Posted by michael on June 16, 2000, at 19:39:57
In reply to Re: I agree Cam/note to ToDD, posted by KarenB on June 16, 2000, at 12:37:14
Hello All –
Against my better judgement, I’m going to open my big mouth and toss my two cents’ worth into this miserable excuse for an adult discussion (please don’t be offended – I am being sarcastic... but if you do look back through these threads, you’ve got to agree that it looks like the kind of ‘distinguished’ discourse one might hear out on the playground, near the ‘monkey bars’ – except with bigger words) So anyway, here’s my contibution (preaching?)...
I. Hey boBB-
Some of the above posts note that you have not only acknowledged that you have posted under different "handles", but that you have identified which other handles belong to you.
[from claire7's second post of 6-15: ...He acknowledges his various handles openly...:]
a) If that's right, just wondering if you could reiterate/summarise for me which of the "handles" on this board belong to you?
b) assuming you reply to the above (I’m hoping you do), what's the point?
If I recall correctly, at one point you said that you do so to express different points of view... or something to that effect...? -sorry, I'm sure that you probably phrased it differently, but that was the gist that I got from it...
Even if that's the case, once again, what's the point? It's quite easy to play devil’s advocate, or even to point out opposing points of view within a single post. Others here and elsewhere certainly do so. I would think that would be the more accepted route even in the journalistic world.
I don’t mean to be difficult, but if you would stick to a single persona, it would probably even help your “creditablility” , since then, the posts in support of you/your positon would not automatically be labeled as another one of your multiple “personae”. (although perhaps creditability on this board isn’t a big enough concern to you to bother doning so?)
Okay – here’s the real surmony part:
II. As for the rest of us (including boBB and me)-I know it sounds simplistic or child-like (as opposed to childish), and I certainly got tired of hearing it growing up, however, here it is again anyway: IF YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING NICE (or at least insightful?), then don’t bother to say anything at all. [my dad never mentioned the insightful part – I added that]
Corallary: don’t read a post/thread if it’s from someone who you know tends to upset/bother/annoy you or push your buttons. [Hence item I. a) above]
It’s pretty straight forward, and just requires a little peronal restraint/common sense. People expect kids to act that way – I’d like to think we “psycho’s” (or we “babbler’s?) can manage it too. It’s the classic ‘don’t reinforce/encourage what you may perceive as 'negative' behavior by paying attention/replying to it – no matter who ‘starts it’.
I know this is all obvious/simplistic – and I don’t meant to talk down to anyone. Sorry if it seems like I did anyway.
Okay, preaching finished - sermon done. I hope you all enjoyed that as mcuh as I did! I haven’t seen bob (not to be confused w/boBB) jumping in as self-appointed referee, or whatever he’s appointed himself in the past, so I thought I’d step in for him & give him a hand.
I guess this has been more like two bits, rather than two cents.... but I’m done now. Bye.
poster:michael
thread:36179
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000610/msgs/37584.html