A Diabolic Partner

Like Scylla, I'm not up for a weeing contest. In a broad stroke, I will refer to the breakfast stories. You made your point. Then, to my sensibilities, I found it started to become cruel.

I did exactly what Jig does in her threads.

She had fine comebacks for what I said....and I gave her some credit, and shut up. Until someone suggested that she's a victim.....which is contrary to what I noticed.

If you all want to play the victim game.....fine. I don't see Jig playing it directly to me, and I give credit for that.

I think it's a shame. I ended up with an observation that Jig can hang and go toe-to-toe.

If you all want to play the victim game.....fine.

What happened Jig?

Great! 'Nuff said, then. Let's move on.

That's a good point, Melita. At that point it might be better to skip threads then?

Ray, for what little it is worth, I did notice how quickly and earnestly you -- and many others -- came to Jig's aid when she was clearly upset about the suspension. I think that doing so was very kind. I'd praise you more for it, but I'd be accused of condescension I'm sure.

Actually, Jig's very real distress notwithstanding, I've found the whole episode in at least one way a very reassuring affirmation of the degree to which the people here on this forum DO function as a supportive community. And I think that's pretty cool.

Thanks. It's worth a lot actually.

One thing I thought of this morning is there was a time when this forum was going to be shut down because it was not being used as it was intended. That's why I still tend to want people to use Resident Answers for their Resident Questions. When Jig had her little emergency last night, it was great that this forum exists for her to get answers. RA serves an important purpose. That's why I don't like to see it abused with too many threads that don't belong.

Thanks Nika; this actually does add some interesting context and history.

Of course, as you note, the guidelines are clearly not enforced anymore, and not just in terms of the topics that are posted, but within the (sometimes otherwise legitimate) threads themselves. And it seems pretty clear moreover that the RA forum has also taken on a social function as well: a great many people just come here to "chat." Jig and others (including myself) can be forgiven, I think, for not seeing RA as limited to its original purpose, given its current employment by most users.

I certainly see the value of a forum devoted PURELY to answering questions for noobs and others, but the guidelines would have to be enforced pretty rigorously, with "inappropriate" individual postings as well as threads removed; "derailing" threads has grown almost to an art form here.

I wonder, if and/or when these fora are redone, LL would consider essentially splitting this forum into two, according to the functions it currently serves. One new forum would be devoted to answering (mostly) technical questions, and another would serve for more general chit chat and discussion of issues that relate in a more general way to SL. But for that to work, the moderators WOULD have to take a more active role in managing the "questions" forum.

The only thing I would add to this is to stress that the OTHER uses to which RA is currently being put (e.g., chit chat, or more general discussion of SL issues, or sometimes even RL ones) are, in their own right, legitimate and important, but that they too probably would benefit from being hosted in their own separate forum.

Nika made a very similar point last night in what I thought was a very worthwhile posting . . . which she deleted almost immediately

*sigh*

I am referencing, as is Laurin in the post above, I believe, your unremitting and overlong parody of Jig's post describing her day. I think the initial post made a valid point. But after a while it was like watching someone wielding a sledgehammer. It was by NO definition "speaking straightforward," nor, after the initial post, was it in any way constructive OR civil.

Mickey, I really really don't want to get into another brawl about this. This is exactly the kind of crap that I think we should be avoiding at all costs here.

I'm not going to adjust my posts to please you, Scylla, and must have missed the memo that you are in charge of posting etiquette. Put me on ignore. Straightforward.

And I will thank you in advance for lightening up a bit on how you choose to interpret my posts.

But we *have* to interpret your posts Mickey - unlike most other posters (including Jig) - because your English is just not good enough for you to make your argument clearly. *THAT* is why so many people criticise your "tone".

Pep (Because what you think you are saying might be reflected in what you are writing, but it is not read by EFLers as being what you want to say. )

Mickey, I am not going to enter into another bickering match. I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone: this is why I mentioned no names. I am tired beyond all belief with the personal grudge matches here, and regretful that I've ever participated in them myself.

I don't put people on ignore, but I am done with this.

For Pep:

For Pep:

Showed up on my screen. You still using that old computer in the basement?

It only shows up if you use the plugin that someone came up with to "fix" the broken forums. The problem is that only "fixes" it for you, people who don't use the plugin will still see it as broken.

My advice is only use the plugin if you don't care whether your posts make any sense to anyone else.

Showed up on my screen. You still using that old computer in the basement?

There is another word for what you are decribing but it is NOT "sarcasm.

I don't know what a "plug-in" is, Argent.

As for your defence of sarcasm . . .

I think you are oversimplifying what is really a pretty complicated and sophisticated tool of language. Sarcasm involves both humour AND hostility. It is a rhetorical ploy used to belittle an opponent, in part by provoking in other auditors a laugh at the expense of the victim. And it can be more or less legitimate, depending on how it is used. I have seen many instances of it being used subtly and intelligently here, and others where it is used in place of rational argument -- presumably either because it was deemed a more effective way of quashing an opponent, or because the employer was unable to muster a reasoned response instead.