain yourself in this context would also be considered trolling by some people. I'd consider it impolite. So I had a choice between considering you an impolite person and assuming that you actually meant something by your behaviour. It may be that I made the wrong choice there.

2. I wasn't calling anyone names. I didn't say anything like "fuzzy merkin, you are a hypocryte". There is a difference between expressing an opinion and telling a particular person what you think about him or her.

3. Not sure if you noticed, but now you are calling me names.

I didn't say "Katuschka, you are (insert insult)" either, did I? So maybe I was only expressing an opinion as well? Or does your "logic" only apply to you?

Apart from that I'd consider calling what a person does "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" an insult to that person. I dare say that most people would feel the same way about it.

About the indecent thing...I'm really not sure why this needs any further explanation. Ignoring someone simply is indecent.

It's indecent because it is indecent because you say so? "Indecent" means that something is offensive to good taste or moral values. I'd really like to know how that would apply here. What's more pretty much everybody on this thread stated that they are happy to ignore people without the iggy function. Is that "indecent" as well?

Good thing about message boards is that you can "ignore" anyone you please=not responding to his or her posts.

Hold it - "ignoring someone simply is indecent" - and now it's a "good thing"?

That's why I find the function pretty pointless in the forst place. Saying this, I must also say that I accept your reason for using it, I can't say I don't. I might not agree with you completely, but it would be very unfair to say anything bad about it without considering it.

Looks to me like you said three rather bad things about it. I fail to see how you "considered" it though.

One thing you should, however, understand is that once there is such function, not only people who feel offended by some baddies or trolls will use that. It also works the other way round. Basically, you can block anyone you please, for whatever reason. Not good. Some idiot can block anyone who tells him/her what he or she thinks about it, while the rest of the board still has to suffer this idiot's presence....unless they....all block him/her. How ingenious. It would be very indecent of me to block you so that I wouldn't be able (unless I were really very curious :rolleyes: ) to read your unsubstantial judgements.

If I follow your logic, the whole board must suffer an idiot's presence so because that's the "decent" thing to do while ignoring an idiot is "indecent"?

I'd consider it impolite to start a conversation and then block the other person halfway through this conversation. Which would apply here. I wouldn't consider it "indecent" though. Frankly, given your rather unorthodox "logic" here, I wouldn't even consider it a great loss.

I said even on the other board that I really fear this option. I think it will sooned or later contribute to creating of so called 'cliques'. Now let me proceed....

You have cliques with or without the iggy function. Of couse a clique could decide to use iggy to ignore a single poster in an attempt to bully and mob them. But then they could do the same thing by simply agreeing not to reply to that poster. It doesn't take iggy to achieve that. Anyway on a board this size it's hardly feasible that any "clique" of posters would have a major impact simply by ignoring somebody.

As for the hypocritical part...It is indeed ironic that some of the most abusive comments I've ever seen on boards were made by some of the supporters of this option.

Maybe you should have called those people hypocrits then? I haven't made any abusive comments on this board, but you chose to call my decision to use the iggy function hypocritical. What's "ironic" about that?

Anyway if people make abusive comments I'd put them on my ignore list then. That way they won't bother me anymore and they won't get what they apparently look for - a reaction. If you think that feeding the troll is less "hypocritical" you're welcome to do so.

As for actually being hypocritical: A number of people here claimed that they don't need the iggy function and that it's "lame" to use it, because they can ignore people anyway. Some of those people keep harping on about how they're bothered by the game threads and how something should be done about those threads. Isn't that hypocritical? Shouldn't they be able to simply ignore those threads?

Finally: I'm still waiting for you to explain how using the iggy function would be considered "indecent" and "cowardly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, I don't think I'd ever use it.

Yeah, there are some people who are too crude/annoying for their own good, but it's not in 100% of their posts. They make valid points from time to time, and I don't wanna miss them because I decided to shut them out.

That's why Del isn't on my ignore list: Although a lot of his posts seem only geared at riling people up, some of them actually are interesting. I've come across a couple of posters where I can't say the same thing though. It's not even all about being crude or annoying, with some it's just that I don't share their sense of humor.

I ignore their posts in the same way I would change channels when the Benny Hill Show is on. One or two things in his show might have the potential to make me laugh - but overall I'd say there's a number of programmes that interest me a lot more, so why waste time on that one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
personally, I'd rather just argue and make fun of someone than ignore them

Running away from confrontation becomes habit and doesn't lead to wonderful conditions when ones older

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with people on message boards doesn't achieve anything, except maybe stroke your ego. Every now and then you manage to have a good debate and actually come to a closer understanding of how another person ticks - but arguments don't lead to that (just look at the Max/Scratch argument on the random thread). What's more many people are happy to argue on message boards because they're too cowardly to do it in real life. Here they can do it without having to fear any real consequences. Whether that's going to help them "when they're older" is debatable....

Overall I'd say it's a lot easier to pick a fight than to turn your back and walk away from it, especially on a message board.

Edited by FuzzyMerkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah,.. as long as you edit before quickdraw mcgraw quotes you. :P

:D

Lol I remember one time years ago, you quoting me seconds after I posted something bitchy at a completely innocent person I thought was being a jerk but was in reality complimenting me. You were kind enough to edit your post so I could edit out my bitchiness before they were ever the wiser (I hope :blush: )

:thumbsup:

I STILL think about that every time I want to post something less than cordial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, I don't think I'd ever use it.

Yeah, there are some people who are too crude/annoying for their own good, but it's not in 100% of their posts. They make valid points from time to time, and I don't wanna miss them because I decided to shut them out.

That's why Del isn't on my ignore list: Although a lot of his posts seem only geared at riling people up, some of them actually are interesting.

Sort of like a car wreck on the highway, huh?

You know there is something bad there, but you just can't help but look as you pass by. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite, no. You made a post or two on the "next US president" thread which I found interesting. The way you try to bully Electrophile though makes me wonder whether it's really worth reading your posts. I'm not saying that either of you is in the wrong or in the right - it's just wearisome to see grown-up people act like that. Well for me it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite, no. You made a post or two on the "next US president" thread which I found interesting. The way you try to bully Electrophile though makes me wonder whether it's really worth reading your posts. I'm not saying that either of you is in the wrong or in the right - it's just wearisome to see grown-up people act like that. Well for me it is.

Bully???

That's an odd choice of words.

I believe I just have opinions that are contrary to those of some people. I would not call that being a bully. Especially not in this case anyway.

My take on it is that if a person is going to set themselves out there with a strong opinion, or be willing to make comments that are likely to invite a response... whatever that response is going to be. Then they ought to be able to handle what comes of that.

And obviously if they can't handle it. Or choose not to handle it. Then there is always the 'ingnore' thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bully???

That's an odd choice of words.

I believe I just have opinions that are contrary to those of some people. I would not call that being a bully. Especially not in this case anyway.

My take on it is that if a person is going to set themselves out there with a strong opinion, or be willing to make comments that are likely to invite a response... whatever that response is going to be. Then they ought to be able to handle what comes of that.

And obviously if they can't handle it. Or choose not to handle it. Then there is always the 'ingnore' thing.

Sure you got the right to post what you think is appropriate. I'm just saying that I don't particularly appreciate that particular style (independent of who the poster is) and what it looks like to me. I don't expect you to be bothered by this btw. You seemed interested in why I keep reading your posts. Well that's it in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) If you view a person's profile you can check where they were "last seen", i.e. which threads they read at a certain time. I replied to your post pretty much imediately after it was made, went to check your profile - it said you were viewing a different thread - went to check your profile again after a while - it said you were viewing this thread. To me this means that you viewed this thread after I'd asked you to explain what you meant by your post. You then went offline.

Scary. Damn those countless functions.

Anyway. Yes, I was viewing the thread, and then I had to log off because my class was about to start, so obviously, I had no time to respond.

2) Posting a comment stating that you consider what somebody does "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" without explaing what you mean by it in itself can be considered trolling. Not replying to a request to explain yourself in this context would also be considered trolling by some people. I'd consider it impolite. So I had a choice between considering you an impolite person and assuming that you actually meant something by your behaviour. It may be that I made the wrong choice there.

Oh please. If this should be considered as a trollish behaviour, how does an evaluation based on such rash conclusions look like then? There is still another choice left, and that is that people have a life outside the board too.

I didn't say "Katuschka, you are (insert insult)" either, did I? So maybe I was only expressing an opinion as well? Or does your "logic" only apply to you?

No, I was using your logic, and it's fallacies. I'm actually fine with you expressing your opinion. You can call me childish anytime.

Apart from that I'd consider calling what a person does "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" an insult to that person. I dare say that most people would feel the same way about it.

It's people's own choice if they decide to be offended or not. It was a general comment. As well as complaining about other people's post counts is a general complaint (unless you mane specific persons, of course), yet some people decided to be offended by that. Maybe they feel there is a reason why they should.

It's indecent because it is indecent because you say so? "Indecent" means that something is offensive to good taste or moral values. I'd really like to know how that would apply here. What's more pretty much everybody on this thread stated that they are happy to ignore people without the iggy function. Is that "indecent" as well?

Hold it - "ignoring someone simply is indecent" - and now it's a "good thing"?

Ignoring someone who talks to you in real life is indecent. If you feel that someone is abusing you, you can always tell him to shut up. However, pretending that the particular someone doesn't exist is indeed strange. Good thing about message boards is that you can ignore whoever you please without anyone knowing. In this sense, you can even use the actual function without anyone knowing...unless you inform everyone that you really use it. That's almost like saying that "there are certain people here who can babble and babble and babble and I don't care because have stuck my fingers into my ears and I'm singing lalala, I can't hear you, lalala." That's how I see it, like it or not. If you are offended by it, I'm sorry.

So yes, you can choose if you'll reply to any post or not. It's not that hard, it's a choice between not being bothered and caring about what was said. However, this seems too hard for some people, and they rather choose to block someone to avoid any confrontation. Are they too weak too weak to take it lightly? It's only a message board, after all. Blimey, that can be considered as cowardly.

Looks to me like you said three rather bad things about it. I fail to see how you "considered" it though.

I didn't attack you personally, and initially, you were not the person who made me say what I said. I think I said I see nothing wrong with your personal reasons, I can see your point, whether I agree if that needs a special function or not (viz. my comment above). The problem is that there ARE people who decide to block someone with whom the disagree. Period. There are also people who decide to block someone because they don't like their unnecessary vituperations and who at the same time swear and make unnecesary comments on a daily basis. Blimey, that's hypocritical.

If I follow your logic, the whole board must suffer an idiot's presence so because that's the "decent" thing to do while ignoring an idiot is "indecent"?

If you really can't stand someone's presence you can always tell him/her that he or she is an idiot. Pretty simple. Some people can't be bothered, and people decide to answer. If you block someone, it shows that it does bother you, but you've decided to do nothing about it.

I'd consider it impolite to start a conversation and then block the other person halfway through this conversation. Which would apply here. I wouldn't consider it "indecent" though. Frankly, given your rather unorthodox "logic" here, I wouldn't even consider it a great loss.

Frankly, that's something I'd never do. If you don't like my unotrodox logic, whatever it is, you are free to spare me your own comments. However, it seems that you do care, otherwise you wouldn't bother with typing such a long post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have cliques with or without the iggy function. Of couse a clique could decide to use iggy to ignore a single poster in an attempt to bully and mob them. But then they could do the same thing by simply agreeing not to reply to that poster. It doesn't take iggy to achieve that. Anyway on a board this size it's hardly feasible that any "clique" of posters would have a major impact simply by ignoring somebody.

Apparently, we disagree. I'm fine with that. However, this board is not so big (yet), and what's more, few people are regular posters. I do think that there is a possibility that it could possibly have a major impact. You disagree. Ok.

Maybe you should have called those people hypocrits then? I haven't made any abusive comments on this board, but you chose to call my decision to use the iggy function hypocritical. What's "ironic" about that?

I've called Electrophile/Elizabeth a hypocrite many times before, don't worry about that. I wasn't the only one either.

As for you, I've never called you a hypocrite. It's not my problem when people apply any general comment I make strictly on themselves.

As for actually being hypocritical: A number of people here claimed that they don't need the iggy function and that it's "lame" to use it, because they can ignore people anyway. Some of those people keep harping on about how they're bothered by the game threads and how something should be done about those threads. Isn't that hypocritical? Shouldn't they be able to simply ignore those threads?

No, why? Not necessarily. Hypocritical would be if for example Del now put Elizabeth on his ignore list. That would be a real hypocricy. What people who have decided to complain about something do is in fact a complete opposite of what people who've decided to block other users do.

Edited by Katuschka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scary. Damn those countless functions.

Anyway. Yes, I was viewing the thread, and then I had to log off because my class was about to start, so obviously, I had no time to respond.

Damn, and I thought you needed to finish reading "Tom Jones":

I indeed wasn't trying to "prove" anything, I had to finish reading Tom Jones.

Oh please. If this should be considered as a trollish behaviour, how does an evaluation based on such rash conclusions look like then? There is still another choice left, and that is that people have a life outside the board too.

No, I was using your logic, and it's fallacies. I'm actually fine with you expressing your opinion. You can call me childish anytime.

Posting a statement like the one you posted - without giving any explanation or reasoning for it - is considered trollish on some boards. I consider it impolite to make a statement like that, see that people ask you for an explanation and then rush off - regardless of whether you "have a life outside the board or not", it doesn't take more than a minute to say that you'll be back to reply to the question.

You claimed that you hadn't called me names, but that I was calling you names. Looks like you "applied my logic" only where it made you look good....

It's people's own choice if they decide to be offended or not. It was a general comment. As well as complaining about other people's post counts is a general complaint (unless you mane specific persons, of course), yet some people decided to be offended by that. Maybe they feel there is a reason why they should.

It's "people's own choice" only if you don't care whether you offend those people or not. Otherwise it's your choice: When I state that I use the iggy function and you claim that using the iggy function is "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" I take it personally. I don't see why I shouldn't.

Ignoring someone who talks to you in real life is indecent.

You said that using the iggy function on the board was "indecent" though.

If you feel that someone is abusing you, you can always tell him to shut up. However, pretending that the particular someone doesn't exist is indeed strange. Good thing about message boards is that you can ignore whoever you please without anyone knowing. In this sense, you can even use the actual function without anyone knowing...unless you inform everyone that you really use it. That's almost like saying that "there are certain people here who can babble and babble and babble and I don't care because have stuck my fingers into my ears and I'm singing lalala, I can't hear you, lalala." That's how I see it, like it or not. If you are offended by it, I'm sorry.

I'm fully aware that people on my ignore list exist. I don't pretend otherwise. You state that it's ok to use the function, but claim that one shouldn't talk about it...that's weird.

As for being offended: Yes, I am offended by somebody calling my behaviour "indecent, hypocritical and cowardly" and then not explaining what they refer to. Anyway - with some people on here, they actually can "babble and babble" and I won't read their post. It's not like bey posting on a message board people acquire the automatic right to have their posts read.

So yes, you can choose if you'll reply to any post or not. It's not that hard, it's a choice between not being bothered and caring about what was said. However, this seems too hard for some people, and they rather choose to block someone to avoid any confrontation. Are they too weak too weak to take it lightly? It's only a message board, after all. Blimey, that can be considered as cowardly-

And what's wrong about that? Sure there's enough confrontation going on here already. I have yet to see anything good coming out of that. Anyway, I take it so lightly, I can't be bothered at all. If I took things personally I'd grieve over them. I don't. I don't care whether other people read my posts either. Maybe you're a bit too obsessed about people reading yours?

I didn't attack you personally, and initially, you were not the person who made me say what I said. I think I said I see nothing wrong with your personal reasons, I can see your point, whether I agree if that needs a special function or not (viz. my comment above). The problem is that there ARE people who decide to block someone with whom the disagree. Period. There are also people who decide to block someone because they don't like their unnecessary vituperations and who at the same time swear and make unnecesary comments on a daily basis. Blimey, that's hypocritical.

Why would blocking somebody with whom you don't agree be "a problem"?

You said that using iggy is "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical". Since I started the thread stating that I use it, of course that statement was also directed at me - whether you intended it or not. Sure you are intelligent enough to phrase things more accurately if you choose to do so.

The behaviour of such people would indeed be hypocritical. That doesn't mean that using iggy as such is hypocritical - and that's what you claimed.

If you really can't stand someone's presence you can always tell him/her that he or she is an idiot. Pretty simple. Some people can't be bothered, and people decide to answer. If you block someone, it shows that it does bother you, but you've decided to do nothing about it. Frankly, that's something I'd never do. If you don't like my unotrodox logic, whatever it is, you are free to spare me your own comments. However, it seems that you do care, otherwise you wouldn't bother with typing such a long post...

Wrong - if I call somebody an idiot, as you suggest, it shows that they bother me. If I ignore them, it shows that I don't care.

I cared to find out what you meant with your initial claim. This doesn't mean that I'm particularly eager to deal with faulty "logic" like "it's indecent because it's indecent".

Now - I don't have the time to go on with this much longer. I still don't see how using iggy would be "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" . Your comments in that regard only refer to very specific uses of iggy anyway. I don't see how you'd use those words and then me surprised that people might be offended by them, nor do I understand how you can accept that people choose to use iggy and call their behaviour "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" at the same time. Doesn't add up for me. I don't understand why you think calling somebody an idiot is better than ignoring them and I don't see why picking a fight would be "brave" and avoiding a fight would be "cowardly".

Looks like we won't see eye to eye on that one. I prefer to leave it at that. I'll be happy to read your reply to this post, if any, and answer any questions you might have. So be assured that I'm not ignoring you. :)

Edited to add: I couldn't use as many quote tags as I'd have liked to...hope this still makes sense.

Edited by FuzzyMerkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, we disagree. I'm fine with that. However, this board is not so big (yet), and what's more, few people are regular posters. I do think that there is a possibility that it could possibly have a major impact. You disagree. Ok.

I mainly disagree because you can ignore somebody without the iggy function. So the problem (if there is one) quite obviously isn't inherent with iggy.

I've called Electrophile/Elizabeth a hypocrite many times before, don't worry about that. I wasn't the only one either.

As for you, I've never called you a hypocrite. It's not my problem when people apply any general comment I make strictly on themselves.

So if I claimed that all Europeans are idiots, this wouldn't refer to you then? You may choose to ignore the comment, but you can't state that it doesn't include you - although it is a general comment. You made a general comment about people using iggy, and obvious reasons that includes me. Sorry if you didn't say what you intended to say, but that's not my fault. I can only take you to task about the things you actually say.

No, why? Not necessarily. Hypocritical would be if for example Del now put Elizabeth on his ignore list. That would be a real hypocricy. What people who have decided to complain about something do is in fact a complete opposite of what people who've decided to block other users do.

It would be hypocritical for people who bash the ignore function to then use it. It would be impolite for Del to attack Elizabeth and then ignore her replies. If people bash iggy and claim that they are able to ignore things without it then go on to bitch about things because quite obviously they can't ignore those things - now that again is hypocrisy.

In my humble opinion. :D

Edited by FuzzyMerkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn, and I thought you needed to finish reading "Tom Jones":

I really had to, that's basically one of the reasons why I couldn't come here to reply until yesterday evening.

Posting a statement like the one you posted - without giving any explanation or reasoning for it - is considered trollish on some boards. I consider it impolite to make a statement like that, see that people ask you for an explanation and then rush off - regardless of whether you "have a life outside the board or not", it doesn't take more than a minute to say that you'll be back to reply to the question.

No, it would be trollish if I never bothered to send you an explanation, which is something you assumed to be the case before you could be sure that it was really the case. I would tell you that I would be back later if I were aware of the fact that you follow my steps, which I wasn't, therefore I couldn't assume that my mere presence in this thread before I logged off would exasperate you so much.

You claimed that you hadn't called me names, but that I was calling you names. Looks like you "applied my logic" only where it made you look good....

It's "people's own choice" only if you don't care whether you offend those people or not. Otherwise it's your choice: When I state that I use the iggy function and you claim that using the iggy function is "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" I take it personally. I don't see why I shouldn't.

Oh, that was partly my intention, yes. However, I didn't want to make you look bad (I think that our own posts form our reputation, not the comments of others), I simply wanted to point to the mistake in your logic.

Yes, there are occasions when I don't care if I offend someone or not. Basically, I care only if I address someone directly. You never know who you offend and when. There is a difference between stating something because it's your opinion, and saying it only because you know that it will stir up shit. That's something I never do.

You said that using the iggy function on the board was "indecent" though.

Yes, and I hope I explained why. If I decide not to respond to certain posts, I can do it without any further consequence. You never talk to all the members. That's the difference between the physical reality and the virtual reality, because here we don't talk face to face. It's all rather anonymous. Only you say that you deliberately blocked someone, it's not that anonymous anymore.

I'm fully aware that people on my ignore list exist. I don't pretend otherwise. You state that it's ok to use the function, but claim that one shouldn't talk about it...that's weird.

I didn't really say that it's ok - if it sounded like that, the fault is mine, I should have been more articululate. But that fact is that it is harmless...to a certain extent. On a message board, you can easily hide your read intentions. If I said that it's a good thing, I meant that it's a good thing for those who do that, because the other side never knows (although there are examples when it's really not too to realize...). Once you say it aloud, you need to deal with people's reactions to it. Elizabeth said she blocked certain people, and since it wasn't so hard to realize who they probably are, Del told her what he thinks about it, and we all know what it was. Though she's probably unaware; if this is what she wanted, "good" for her. I can't help but think that it makes her look a bit like a fool though. I personally don't like people talking behing my back, but each to their own.

As for being offended: Yes, I am offended by somebody calling my behaviour "indecent, hypocritical and cowardly" and then not explaining what they refer to. Anyway - with some people on here, they actually can "babble and babble" and I won't read their post. It's not like bey posting on a message board people acquire the automatic right to have their posts read.

Naturally, but I was talking about something else. If you admit that you ignore someone, you make a deliberate statement. It's completely different from 'not reading everyone's posts'. If I decide that I won't read someone's posts, it's anonymous. If I admit that I need a special function to avoid other members, it becomes a visible behaviour.

And what's wrong about that? Sure there's enough confrontation going on here already. I have yet to see anything good coming out of that. Anyway, I take it so lightly, I can't be bothered at all. If I took things personally I'd grieve over them. I don't. I don't care whether other people read my posts either. Maybe you're a bit too obsessed about people reading yours?

I'm not saying you must think that's something wrong about that. You obviously don't. You wanted me to specify why I think it's cowardly, which I did. I'm not saying you must agree with me. I don't care if people who I don't know read my posts or not. I'm here mainly because I have friends here who I met on the other board. However, if I talked to someone, and that person blocked me, I would not be happy about that.

Why would blocking somebody with whom you don't agree be "a problem"?

I said that the problem is that some people are driven by other reasons than you are, any of which I consider to be much less justifiable.

But more generally: This is a message board. It's essential that we discuss things, even with people who disagree with us. We're not supposed to post exalted monologues. Blocking someone with whom we disagree is ridiculous.

You said that using iggy is "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical". Since I started the thread stating that I use it, of course that statement was also directed at me - whether you intended it or not. Sure you are intelligent enough to phrase things more accurately if you choose to do so.

The behaviour of such people would indeed be hypocritical. That doesn't mean that using iggy as such is hypocritical - and that's what you claimed.

Now - I don't have the time to go on with this much longer. I still don't see how using iggy would be "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" . Your comments in that regard only refer to very specific uses of iggy anyway. I don't see how you'd use those words and then me surprised that people might be offended by them, nor do I understand how you can accept that people choose to use iggy and call their behaviour "indecent, cowardly and hypocritical" at the same time. Doesn't add up for me. I don't understand why you think calling somebody an idiot is better than ignoring them and I don't see why picking a fight would be "brave" and avoiding a fight would be "cowardly".

Ok, fair enough. I suppose I should have addressed a certain member directly, since this person's posts were the reason why I said what I said. So, whether I really regret it or not (as I said, it was a general comment, so I distance from any personal insults), if I offended you, I'm sorry. As for my general general opinion on all this, I do think it's ridiculous.

Wrong - if I call somebody an idiot, as you suggest, it shows that they bother me. If I ignore them, it shows that I don't care.

Basically what I said. But if you need a special function in order to ignore someone, it necessarily means that you can't ignore then on your own, and therefore I suspect certain negative sentiments (if you didnt have them, you wouldn't care to use the option).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One note on your post:

If I decide that I won't read someone's posts, it's anonymous. If I admit that I need a special function to avoid other members, it becomes a visible behaviour.

What about all the people who stated on here that they are able and or willing to ignore other posters without using iggy? Isn't that just as visible?

I really get the impression that your problem is with ignoring people rather than with the ignore function. Only because everybody agreed that ignoring people as such is ok, you're taking it out on poor lil iggy. :(

As for the "indecent, hypocritical and cowardly" business - you made a very general statement there and now it seems to transpire that you had a very specific recipient and/or very specific circumstances in mind. Maybe it would be a good idea to actually say what you mean instead of making a snappy remark that needs explanations and/or qualification afterwards - even if such a more factual approach won't look quite as cool. Pissing people off is easy, making sure that things don't deteriorate from there can be hard work....

Edited by FuzzyMerkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I claimed that all Europeans are idiots, this wouldn't refer to you then? You may choose to ignore the comment, but you can't state that it doesn't include you - although it is a general comment. You made a general comment about people using iggy, and obvious reasons that includes me. Sorry if you didn't say what you intended to say, but that's not my fault. I can only take you to task about the things you actually say.

I wouldn't ignore it, I like confrontation too much. :D

But I'm afraid that I would ask you what problem you have with Europeans, instead of wanting to know why you called me an idiot. We're still complete strangers, and there's no reason why I should take your comment personally just because my profile says where I'm from. My point is, I can choose if it includes me or not (= if I should feel offended or not). I know that, because I can assure you that my reaction two years ago would be completely different.

It would be hypocritical for people who bash the ignore function to then use it. It would be impolite for Del to attack Elizabeth and then ignore her replies. If people bash iggy and claim that they are able to ignore things without it then go on to bitch about things because quite obviously they can't ignore those things - now that again is hypocrisy.

Well, this is basically what I said. :huh: Since he did nothing of this, I have no reason to cal him a hypocrite (for now :D ).

I don't think what you say is a hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical if he blocked all posters who he can't ignore, but has every right to bitch about whatever he doesn't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about all the people who stated on here that they are able and or willing to ignore other posters without using iggy? Isn't that just as visible?

Oh yes, you made a good point. But I wasn't one of them, so I'm not their advocate.

Anyway, I think that ignoring someone without using that damned buttor besically means that you don't respond to these posts. This is different from not knowing what the person said. If someone insults me, I have two options. I can either ignore the comment when I think it would just a waste f my time to respond, or I can respond (well, I usualy respond...)...but either way I still know what's going on. Sometimes, it can be a worthwhile critique, not necessarily an insult.

I really get the impression that your problem is with ignoring people rather than with the ignore function. Only because everybody agreed that ignoring people as such is ok, you're taking it out on poor lil iggy. :(

I think that I have a problem with a specific type of ignorance...and in that sense, it can apply to both. Yes. My opinion however is, that people who use the poor lil iggy just don't like to read certain things, so they don't want to read them. Basically said, that can't stand critique, while people who can ignore you even without using the button 'just can't be bothered'. I might dislike such people for their arrogance (though the fact is that the arrogant ones usually do want to discuss. It's a real challenge, and I'm lovin' it :D ), as well as I can consider the former variant to be a manifestation of weakness.

As for the "indecent, hypocritical and cowardly" business - you made a very general statement there and now it seems to transpire that you had a very specific recipient and/or very specific circumstances in mind. Maybe it would be a good idea to actually say what you mean instead of making a snappy remark that needs explanations and/or qualification afterwards - even if such a more factual approach won't look quite as cool. Pissing people off is easy, making sure that things don't deteriorate from there can be hard work....

It doesn't 'seem to transpire', it is exaclty what I said.

Maybe it would, but:

1. Even though I did have a specific recipient, the circumstances were not that specific, and that's why I still claim that it was a general comment, based on my experience with message boards and patterns of behavious I've come across with.

2. I don't avoid comments that need further explanations. It's rather hard to predict what comment will need a further explanation and what will not - that depends on the attitude of those who read it. I admit that sometimes I'm guilty of comments that are more hasty that I would like them to be, but the truth is that I usually mean it.

3. I disagree - such a factual approach would be even more cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Katuschka, I come to think that you're being a bit dishonest, if not hypocritical, in your condemnation of iggy.

You claim that ignoring something without even taking it into consideration isn't right. But at the same time you seem all too happy to ignore something yourself, if only people would let you do it:

If you admit that you ignore someone, you make a deliberate statement. It's completely different from 'not reading everyone's posts'. If I decide that I won't read someone's posts, it's anonymous. If I admit that I need a special function to avoid other members, it becomes a visible behaviour.

So people ignoring other people isn't the problem...as long as it's anonymous. The visibility of the act is the problem - and visibility means that you can't ignore it anymore, that you have to deal with it....What you're advocating here is your right to ignore the things that you don't want to deal with, i.e. people using iggy - while you bash other people's decision to ignore the things they don't want to deal with. That's about as "decent" a behaviour as that of any closet-gay politician eager to bash homosexuals.

If I follow your logic, it's you who's too "cowardly" to face the fact that people might ignore you, you're putting your fingers in your ears and don't want to hear about it...which obviously means you're too "weak" to deal with it.

How's that for irony?

Edited by FuzzyMerkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You claim that ignoring something without even taking it into consideration isn't right. But at the same time you seem all too happy to ignore something yourself, if only people would let you do it:

Yes, that's what I claim, and that's also what I think. I've never said that I'm all too happy to ignore anything. Actually, I think I said quite the opposite. The part you quoted doesn't contain anything else than me saying that ignoring something without saying that you really do it is something which other posters can never spot. I said that that's who the message boards work, not that this is what I do, while using the ignore user button is something I don't do.

People ignoring other people is a problem. Usually, when you ignore someone, the person notices it. Usually, when someone ignores me I can see it. Message boards are more anonymous than normal everyday encounters. I cannot see you, what you say in your posts is all I can deal with. Everything stays hidden in your own mind until you type it. So of course, visibility is all that matters. Externally. Your behaviour towards others is a visible projection of your thoughts, and that's what is called manners. I've never said that I (or anyone else) have the right to ignore something, I said that there is a possibility to do that. Therefore, I can ignore the fact that people use the ignore user function even though I don't like the fact, but OBVIOUSLY I do NOT ignore it. So what exactly is your problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's what I claim, and that's also what I think. I've never said that I'm all too happy to ignore anything. Actually, I think I said quite the opposite. The part you quoted doesn't contain anything else than me saying that ignoring something without saying that you really do it is something which other posters can never spot. I said that that's who the message boards work, not that this is what I do, while using the ignore user button is something I don't do.

People ignoring other people is a problem. Usually, when you ignore someone, the person notices it. Usually, when someone ignores me I can see it. Message boards are more anonymous than normal everyday encounters. I cannot see you, what you say in your posts is all I can deal with. Everything stays hidden in your own mind until you type it. So of course, visibility is all that matters. Externally. Your behaviour towards others is a visible projection of your thoughts, and that's what is called manners. I've never said that I (or anyone else) have the right to ignore something, I said that there is a possibility to do that. Therefore, I can ignore the fact that people use the ignore user function even though I don't like the fact, but OBVIOUSLY I do NOT ignore it. So what exactly is your problem?

The problem is that you'd rather ignore people ignoring you. According to you, ignoring somebody anonymously is ok - stating that you use the ignore function isn't.

Wouldn't ignorance be bliss? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...