Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1204
    MEMBERS
  • 62541
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

UK News - General   The U.K and Europe

Started 7/16/19 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 123105 views.
RGoss99

From: RGoss99

8/13/19

So why are you still posting unrequested posts still -- slow learning curve I guess.

G=G+1

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

8/13/19

G=G+1 not confused, in this case both apply. call it whatever you like junk mail either way.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/17/19

That was a very, very long explanation.

No ad hominem responses.  That's pretty much all I could take from it, sorry.

That's on my start page as a rule, anyway.

On that we agree.

But I once got a G=G+1 for teasing you about a post that contained atrocious spelling.  I mean REALLY bad, not just the odd word, but almost every one. 

So, sometimes your macro can be a tad sensitive to what it perceives as an "ad hom" (i.e.: attack the argument, not the person), and the G=G+1 response ends up turning light banter into insult, where none was intended.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/17/19

RGoss99 said:

If you object to the criteria I use, why be a passive-aggressive coward

G=G+1

Attack the argument, not the person.  No ad homs, please.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

8/17/19

I get the bad spelling comment often. No, excuse, but several reasons. First I don´t care, type stream of conscious, and don´t bother to edit. Secondly as a very fast touch typist, who neither looks at the keys, nor the CRT (poor eye sight and focus result of a stroke), Third point is because I often work in several languages, my typing often reflects a different language (constitució) or phonetic (two, too, to). I have no problema with legit complaints when my errors interfere with the message of my post. However do object when my message is obvious, and the spelling-grammar complaint are merely a way for the respondent to negate the message, or avoid responding.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

8/17/19

Not valid, my ad hom was a response to and ad hom, e.g. valid.

Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

8/17/19

What a lot of crock!

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

8/17/19

G=G+1 your "crock" is just an unqualified ad hom, unless you can produce logic or facts to justify it.

It is also OT considering it has nothing to do with the thread title "U.K. and Europe"

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/18/19

I get that spelling mistakes happen.

But there when your macro misinterprets jovial teasing as something else that does not fit into your formula for a "valid response", it creates tension where none is needed.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/18/19

RGoss99 said:

Not valid, my ad hom was a response to and ad hom, e.g. valid.

It doesn't work like that, Goss.

If you are opposed to ad homs, then don't use them yourself.

It's called "taking the high ground".

Or, alternatively, "not being a hypocrite".

I have few rules in this forum.  The permission you gave yourself to use an ad hom is irrelevant, as it breaks one of those rules laid out on the start page.

My rules trump your macro.

TOP