I wouldn’t tell her… 
Those sticky, glutinous circles are rather disgusting, aren’t they? 
But will your avatar look the same tomorrow? Bloomfield’s has longevity going for it.
Do note that flyingcursor is responding to your post which is nothing more than attack on me.
My words are right there for anyone to see, I attacked no one, and in fact, had no names or specific people in mind when I wrote it.
That you’d claim victimhood that doesn’t exist is amusing, at best.
My post merely cautions someone who is venturing into pretty sensitive territory (by anyone’s account) and, without naming any names at all, I simply pointed out that there would likely be some flaming towards various authors - most of whom cannot help but take one side or the other of the issue in Northern Ireland.
Get over yourself.
Re: use of terms like whack-o etc. As guilty party, I feel compelled to explain.
There is an enduring image: that of the rumpled intellectual, passionate and immersed in a cause or thesis to prove, but seemingly oblivious to “normal” realities.How many times have we seen such fervent intellectuality leveled by a wisecrack or piece of folk wisdom from a plebian source? It’s an enduring image. And its been satirized enough times for me to know I am not makin’ it up.Some are actual phd’s, some are unraveled grad-students, i.e. Ted Kaczynski. These may be brilliant fellows but…
And I think the line between mere Ivory tower intellectual and whack-job is razor-thin, I guess depending on the subject matter at study or dynamic acts. I feel that life experiences can push these folks over to one side or the other.
A friend of mine had a late-in-life marriage to one of the mathematicians from the Manhattan Project. I don’t think its right to name names, but this guy had participated in that momentous project, but got lost in Juan’s Restaurant in Berkeley! He had gone to the bathroom and ended up outside! After a long while, his new wife knew something was up and went out and found him. Also, as we walked around the town of Albany he couldn’t get over the fact that some Public Works guy had marked various utility spots on the street curb with Roman numerals. I have never forgotten it. he was comical, trying to figure out what they represented and meant, while the rest of us shrugged it off. I realized then that meteoric IQ scores do not necessarily mean that the person also has a similarly sophisticated view of the basic needs of man, etc.
And I think this can happen with political theoreticians. So, even though its in poor taste to use terms like whack-o, there can be a grounding in fact and experience that resonates with others, hence my use of that term and the fact that others “know what I mean.”
Hell, Stony is kind of a whack job but he is humble enough to probably laugh at it, frankly. I just imagine him on the park bench, playin’ showtunes on his flute while pondering his next monograph on medical ethics.
A much milder example but one which addresses a sort of personal overview happened to me at college. I was in music theory class, called “Form and Design” and we were analyzing a Mozart Piano Concerto. The instructor (who we had to call Doctor btw), was marking up the chalkboard pretty good with all the elements of the concerto and I had one of those moments of insight that helped direct my life, for better or worse.
This guy got more and more excited about the form of the concerto and his voice actually rose in pitch a bit with exhilaration. I reflected that:
a guy could work really hard just focusing on Mozart Piano Concertos, become an expert on that subject, publish critical scores, presumably better than all that came before, become a professor at a college, hit on the cute grad students (exactly as this guy had done, marrying a woman 25 years younger) and “call it a life.”
I thought to myself, " I understand this, but it seems like such a narrow way to go. This is not for me." And it was hard to respect that other path and still is to a degree. The upclose look at academia perhaps engenders some disrespect on my part for this reason. So, mebbe another reason I rant free with that moniker.
True confessions from vonWeekenstein.
So what do you suggest then? In these discussions I would provide evidence to back up my assertion only to be insulted and have the source of my evidence attacked without substantiation. Then, most times, the point of my evidence is left behind as people continue attacking me and my sources – even when I try to direct attention back to the point. Am I not supposed to defend myself, and why are my attempts at defending myself perceived as “attacks”? Please give me an idea of how you might go about handling this sort of situation.
Shhhh…don’t point out my spelling errors! You’re ruining my moment! Besides, you don’t know…I may have really meant viscous anyway. I am adverse to viscous circles. They’re just too sticky for my liking. They’re resistance to flow makes them a very appropriate analogy here.
But will your avatar look the same tomorrow? Bloomfield’s has longevity going for it. >
You have me there…if I keep posting despite my time off, my avatar more than likely will be something new and exciting tomorrow. You have to admit that it gives you all something to look forward to with each new day…what will Izzy’s new avatar be? I just know that’s why you all flock to the Pub.
::glancing fearfully around::
Shhhh!!! You’re going to get me into trouble!
What?!? When was that?!? 
Well, I never! harummph!
Well, I guess being called a ‘troll’ is a step up from the time some wanker here (don’t remember who) called me a Nazi. 
I prefer vacuous circles. Better acoustics.
…what will Izzy’s new avatar be? I just know that’s why you all flock to the Pub. >
Now I have this mental image of a flock of pigeons sitting around drinking stout.
Yes IRtradRU?, you have been the most malicious of all. For that reason I found your post about how worried you were that people might treat your information source with odium very interesting. I’m aghast that you of all people would be worried about someone attacking your resource after the fact that you have been relentless in doing just that with my resources at every opportunity.
So, Adams wants the IRA to give up killing and robbing banks and become politicians? Has he no care for their immortal souls? :roll:
I think you are making a basic message-board mistake here. I can understand the growing annoyance with a particular poster and the pent up resentment. But every thread is its own, in a way, and you cannot easily take a reasonable post (as IRTRADU?'s in this thread was) and impute to it the irrationality or malice of previous posts. It makes you look silly and like you’re bickering. It’s a limitation of the medium (or part of its strength). You have to counter what you see as malice, stupidity, or error where they occur, and not elsewhere.
(For the record: I agree that there is much room for improvement in the tone of IRTRADU?'s posts.)
I admit, I’m relatively new to this sort of message-board environment, so I don’t understand the intricacies of it’s workings completely in this regard. I appreciate your input and will take it into consideration from this point on. Thanks.
well said Bloom…I was going to answer with a similar reply, but yours was far better than mine would have been anyway.
For the record, I wasn’t trying to single anyone out with what I said. I do realize that the topic of politics is a very passionate topic for many people, and invokes very strong feelings. I guess I just wish that there could be more civility when such topics are discussed. Maybe then the responses from those that are more passionate would be taken more seriously. Sometimes, when you are feeling “attacked” it is far better to just ignore the comments than to counter with something similar.
This is also very good advice – thanks.
OK, here are some simple rules to follow, which is not to
say it’s easy.
-
Always be courteous and cordial. Write on the presumption
that you are having a discussion with an intelligent, fair minded person. -
If a response to you is part substantial, part personal attack,
ignore the personal attack and respond to the substantial
part according to 1, above. Ignore swipes. -
If somebody is getting definitely personal, don’t respond
at all. Idiocy unanswered looks like what it is.
At the point that you stop defending a position
but begin defending yourself, you will look like
a moron–that’s simply the way of the internet,
no matter how justified you really are. You just
make the other person look good. -
If there is somebody here who routinely gets
personal, ignore them entirely–until there is good
reason to think they’ve gotten over it. If there
is somebody who starts off alright but gets
personal under pressure of straightforward,
reasonably cordial arguement, best not to
respond at all. If there are people who
have an ego problem, or who ultimately
are willing to say anything, ignore them
entirely. -
When you blow it or make a mistake,
apologize without reservation.
Nobody is perfect in this regard, of course;
however it’s good to keep in mind that
dumb posts tend to fall of their own weight.
Sometimes silence is the most forceful rejoinder.
If you are routinely getting into spats,
the solution is to handle yourself
more skillfully. The first 40 years
are the hardest.
Never out sass 'em when you can outclass 'em.
Here is an illustration for Jim’s post:
Note that jGlider is already being called on this; defending yourself on a chatboard usually looks bad. If others are doing it for you already, you can only look worse buy jumping back in.
My words are right there for anyone to see, I attacked no one, and in fact, had no names or specific people in mind when I wrote it.
That you’d claim victimhood that doesn’t exist is amusing, at best.
Tedious. Not helpful. “amusing, at best” and similar things never work in my opinion. If the words “are right there for anyone to see” it hardly bears pointing out the fact that they are right there, for anyone to see.
My post merely cautions someone who is venturing into pretty sensitive territory (by anyone’s account) and, without naming any names at all, I simply pointed out that there would likely be some flaming towards various authors - most of whom cannot help but take one side or the other of the issue in Northern Ireland.
I know it’s very hard to resist explaining your own posts. But a moment’s reflection would have shown that no one actually misunderstood the post, not even jGlider, who was venting about something else. Still, if IRTRADU?'s post consisted of nothing but this sentence, it wouldn’t be nearly as awful.
Get over yourself.
Fairly or unfairly, the reader at this point is fed up and wishes that IRTRADU? would get over himself first, keep both advice and spite to himself, and generally post less.
Not-posting is at least as important as posting imho, but it is a lot harder to do. This whole post should not have been made: it contributed nothing and only fouled up the air.
Ah, the joys of message boards.
We have managed to reel in and socialize a lot
of very far out people, much to everybody’s
benefit. The point is to use intelligence to
some sort of profit, not just to bash around
and/or take swipes at each other.
There is so much of interest going on…
Why waste our time acting like kids?
Doubly true for clever people, like
those here.
Did you ever work for Johnnie Cochran? 
Thanks Jim, also good advice.
But I do have one question in light of your advice. How does this fit in with your “Democrats suck eggs” comment on the World opinion thread?