Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 4:47 PM
Post #26 of 147 (2392 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content? the Knob had that bite at the apple, and ran off most anyone who knew what they were talking about just so they could coddle n00bs--those unique users you are after.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #27 of 147 (2377 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:12 PM
Post #28 of 147 (2375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community?

Nope. Perfectly happy with how it is now.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 147 (2365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20759

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
blondgecko wrote:

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

That's pretty funny. The truth is, all the climbing chatter is mixed in with the rest of the stuff. WHat's the alternative? Post a bunch of trip reports? I did that for a while, it's kind of fun, but at the end of the day it's mostly just spray. I'd rather just spray my buddies down and talk a little smack.

The BET is really just a chat room, and I prefer that format over the split forums. The model for those forums seems to be to ask a question and get a million responses, and then a couple guys wank about who is right and who is rong. Who cares? sez I.

And the whole point of the BET being semi- exclusive is so that it doesn't become like the rest of the site-- a million voices drowning each other out with idiocy. I prefer the idiocy of those I know. We don't need poster ratings, or star ratings or a search function, because you basically know the other posters, so there isn't the same choss to sift through.

The BET was born kind of because the rest of the site was going to shit in that there was just so much bad information being posted so often, that it became comical! It still is. You can log onto this site and read some insane stuff. If you have a certain sense of humor, it will make you laff. So you joke about it a bit with your friends.

I feel like I need to do the slow, one person clap, while everyone else gradually joins in to a roaring applause.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 5:45 PM
Post #30 of 147 (2357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? When it was ran by MR, Adam, J_Ung the climbers on here had something to "work" for. And many many donated time and money to helping it. It's now owned by a corporation and ran by a guy across the world I don't know if anyone has met. People would be upset if it died while it was a General Store... not when it's a Walmart.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 5:47 PM
Post #31 of 147 (2353 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 5:49 PM
Post #32 of 147 (2490 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community?

Nope. Perfectly happy with how it is now.

+1.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:56 PM
Post #34 of 147 (2481 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less? We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on. Don't confuse BET with every user out there that hurt your butt or makes sarcastic comments.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #35 of 147 (2478 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:58 PM
Post #36 of 147 (2473 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 5:59 PM
Post #37 of 147 (2472 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:01 PM
Post #38 of 147 (2468 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

All of your post, especially the last bit, leads me to believe that you're alright--especially for a clown.

Edit: I wouldn't really count that first BET, so as the SPCI was locked for the same reason--volume, not anything else, really.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Feb 8, 2011, 6:05 PM)


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 6:02 PM
Post #39 of 147 (2467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20759

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

speak for yourself. I'm an OG.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 6:04 PM
Post #40 of 147 (2462 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #41 of 147 (2449 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Feb 8, 2011, 6:14 PM)


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #42 of 147 (2448 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:14 PM
Post #43 of 147 (2448 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

All of your post, especially the last bit, leads me to believe that you're alright--especially for a clown.

Edit: I wouldn't really count that first BET, so as the SPCI was locked for the same reason--volume, not anything else, really.

well don't be fooled. We held the Coffee Shop's head under water until their legs stopped moving.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #44 of 147 (2441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20759

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #45 of 147 (2441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.

meh. This thread got kind of funny and a bit interesting for a minute. Hard to resist when cracklover tries to tickle me with the ostrich feather, what can I say?


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #46 of 147 (2440 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.
I could not agree with this more. I haven't PC++ since my banz a few months ago.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:18 PM
Post #47 of 147 (2435 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:20 PM
Post #48 of 147 (2433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.

meh. This thread got kind of funny and a bit interesting for a minute. Hard to resist when cracklover tries to tickle me with the ostrich feather, what can I say?
Show me on the clown where this "cracklover" tickled you.



Khoi


Feb 8, 2011, 6:25 PM
Post #49 of 147 (2424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 292

     Re: Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

What is BET???


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:29 PM
Post #50 of 147 (2420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

     Re: [Khoi] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook