First, I'm going to put up a bunch of posts I made at a message board about comments people made in defense of the board's maintainer, as well as the replies I got to my posts (all names except for mine have been changed). Then I'm going to rant about stuff related to that bunch of posts, once I'm done with them. By the way, if you see anything in italics in a certain post, those are just words from previous posts that the person has quoted in his/her reply. ;> Anyway, here's my first post:

- - - - - - - -

You make some good points, but some of what you talked about has come up lately as issues in my own interactions with other people, both online and offline, so I wanted to comment on your post:

>I think that Jackie is a talented person and she always is polite and courtios to others so why is it that some just cant behave them self and let jelousey controll them to a point that they treat another person in such manner?

Please note that I mean no disrespect to Jackie when I say that just because a person is nice and polite online it does not automatically make them a good person. Nor does being nice and polite online make one free of reproach by virtue of that alone; also, just because someone has something negative to say about a person it does not necessarily have to stem from jealousy. It might be the honest-to-goodness truth (and I DO emphasize that this is not directed at Jackie - I mean what I'm saying in a very general sense).

>If you have nothing nice to say about someone don't say anything at all.

Well, on the condition that you can back up what you say, I don't see anything wrong in noticing and talking about qualities in people which they could improve upon (or, for that matter, actions taken by people which were unsavory). I know for my own self that I'm a very bad procrastinator and self-starter (VERY bad), and I'm very spineless in certain situations. *L*

>It is none of your business who she has a relationship to or not or what she writes in her webpage.

But that's the point. You don't know what this brouhaha is all about, and neither do I. Only the parties involved know. Therefore, it's not really your place - or mine! - to comment on what another person can or cannot say about someone, especially since they're the ones involved and would know about the story a whole lot better than you or I. Unless you know the webmistress personally (and from what you said I gather that you don't), let them work it out on their own. They're big kids after all, and I don't like seeing people stand up for others by talking about the other person's supposed personality instead of finding evidence to back up what they say.

- James

- - - - - - - -

And here's the reply I got...

- - - - - - - -

Hi there,

>Please note that I mean no disrespect to Jackie when I say that just because a person is nice and polite online it does not automatically make them a good person.

To a certain degree, that is correct. However I am of the opinion that a "mean" person cannot pretend to be nice all the time, so if someone is constantly a nice and friendly person online, odds are that he / she is a nice and friendly person offline as well.

>also, just because someone has something negative to say about a person it does not necessarily have to stem from jealousy. It might be the honest-to-goodness truth (and I DO emphasize that this is not directed at Jackie - I mean what I'm saying in a very general sense).

Agreed, but there is a line between constructive criticism and downright rudeness. Sometimes I cannot even take the criticism, although I should, but being rude to get your point across is always the "wrong" approach.

>But that's the point. You don't know what this brouhaha is all about, and neither do I. Only the parties involved know. Therefore, it's not really your place - or mine! - to comment on what another person can or cannot say about someone, especially since they're the ones involved and would know about the story a whole lot better than you or I. Unless you know the webmistress personally (and from what you said I gather that you don't)

I tend to disagree... Yet again! If someone hears constant complaints, even though there is just a loud minority that's complaining, then I guess it is up to the other people to step up and say a few comforting words of support. I did not get the impression that Lackey is prying into Jackie's affairs, he is just being nice, which is perfectly ok in my book.

>let them work it out on their own. They're big kids

They sure are, we can agree on that at least ;-)

With regards,

K

- - - - - - - -

My reply...

- - - - - - - -

>I am of the opinion that a "mean" person cannot pretend to be nice all the time

Oh, trust me, they can. I know two who can.

>so if someone is constantly a nice and friendly person online, odds are that he / she is a nice and friendly person offline as well.

But that's not a guarantee, and even if it were, it does not make such a person free of reproach, or "above" criticism.

>Agreed, but there is a line between constructive criticism and downright rudeness.

I'm a strong advocate of "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" 99.99% of the time, so I realize that. I never said there wasn't a distinction.

>Sometimes I cannot even take the criticism, although I should

Oh, I'm like that myself, and I think everyone is to varying extents. However, I do try to analyze what they're saying and see if there's any basis for it. It's an opportunity for self-improvement.

>If someone hears constant complaints, even though there is just a loud minority that's complaining, then I guess it is up to the other people to step up and say a few comforting words of support.

Oh, no argument there: if one is being criticized then of course it is nice to hear some words of support. However, I'd rather hear them being said by someone who knows me closely than some stranger who's just making assumptions of me based off of how I *seem* and "come off to people" online, as the former would have more conviction and truth behind it. From what Lackey said in her first post I assumed she was one of the latter, not the former.

>I did not get the impression that Lackey is prying into Jackie's affairs, he is just being nice, which is perfectly ok in my book.

I didn't get that impression either, and I agree that it's -okay-, but it would be even better/nicer to be defended by someone who knows the whole story and who knows you personally.

- James

- - - - - - - -

"K" replies again...

- - - - - - - -

Hi there,

>But that's not a guarantee,

Are there any guarantees in life?

>and even if it were, it does not make such a person free of reproach or "above" criticism.

Certainly, but as far as I know neither Lackey nor I nor anyone else stated that someone is "above" criticism.

>Oh, I'm like that myself, and I think everyone is to varying extents. However, I do try to analyze what they're saying and see if there's a basis for it. It's an opportunity for self-improvement.

D'accord.

>Oh, no argument there: if one is being criticized then of course it is nice to hear some words of support.

Excellent, as I do not like to argue anyway. It seems that I just accidently end up arguing all the time...

>but it would be even better/nicer to be defended by someone who knows the whole story and who knows you personally.

Hmmm, however, I think that there is only one person, namely Jackie, who knows the whole story, so that might prove to be difficult.

With regards,

K

- - - - - - - -

My next reply...

- - - - - - - -

>>But that's not a guarantee,
>
>Are there any guarantees in life?

Please don't try to insert that kind of rhetoric into a serious discussion. *L* Please.

>>and even if it were, it does not make such a person free of reproach or "above" criticism.
>
>Certainly, but as far as I know neither Lackey nor I nor anyone else stated that someone is "above" criticism.

Not in those words, but the implication in earlier posts was that a person who is nice online would "of course" most likely be the same way offline, and therefore would not deserve any criticisms of his or her character.

>Excellent, as I do not like to argue anyway. It seems that I just accidently end up arguing all the time...

There's a difference between disagreeing and arguing. (I spent two weeks trying to point that out to a group of people on another message board.)

>Hmmm, however, I think that there is only one person, namely Jackie, who knows the whole story, so that might prove to be difficult.

I wasn't talking about her, though, I meant in general. Besides, there is NO incident in which only one person "knows" the whole story, unless one was alone at the time and did something to oneself.

- James

- - - - - - - -

K's next reply:

- - - - - - - -

Hi there,

You really want to have the last word in this, quiaff? Well, we'll see about that...

>Please don't try to insert that kind of rhetoric into a serious discussion. *L* Please.

*g* Just for the record: I did not try, I just did.

>Not in those words, but the implication in earlier posts was [...]

Hmmm, IIRC I already mentioned that if one is reading between the lines, it should be on the mark...

>There's a difference between disagreeing and arguing. (I spent two weeks trying to point that out to a group of people on another message board.)

Yes there is a difference and hopefully we are just disagreeing here, though I guess it is more of an argument.

With regards,

K

- - - - - - - -

My next reply, which turned out to be the final post in this thread:

- - - - - - - -

>You really want to have the last word in this, quiaff?

No, I just have a tendency to reply back to people who reply to me, regardless of the subject matter. I'm just coming back for the thread I'm writing with Enju (like the name change, Enju? :p), mainly.

>>Please don't try to insert that kind of rhetoric into a serious discussion. *L* Please.
>
>*g* Just for the record: I did not try, I just did.

*g* Well, please don't. A discussion goes nowhere if broad rhetorical statements like that are made. It's like asking "Well, why is the sky blue?" in a discussion about politics - i.e. you're inserting an existential/rhetorical question into a discussion that has no need for it.

>>the implication in earlier posts was that a person who is nice online would "of course" most likely be the same way offline, and therefore would not deserve any criticisms of his or her character.
>
>Hmmm, IIRC I already mentioned that if one is reading between the lines, it should be on the mark...

There wasn't any mention of that sort of thing in our thread.

>Yes there is a difference and hopefully we are just disagreeing here, though I guess it is more of an argument.

No, it isn't, I thought that was clear. Arguing requires us to be upset, or angry at each other, and I don't think that's the case just because we disagree on an abstract issue. (That's what I spent two weeks pointing out at that other message board.)

- James

- - - - - - - -

Lastly, here's an unrelated post I made at some other message board...

- - - - - - - -

Regarding "rudeness" and the futility of arguing:

It is not futile to call someone to task for saying something offensive. Ignoring something does not make it go away, and in fact usually makes it worse. Unfortunately, people who actually call idiots to task for bigoted, stupid, and/or tasteless statements are branded "rude" and are thought of as being unnecessarily argumentative, and of "sinking to their level" when in fact it's merely a case of setting the record straight. I tend to make long-winded, verbose, polite, and thought-out posts like this one, but sometimes defending an issue over and over (especially when it shouldn't even NEED defending) gets tiresome, and you don't have the time to spend on stupid people except a quick, clear comment on how their statement was uncalled for. There's nothing rude or unnecessary or impolite or characteristic of a "descent to a lower level" about that.

- - - - - - - -

Okay, all the posts are finished! Now, time for my ranting.

I mentioned in my first post that the reason why I posted at all was because the topic touched upon "certain issues that have come up in my life online and offline." Here's the main issue:

Lately for some reason I've been hearing both off- and online that it's "rude" to disagree; or that saying something negatory automatically means that you're a negative, argumentative person; and that, if the other person is being offensive, you're descending to "their" level if you're oppose their viewpoint. I've been hearing this kind of talk a LOT lately. People with whom I've had disagreements consider our discussions "arguments" while I consider them to be mere differences of opinion, and many times in such discussions/debates/"arguments" :p people assume that I'm upset or I'm angered just because the person whom I'm talking to has a different viewpoint than me and I actually bother to point out why I don't feel that way myself. In such discussions, people have said to me things like, "I don't want to argue about this anymore," which really surprises me every time that happens, since every time that happened I never thought of the discussion I had been having with the other party as an argument - I saw it as a serious exchange of thought with the two of us trying to back up our points, and we just happened to disagree. In fact, I'm usually amused instead of angry: either because it's a good, intelligent debate (which I love), or because it's a lame debate where it's too easy to defend myself. I'd hardly call the kind of conversations I have when I'm feeling amused "arguments."

This makes me wonder about people who view my discussions with them as arguments. You'll note that in the posts made between "K" and myself, K agreed with me that yes, there was a big difference between arguing and disagreeing, but he then went on to say that our conversation was more of an argument than a disagreement. Eh? :p The reason this makes me wonder is that since *I* did not feel it was an argument at all and he did, exactly who is the one getting worked up and perhaps argumentative? To me, "argument" implies a discussion in which one gets angry or upset in some fashion over conflicting views, while a disagreement implies nothing of that sort. If he felt that we were really arguing while I didn't, was he upset over the issue we were discussing more than I was? Was he more passionate :p about it than I was? Am I so insensitive that a discussion which I consider a polite, mature conversation is considered an argument by someone else?

I was even called to task on separate occasions at THREE different message boards for being "too analytical" and going too in-depth in debates, merely because I was pointing out inconsistencies and other fallacies in the other person's argument - apparently this was a sign that I was "too argumentative" and "too logical." I'm sorry, I never knew that in a serious debate where you're trying to have a mature discussion and prove your point that you weren't supposed to be objective, analytical, logical, and critical in thought and deliberation in order to state your case and analyze the dialogue as best you can. :p

The point to all this ranting is that I simply don't understand. I don't understand why some people view any sort of disagreement as an "argument," and I don't think it's a lack of sensitivity on my part that prevents me from noticing when I'm in an argument and when I'm in a mere debate of ideas. I don't understand why I'm branded "too argumentative" for backing up an opinion to the best of my ability in such a debate (and "to the best of my ability" means being logical, objective, and analytical, and trying to clear my case of any inconsistencies while pointing out inconsistencies in the other party's argument), and I don't understand why some people think I'm too opinionated merely for having an opinion, as well as being "bitchy" merely for voicing it. Some people have even said that this makes me a negative person, and a rude person.

People who know me well and people who don't know me well have said things like: "What're you talking about? You're not bitchy or argumentative or negative or whatever, in fact you're the most annoyingly mellow person I've met." Well, maybe that's true, *L* but certainly the people who think I'm being argumentative don't feel that way. Like I partly mentioned above in my very last post, it's an unfortunate thing that people who actually try to voice an opinion and take the time to go through and back it up with a good long discussion are suddenly being criticized by other people as being "unnecessarily negative" and "too argumentative." The people who do the criticizing are the ones who usually make claims about "hating anything negative, whether it be persons or comments." (But aren't hate and dislike negative in themselves? :p)

I agree that some people ARE unnecessarily rude and negative, but for someone to "hate" or "dislike anything negative," and especially for someone to be critical of people who may - in THEIR eyes - seem to be negative and rude is a rather hypocritical and denial-filled attitude. The reason why I say this is because NO human is ever free of negative feelings and no human has never made a negative comment; one would think that people who claim to eschew and dislike "anything negative" would give every human the benefit of the doubt instead of taking the NEGATIVE route where they label others as negative and then criticize them for it.

Also, for some to complain that PEOPLE are negative, rude, and argumentative just for having something to say that might not actually be in harmony with what one likes to hear is rather short-sighted, in my view (since differing opinions are what add to knowledge and promote personal growth and reevaluation of beliefs), and because of this I always wonder if, when people are complaining about "excessively negative people," they are talking about people who really ARE unnecessarily negative and bitchy for the sake of itself, or if they're talking about people like me, whom they NEGATIVELY label as (and criticize for) being negative/bitchy/argumentative/rude merely for trying to present their side of things, whatever that might be.