Civility

[nacktman]

Civility: n - courtesy; politeness; pl - acts of politeness

Why is is it that this concept is so alien to some (particularly the younger posters and posters of a certain political bent - sometimes being one in the same, but not exclusively), on these forums?
Also, why is it they who are ever claiming to be the victim of and accusing others their own behaviors?

[MoonShadow]

With all due respect, nacktman, you certainly did not show much "civility" in the Statistics thread. Now you post this thread?

This doesn't make any sense to me after what you did and said about Sanslines, and included Lamont.........bucolic trolls?????

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
With all due respect, nacktman, you certainly did not show much "civility" in the Statistics thread. Now you post this thread?

This doesn't make any sense to me after what you did and said about Sanslines, and included Lamont.........bucolic trolls?????
He simply can't see that he is frequently uncivil to others and thinks that they aren't too smart to suggest that he ever does anything wrong.

[usmc1]

Alright, here's my take on this stuff. And if you print it and take it to Starbucks and give it to the clerk when you order, you can get a tall Soy Latte for about $3.35.

There are some people with these quaint inner codes that bar them from straight forward, frank talk. They prefer academic disputation without strong, forceful language. They prefer their nouns without adjectives and their verbs sans adverbs. They want the discussion to be ongoing discussion without quantifiable conclusions. They quail at strong rhetoric and become upset when such occurs. These people generally characterize themselves with appeals to civility and/or the authority of moderators.

There are others who merely want feedback and responses which reinforces their pre-conceived notions or uninformed opinions. They want it all their way, or else the "forum is ruined" and those who speak in disagreement are "nasty, bullies". These are the ones who suggest others be "ignored" or "barred".

Then there are those from all sides of many different political views who are willing to tie it on, no-holds barred, and argue their points. Such people when pushed shove back, when slapped punch back, and generally are unwilling to tolerate a lot of "perceived" crap from others. They fight like tigers in defense of their views, but they do not appeal to moderators, or call for others to be stifled, or ignored, they do not carry a persecution complex and they do not snivel or whine. As I said, they come from all the various spectrums and often, depending on the issue, have open minds.

There are others, but these seem to me to be the broad, very general groupings on Open Conversation---there are some who really do not care to enter the fray at all.

So, we have clashes, we have people who just generally do not like each other's writings and what those writings say about about the writer and writer's views and affiliations. It is inevitable, and it really is immaterial as to who starts it. Hell, this back and forth with Sanslines and Lamont and several others has been ongoing since....well you try to figure that out. I can't--and you know what, change the names and you'll find the same back and forth going on in every open forum on the web where politics, current events and public policy is debated.

As to civility, well if a skunk stinks, I'm probably going to hold my nose and say Pew-EEEE! I get shoved, guess what's coming back! And, there are those among us who would interpret civility as servility.

And to be truthful, I just don't know how to tell a frothing lunatic that I think he/she is nuts in a civil manner. Nor do I think it is required.

[Sanslines]

Hell, this back and forth with Sanslines and Lamont and several others has been ongoing since....well you try to figure that out.

This so called back and forth is not the problem. The problem is when Nackman and USMC get bored and then go on the hunt to stalk others and attack them and then claim innocence. Of course it is anyone and everyone else's fault. Nacktman and USMC are not to be blamed for anything as they are always innocent and are just 'forcefully' expressing their opinions by going into another thread and constantly calling the author of that thread 'troll' (among other things) when that author did not even initially respond to them. Then they are surprised when someone finally fights back. Too bad they either can not see or admit to this.

[usmc1]

That's IT! Now listen here. No latte for you!

LOL, give it up dude. Me innocent?---blinking my big brown eyes shamelessly.

Innocent, me? Hah! Just sort of diddy-bopping along here, having fun at your expense.

That's what bored, tired, old, communist, socialist men do.

Yep, no latte for you.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by usmc1:
That's IT! Now listen here. No latte for you!

LOL, give it up dude. Me innocent?---blinking my big brown eyes shamelessly.

Innocent, me? Hah! Just sort of diddy-bopping along here, having fun at your expense.

That's what bored, tired, old, communist, socialist men do.

Yep, no latte for you.

Lol, I need to correct you here.....You are TRYING to have fun at my expense but you are not doing a very good job of it .

Face it, dudeman.......you finally met a worthy opponent and you know damn well that you wouldn't have it any other way. Maybe, just maybe, I'll give in a bit and buy you a latte - you big softy you.

[nacktman]

At least one poster has made an attempt to answer the questions posed.

While others have not.