Would this qualify as a pig pile?


wrote in message
ups.com...
Chuck might have to look out for the Cleveland Crusader instead.

*************************

Bouncing ball sing-along: "Me and my shadow, strolling through the NG
que....."

The bogus doctor quacked:

Would this qualify as a pig pile?

*******************************************

Hard to say. I only e-hummed a few bars of "me and my shadow".
Unless you know of somebody who would could be described as my shadow,
how could that be insulting? Besides, I can't see where any comments
were made about my shadow, pro or con, only that it followed me around.
Doesn't your shadow do the same? I don't think any names were named, so
do you think that shoe actually fits somebody? That would be
surprising, indeed! If so, who would that be?

I think Don referred to somebody as the Cleveland Crusader, but who
would that be? The only NG poster that I know of who is living in Ohio
for certain is my close friend JimH, and he lives
in Avon Lake, Ohio- not Cleveland. Whom do you suppose Don had in mind?

Harry did warn me that my special friend Karen of OZ was likely to
weigh in with a negative remark or two because the name of the company
giving away the free tickets was included in the email I reposted. If
you check the thread, I believe you'll see that I told Harry that Karen
shouldn't have a problem with something being given away absolutely
free and with no strings attached...it's pretty hard to call that SPAM.
I sort of defended her against Harry's remark- but I expect no
particular thanks and that's a fact.

So no, Doc. That's not a pig pile. A pig pile has to have a victim,
does it not? No victim was named, no insults were posted (at least not
by me), and if your imagination leads you to conclude that a specific
person was at the bottom of the pile, you might want to ask yourself
why you would draw such a conclusion. Whose behavior would be so
singularly unique that you would just "assume" any negative comments
must be directed at that person? Whose behavior would be so destructive
that you would just "assume" the mere mention of a person's name or
general description of the person's behavior would have to be an
insult?

I'll be waiting to hear just who you think fits the general description
of my shadow, why you think that person would qualify, and why you
believe that being called a shadow is insulting. Should prove
interesting. At least then we'll have a clear idea of the identity of
the party upon whom you feel we pig piled. :-)

Kewl, Thanks for explaining the rules to me.


wrote in message
oups.com...
The bogus doctor quacked:

Would this qualify as a pig pile?

*******************************************

Hard to say. I only e-hummed a few bars of "me and my shadow".
Unless you know of somebody who would could be described as my shadow,
how could that be insulting? Besides, I can't see where any comments
were made about my shadow, pro or con, only that it followed me around.
Doesn't your shadow do the same? I don't think any names were named, so
do you think that shoe actually fits somebody? That would be
surprising, indeed! If so, who would that be?

I think Don referred to somebody as the Cleveland Crusader, but who
would that be? The only NG poster that I know of who is living in Ohio
for certain is my close friend JimH, and he lives
in Avon Lake, Ohio- not Cleveland. Whom do you suppose Don had in mind?

Harry did warn me that my special friend Karen of OZ was likely to
weigh in with a negative remark or two because the name of the company
giving away the free tickets was included in the email I reposted. If
you check the thread, I believe you'll see that I told Harry that Karen
shouldn't have a problem with something being given away absolutely
free and with no strings attached...it's pretty hard to call that SPAM.
I sort of defended her against Harry's remark- but I expect no
particular thanks and that's a fact.

So no, Doc. That's not a pig pile. A pig pile has to have a victim,
does it not? No victim was named, no insults were posted (at least not
by me), and if your imagination leads you to conclude that a specific
person was at the bottom of the pile, you might want to ask yourself
why you would draw such a conclusion. Whose behavior would be so
singularly unique that you would just "assume" any negative comments
must be directed at that person? Whose behavior would be so destructive
that you would just "assume" the mere mention of a person's name or
general description of the person's behavior would have to be an
insult?

I'll be waiting to hear just who you think fits the general description
of my shadow, why you think that person would qualify, and why you
believe that being called a shadow is insulting. Should prove
interesting. At least then we'll have a clear idea of the identity of
the party upon whom you feel we pig piled. :-)

"Dr. Dr. & Mr Karen Greer" wrote in message
...
Kewl, Thanks for explaining the rules to me.


Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules.

My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.

Who is "we"?

Are you self identifying as part of some group?
What group would that be?
Are the other members of the group pleased to be associated with you,
or are you merely assuming that they assent to inclusion?

Here's a free lesson in style and technique for you. Not that you would
ever consider posting an insult, of course, but if you were so inclined
there are more effective and less effective ways to go about it.

People who lack imagination and just don't do nuance at all, will post
"So and so is a such and such!" Fine, but you can hear the same on any
grade school playground in the country and most actual adults will
grant the tirade about an equal amount of credibility.

A more subtle, and probably more effective approach would be to
describe behavior, without naming names, and allow people to draw
personal conclusions about whether the description fits anyone they
know. If the reader associates a description of behavior with a
specific individual, there must be some reason for that association (at
least in the reader's mind). If the description of behavior is
inaccurate and without merit, then nobody will associate any particular
individual with the description and there hasn't been any insult.

For example: If you posted, "Gould is 11-feet tall, has green hair,
bathes once a year whether he needs to or not, cheats on his wife,
kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is plotting with Al Qaida to
overthrow the Bush Administration......" that would be a direct insult.
However, if you posted, "One of the posters to this group is 11-feet
tall, has green hair, bathes once a year whether he needs to or not,
cheats on his wife, kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is
plotting with Al Qaida to overthrow the Bush Administration......"
without naming any names, there is no direct insult. In fact, if my
*own behavior* had in no way already confirmed your charges, nobody
would have the slightest idea who you might be talking about.

Here's where it gets to be pretty funny, as well. After posting
something (for example) about the childish or destructive behavior of
an individual or group but without specficially naming anybody, the
denials and countercharges begin rolling in. IOW, the very people you
avoid identifying so often jump up and identify themselves.

As I said, no charge for the lesson. Why would I charge you for
something you will never use?
Just yesterday you posted that you carry on discussions without
resorting to personal insult, and why would I be inclined to brand you
a liar? Should you ever resort to insult, either as an aggressor or
defender in a discussion, consider taking a more subtle approach. It
stings your victim far worse than a mere "nonny nonny poo poo", if
that's what you have in mind to accomplish.

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"


Almost forgot: If the shoe fits.......

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"


Almost forgot:

PS Why the need to shadow me Chuck?

"Me and my shadow..." ;-)

Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.

Who is "we"?

Are you self identifying as part of some group?
What group would that be?
Are the other members of the group pleased to be associated with you,
or are you merely assuming that they assent to inclusion?

Here's a free lesson in style and technique for you. Not that you would
ever consider posting an insult, of course, but if you were so inclined
there are more effective and less effective ways to go about it.

People who lack imagination and just don't do nuance at all, will post
"So and so is a such and such!" Fine, but you can hear the same on any
grade school playground in the country and most actual adults will
grant the tirade about an equal amount of credibility.

A more subtle, and probably more effective approach would be to
describe behavior, without naming names, and allow people to draw
personal conclusions about whether the description fits anyone they
know. If the reader associates a description of behavior with a
specific individual, there must be some reason for that association (at
least in the reader's mind). If the description of behavior is
inaccurate and without merit, then nobody will associate any particular
individual with the description and there hasn't been any insult.

For example: If you posted, "Gould is 11-feet tall, has green hair,
bathes once a year whether he needs to or not, cheats on his wife,
kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is plotting with Al Qaida to
overthrow the Bush Administration......" that would be a direct insult.
However, if you posted, "One of the posters to this group is 11-feet
tall, has green hair, bathes once a year whether he needs to or not,
cheats on his wife, kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is
plotting with Al Qaida to overthrow the Bush Administration......"
without naming any names, there is no direct insult. In fact, if my
*own behavior* had in no way already confirmed your charges, nobody
would have the slightest idea who you might be talking about.

Here's where it gets to be pretty funny, as well. After posting
something (for example) about the childish or destructive behavior of
an individual or group but without specficially naming anybody, the
denials and countercharges begin rolling in. IOW, the very people you
avoid identifying so often jump up and identify themselves.

As I said, no charge for the lesson. Why would I charge you for
something you will never use?
Just yesterday you posted that you carry on discussions without
resorting to personal insult, and why would I be inclined to brand you
a liar? Should you ever resort to insult, either as an aggressor or
defender in a discussion, consider taking a more subtle approach. It
stings your victim far worse than a mere "nonny nonny poo poo", if
that's what you have in mind to accomplish.

"Dr. Dr. & Mr Karen Grear" wrote in message
...
Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.


Well didn't he say this:

"If the reader associates a description of behavior with a specific
individual, there must be some reason for that association (at least in the
reader's mind). If the description of behavior is inaccurate and without
merit, then nobody will associate any particular individual with the
description and there hasn't been any insult."

How absolutely delightful.