Ok, I believe in trying to start posts out in a positive manner, as our moderators would suggest, but...
Am I the only one that's bugged by certain posters who are contrary to nearly everything other posters post? If a poster disgrees with another poster, or has a legitimate dispute, I'm fine with that. I've seen a couple of posts today where one poster was being contrary apparently just for the sake of being contrary toward another poster's view.
Ugh.
(Edited because I was redundant.)
This message has been edited by MattHawes on Feb 26, 2004 11:52 AM
If that's targeted towards me then I apologise for any offence.
That being said I post what I think and not simply because being disagreeable appeals me to me.
Besides which I tend to make a fair number posts seconding the content of original posters and agree with even more threads I decide not to post in because simply adding a "Me too" remark when I have nothing else to add seems a bit redundant.
I'll try reining it in though if othes are getting kind of pissed off.
Dana, it is just an annoyance. I'm not asking for anyone to be banned or anything. I only posted this thread, as opposed to mentioning it directly or specifically in the posts where the other poster(s) have been acting in the manner I described to avoid any flame wars. That, and I was just wondering if I am the only one who sees this contrariness as an annoyance.
Isn't this a lot of Hoo-Ha over a very little annoyance?
*****
I agree with Matt. And the effect is cumulative. There is something profoundly depressing about reading thru a message thread only to find one poster who, without even reading her (to continue the "Mary" analogy) I know is going to take an opposite stance to whatever the prevailing thrust of the thread might be.
I find just rolling my eyes and skipping to the next post helps stave off feelings of anguish or depression.
A lot of us have been around long enough, however, to know that ignoring said autocontrarians only gives them positive reinforcement to continue being autocontrarians. In addition to that, we debate a lot on this board about everything from comic books, movies, politics and religion. If there's one or two people who continually post in these debates for the seemingly sole purpose of stirring the pot by offering an automatic contrary position, then everything they post becomes suspect.
Like a bad rash, ignoring an autocontrarian only makes it worse, not better.
And doesn't drawing attention to them just create argumentative threads and cause more friction? At the end of the day, surely one is better served by e-mailing moderators privately if one wants to register a complaint, rather than starting a debate about it? Moderators can, after all, delete posts that are deemed to be beyond the pale, can they not?
I can't help but notice that there are two threads running, one of which basically says "Isn't it outrageous that Howard Stern's show's getting picked on because some people find it offensive" and another one which says "Don't you think this contrariness is really annoying, whatever can we do about it?" Hmmm...
Ian, pray tell, where do I ask anyone to do anything about contrary posts? I have, in fact, stated that I am not in favor of banning posters for contrary posts alone.
Why did I post this thread? As I already noted: To see if anyone else is annoyed by such behavior. That, and maybe to make such posters aware that such behavior is annoying.
Please do not equate me with whatever nonsense is going on in regard to fining talk radio personalities. If you do not care for my opinion on this matter, follow your own advice and skip the thread.
Edited: typo.
This message has been edited by MattHawes on Feb 26, 2004 1:42 PM
I can't help but notice that there are two threads running, one of which basically says "Isn't it outrageous that Howard Stern's show's getting picked on because some people find it offensive" and another one which says "Don't you think this contrariness is really annoying, whatever can we do about it?" Hmmm...
Not the same thing, not even in the same ballpark. Starting a thread with the purpose of debating whether or not Clear Channel should have dropped Stern and starting a thread with the express purpose of discussing autocontrarians are two totally different things.
Yes, people can (and do!) contact we moderators about people that either rock the boat or appear to do things on the board only for their pleasure, to the detriment of everyone else. And we take care of it. But it's a valid topic of conversation when the autocontrarian attitude seems to become pervasive or immediately apparent to anyone posting on a given day. Matt H's post serves to point up the problem, thus alerting both offenders and moderators, of a concern that he was questioning whether or not it was just him who noticed.
Bringing attention to a problem may encourage the problem makers, but it's better than outright ignoring them and hoping they go away or change their ways.
And, at the risk of raising the ire of Ian, I have to admit another pet peeve on message boards is people who attribute false quotes to others. To wit; I never asked to moderators to do anything about autocontrarians, or anyone else. Yet, Ian's post makes it appear as if I did just that by attributing a quote to me that I did not make.
I use quotation marks for, 1, titles, 2, to stress a point, and 3, when I am quoting something someone actually wrote or said. If I use quotes for something that wasn't actually said, but to make a point, I will preface the quote so that the reader knows that I am not really quoting what somebody said or wrote.
BTW, Ian, I'm not wanting to bicker back and forth with you, but I noticed that over on another thread you wrote (and I quote; ):
From thread, "Previews has the first glimpse of JLA Covers 98 and 99"
Ian: "I'm new here ..."
And, here, on this thread, you had this exchange:
Dana: "Isn't this a lot of Hoo-Ha over a very little annoyance?"
Ian: "And, as a regular message board user, you find this unusual?"
If the topic opens: "X is worthless," and if a reader then defends the value of "X," although taking a contrary position the reader is not exhibiting contrariness. He or she is trying to add value to the conversation, not to contradict arbitrarily or pointlessly.
(His statement is, however, an instance of contariety . I like to learn a new word every day.)
But once the contrary opinon has been understood and rejected, further argument may lag into pointless contrariness. That's a vice of mine.
<<typo>>
This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 26, 2004 1:59 PM
If the topic opens: "X is worthless," and if a reader then defends the value of "X," although taking a contrary position the reader is not exhibiting contrariness. He or she is trying to add value to the conversation, not to contradict arbitrarily or pointlessly.
What's being discussed here, however, are people who automatically take a contrary position in every single thread, not the occasional reply from a poster that disagrees with an idea that is posited.
For anyone reading this thread that think this applies to them, what may help is taking the exact opposite attitude "cactusmaac" is taking. He said that he won't reply in threads just to say "I agree." While this may be laudable, in a time saving sort of way, posting only in threads where you disagree casts the shadow of an autocontrarian. Feel free to post more than just "I agree" in a thread that you do agree with. Unless a thread is 75 posts long and every permutation of the debate and/or topic of discussion has been covered, you will probably add something of worth. It'll also help to show that you aren't only here to post contrary replies. We can't see you at home, in front of your computer nodding, so whatever/however you do choose to post becomes your persona. If you only post in a contrary manner...
A distinct problem is those poor souls who seem genuinely to believe that posting an opposing viewpoint is the same as "having an opinion". This is all too common on the internet. It was one of the first things I noticed, in fact. A string of posts will mostly go in one direction, until someone posts a contrary view that seems to be nothing more than that -- a contrary view. These are usually stated as some kind of absolute, which makes them easier to spot.
A: I don't like FoneBone.
B: I don't like FoneBone.
C: I don't like FoneBone.
D: I don't like FoneBone.
E: I don't like FoneBone.
F: I don't like FoneBone.
G: I don't like FoneBone.
H: FoneBone is the Greatest Thing in the History of Ever!!!!
Thanks for the good laugh. I hadn't thougth about that skit for a while. Isn't there another one where the guy comes in for an arguement and walks into "abuse" by mistake?
You could certainly make the point that this is the archetypal Python bit. So much of their humor comes from what Roger Ebert called "one-upsmanship" -- character A says X and character B finds some absurd way to top it/abstract it/contradict it, etc. This sketch really boils that down to its essence.
Same one, Greg. Probably one of my top five favorite bits by Python (maybe even #1, but that's a tough call).
--------
It is difficult to choose, but "Dead Parrot" and "The Barbershop Sketch" have always been at the top of my list. Barbershop Sketch has the classic "Lumberjack" song, but also has the barber, via reel-to-reel tape recording, holding a conversation with his customer about the previous night's soccer match. The funniest bit is when the customer doesn't understand what the barber said on the tape and we find that the tape of the barber was prerecorded to repeat that question.
I'm more bothered by people that post for the expressed purpose of baiting a fight and then explode into obscenity laced tirades the moment someone calls them on it.
What's being discussed here, however, are people who automatically take a contrary position in every single thread, not the occasional reply from a poster that disagrees with an idea that is posited.
For anyone reading this thread that think this applies to them, what may help is taking the exact opposite attitude "cactusmaac" is taking. He said that he won't reply in threads just to say "I agree." While this may be laudable, in a time saving sort of way, posting only in threads where you disagree casts the shadow of an autocontrarian.
I really don't know which posts of mine you're reading or how it is you, or anyone else here for that matter, think I'm an autocontrarian.
So far today I've posted my views on the Robocop Trilogy, I've asked what happened to Niles Caulder in the DCU, I agreed with Mr Byrne that Robert Rodriguez wasn't that much of a directorial talent and made a post on regarding the Clear Channel thread which others have echoed:
By me:
By the same token, Clear Channel have no obligation to air content they don't wish to
By Dave Pruitt:
This isn't about censorship or free speech. The Howard Stern Show is a product, and Clear Channel has decided it doesn't want to sell that product any longer. It's analogous to grocery stores, etc., refusing to stock Playboy or Penthouse.
Yesterday I posted that Iron Man might use a relief bag like jet fighter so, gave my favourite two Legionairres, posted some snippets regarding the Neil Gaiman case, gave my opinions on the appropriateness regarding Ra's al Ghul's English accent among other things.
If y'all want me to go simply because you don't like my opinions then please tell me so plainly instead of making up lies about my "autocontrarianism".
And finally if you want to address my by name, you're more than welcome to use my real name instead of using quotation marks for whatever effect you're trying to achieve.
Matt Hawes: If you have a problem with how I post it might have been helpful to send me an email instead.
cactusmaac
cactusmaac
This message has been edited by MAliChoudhury on Feb 26, 2004 4:31 PM
M Ali: "Matt Hawes: If you have a problem with how I post it might have been helpful to send me an email instead."
Where did I mention that you were the person I was referring to in my posts, M Ali? Though you have been guilty of what I am talking about, you aren't the only person. I was addressing the problem on a broader, more general scale. It isn't always about just one person, after all.
What made you think I was talking about you, anyway? Could it be that you saw yourself in what I had written?
Edited: Damn, damn typo's.
This message has been edited by MattHawes on Feb 26, 2004 4:45 PM
What's being discussed here, however, are people who automatically take a contrary position in every single thread, not the occasional reply from a poster that disagrees with an idea that is posited.
For anyone reading this thread that think this applies to them, what may help is taking the exact opposite attitude "cactusmaac" is taking. He said that he won't reply in threads just to say "I agree." While this may be laudable, in a time saving sort of way, posting only in threads where you disagree casts the shadow of an autocontrarian.
By Charles Valeramma after I posted a dissenting opinion on the thread I started:
well put, Matt!! i know exactly what(and who!) you're
refering to and it is getting a little annoying.
-C!
By John Byrne:
Marvel haven't abolished issue numbers from covers have they?
*******
Your automatic contrariness is getting very, very boring.
Reading and comprehension skills are vital for participation in this forum. That said "cactusmaac," you said the following up thread:
Besides which I tend to make a fair number posts seconding the content of original posters and agree with even more threads I decide not to post in because simply adding a "Me too" remark when I have nothing else to add seems a bit redundant.
Basically, you cop to posting more contrary posts than agreeable ones because you decide that just saying "Me too" is redundant. I was merely pointing out that it's decidedly not redundant to express agreement with others on the board, especially someone such as yourself who often posts within ten replies of the original message. This would help with the appearance that all you are is an autocontrarian; only "speaking up" when you disagree and keeping quite when you agree...which appears to be your modes operandi here on the board.
Basically, you cop to posting more contrary posts than agreeable ones because you decide that just saying "Me too" is redundant. I was merely pointing out that it's decidedly not redundant to express agreement with others on the board, especially someone such as yourself who often posts within ten replies of the original message. This would help with the appearance that all you are is an autocontrarian; only "speaking up" when you disagree and keeping quite when you agree...which appears to be your modes operandi here on the board.
:bangs head:
Which part of these aren't you understanding?
So far today I've posted my views on the Robocop Trilogy, I've asked what happened to Niles Caulder in the DCU, I agreed with Mr Byrne that Robert Rodriguez wasn't that much of a directorial talent and made a post on regarding the Clear Channel thread which others have echoed:
Yesterday I posted that Iron Man might use a relief bag like jet fighter so, gave my favourite two Legionairres, posted some snippets regarding the Neil Gaiman case, gave my opinions on the appropriateness regarding Ra's al Ghul's English accent among other things.
Like Matt H, I find it extremely telling that you are the only one who has posted in this thread thinking it's about them when no one initially pointed you out. If you didn't think this thread applied to you, why did you reply?
Matt Reed: "Like Matt H, I find it extremely telling that you are the only one who has posted in this thread thinking it's about them when no one initially pointed you out. If you didn't think this thread applied to you, why did you reply?"
It's kind of like this:
Person A: "I think anyone that would kick a puppy is a complete meanie."
Person B: "Hey! If you were going to call me a meanie, you should've wrote to me personally!"
Some people just have a need to be noticed and the best way to do that is to act out.
As a teacher, you see it all of the time. There's always one, maybe two children who will disrupt what would otherwise be a pleasantly conducive learning environment because they need a little more attention than the other children. They don't want to fit in and operate within the normal flow of the group, whether that flow travels in a positive or negative direction. They need to have the attention focused upon them, and the best way to do that is to act out.
I find the same thing to be true of adults in many situations, message boards being one of them.
My opinion is that its best to just ignore them. Let them holler, yell, curse, abuse, threaten, whatever...just leave them be and eventually they'll find someone else to bug in order to get the attention they so desperately crave.
And no, my thoughts are not directed at anyone in particular. I don't lob anonymous bombs at folks I disagree with, I address them directly if the matter warrants it. The behavior we are commenting on occurs everywhere, not just the JBF.
(Edited to add my name; didn't mean to post anonymously...)
This message has been edited by btx109 on Feb 26, 2004 8:10 PM
I don't know exactly what everyone's talking about in this thread, but I did find it amusing that cactusmac picked "agreeing with Mr. Byrne that Robert Rodriguez wasn't that much of a directing talent" as an example of him being in agreement with someone. Is that what JB was saying here?
At the risk of being an autocontrarian myself, I have to say I think both Cactus Mac and Matt / the rest of you have points that seem valid. I have only been on this site for about a month so there have probably been pitched battles and skirmishes to which I'm not privy, but I do think Cactus has been taking some flak lately and my less experienced eyes didn't think he was being particularly obnoxious (though again, I don't know all the moves / inflections, being new here). I do agree that he takes a different view at times, though; perhaps this is a residue that has built up from prior disagreements?
The only thing I would gently offer as a relative stranger with absolutely no axe to grind one way or the other is maybe Cactus can agree to try to dial back the contrariness a tad (not compromise his position but be more diplomatic perhaps?) And maybe those who disagree with his position could endeavor not to jump on him if he does have a different view as long as he is diplomatic and not too smart-assed about expressing it?
I don't know about you but I think this board would be a crashing bore if Everyone agreed about Everything All the Time... Strange as it sounds, I've found there has to be a happy medium of harmony AND dissonance in order to produce a beautiful song.
There was a smilie at the end of that post which meant it was written in a joking manner.
And the post was made in reference to a long conversation I had with a friend (who lurks at comicon but doesn't post) about various online boards and the war in Iraq.
Like Matt H, I find it extremely telling that you are the only one who has posted in this thread thinking it's about them when no one initially pointed you out. If you didn't think this thread applied to you, why did you reply?
--------------------------------------------------
By me:
Marvel haven't abolished issue numbers from covers have they?
*******
By Mr Byrne:
Your automatic contrariness is getting very, very boring.
By Matt Reed:
1)For anyone reading this thread that think this applies to them, what may help is taking the exact opposite attitude "cactusmaac" is taking. He said that he won't reply in threads just to say "I agree." While this may be laudable, in a time saving sort of way, posting only in threads where you disagree casts the shadow of an autocontrarian.
2) This would help with the appearance that all you are is an autocontrarian; only "speaking up" when you disagree and keeping quite when you agree...which appears to be your modes operandi here on the board.
---------------------------------------------------
If you apply your analogy to your initial post it would look like this:
Ok, I believe in trying to start posts out in a positive manner, as our moderators would suggest, but...
Am I the only one that's bugged by certain posters who kick puppies? If a poster disgrees with a puppy, or has a legitimate dispute, I'm fine with that.
I've seen a couple of posts today where one poster was kicking another puppy just for the sake of it.
I don't know exactly what everyone's talking about in this thread, but I did find it amusing that cactusmac picked "agreeing with Mr. Byrne that Robert Rodriguez wasn't that much of a directing talent" as an example of him being in agreement with someone. Is that what JB was saying here?
******
Well, of course not. But it does serve to illustrate the point, doesn't it?
):
