Passive aggression

[mickthinks]

That's your excuse for making an extended ad hominem against your gracious host all this time.

You seem to be arguing that because he is a gracious host, his ad hominems have to be swallowed.

I am satisfied that I am right and you are wrong,

You are arguing that since vm is a gracious host, we must swallow his ad hominems, aren't you?
.
.
.
You're lying.


... er ... listen Sonny, could you put your Mum or Dad on the phone?

[mickthinks]

Hello again ShottleBop

LOL! Have you come back to pick my scabs, viscousmemories's, or your own?


Mick

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello again ShottleBop

LOL! Have you come back to pick my scabs, viscousmemories's, or your own?


Mick

You asserted, in an exchange with Brimshack, that you thought "the way viscousmemories has tried to argue was a misuse of power." I sought clarification as to what power you thought he had misused. Perhaps that was silly of me.

[mickthinks]

The context in which you and I last conversed here was the unconstructive and, I think, rather silly one of scab-picking. That was your choice, and it was also the way you left it. If you regret that now and would like to put it right for the sake of a better dialogue between us, be my guest.

Mick

[Brimshack]

Notice how the little fuck-puddle evades the point, yet again. Nah, not an honest bone in Mick's body.

[mickthinks]

... evades the point ...

Is that Brim-"I am satisfied that I am right and you are a little fuck puddle"-shack speaking? Please put a grown-up on the line...

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The context in which you and I last conversed here was the unconstructive and, I think, rather silly one of scab-picking. That was your choice, and it was also the way you left it. If you regret that now and would like to put it right for the sake of a better dialogue between us, be my guest.

Mick

Originally Posted by mick

But if there are no wounds, your scab metaphor is meaningless.

That, to my knowledge, is how we left it; I let you have the last word. I took no offense to your dismissal of my metaphor as meaningless, however, and neither nor do I take offense to your newer characterization of it as "unconstructive" and "rather silly." No apology necessary--we're right as rain, mate.

[mickthinks]

[My scab metaphor is meaningless] is how we left it.
How we left it? Your silence was agreement, Bop? Cool, then any minute now I can expect you to apologise for trying to hit me with the meaningless shit.

Mick

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

[My scab metaphor is meaningless] is how we left it.
How we left it? Your silence was agreement, Bop? Cool, then any minute now I can expect you to apologise for trying to hit me with the meaningless shit.

Mick

Your statement that "if there are no wounds [a matter left unresolved], [my] scab metaphor is meaningless" is how we left it. "We left it" because (i) I chose not to respond, and (ii) you did not further address the issue. My discontinuing the discussion was not intended to be, and should not be taken as, any kind of agreement that my initial post was meaningless.

[mickthinks]

My discontinuing the discussion was not intended to be, and should not be taken as, any kind of agreement that my initial post was meaningless.
Ah, I thought not! I reckon that makes your "we're right as rain, mate" misleading bullshit. It doesn't help, so why did you say it?

The whole point of this thread is to discuss what happens to communication when feelings of hostility are allowed to distort the message. The only reason why we are discussing scabs is because you chose that as an off-topic way of trying to shut me up. The only reason I'm still going on is because viscousmemories used "no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful" as an off-topic way to shut me up, and the reason he had for that was because I challenged his accusation of "passive aggressive" as an off-topic way to shut me up. If I shut up, then all of those false strategies will have paid off.

These ploys are all aimed, I believe, at avoiding admitting mistakes and making amends. I think it is a good thing when mistakes are admitted and amends are made, and that is why I believe it is important that none of these false strategies, yours included, pays off.

Mick

[Plant Woman]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think it is a good thing when mistakes are admitted and amends are made, and that is why I believe it is important that none of these false strategies, yours included, pays off.

[mickthinks]

Yes, PW, that's a very good example of the kind of false tactics I'm talking about!


1 xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

LOL!

[Angakuk]

Nice smiley use there Mick.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The whole point of this thread is to discuss what happens to communication when feelings of hostility are allowed to distort the message. The only reason why we are discussing scabs is because you chose that as an off-topic way of trying to shut me up. . . . These ploys are all aimed, I believe, at avoiding admitting mistakes and making amends. I think it is a good thing when mistakes are admitted and amends are made, and that is why I believe it is important that none of these false strategies, yours included, pays off.

ShottleBop: "If you pick at a scab, the new skin underneath can be ripped and the wound will take longer to heal and may leave a scar. So try not to pick at scabs."

mickthinks: "meaningless . . . unconstructive . . . rather silly . . . meaningless shit . . . misleading bullshit" . . ploy . . . false strategies, yours included"

Who's the hostile one here, mickthinks? I thought my post about picking at scabs was (i) germane to the discussion at hand (your picking up your dispute with viscousmemories after a month of silence), and (ii) a rather innocuous suggestion that there might be benefits to be realized from not doing so. "Trying to shut you up?" Hardly. I am genuinely surprised that you thought that our exchange, over a month ago, merited any kind of apology from me, much less a refusal to engage in further discourse unless an apology were forthcoming.

[Plant Woman]

Yes Mick, you are a very good example of the kind of false tactics you project on others!

1 xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

Thanks! That was cool!

[mickthinks]

I thought my post about picking at scabs was (i) germane to the discussion at hand [...], and (ii) a rather innocuous suggestion I can tell you it wasn't.

[ChuckF]

The smiley PW's are awesome.

[mickthinks]

... false tactics you project on others!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Psychobabble Woman!

[Plant Woman]

I've been grounded, so it must be Project-o-thinks.

[Brimshack]

Perhaps the little puddle of pap is demonstrating (projecting, as it were) the proper way to deal with his own trollishness. You just have to expand it. Whereas Mickthinks ignores arguments and responds to sleights, others ought to, well come to think of it dismiss everything his tainted pungency types.

[mickthinks]

Mickthinks ignores arguments and responds to sleights

"Sleights" - good word, thanks Brim!

I think I have responded to every argument, though I admit, not always immediately, and I have ignored many "sleights". The propensity for the more aggressive ers to offer the latter in lieu of the former may have given you a false impression.

If there weren't so much general approval in this forum for "sleights" over arguments, then viscousmemories might have had to admit that his "Don't be silly", "Thanks are passive aggressive" and "You're just trolling" were not valid or constructive, and there would be no dispute between us.

It's his continuing claim that his "sleights" were in fact good arguments that I am challenging, and you, PW, Bop and others are defending his claim. With argument? No, with more "sleights".

I'll respond to the sleights as long as they keep coming. I reserve the right to respond to the sleights first and save the arguments till later, so if you are anxious for me to pick up a substantive point someone has made, then perhaps you'd encourage them to take back the shit they've shovelled without shovelling anymore?

Talking of shit, this little pile turned up in your latest post; "puddle of pap" "trollishness" "tainted pungency". I won't rub your face in it, but just for a change, why not try retaliating with a proper argument which is actually on topic ...

I think you have argued that since vm is a gracious host, I am obliged to swallow his ad hominems. If that isn't what you are meant, please explain why you think "making an extended ad hominem [criticism?] against your gracious host all this time" [link] is wrong.

Mick

[Brimshack]

No Mick, you haven't responded to every argument. In fact, you've systematically ignored several good ones, not the least of which being Shottlebops argument. You've been using allegations of prior rudeness as a ploy to ignore it altogether. Your response to my own argument consisted of little more than diversionary tactics, and it wasn't too long ago that you deliberately misquoted VM, then pretended there was nothing wrong in your little exercise in deception.

You've already shown that reasoning with you is a waste of time. You will post anything you can to keep the shit stirring, and you never hesitate to blow off any honest attempts to address your latest line of deceit.

But now you want proper arguments? Frankly, you're not entitled to them. What you have been doing this whole time is nothing but an insult masquerading as a discussion. I'm just skipping the pretention.

If you don't like the taste of semen, then don't suck dick.

[mickthinks]

No, I haven't answered Bop's question yet. My main point, here and in many other posts, is that reasoned debate cannot thrive in a combative, stone-throwing, shit-shovelling environment. If vm truly wanted to communicate his ideas and understand mine then his stone-throwing was a mistake and I can ask him to take it back. Likewise, if Bop has a reasoned point he wants to make, then he spoiled it by characterising this thread as a 'scab' that I keep picking. Which is it to him, scab or debate? I think it is fair to ask him to choose, and to accept the implications of that choice. I don't feel any responsibility to engage with him on his present, er ... 'scabby' terms.

You response to my own argument consisted of little more than diversionary tactics ...
I don't think so. I've told you that I don't understand your argument because it seems to rest on the notion that since vm is a gracious host, I am obliged to swallow his ad hominems. Asking you to explain is all I can do under these circumstances and I don't understand why you've passed over this request in silence. I'll ask again; why do you think it is wrong to criticise the ad hominems of a gracious host?

... and it wasn't too long ago that you deliberately misquoted VM
I don't think I did. I think the accusation of 'misquoting' (livius called it 'misrepresenting') was another diversionary tactic to defend vm against the charge of 'bad argument' without answering it. Plus ca change ...

You've already shown that reasoning with you is a waste of time.
Have I? Where? Where has a reasoned response to something I've said, one not also heavily laced with irony and other shit, being been a waste of time? Please show me!

Mick
You will post anything you can to keep the shit stirring, and you never hesitate to blow off any honest attempts to address your latest line of deceit. But now you want proper arguments? Frankly, you're not entitled to them. What you have been doing this whole time is nothing but an insult masquerading as a discussion. I'm just skipping the pretention. If you don't like the taste of semen, then don't suck dick.
This is just another nasty pile of shit, Brim!

[Brimshack]

What part of 'no' don't you understand little girl. You have neither the reading skills nor the personal honesty to merit an attempt at reasoned response. Deny as you like. Twist as you like. Like puss from an anal fistula, your posts on this subject will never be anything other than a deliberate attempt to stink up the forum.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

What part of 'no' don't you understand little girl. You have neither the reading skills nor the personal honesty to merit an attempt at reasoned response. Deny as you like. Twist as you like. Like puss from an anal fistula, your posts on this subject will never be anything other than a deliberate attempt to stink up the forum.

LOL! Yep - yet another defence of viscousmemories's honour slides down the pan.

ETA: I shouldn't laugh, because in an important way, Brim's already won. It is unpleasant and depressing wading through this seemingly endless stinking stream, to which, Bop is right, I have made my own contribution. If I were as witty as Clutch or Sock, I suppose I might be able to hold my audience with an hilarious succession of witty ripostes, but as it is, I wouldn't blame anyone for putting this thread on 'ignore'.

This is one of the more subtle ways that mob-hooliganism successfully suppresses ideas, by inundating them with waves of stinking crap that force people to turn away in disgust. A thread full of shit will end up being ignored no matter how many valuable ideas might be lost in it.

That's why I believe standards of debate are so important, and why it is worth demanding a higher standard than some leading figures here, like viscousmemories, are currently setting. Which is why I started this, and several other threads, in the first place.

Mick