Passive aggression

[mickthinks]

You can't read.
Yeah, Brilliant! Let me guess your next post ...

Soon To Be Posted by Brimshack
Your mom's a ho and you smell!

[ShottleBop]

Actually, mickthinks, your posts do establish that you have issues with reading comprehension. For example, in the article I quoted, you read

These are some of the things that a passive-aggressive man does:
- Has a new lock put on the front door and forgets to give his wife the key.
- Calls an early staff meeting and shows up forty minutes late
- Talks on the phone for an hour when he knows that his girlfriend is trying to call.
- Hears about passive-aggression and decides that it doesn’t apply to him.

to mean:

According to that anyone who hears about passive-aggression and decides that it doesn’t apply to him is passive aggressive.

It was in response to this statement of yours that Brimshack posted:

Actually, no, that's not what it says. Please learn to read.

Brimshack was right: the article says that someone who is passive aggressive will deny that it applies to him, not that anyone who denies that it applies to him is passive aggressive.

[mickthinks]

Actually, Bop, you're doubly wrong. This is a matter of inference not reading; and, assuming that the purpose of the opening paragraphs is to help to identify the 'problem', I infer that the author considers this to be one of the reliable indicators. You and I both know that it isn't a reliable indicator, but by implication the document say it is. That is unless you fail to understand the purpose of the author of the document.

Mick

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Actually, Bop, you're doubly wrong. This is a matter of inference not reading; and, assuming that the purpose of the opening paragraphs is to help to identify the 'problem', I infer that the author considers this to be one of the reliable indicators. You and I both know that it isn't a reliable indicator, but by implication the document say it is. That is unless you fail to understand the purpose of the author of the document.

Mick

I disagree. I draw no such inference, and I do not think your conclusion is fairly implied by the author's words. I also think that the capacity to draw proper inferences from what you read is an element of reading comprehension.

Regarding reading comprehension, see, for example, ReadWriteThink:

Students benefit from direct comprehension instruction, moving along a continuum from literal understanding to evaluation. Drawing inferences from texts and analyzing texts for incorrect information are important steps in developing critical, comprehending readers.

[mickthinks]

I disagree. Yeah, guessed you might. I think I can live with that.

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

I disagree. I draw no such inference, and I do not think your conclusion is fairly implied by the author's words. I also think that the capacity to draw proper inferences from what you read is an element of reading comprehension.

Regarding reading comprehension, see, for example, ReadWriteThink:

By "I infer..." Mick of course means, "I decide for the purpose of strategic misrepresentation..." You got my point Shottle. I would only add that I most certainly would not have replied in such a manner were it not for the fact that Mick's posts are positively saturated with just such strategic misreadings. To suggest that they represent a simple reading problem is actually rather charitable. The alternative would be to suggest dishonesty. And the most probably likelihood is actually some combination of both, a willful misrepresentation combined with a foolish belief that the gambits are actually plausible. In any event, I don't personally know of any way to deal with such behavior. Reason is wasted on Mick. That much has been clear for some time now.

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

I disagree. I draw no such inference, and I do not think your conclusion is fairly implied by the author's words. I also think that the capacity to draw proper inferences from what you read is an element of reading comprehension.

Regarding reading comprehension, see, for example, ReadWriteThink:

By "I infer..." Mick of course means, "I decide for the purpose of strategic strategic purposes to replace with..." You got my point Shottle. I would only add that I most certainly would not have replied in such a manner were it not for the fact that Mick's posts are positively saturated with just such strategic misreadings. To suggest that they represent a simple reading problem is actually rather charitable. The alternative would be to suggest dishonesty. And the most probably likelihood is actually some combination of both, a willful misrepresentation combined with a foolish belief that the gambits are actually plausible. In any event, I don't personally know of any way to deal with such behavior. Reason is wasted on Mick. That much has been clear for some time now.

[mickthinks]

Reason is wasted on Mick.
Reason* hasn't been risked on Mick.

* Saving exceptions few enough to count on the fingers of one hand - Thanks Caligulette, Angakuk, TLR, BDS!

[Brimshack]

* Saving exceptions few enough to count on the fingers of one hand - Thanks Caligulette, Angakuk, TLR, BDS!

You missed one Mick. Shottle-Bop. He just made a genuine attempt to explain the problem with at least one of your posts, and you just greased your way out of it with precisely the sort of gambit that makes people think twice before trying again. Then you leave him out of your list. Greasy move number 2 in the same post.

[mickthinks]

LOL! It's debatable, but as long as the twat who said "Reason is wasted on Mick" recognises he isn't qualified to say it, the important point has been made.

[Brimshack]

Greasy move number 3.

Oh no, I haven't tried to reason with you. I don't have the patience. If that counts as a victory to you, then enjoy it as you like.

[mickthinks]

I don't have the patience courage.

[Brimshack]

No Mick, it isn't a matter of courage, it is a matter of Patience. You see, you've shown that you will always come back with something. It could be an outright lie or a deliberate distortion of some kind, but you will always come back with something. There is accordingly, nothing to be gained from "trying" with you. Will the experience be harmful? Something to be afraid of? No. Will it be a complete waste of time? Yes. That is why the issue is patience, not courage. Now, speaking of which, I have just wasted several posts trying to reason with you, which is in fact something I should know better than to do. You've just shown one more time why that is the case. So, we'll just say go fuck yourself and leave it at that.

[mickthinks]

Brimshack #386: I haven't tried to reason with you
Brimshack #388: I have just wasted several posts trying to reason with you

[mickthinks]

I'm bumping this again because I believe it deserves a reasoned response and it hasn't had one. In particular, if viscousmemories cannot back his "no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful" claim with a proper argument, I think it is fair to ask him to withdraw it.

Mick

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello again, viscousmemories

Now if my sarcastic comment about your stupid greetings was my irrational, knee-jerk easy way out, how do you explain the fact that I gave a very specific example of the behavior that I thought was passive aggressive (ie. saying "Thanks!" when no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful)
A specific example, or just a specific pretext for a complaint with no real substance? I think it was the latter. No other explanation is needed.

...then went on to mention other things that bothered me about your posts?
I didn't mean to imply that 'passive aggressive' was the only rock you threw at me, merely that it was an easy rock to throw (but a very tricky one to deflect).

But as anyone can plainly see, your repeated claim that I pulled "passive aggressive" out of thin air simply because I'm too lazy, thoughtless or timid to tell you what I really think obviously holds no water.
I don't think I said or implied anything about you being too lazy, thoughtless or timid. What I am saying is:

• I think most allegations of passive aggression at are attempts by one party to blame their own hostility on the other person and win sympathy for what might otherwise be inexcusable behaviour.
• Pillorying someone for their politeness is a classic example of a diversionary ad hominem.
• There's a danger that, in the absense of a concensus on what 'passive aggression' should mean, the phrase becomes code for "it's your fault we can't contain our anger".

...it's even more clear that the general rule about me (and others here) that you have extrapolated from this gross misunderstanding of my comments is wrong too.
I don't believe I have grossly misunderstood your "passive aggressive" comments.

…when no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful…
Why shouldn't people believe I am thankful to be engaged in a dialogue? I think this is an unreasonable conjecture off which hangs a lot of unjustified hostility, for which I am unjustly being blamed. Unless you can support it with some firm evidence, may I ask you to withdraw it?

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I'm bumping this again because I believe it deserves a reasoned response and it hasn't had one. In particular, if viscousmemories cannot back his "no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful" claim with a proper argument, I think it is fair to ask him to withdraw it.

Mick

What kind of "reasoned response" would you consider a "proper argument"? The statement really stands by itself: viscousmemories does not think that any reasonable person reading the posts in which you started your response with "Thanks!" would believe that you were really expressing thanks (except, possibly, in the same way that President Bush was expressing thanks to that 13-year-old when he responded to her question with "Yeah, thanks!").

(We could, perhaps take a poll--"When mickthinks began his posts with "Thanks, [insert name here]!", how many posters here believed that he was really thankful?". That would tell us whether anyone active here believed that you were thankful. If anyone responded affirmatively to the poll, we could then debate whether they were, in fact, "reasonable.")

[mickthinks]

Why shouldn't people believe me when I say I am thankful? If being put on "ignore" is an insult then receiving a reasoned and thoughtful response is actually quite a compliment. I am grateful not to be ignored and I think my thanks are entirely appropriate for any response I get which isn't plainly abusive.

I am grateful to be engaged in a polite dialogue with you, Bop, and I was grateful to be engaged in a polite dialogue with viscousmemories. I would be equally grateful if he were to resume that dialogue.

What kind of "reasoned response" would you consider a "proper argument"?
I don't believe there is a proper argument that supports vm's "no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful". That's why I am asking him to do the honourable thing and withdraw it.

Mick

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I would be equally grateful if he were to resume that dialogue.

Ostracism can be a pretty bad punishment, right?

Originally Posted by mickthinks

That's why I am asking him to do the honourable thing and withdraw it.

-- and what if he does nothing?

[mickthinks]

Hello 1Samuel8

I wouldn't call it 'ostracism', but I think any reasonable person appreciates it when their ideas engender dialogue rather than silence.

...and what if [viscousmemories] does nothing? Then I think he would be less than honourable.

Mick

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Then I think he would be less than honourable.

I disagree but how would you cope?

[Naru]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

I disagree but how would you cope?

"The same thing we do every night, Pinky....cyber-stalk vm constantly!!!1"

[mickthinks]

I disagree Okay, say why?

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

(We could, perhaps take a poll--"When mickthinks began his posts with "Thanks, [insert name here]!", how many posters here believed that he was really thankful?". That would tell us whether anyone active here believed that you were thankful. If anyone responded affirmatively to the poll, we could then debate whether they were, in fact, "reasonable.")

I refuse to take part in such a poll unless it's accompanied by an excruciatingly detailed text file.

[Angakuk]

Suppose that, according to Mick's standards, vm is not honorable. What of it? Is vm under any obligation to abide by, or even acknowledge, those standards? Better question: Is vm under any obligation to be honorable by anyone's standards, even his own?

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I disagree Okay, say why?

Irrelevent. Why I disagree is completely irrelevent -- at least to me, that is. I want to know how you will cope if your demands are not met.

I never even read this entire thread. I do not know any details about the issue. All I read was YOU presenting the problem as if someone else owes you something through cyberspace -- on the face of it, the absurdity stuck out like a sore thumb and caught my eye. I want more interested in learning how you cope with this virtual dilemma.

You are the one making a demand and a demand through cyberspace is virtually impossible to enforce from your end. Therefore, the other people can ignore or ostracize you while at the same time permit you to participate, a very realistic problem indeed.

How will you cope?