UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

In article .net,
Clisby wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

dragonlady wrote:

So -- when YOU are nasty it's always "for cause", but if one of us
regulars is nasty YOU get to decide we have an ulterior motive -- other
than the fact that we find you a genuinely unpleasant person?

Don't ask the questions if you don't want the answers, yout stupid
Bitch. Sheesh!

-L.



Pot?



Yes, thanks!!!! Be sure to roll the ends tight, though.

Clisby

Lord, I must be getting old -- this took me WAY longer than it should
have! (And thanks for the laugh -- eventually.)

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Nan wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:35:47 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

In article ,
Nan wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:06:19 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

So -- when YOU are nasty it's always "for cause", but if one of us
regulars is nasty YOU get to decide we have an ulterior motive -- other
than the fact that we find you a genuinely unpleasant person?

You keep jumping on her hook ;-)

Nan


What can I say? We all have our shortcomings, and easy to bait has
always been one of mine.

I shall endeavor to do better.

Ah, I don't mind, really.
It shows how predictable she is. I just hate to see you get
frustrated with someone who clearly isn't going to care one whit about
anything you say.

Nan


Not frustrated so much as bewildered. -L is obviously well educated, I
keep expecting some sign of critical thinking to emerge -- or at least
signs of decent debating skills. Instead, she retreats to ad hominim
attacks.

Nevermind.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady ) writes:
In article .net,
Clisby wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

dragonlady wrote:

So -- when YOU are nasty it's always "for cause", but if one of us
regulars is nasty YOU get to decide we have an ulterior motive -- other
than the fact that we find you a genuinely unpleasant person?

Don't ask the questions if you don't want the answers, yout stupid
Bitch. Sheesh!

-L.



Pot?



Yes, thanks!!!! Be sure to roll the ends tight, though.

Clisby

Lord, I must be getting old -- this took me WAY longer than it should
have! (And thanks for the laugh -- eventually.)

Oh, I get it! chuckle

In article .com,
"-L." wrote:

Jayne searched on her own name, undoubtedly to find replies to her own
posts in order to answer them. It's a method a lot of people use,
especially when they post on multiple groups. I use this method
myself, often. To Banty, that translates into a "vanity search".

I thought the correct term was "kibozing" for ngs and "ego-surfing" when
applied to the web.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at
least a two-tooth!"
Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle.

dragonlady wrote:
Not frustrated so much as bewildered. -L is obviously well educated, I
keep expecting some sign of critical thinking to emerge -- or at least
signs of decent debating skills. Instead, she retreats to ad hominim
attacks.

Nevermind.

Unlike you and your twit friends who label anyone who doesn't agree
with you a "troll". God forbid someone should have a different
viewpoint. You're a waste - of everything.

-L.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:53:46 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

Not frustrated so much as bewildered. -L is obviously well educated, I
keep expecting some sign of critical thinking to emerge -- or at least
signs of decent debating skills. Instead, she retreats to ad hominim
attacks.

I agree. It's apparent she's capable of pleasant discourse, as
evident on other threads.

Nan

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
) writes:
Banty wrote:
Well, jumping HERE and joining in the complaining after a vanity search is one
thing (most people don't do that), but minor in the scheme of things. The
crossposting that you did concerning the husband in a.m. as I recall from
looking it over didn't end for a while, what I remember most is you having
actually inviting a childfree poster hostile to our group here to post, then
proposed to set misc.kid up as some kind of meeting ground (oh goody), and it
took a LONG time to get you off that and to try to set up a group of your own,
all the while we were dealing with the concomitant unpleasantness.

This is not how I recall events, nor can I find much support for your
recollections in google.

Jayne

I didn't understand Banty's explanation either. For one
thing, I have no idea who she means was doing a "vanity search"
or when.

"Vanity search" means googling on one's own name. That is how I
discovered Nan talking about me in misc.kids and triggered my recent
bout of participation here.

I jumped into this thread and joined in complaining,
but I don't see anything wrong with the way I did
that and I don't think anyone has complained.

I wouldn't have described my posts in this thread as complaining
either.

Inviting someone to participate in a newsgroup is OK.

I'm guessing that Banty is referring to a time that I wrote civilly to
person who was trolling m.k and said something like "These extreme
views are obviously not your real opinions, but if you cared to share
you actual thoughts on the subject I would be glad to discuss it with
you." At the time she disapproved of this method for dealing with
trolls on the grounds that it would encourage them.

I'm not sure what she perceived as me spending a long time trying to
set up m.k as a meeting ground, so I don't have an explanation for that
one.

Trying to start up a subgroup or discussion within
a newsgroup is OK. Complaining can be OK in certain
contexts.

A few years ago I tried to start a new newsgroup for discussions
between childfree and parents. The childfree newsgroup does not allow
posts from parents and most childfree who post to m.k seem to be
trolling. I thought that having a newsgroup for talking to each other
would promote mutual understanding and greater tolerance for other
people's differences. Several people thought that merely going through
the proposal process on news.groups would encourage trolling on
parenting groups and expressed annoyance with me. It seems to me that
Banty was one of these.

Jayne

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

If we're gonna vent, let me tell you (again?) about my
experience on alt."support".depression. (quotations
marks added for sarcasm.)

I hadn't seen the this story before. I'm very interested in this sort
of thing and almost certainly would have remembered it.

I visited the group as a lurker a few times, reluctant
to post since I wasn't sure what would be most helpful.
Then one day I posted a well-polished article: a list
of methods of treating depression. It wasn't perfect,
but I was proud of it. I got blamed, called names,
taboo words thrown at me, etc. etc. They asked if I
had read the FAQ. I hadn't. But then I went and read
it. It didn't say anything about not posting that kind
of post. In fact, the FAQ had a rather similar section
to what my post was. I would not have posted differently
if I had read the FAQ. Now that I've had that experience,
I have a little bit better idea how to do a first post
in other groups. But at the time, I was totally taken
by surprise.

I know that some groups have little tolerance for newbies, but I would
have expected a support ng to be better at making allowances. It
sounds like an unpleasant experience for you.

Apparently, the correct way to begin to post on a.s.d.
is first to participate in some OFF-TOPIC threads, then
to announce publicly that one is depressed, and finally
very tactfully just maybe mention ways of dealing
with depression. This was not stated in the FAQ.
Possibly one of these days I'll get around to asking
them to include that in the FAQ, as apparently the
same thing happens to other people too from time to
time!!!

I am fascinated by newsgroup dynamics and observing how each group
forms its own culture. My impression is that most people are unaware
of the unspoken rules (which differ from group to group) yet
nevertheless use various mechanisms to enforce them. To a certain
extent, I would say that virtually every ng has "groupthink" so I see
some validity to Lyn's comments. On the other hand, I wouldn't single
out m.k as being an egregious case of it.

Jayne

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

dragonlady wrote:
Not frustrated so much as bewildered. -L is obviously well educated, I
keep expecting some sign of critical thinking to emerge -- or at least
signs of decent debating skills. Instead, she retreats to ad hominim
attacks.

Nevermind.

Unlike you and your twit friends who label anyone who doesn't agree
with you a "troll". God forbid someone should have a different
viewpoint. You're a waste - of everything.


Instead you label entitlemoo. Are you really so different?

-L.

Stephanie wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

dragonlady wrote:
Not frustrated so much as bewildered. -L is obviously well educated, I
keep expecting some sign of critical thinking to emerge -- or at least
signs of decent debating skills. Instead, she retreats to ad hominim
attacks.

Nevermind.

Unlike you and your twit friends who label anyone who doesn't agree
with you a "troll". God forbid someone should have a different
viewpoint. You're a waste - of everything.


Instead you label entitlemoo. Are you really so different?

Actually, there are several women on this group with whom I almost
always disagree. But I would never call them trolls. They
consistently post on topic and avoid personal attacks. Occasionally,
they even teach me something new!

A troll, OTOH, rarely posts on topic and, even when (s)he does, quickly
turns all discussions into personal attacks on those who disagree with
him (her), and occasionally all who do agree with her. S/he attempts
to foment dissent, and to turn all discussions towards him/her. If
you're unsure if someone is a troll, its generally a good idea to
google his/her behavior on other groups. If, for example, people on
other groups in which the person participates are offering to pay for
his/her *meds* due to what is perceived there as irrational behavior,
repeatedly complain that the person's behavior has driven people off,
or accuse the person of being a troll, it serves as some supporting
evidence.

HTH.

Barbara