Shallow scope thread kamikazes.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:21 am
There seems to be a systemic problem on forums that I am just now realizing needs definition and clarification.
Many arguments come about thru a person that though engaged in a thread is not responding to the totality of what is being said. Others in the thread get agitated in earnest trying to explain their view. I have seen this cause me and others duress.
I’m starting this thread in hopes of defining how to spot some one who does this and to possibly give the dilemma a label.
One clear indicator of spotting a person like this is what I call the Bevies and Butt Head remark. That is where they point out a couple of words in a post and isolate it from the rest and mock it.
___________________________________________________________________
Example (from a thread over at Cgtalk):
The reason is that MS and the like want to have access to your stuff while keeping others out. Hackers do us a favor by exploiting issues that are there many times on purpose. The real day will be when you have an OS that gives you complete control of your system. There are however to many Benjamins involved to let that happen.
"Gator" used to be "spy ware" that came with divx until the Gator folks sued people who called it spy ware. Now it is not spy ware! Did the program change? No it did not. It just happens that these spies have enough money to be able to spy. They have changed their tactics since then but the lesson is valid.
Linux is the best option but how I wish Amiga Workbench would come back!
To which a response was:
Hackers do us a favor!!???
What!!!???
___________________________________________________________________
Another tactic of this character type is what I call the Daffy Duck. If anyone recalls the scene where Daffy and Bugs Bunny are arguing: Daffy Duck is saying “No I didn’t” and Bugs is saying “Yes you did” over and over until bugs says “No you didn’t” to which Daffy says “Yes I did.”
Often times the Daffy response is utilized by this character type responding to something not even said.
An example would be:
You talk from two faces - one that goads people bound by NDA (which you obviously have no use for), and one that jumps to point out those who have gone outside of it. So no matter what, you can say "Aha!" I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with you.
One day, your other face will be your only friend.
To which a response would be:
You will show us with specificity in what way I personally have breached an NDA.
___________________________________________________________________
For the propose of this discussion lets not assassinate these people or conjecture on why they do it. Just have an honest discussion of how to identify the character type and why it is not useful in a discussion.
Many arguments come about thru a person that though engaged in a thread is not responding to the totality of what is being said. Others in the thread get agitated in earnest trying to explain their view. I have seen this cause me and others duress.
I’m starting this thread in hopes of defining how to spot some one who does this and to possibly give the dilemma a label.
One clear indicator of spotting a person like this is what I call the Bevies and Butt Head remark. That is where they point out a couple of words in a post and isolate it from the rest and mock it.
___________________________________________________________________
Example (from a thread over at Cgtalk):
The reason is that MS and the like want to have access to your stuff while keeping others out. Hackers do us a favor by exploiting issues that are there many times on purpose. The real day will be when you have an OS that gives you complete control of your system. There are however to many Benjamins involved to let that happen.
"Gator" used to be "spy ware" that came with divx until the Gator folks sued people who called it spy ware. Now it is not spy ware! Did the program change? No it did not. It just happens that these spies have enough money to be able to spy. They have changed their tactics since then but the lesson is valid.
Linux is the best option but how I wish Amiga Workbench would come back!
To which a response was:
Hackers do us a favor!!???
What!!!???
___________________________________________________________________
Another tactic of this character type is what I call the Daffy Duck. If anyone recalls the scene where Daffy and Bugs Bunny are arguing: Daffy Duck is saying “No I didn’t” and Bugs is saying “Yes you did” over and over until bugs says “No you didn’t” to which Daffy says “Yes I did.”
Often times the Daffy response is utilized by this character type responding to something not even said.
An example would be:
You talk from two faces - one that goads people bound by NDA (which you obviously have no use for), and one that jumps to point out those who have gone outside of it. So no matter what, you can say "Aha!" I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with you.
One day, your other face will be your only friend.
To which a response would be:
You will show us with specificity in what way I personally have breached an NDA.
___________________________________________________________________
For the propose of this discussion lets not assassinate these people or conjecture on why they do it. Just have an honest discussion of how to identify the character type and why it is not useful in a discussion.