ymmv - ignoring people

Hi Tiara. There is no campaign happening here. There is merely people who are sick of this person being as public about deciding to ignore them as the person in question has been about their distaste, dislike, and lack of respect for them.

A campaign would be telling people WHY they should do it, ENCOURAGING them as an act of malign intent. No one is doing that. Many are posting to say, 'Yes, I'm finally fed up with him as well and he is on ignore here'. They are supporting one another and they have the right to do so.

For my part, I'm actively reminding people they DO have the power and rather than spend days and days complaining, they should use it.

No one choosing to ignore is doing a thing to keep this person from stating their opinion. We're simply saying we're no longer willing to listen.

That is OUR right. Would you deny it?

I think it's a little self-revelatory that it is being called "silencing." It's a tacit admission that the behavior in question has its motivation in irritating people and causing trouble. If there's no one to be irritated and no trouble can thus start, there's no reason to continue talking.

Silence ensues.

I think we've arrived at the root of the problem.

Do you mean "narrow minded" as in folks who sytematically categorize and label people, from the day they set foot in the "world", inventing classes through paranoid hyperbole and flat out prevarication, all in some messianic bid to incite class warfare?

I'm standing up and saying so, Coco.

Blaze, keep on keeping on. The group mentality is free to wax intelligent concerning the pros and cons of various wiping methods in another post.

No matter what the response, these guys will always play the victim card.

Of course not. I just feel that making someone the target of all this is hurtful, and believe me, I'm not a fan of his either. Simply stating that you will no longer respond to those who like to stir up trouble is fine and dandy (and by 'you' I mean everyone, it isn't aimed just at you, Cienna). However when names are brought into it, that's when it becomes a very personal attack.

Excuse me? You are posting here therefore you are not ignoring. It still counts even if your hands are in your ears and your humming. Even if you have your fingers crossed, it still counts.

Ummmm bullshit...you have been full of shit since the first day you walked in here and you're still full of shit. I like how you have made yourself one of the crowd so fast. Your worse than that which you rail agaist because you think that yours is the only opinion that matters although you use " we" and "we're" to be one of the gang....

Your witty repy belies you my dear...your ass is showing yet again.

enough already!

those who want to use the ignore tool, ignore. Those who don't want to, continue on your merry way.

Those who want others to use the ignore tool, ok, you've made your point, you don't need to keep repeating it.

let the cards fall where they may... this doesn't need to be a new topic to go to verbal war over.

But war unites people and stimulates the economy...

You can ignore whoever you want but where do you come from speaking for everyone else. Has anyone noticed how often someone who agrees with something Prok or Blaze puts forward is compelled to cqualify it with "I don't usaually agree with him but..." or some other variation of the theme. I think it's a vain attempt to divert the attacks or accusations of being an alt or stupid t-shirts that will surely follow. If they're lucky. More likely it will be met with profanities and name calling. Of course they don't come in and comment or go away. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen, right? That's been said here many a time. It's your forum and your welcome to it. Now go have your group hug.

Oh. I'm sorry. For a moment there I forgot you can't engage unless to spread the conspiracy myth.

Oh well.



Your assumption is not my problem, dear. I've made it pretty clear I'm speaking for myself. The only time you see me using 'we' is when there are other people who feel the same and have stated so.

The myth of the 'silent majority' is one used endlessly by those who cannot grasp the concept that silence does not equate to consent, assent, or agreement. A fatal flaw that is often overlooked... usually purposefully.

I don't think he said anything about a "silent majority." It is pretty obvious that his point is that you are a hypocrite. Stop P-Nevving.

Civility? The response he gets is anything but civil. The things posted in response are as atrocious as anything he puts out there. "Sick fuck...FUCK YOU.." and on, and on, and on. The defense of "He started it, he deserves it,..." or whatever else you use to excuse your selves is nonsense. You can not control what someone else posts or not allow someone else to post; this is not your private dinner party. You can control what you read, the ignore option has always been available, and most importantly what you post. And that which is posted here in response to ppl who are not agreed with is often way out of line by some individuals in this forum.

Speek for yourself, but that's how some people in this very thread are saying it.



.

Anyone here has the right to put anyone else on ignore and the forums would be a more peacefull place if certian people did, but some (perhaps many) people are being vindictive about it.

there needs to be no reaon to click the ignore button. Be it vindictive, hateful or just being pissed off with the endless blathering, its still an option and no one needs to clarify the reason they do so unless they wish to.

I found it humorous that somebody wrote "let someone else speak for a change" because anybody can speak any time, in any thread, on any subject, and start their own thread, or contribute to a thread, at will, any time, unlike, say, a classroom or parliament where you'd have to raise your hand and ask for the floor. Hilarious!

Dinner party? What was the main course, then, roast Prok?

I'm not at a dinner party. I'm on the Internet in a game spiring to become a metaverse.

If 6-8 people put me on mute and go on blathering among themselves with me invisible to me, then I'm guessing that means they want answer my posts anymore because I'll be invisible to them, then normal people without that fuck-you invective will get to step up to the plate and talk.

I'm thinking this could really improve the forums because those 6-8 people flinging shit all the time will just not be present, so more intelligent minds will be able to coalesce and discuss issues free of reactionary screaming from all kinds of thin-skinneds perfectionists.

I'm thinking this *might* be a good idea but I'm still getting used to this Orwellian "unpersonning" of a person by muting them.

Kindly re-read the posts leading up to that one as you have misunderstood the context. He was referring to someone else (coco, I believe) claiming there is some 'silent majority' and my saying there was not and pointing out that he never seems to engage except when there is a chance to post his belief in some conspiracy theory at work.

Let me know if you need further clarification.

but i like stone. i only pretend to not listen to him. i stopped reading the diatribes several days ago. when given names appear in the thread, i close it. my point is that it's not really the campaign that fascinates me, but that so many people reached the same conclusion at the same time. i don't hear people gasping in sudden realization that it's a good idea to go along with the program as much as i hear people affirming very similar conclusions.

Precisely.

I don't take issue with the actual use of the ignore button, for whatever reason, but the "ha ha, this will serve him right and get him to shut up" attitude that certian people are flaunting. (Although it doesn't, and he won't).

Precisely.

I wouldn't have used those words, but glad you fundimentaly agree with me in that respect.

Now about that FIC concept I'd like to disuade you of...

No, I did not say that. I said "I'm with you on that, StoneSelf, as would be, I'll wager, a great many others, if they only had your courage to stand up and say so."

coco

I don't see where Talen posted other than that one time.

You went from "there is no campaign here [...] A campaign would be telling people WHY they should do it, ENCOURAGING them as an act of malign intent." to "I'm actively reminding people they DO have the power and rather than spend days and days complaining, they should use it," thus completely negating your assertion that there is no campaign.

Also, a "campaign" has nothing to do with malignancy, good, bad, right, or wrong. It has to do with taking ACTION (actions such as "actively reminding" which is analogous to "encouraging," so call it what it is) toward a desired result.

Denying something by admitting to it with euphemisms does not make you not a hypocrite. I'm sure that group mentality is great for keeping your goodguy badge shiny and the sanctity of your cohorts untarnished, but it doesn't work under critical examination. That seems to be roughly approaching Talen's point as far as I can tell and the only one who can offer further clarification is him.