Subject:
|
Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:54:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2844 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk writes:
> I'm getting off-subject, but I think that Lugnet by nature tends to attract
> people a little further towards the autistic end of the spectrum than your
> average population sample, because you have to be into both Lego and the
> internet to end up here; it's a combination of two powerful nerd influences.
> One of the hallmarks of the functional autistic is that they have a very
> difficult time imagining any form of communication other than explicit
> words. As such, it may be that Lugnet's text-only format is ideally suited
> to the mentality of the stereotypical AFOL.
>
> I hope nobody's offended by me saying that we're all a bunch of nerds in
> here, but I'm assuming that everybody already knows. Doesn't matter how
> cool you are on the outside world, once you're in this community you're a
> nerd and there's no getting around it.
It gets worse: Lego, computer message boards, gaming. The last is damning!
No emoticons to soften that. Happy? (which comes off as snippy for those
who don't realize I'm a long-time gamer, which illustrates the problems with
the written word)
> > We've seen a couple negative incidents in the past couple weeks, too. There
> > was the point where Tom Stangl very bluntly chastised Nick Crocco for
> > complaining that no one cared about his creations (due to a lack of
> > response).
> >
> > In the first incident, individuals were upset at Tom for his harshness,
> > while they didn't totally accept Nick's apparently whiny attitude. Nick
> > admitted fault, Tom persisted with his claim.
>
> That was actually the incident that threw me into enough of a spin to post
> to this discussion. Basically, I totally agreed with Tom's position, though
> actually saying so would have been as politically incorrect and ill-advised
> as Tom's post was in the first place. And from offline conversations I know
> that more than a couple of people had exactly the same reaction to Nick's
> post that Tom and I did, and about the same reaction to his
> morally-high-handed 'admission of fault' as well. Tom's posts were
> definitely very much appreciated even while we all agreed that they were
> horribly inappropriate nad no sane person would have thought it was a good
> idea to post them.
So, I guess I am one of the people that you view as someone jumping on
legitimate criticism since I effectively disagreed with Tom. Tom has a
long-time habit of flaming people he disgrees with or find faults with. He
is one of two people on Lugnet that I just find too obnoxious for words to
convey (and I'll make no bones about it, Scott Arthur is the other - though
I suppose Tom is more bearable since his flames are much more sporadic). In
the sense that Tom was right is not the point, it is how he expresses
himself. What did Tom accomplish by more controversy? He could have
imparted the same message without being so singularly abrasive.
*IF* Nick had been whining constantly then I wouldn't have had a problem
with what Tom said. But once? And I have seen constant variations of
Nick's whine by any number of people, including ones that have been here
long enough and participated enough to know better. Yes, don't whine
because you didn't get the ego-boost that you expected. Just continue to
participate and you'll get noticed - I simply don't acknowledge every post
with models on them. I look at a great deal of them, and appreciate the
maker sharing them, but cluttering up the board with "nice model" comments
seems a waste - if I can't illuminate my praise or criticism more fully than
that, I try to refrain since I'm not adding anything substantive to the
discussion.
Tom speaks of tough love. Tough love is needed when people don't get the
message the first time. Nick did. Tom hasn't. So if Tom doesn't like my
comments, by his own standards, tough. Yes, I appreciate that the whininess
is annoying, but are you saying that in this particular case it was best
handled by Tom's method, or is this more an expression of disgust at the
overall level of whining (which seems inappropriate to me to take out on one
person for one occassion)?
>
> Now I don't have anything against Nick personally, he seems like a perfectly
> nice guy with a perfectly nice site. It didn't seem like there was anything
> in that conversation even worth worrying about, just two guys each taking a
> string of events a little more personally than they should have, the kind of
> thing that works itself out after both of the involved parties have had a
> chance to blow off some steam. The only point at which it became a strongly
> negative experience for me, believe it or not, was when you "hear hear"ed
> Nick's "your comment isn't appreciated by anyone," changing it from simple
> bickering between two guys to suddenly being a community endorsement of the
> censorship of negative opinions. (That was just gut-reaction though, I'm a
> little sensitive about people claiming moral superiority to tell other
> people their opinions aren't valid, and so I originally saw the exchange in
> only those terms.)
As I said, it wasn't the negative opinion, per se, it was the style of
expression. Whininess and obnoxiousness are both annoying. At least Nick
apologized in a number of messages.
> > He is known for writing blunt posts which several have been offended
> > by.
>
> Which happen to be exactly the kind of posts I like best. People are too
> easily offended around here.
Then what's the problem with Tom getting blunt criticism back? He's too
arrogant to be offended by it, at the least. I'll say it again, it isn't
Tom's sentiment that I take issue with, it's his numerous overreactions that
I wish he would curb.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating
|
| (...) lol I was hoping someone would pick up on that! It's like the triple crown of geekdom. (...) Well no, you're one of the people I view as ignoring the criticism and going straight to jumping on Tom. Nothing wrong with that, since you seem to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating
|
| (...) I've flamed very few people on Lugnet. Maybe you just have a sore spot because you were one of them? (...) Well, we agree on something else. I find you too obnoxious for words too. Of all the people on Lugnet I ignore, Scott is the #1 on the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating
|
| (Speaking of sugar coating... After reading through this post again I can see that there's bits in here to offend probably every single person who reads it. What can I say? I can only advise the casual reader that if you find yourself strongly (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
