Sir Blob (get a life)

David Oberman said something like:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower.TakeThisOut@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> people love to admonish others when they think they stand on
>>>> popular footing.
>>>
>>> You aren't one of those people!
>>
>> There is no popular footing for me to stand on. Have you been paying
>> attention at all? It is MORE COMMONLY BELIEVED (without cogent
>> data) that engaging trolls is a bad thing. I'm saying otherwise.
>
> Curse the trolls. I'm talking about YOU, Tom! Even without popular
> support, you love to admonish others!


I've been thinking about why it is that you and I seemed in some ways to
understand each other but in other ways did not.

I think I understand where the disconnect was.

Let's pretend that I *live* to admonish others. I admonish my friends. I
admonish my cat. I anthropomorphise my door so I can admonish it for
squeaking. It doesn't change what I'm saying, so this is why I was confused
by this response. It took me a while to figure out what it was you're
talking about, and it does not affect my argument.

There is a desire among most (put me in the mix I don't care!) to admonish
others when there is a perceived notion by the admonisher that he will have
popular support. Call it some sort of common human nature. I often believe
that the arguments themselves will not hold water on their own. I think
that the logic that should support them is skewed by the desire to admonish.
What I was saying does not have popular support, so it does not by
definition fall into the dynamic I was talking about.

This troll debate is over with here, thank goodness :) , but for better
illustration anyway, among the more common of quoted usenet rules is to
never cross post. I see that as a good example of the dynamic I'm talking
about, because I believe strongly that the often quoted "rudeness" or
"dammage" to the group is non-existant. As long as each of the groups is
properly targetted and have that in common with all the other groups, I have
yet to see the harm. And even if they do not, the harm is limited to having
some folks see a mistargetted post. Hardly worth the ire, at least IME.

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower DeleteThis @replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Let's pretend that I *live* to admonish others. I admonish my friends. I
>admonish my cat. I anthropomorphise my door so I can admonish it for
>squeaking. It doesn't change what I'm saying, so this is why I was confused
>by this response. It took me a while to figure out what it was you're
>talking about, and it does not affect my argument.

I often wrap my fiendishly complex ideas in a simple dough of sugary
goodness.

>There is a desire among most (put me in the mix I don't care!) to admonish
>others when there is a perceived notion by the admonisher that he will have
>popular support. Call it some sort of common human nature. I often believe
>that the arguments themselves will not hold water on their own. I think
>that the logic that should support them is skewed by the desire to admonish.
>What I was saying does not have popular support, so it does not by
>definition fall into the dynamic I was talking about.

I agree with this post.







____
Look, if I said I liked you, would you let me go?

-- Chaucer, to innkeeper

Just sit still.

-- Innkeeper's reply