| |
In lugnet.starwars, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
In lugnet.starwars, Mike Crowley wrote:
| |
| |
Once upon a time, there was a thing called a “joke”...
Ugh.
|
What are you talking about, Kevin? Nobody here was joking. Did you even
read Rob’s entire post, or any of the other posts in this thread for that
matter, before you replied, or did you just jump into the conversation
halfway and read only mine which contained just the first line of Rob’s
post?
|
Here is what I did, in the order that I did it.
1. Read post fully.
2. Read all replies.
3. Talked to Rob, asking him what it was about. I thought it was a joke,
but felt it better to ask Rob first.
4. Read replies again (another had been made, yours)
5. Posted a short comment, which was intended to accomplish the following
things:
a) Inform everyone that Rob made a joke.
b) Point out that people need to lighten up, and not take themselves too
seriously.
| |
And what was the reason for snipping out Todd’s response from my post when
you quoted it? Are you trying to single me out for some reason with your
post? Sure, if a reader was to look only at your post, it might appear to
them the Rob was making a joke, and that I didn’t get it. But, that would
be out of context from the thread as a whole. Is there some reason you
snipped up my post to make it look this way?
|
Yes. There was a reason. Todd’s post was informative in nature. Yours
seemed condescending and snippy. And thats right, the reader’s right
response would be to think “Rob made a joke, but Mike didn’t get it”. That
is not out of context with the thread.
At this point, if you are unsure as to whether Rob was infact joking, I refer
you to this post: http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=17161
In conclusion: lighten up.
~Kevoh
|
Kevin:
You know what? That’s all well and good if you actually did all that stuff you
said you did. My problem, and where your logic and reasoning breaks down, is
that in your “short comment,” you failed to do either (a.) or (b.). Here’s what
I mean.
| |
a) Inform everyone that Rob made a joke.
|
How in the world could someone read the comment “Once upon a time, there was a
thing called a “joke”... Ugh” and from that deduce that you had: completely read
the post and replies, talked to Rob, inquired about the meaning of this thread,
got confirmation from him of your suspicion that his post was all just a big
joke, re-read the replies, and were thus finally relaying to the rest of us ass
that information? We’re supposed to get all that from, “Once upon a time, there
was a thing called a “joke”... Ugh”? Dude, you’ve got to be kidding me! You
can say all you want that you did that stuff, and that you had the best of
intentions, but the fact is that there’s no way anyone could have known any of
that from your post. You know what might have worked better than sarcasm? How
about just telling us that you talked to Rob and that his post was a joke?
It might be a good idea before posting overly sarcastic comments and responses
to think about how some people on LUGNET (especially since there are so many for
whom English isn’t even their first language) may interpret (or, rather,
misinterpret) those comments. Is it more important that you say something the
way that you want to say it, or that you say it in a way that is the most
likely to be understood by others? What’s the point of posting a response in a
thread if you’re not gonna’ try to do whatever you can to make sure your message
gets through clearly? (The same would go for anyone that might make a post
including humor, slang or inside joke in a thread – particularly a thread that
either does not directly pertain to them, in which they have nothing
constructive to add to the topic or question asked, or one people other than
just their friends are likely to read.) At least if you had just said all this
in the first place, your post would have both made sense and would have been on
topic. But, in the form that you posted your first message, it just looked like
you were injecting a random, unwarranted and uncalled-for comment.
| |
b) Point out that people need to lighten up, and not take themselves too
seriously.
|
Again, maybe this was what you were thinking in your head, but you certainly
didn’t try very hard to actually put that thought down into actual words so that
it would be clear to the readers.
Your post was a single line long, ending in “ugh,” and you expected everyone to
get all that (1-5,a,b) from it? Dang, you’re expecting a lot.
| |
Todd’s post was informative in nature. Yours seemed condescending and snippy.
|
I have absolutely no clue as to what you see in my post to Rob that was either
condescending or snippy. I was showing him that, if he had proofread his post
before submitting it, he would have seen that Amado’s name was right there. I
did so using an arrow, because I wanted to leave the quoted lines of text intact
so that he could see what I was talking about. The fact that the name Amado
Pinlac is not a common name is no reason for someone to think it’s fake. There
are all sorts of new names I see online everyday, and just because I don’t know
anyone in my own life with that name, doesn’t mean it’s not a real name. (I
won’t dwell too much on the issue of Amado’s name, because that is actually a
misunderstanding on Rob’s part, and since this is a post addresses to you,
Kevin, it’s not polite for me to extensively reference Rob’s mistake unless I am
directly addressing him and giving him a chance to respond.) Todd had pointed
out to Rob two ways in which he could have found out Amado’s name, and I was
showing him the third, in the most clear and direct way I thought how. If you
can honestly look at the simple, clear and concise sentence:
| |
Plus, Rob, you quoted his name in your post
|
accompanied by an arrow used to point to the exact location of his post that I
was referring to in order to help him see more clearly what I was talking about,
and say that in any way any of that contains any phraseology or hidden meaning
which could possibly be interpreted as “condescending and snippy,” then I’m
sorry, but you’ve got a problem with the English language, man.
| |
And thats right, the reader’s right response would be to think “Rob made a
joke, but Mike didn’t get it”. That is not out of context with the thread.
|
Do you even realize what you just said here? All you did is confirm exactly
what I said about someone looking at your edited version of my post, versus my
unedited post taken in conjunction with all the previous ones, and coming to a
false and ridiculously non-related conclusion. Taking that one line of Rob’s
post, with just my comment immediately after it, you totally leave out the facts
that (1.) Rob continued to go on and on (albeit slightly humorously, but more so
mistakenly and maybe even slightly inappropriately) making critical statements
about Amado, his name, and his website, and (2.) that my comment was meant to be
an addition to Todd’s post, pointing out another way to locate the name of the
author of a post. Do you understand what I’m saying yet? I’m saying that your
edited post leaves out information, and is thus edited in way to support your
sarcastic comment: that the whole point of this thread is that “Rob made a joke,
but Mike didn’t get it.” In truth, whether or not Rob was making his points
with the use of humorous words, the fact is that the essence of this post was to
find out Amado’s name, and to inform Amado that his website could use some
reworking. That fact that Rob used humor had nothing to do with my responding
to him. So, what the heck was the point of your post? Who cares if portions of
Rob’s post contained little jokes. Take away all the jokes, and he still had
two legitimate (soft of) questions or comments: what’s ACPin’s real name, and
that he should redesign his website. So, yes, your post most certainly DID take
my words out of context, because it makes it look like the only reason I was
posting was to be sarcastic or rude to Rob. I have no problem with Rob. Rob’s
cool.
Just like all your other little temper tantrums on FBTB, you make a comment
without thinking it through, and then after someone else has either been
offended or challenges you, you come back with some post that you think is all
intelligent, mature, well-thought-out and logical, only to have someone turn it
right around and show you just how flawed your reasoning and argument actually
are.
“In conclusion:” grow up.
-Mike
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Incorrect Links on SW Sidebar
|
| In lugnet.starwars, Mike Crowley wrote a really long reply which has been snipped. Whoa dude, calm down. This is not something to get all bent out of shape about. Rob made a joke, then I made a joke. It was just 2 simple jokes. Nothing to worry (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jan-05, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.admin.curators, FTX)
| | | Re: Incorrect Links on SW Sidebar
|
| In lugnet.starwars, Mike Crowley wrote: <mega snip> (...) Holy crap man. I'm not going to address anything you said, even through I bet I agree with some of it, because you wrote a bloody book. Most of us read lugnet at our leisure and dont feel (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jan-05, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.admin.curators, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Incorrect Links on SW Sidebar
|
| (...) Here is what I did, in the order that I did it. 1. Read post fully. 2. Read all replies. 3. Talked to Rob, asking him what it was about. I thought it was a joke, but felt it better to ask Rob first. 4. Read replies again (another had been (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jan-05, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.admin.curators, FTX)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
