Wicksoman's DOTD 11/21/05 - Clete

[fool]

"Wicksoman's DOTD 11/21/05 - Clete "
Who's Wicksoman?

 

[Turbo]

Not so fast there Turbo.
Sometimes a question can be loaded in such a manner that yes or no would be incorrect, this is what they mean about " according to his folly".

Was my question loaded? Sheesh! I just asked her if she was still in the dark about why I hadn't responded to her post.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I don't understand what the big deal is. There's plenty of people on TOL that we all ignore. I ignore Squeaky's posts, for example. Why is this such a big deal, wicky?

 

[fool]

I don't understand what the big deal is. There's plenty of people on TOL that we all ignore. I ignore Squeaky's posts, for example. Why is this such a big deal, wicky?

I get pissed at people who bad rep me without engaging in the dialog.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I get pissed at people who bad rep me without engaging in the dialog.

Why?

 

[fool]

Was my question loaded? Sheesh! I just asked her if she was still in the dark about why I hadn't responded to her post.

That was more meant as a rhetorical statement about straight answers that had a tie-in with the fool and his folly thing.
You aren't going to give me those disks are you?

 

[Mr. 5020]

You aren't going to give me those disks are you?

:chuckle:

If I didn't know better, I'd say Turbo lied about having those disks.

 

[fool]

Why?

If I argue with someone and they feel the need then thats one thing.
But bad repping someone when your not even posting a response is akin to throwing a chair at a guy who's in a bar fight that your not involved in.
If you got the time to post a rep you got the time to tell someone why their wrong, in the thread, and then you get to defend it.
Most of the bad rep I've recieved was from people that were'nt even participating in the thread they repped me for.
I consider them to be the lowest form of punk, having no honor, and being worthy of nothing other than a thrashing.

 

[Mr. 5020]

If I argue with someone and they feel the need then thats one thing.
But bad repping someone when your not even posting a response is akin to throwing a chair at a guy who's in a bar fight that your not involved in.
If you got the time to post a rep you got the time to tell someone why their wrong, in the thread, and then you get to defend it.
Most of the bad rep I've recieved was from people that were'nt even participating in the thread they repped me for.
I consider them to be the lowest form of punk, having no honor, and being worthy of nothing other than a thrashing.

It seems as though, from the opening post, that Clete did respond before bad repping her. He just didn't keep responding.

 

[Turbo]

It seems as though, from the opening post, that Clete did respond before bad repping her.

No, the formatting just makes it look like that. She was attempting to re-post her reply to one of his posts to kmoney.

 

[Turbo]

If I argue with someone and they feel the need then thats one thing.
But bad repping someone when your not even posting a response is akin to throwing a chair at a guy who's in a bar fight that your not involved in.
If you got the time to post a rep you got the time to tell someone why their wrong,

That's why there is a comment area attached to each rep.

in the thread, and then you get to defend it.

Um, no. The latter would take much much more time. That should be obvious.

If someone is reading a thread and they like or dislike a post, they can rep it whether they feel like jumping in or not. And I can see plenty of reasons why someone would not want to bother engaging with someone whose post they feel is so bad as to warant a bad rep. Those are often given for intellectual dishonesty, intentionally missing the point, unresponsiveness, utter stupidity, etc. and not just a matter of a difference in point of view.


If anything I would think reps both good and bad are more likely given by observers of a thread rather than participants.

 

[fool]

It seems as though, from the opening post, that Clete did respond before bad repping her. He just didn't keep responding.

That was more of a rhetorical statement about bad rep in general.

 

[wickwoman]

Was my question loaded? Sheesh! I just asked her if she was still in the dark about why I hadn't responded to her post.

I'm not sure why my answers are confusing to you. I did not see you specifically say, "Wickwoman, this is the reason I did not respond to your post." Other than the scripture you posted which I believe I showed you was not appropriate for ignoring someone but only to encourage you to answer with wisdom and clarity. I saw your posts. I believe I responded to nearly all of them line by line. So my yes or answer would be "yes, I know the reason if the reason is the scripture you posted. Or, no and I don't know the reason if the scripture is not the basis for your ignoring me, because it's the only one you offered me."

 

[wickwoman]

"Wicksoman's DOTD 11/21/05 - Clete "
Who's Wicksoman?

Someone who can't spell very good? The "s" is the letters just below the "w" on the keyboard. I did change it, but the email notification continues to keep the first spelling. :sheep:

 

[wickwoman]

I don't understand what the big deal is. There's plenty of people on TOL that we all ignore. I ignore Squeaky's posts, for example. Why is this such a big deal, wicky?

No big deal. I just actually wanted to know what his answers were. I think Clete is a very unforgiving and hard nosed person when it comes to his moral pet peeves and the sins of others, but he is more than willing to let himself off the hook for the small sins he thinks his God isn't interested in. I think that's very convenient for Clete.

It seems as though, from the opening post, that Clete did respond before bad repping her. He just didn't keep responding.

Clete did not address any point or question of mine. All his responses were addressed to others who had questions for him and he was specifically responding to them.

 

[wickwoman]

O.K. Well I guess Clete doesn't have any real scriptural basis for the opinions I called him on and I will just chalk that one up to a supposed Christian who excuses his own behavior conveniently but is unwilling to afford that same grace to others.

 

[Turbo]

I didn't pretend to know why Clete was ignoring me

But now you do pretend to know:

O.K. Well I guess Clete doesn't have any real scriptural basis for the opinions I called him on and I will just chalk that one up to a supposed Christian who excuses his own behavior conveniently but is unwilling to afford that same grace to others.

 

[Turbo]

I had asked,

Did you see and understand what was above that Proverb?

...to which you indirectly replied:

I'm not sure why my answers are confusing to you. I did not see you specifically say, "Wickwoman, this is the reason I did not respond to your post." Other than the scripture you posted which I believe I showed you was not appropriate for ignoring someone but only to encourage you to answer with wisdom and clarity. I saw your posts. I believe I responded to nearly all of them line by line. So my yes or answer would be "yes, I know the reason if the reason is the scripture you posted. Or, no and I don't know the reason if the scripture is not the basis for your ignoring me, because it's the only one you offered me."

I'll take that as a "no." Thank you.

 

[wickwoman]

Yeah, whatever, Turbo.

 

[wickwoman]

But now you do pretend to know:

I guess, means I'm making a guess. And, more than anything, it was my last ditch effort to bait him into answering the post. So, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, that's my guess and it stands until otherwise cast down by Clete.