The Foe Feature

[The Hen]

I think you are getting my words confused now if you are projecting that on my posting.

Go well Lo, and in peace.

[Sean]

Dickhead! Read again and try and get your numb brain around what I posted about quoting ignored posters...

Yes, reading what you post does tend to numb my brain (an effect which some of my postings has surely had on others).

Yes, you suggested that if A is ignoring B, then B's postings ought to be invisible to A even when they are quoted by others.

No, I didn't suggest any such thing. I simply pointed out that quoted words of ignored posters are visible to ignoring posters, a fact that you seem to have some difficulty wrapping your amazing intellect around.

And as far as I can tell, this:

But claiming not to want to read the words of another poster, responding to that other poster's words when one feels like it, and not responding when challenged by that other poster?

That makes one a coward. And a liar.

is not applicable to you.

Why would you ever have thought that it might be?

You may have noticed, however, that Lord Jim continues to insist that behaving that way is perfectly fine.

You are right, it is not applicable to me.

You are wrong however in assuming that I thought it was.

[loCAtek]

Your new tools look just like your old tools, Hen.

BTW Sean, even if they agreed to it; the only way posters could know which posters not to quote, would be if everyone listed who they had on ignore. Also, many use the quote function to avoid confusion when responding to a post, or point made prior, sometimes by days. The thread can maintain its continuity that way.

[The Hen]

Your new tools look just like your old tools, Hen.

That is because they work very well for me.

It looks like you have chosen your usual tack of baseless accusations. Does that still work for you

[Andrew D]

You know, if the Foe feature could be amended so that quoted posts of ignored posters were not shown I for one would be very happy.

Yes, you suggested that if A is ignoring B, then B's postings ought to be invisible to A even when they are quoted by others.

No, I didn't suggest any such thing.

Huh?

[Sean]

So please be so kind as to point out where I suggested the posts ought to be invisible as you stated.

Take your time...

[Andrew D]

Okay.

The thing with which you would be "very happy" is not the thing which you think "ought" to occur.

Personally, I find that the things with which I am "very happy" are the things which I think "ought" to occur.

But maybe that's just me.

Hey, go one holding the things about which you are "very happy" and the things which you think "ought" to occur in your own private, separate universes.

You won't be the first person with a cognitive-dissociation problem, and you won't be the last.

There's medication for that.

I hope that it works out well for you.

[Sean]

Bollocks to that Andrew!

You are the first person to jump up and down and spit the dummy if you think that people are trying to put words into your mouth (keyboard).

Hypocrite perchance?

[Lord Jim]

if the Foe feature could be amended so that quoted posts of ignored posters were not shown I for one would be very happy.

you suggested that if A is ignoring B, then B's postings ought to be invisible to A even when they are quoted by others.

The fact that he apparently thinks that the concept of what would make one personally "very happy" and what "ought" to be are interchangeable is quite revealing, isn't it?

For those of us not suffering from narcissistic personality disorders, the difference is immediately apparent....

In the first case, you are saying what you would be happy with....

In the second, you are saying what you think "ought" to apply to everyone....

Only if you are incapable of distinguishing between what would make you "happy" and what everyone else "ought" to have as the rule, is the difference between those two difficult to understand....

If you believe that what would make you personally happy ought to be the rule for everyone, by definition, then you won't see a difference between the two...

[quaddriver]

if the Foe feature could be amended so that quoted posts of ignored posters were not shown I for one would be very happy.

you suggested that if A is ignoring B, then B's postings ought to be invisible to A even when they are quoted by others.

The fact that he apparently thinks that the concept of what would make one personally "very happy" and what "ought" to be are interchangeable is quite revealing, isn't it?

For those of us not suffering from narcissistic personality disorders, the difference is immediately apparent....

In the first case, you are saying what you would be happy with....

In the second, you are saying what you think "ought" to apply to everyone....

Only if you are incapable of distinguishing between what would make you "happy" and what everyone else "ought" to have as the rule, is the difference between those two difficult to understand....

If you believe that what would make you personally happy ought to be the rule for everyone, by definition, then you won't see a difference between the two...

For those that are purposefully dipshittish like LJ, the difference is immediate. Even if Andrew didnt include the word 'suggested'....

Go back to work on the cash machine. How is THAT working out?

[Sean]

How about those of us who don't particularly like Andrew (or anybody else for that matter) re-defining our words to fit his own agenda?

Where do we stand in your little world Quad?

[loCAtek]

Your new tools look just like your old tools, Hen.

That is because they work very well for me.

It looks like you have chosen your usual tack of baseless accusations. Does that still work for you

If you agree with my assessment, then they're not baseless.

[Andrew D]

Okay.

So saying that a change in a feature would make one "very happy" does not even suggest -- notice the word "suggested"; it is not synonymous with "demanded" or even with "urged" -- that such a change "ought" to be made.

The "everyone" thing is a product of a febrile imagination. Besides the fact that I was not the one who even hinted at a change in the foe feature, the foe feature has real-world application only to those who choose to employ it.

Many of us have chosen not to employ it. Last time I checked, we were still part of "everyone".

Maybe I am alone in this, but when something is done which I think "ought" not to be done, the doing of that thing does not make me "very happy". Even if it inures to my benefit. Perhaps especially if it inures to my benefit.

The capacity to see as a good thing -- as something which "ought" to be done -- something which does not inure to one's own benefit: narcissism? In what language?

[Sean]

Let me put it as simply as I can Andrew...
If I felt it 'ought' to be done, I would have used the word 'ought'. You may notice I didn't.

Mind you, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you. Your ego is too large to ever let you admit that your presumption was wrong...

[Andrew D]

Okay.

So you would be "very happy" with a change in a particular feature, but you do not think -- or, at least, you are not ready to commit yourself to thinking -- that that change "ought" to be made.

I can understand that. (And "commit yourself" is not intended to convey any disrespect. On the contrary, being of the mind that there is not only one reasonable position on an issue and choosing to reserve judgment is something which I respect very much.)

Do we still have a problem?

[Sean]

As long as you can acknowledge that the meaning you gave my words was presumptive and inaccurate then we don't have a problem.

It's a bit like this: If every member of this forum gave me all of their money I would be very happy. That, of course, is not to say that I believe that everyone ought to give me all of their money.


On the contrary, I firmly believe that each member should decide to give me all of their money of their own free will.






PM me and I'll give you my bank details...

[Andrew D]

Yes, I presumed that when you said that you would be "very happy" with something, you were suggesting -- merely suggesting -- that that thing "ought" to be done.

I was wrong.

I misperceived you.

I acknowledge my mistake.

Adverting to the foe feature, given that the feature is or will be built into whatever program (or set of programs or whatever; I have precious little grasp of techno stuff), what is your opinion about whether a "foe's" postings should be visible to an "anti-foe" when quoted by others? Should a block of that be built into however it is that this board works?

[Andrew D]

It's a bit like this: If every member of this forum gave me all of their money I would be very happy. That, of course, is not to say that I believe that everyone ought to give me all of their money.

On the contrary, I firmly believe that each member should decide to give me all of their money of their own free will.

Would you be really happy?

Reveling in the money, sure. But really happy?

If it were somehow decided that you "ought" to have all of their money, and you got it, would you be really happy?

I do not know the word for how I would feel. The legal term -- I tend to resort to legal terms; that should not be surprising -- for what had happened to me would be "unjustly enriched". But that describes what occurred, not what I feel about what occurred.

So how would I feel?

Not "guilty," because I would not have done anything wrong. I would not have done anything at all; the wealth would have just landed upon me.

Not "remorseful," for the same reason.

So what would be the word? What is the word for the feeling which one has when something has fallen into one's lap which inures to one's benefit, but the benefit is something which one never sought?

The adjective for the thing is obvious: undeserved.

But what is the word for the feeling which the occurrence of that thing occasions?

I do not know it. Do you? Does anyone?

[The Hen]

If you agree with my assessment, then they're not baseless.

Obviously I do not.

Peace be with you Lo.

[Sean]

Yes, I presumed that when you said that you would be "very happy" with something, you were suggesting -- merely suggesting -- that that thing "ought" to be done.

I was wrong.

I misperceived you.

I acknowledge my mistake.

Thank you Andrew. That is most gracious of you and much appreciated.

Adverting to the foe feature, given that the feature is or will be built into whatever program (or set of programs or whatever; I have precious little grasp of techno stuff), what is your opinion about whether a "foe's" postings should be visible to an "anti-foe" when quoted by others? Should a block of that be built into however it is that this board works?

To be honest, I think the technicalities of doing it would be nigh impossible. It seems to me that it would amount to posts which contain the ignored poster's name being automatically blocked from view. To set up such a 'search and destroy' function for each member sounds like a mammoth task. Not to mention the fact that you would end up blocking entire posts from other members which defeats the purpose somewhat.

On the other hand, I could then get away with posting things like, "Gob is a (loCAtek) nutless closet God-botherer who sits at home all day listening to his Vanilla Ice CDs".

That, of course, was a purely random example...