GaryEA wrote:And to say that this mutual learning could have been accomplished without the personal attacks is weak; no one tells Candygirl to not be perky, and no one should tell me to not be antagonistic.
Are you being antogonistic just for kicks, because you just insulted Candygirl again, and told the
owner of this forum that the rules do not apply to you?
Gary
(edited for spelling)
Wait, where was I when I insulted Candygirl (and more than once, no less)? Is calling someone perky an insult? I don't think so.
I am not saying that the rules don't apply to me. I am saying that the rules don't apply to this. The exchange that eyeboogers and I had was healthy, and there isn't any need to tell us that we're doing it wrong.
I am also not being antagonistic for "kicks," I'm just antagonistic by nature.
Nothingman wrote:I have kept out of this argument because I don’t have any knowledge of this movie and I don’t care to involve myself in one with so many personal attacks. However, I do feel the need to support our moderators on this one for several reasons.
1. They do and outstanding job donating their time to this site and I am very grateful for that.
2. I agree with their concerns.
3. I consider them my friends, and care about the community of people that make up this forum.
Please re-read what Sascha wrote:
…we just don't accept this kind of aggressive tone in this forum. Sooner or later it will lead to misunderstandings and we're stuck in a flame war.
This is not about the word “ass” or foul language, though those prohibited for obvious reasons. The objection here is to the personal attacks. There is nothing wrong with being passionate or enthusiastic about a topic, but there is no need to attack someone personally. No one’s credibility is on trial here. In this forum your credibility comes from your ability to formulate a good argument, research, and debunk other’s arguments (not others, that’s the key). Whether you are a film student or an auto mechanic, it doesn’t matter here. The important thing is can you back up your premises with fact and reason?
And to say that this mutual learning could have been accomplished without the personal attacks is weak
I fail to see how personal attacks did anything but take this “mutual learning” off track. I believe a personal attack only inhibits someone’s ability to objectively evaluate your argument. Plus, I think you discredit yourself when you have to resort to insults to try and “win” that argument. If being an antagonist is your personality, fine, use it to challenge others to debunk your arguments. But there is no need to badger them into an exchange by attacking who they are.
Lastly, debunking someone’s credibility due to spelling areas is not needed for the reasons I stated regarding credibility above. These posts are not published papers, and spelling is rather irrelevant providing the message is clear. What is said is far more important than any small discrepancies in how it is said. It may annoy you, but learn to live it.
Why do so many people feel it necessary to defend the poor readers of this forum from personal attacks, when only eyeboogers and myself were actually personally attacked, and neither of us seem to care? We can take care of ourselves. Thanks anyway, Mom and Dad.
You are not the only one who appreciates this website and the work that the moderators put into it, Nothingman, not to mention the fact that you consider many members of the forum your friends (granted, you're several hundred posts ahead of me in the relationship). I think the website is fantastic and the forum is one of the least boring I've ever seen. Furthermore, Candygirl has personally helped me out with a number of things on a number of occasions, for which I am extremely grateful. All of this doesn't mean that I'm going to roll over when something arises that I disagree with, though. What's more, I'm not going to be made to feel guilty for standing up what I believe in. You don't like insults? Too bad. I'm an insulting guy. It's actually been toned down considerably for this forum in the first place (my favorite words are those that people find the most offensive), and I don't think that I should have to tone it down any more.
By the way, what are the "obvious reasons" why foul language is prohibited?
I didn't resort to insults to try and "win" the argument, either. I wrote responses that were centered around valid arguments, and they were laced with insults, because this tends to be my method of communication. No one wins arguments via insults. I know this as well as anyone.
Finally, while these posts are indeed not published papers (far from it, mosy of the time), inattention to spelling is lazy and stupid. The combination of emails, instant messaging, and forums such as these seems to have given everyone around the world an excuse to let spelling, punctuation, and grammar go by the wayside. I find this annoying as hell. You think my tendency to insult people discredits my arguments; that's fair. I think that bad spelling discredits arguments; that's also fair. The only difference is that all I can do to calm myself on the subject is to encourage people to pay more attention to their spelling, while those who find my insults offensive try to bully me into changing my arguing style, because they are moderators, and somehow I am supposed to believe that this makes their opinions the be-all, end-all.
I'll leave you fine people with a growingly relevant quote:
"We have a difference in opinion. Fine. But you think you should be in the position of deciding because you have a printing press and I don't." -Vic Racine