Thread: Fuck you, Eutychus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029982
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
This is not a major crime but it's the smugness and air of superiority that grates.

Also this is a discussion site, and asking questions of one another is part of discussion. Or we could shut the ship down and just google things ourselves. If I want to know your opinion I can google you and read your blog. No need to have a discussion board.

Fuck you.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is not a major crime but it's the smugness and air of superiority that grates.

Also this is a discussion site, and asking questions of one another is part of discussion. Or we could shut the ship down and just google things ourselves. If I want to know your opinion I can google you and read your blog. No need to have a discussion board.

Fuck you.
Nah, it's other people's smugness and air of superiority that grates.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nah, it's other people's smugness and air of superiority that grates.
Yep. And if my smugness and superiority grates on them, they can call me to Hell. If they have the gonads.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Bloody hell, Mousethief, all Eutychus did was post a link answering a question you'd posed about the meaning of a word - in this case a particular brand of toilet paper which a Shipmate had alluded to in relation to the popular saying about bears shitting in the woods.

As I read it, Eutychus was simply being wry and not out to offend your ever so sensitive sensibilities.

If he, or I or anyone else had simply said that Andrex is a brand of toilet tissue would you have called us to Hell?

If you'd alluded - as you and other US posters often do - to a particular brand or product line less familiar to people elsewhere and someone asked you to clarify what you meant, I wouldn't object if they teasingly posted a link with a slight jibe about looking it up for myself.

I see it as an over-reaction on your part but that's as may be.

I also fail to see how it militates against debate. It was an aside. We weren't debating the respective strength, absorbency or other fit-for-purpose arse-wiping qualities of Andrex as opposed to supermarket own brands or other brands that bears might procur for their arboreal ablutions.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am sort of on mousethiefs side here (which makes a change).

The Let me google that for you site was set up to make a pointed jibe at someone asking a question. It is rude to provide a link to that - a pas-agg rudeness true, but rude nonetheless.

I think it was perfectly reasonable of MT to ask for clarification of a comment - and get an answer that was in context.

Having said that, MT can be, and has been, an arrogant, rude, and pas-agg twat at times, so there is something of a pot-kettle-colour competition here.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I admit to occasionally seeing a word used here that I don't recognise. But, since it's so easy to Google an unknown word (on my browser it's a simple matter of highlighting the word, and a right click gives me a "search Google for ... " option that gives me the answer in a new tab) I don't usually ask. Of course there are times when the meaning I gain from that is ambiguous and in context could affect what is being said - then it makes sense to ask what exactly is meant. But, using a common brand for loo-roll when giving a variation on the "do bears shit in the woods?" question doesn't affect the discussion.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
If it had been a link to, say, the Wikipedia article, I'd be prepared to defend Eutychus. By linking to the Let me Google that for you site he made it an "asking questions for clarification invites derision" response. That I do find unacceptable.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm filing this under "Hell Calls So Lame They're Awesome".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If it had been a link to, say, the Wikipedia article, I'd be prepared to defend Eutychus. By linking to the Let me Google that for you site he made it an "asking questions for clarification invites derision" response. That I do find unacceptable.
A wiki entry would be overkill. The line of images of packs of loo roll with "Andrex" splattered across them that Eutychus provided via Google is more than adequate.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
So a link to the image. The point is that the response was 'asking questions shows that you're stupid'.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Asking questions that can be answered in less time than it takes to type them (I just timed it. It took me no more than 10s to get to the Google page with that line of images of loo roll) is a waste of time - yours and everyone elses. I think "stupid" is a perfectly reasonable description.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Eutychus IS Doug Piranha!

(Everyone in Britain over the age of 50 chuckles appreciatively. Everyone else just stares.)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Everyone else googles it and stares at the wiki entry you mean.

[ 09. June 2016, 10:05: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Eutychus IS Doug Piranha!

(Everyone in Britain over the age of 50 chuckles appreciatively. Everyone else just stares.)
Except me, that is, I haven't a clue what you're on about. No! Don't tell me! I want to google it myself!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Dinsdale!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
(Note: This situation has already been worked out, peacefully.)

Trying to find out the definition of a term can be tricky. On the "Why, Justin, Why?" thread in Purg, the word "faculty" was used, over and over, in an Anglican church context. Everyone seemed to know what it meant. I didn't. It clearly didn't mean an ability, or a group of teachers. I checked a British dictionary, but nothing relevant. So I asked on the thread, and got several answers. Q & A solved a very annoying situation.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So a link to the image. The point is that the response was 'asking questions shows that you're stupid'.
I got no image. Just as well I've seen the ads. And yes, posting that link was insulting. Kick ass, MT. [Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, there is a difference. A common word used in an unfamiliar context is something that would be hard work to find out what that meaning is. Especially if the work has been done to try and work out what it means in that context. None of us worry about helping people understand something, especially when that is central to the discussion.

Not being bothered to take the 10s to Google an unfamiliar word is a different situation. That's just laziness.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Tried again, and after a few seconds got a list of answers - or the answer. Still insulting. Keep on kicking ass, MT.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You and me both. I'm Anglican (I suppose ... [Biased] ) but I had no clue what 'faculty' meant in the context of that thread.

Perhaps my ego is bigger than Mousethief's in that I was too proud to post a question asking for qualification.

Whatever the case, let's not get into an ego-waving contest.

[Help]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kicking ass? Sounds like you're licking ass, Jacobsen ...

I mean, c'mon. If someone Googled 'faculty' they'd get all manner of references that would need interpreting, placing in context, further investigation ...

When you Google 'Andrex' all you can possibly come up with are details of what we used to call 'bog rolls' when I was a kid.

I mean c'mon. It's not fucking difficult.

If Eutychus deserves a 'fuck you' from Mousethief then Mousethief deserves a 'Suck it up you lazy tosser ...' from the rest of us.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Wish I'd just said "arse-wipe" now...
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Dinsdale!
Definitely Doug.

Vercotti: Doug (takes a drink) Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.

2nd Interviewer: What did he do?

Vercotti: He used... sarcasm.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gamaliel--

Well, I looked up Andrex, earlier in this thread. However, I used DuckDuckGo, as I usually do. In addition to toilet paper, there's the puppy from their ads, an actor, a conduit manufacturer, a real estate holding company, music, LinkedIn listings, a drug...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think it was perfectly reasonable of MT to ask for clarification of a comment - and get an answer that was in context.

Having said that, MT can be, and has been, an arrogant, rude, and pas-agg twat at times, so there is something of a pot-kettle-colour competition here.
Two things.

When I am agg, I am usually act-agg.

If people think I am being arrogant, rude, or agg, they can call me to Hell. And have. Don't like my behavior? Too lazy to call me to hell? Suck it up, dearie.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Re. lazy: Using "Let Me Google That For You" is the definition of lazy for someone who wants to be snarky but lacks the ability to come up with something snarky on their own. For people with the will but without the means. Too lazy or too stupid to think up something snarky to say, they let somebody else (makers of the website) be snarky for them.

Calling me lazy in this context is toooooo funny.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gamaliel--

Well, I looked up Andrex, earlier in this thread. However, I used DuckDuckGo, as I usually do. In addition to toilet paper, there's the puppy from their ads, an actor, a conduit manufacturer, a real estate holding company, music, LinkedIn listings, a drug...
Smart-arse.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Re. lazy: Using "Let Me Google That For You" is the definition of lazy for someone who wants to be snarky but lacks the ability to come up with something snarky on their own. For people with the will but without the means. Too lazy or too stupid to think up something snarky to say, they let somebody else (makers of the website) be snarky for them.

Calling me lazy in this context is toooooo funny.
Ok, let's forget 'lazy' then, how about hyper-sensitive?
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
What does "snarky" mean? And who is Dane Cook?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gamaliel--

Well, I looked up Andrex, earlier in this thread. However, I used DuckDuckGo, as I usually do. In addition to toilet paper, there's the puppy from their ads, an actor, a conduit manufacturer, a real estate holding company, music, LinkedIn listings, a drug...
Smart-arse.
[Smile] Hey, you're the one who proclaimed there couldn't possibly be any other results!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's not about the number of results. It's about how easily the answer to the question is reached. And, when the question is "what does Andrex mean?" following a post that finishes with a comment about bears in woods then the loo-roll will be immediately obvious as the right answer in the context of the question. If the loo-roll is on the first page of whatever search engine you use then that's good enough.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Re. lazy: Using "Let Me Google That For You" is the definition of lazy for someone who wants to be snarky but lacks the ability to come up with something snarky on their own. For people with the will but without the means. Too lazy or too stupid to think up something snarky to say, they let somebody else (makers of the website) be snarky for them.

Calling me lazy in this context is toooooo funny.
Ok, let's forget 'lazy' then, how about hyper-sensitive?
How about couldn't sleep, got up early, posting while caffiene level low?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If people think I am being arrogant, rude, or agg, they can call me to Hell. And have. Don't like my behavior? Too lazy to call me to hell? Suck it up, dearie.
That is why I am in two minds about this call, because usually this sort of behaviour doesn't warrant a call. It doesn't mean it isn't irritating. It is just part of being a community.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nah, it's other people's smugness and air of superiority that grates.
I really don't have much to add to that pithy appraisal.

And at least I can cross having my own personal call to Hell off my bucket list.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
What does "snarky" mean? And who is Dane Cook?
1. Very funny.
2. Not funny.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
What does "snarky" mean? And who is Dane Cook?
You could google that.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nah, it's other people's smugness and air of superiority that grates.
I really don't have much to add to that pithy appraisal.

And at least I can cross having my own personal call to Hell off my bucket list.
Congrats!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
That is why I am in two minds about this call, because usually this sort of behaviour doesn't warrant a call. It doesn't mean it isn't irritating. It is just part of being a community.
I think this is a misunderstanding of what Hell is for. Hell is not for having knock-down drag-out fights, so that if Alexander Hamilton wouldn't consider it duel-worthy, it shouldn't have a hell call. This is the inane attitude that leads people to rate hell calls on some kind of scale, like construction workers putting numbers on women walking by.

The purpose of Hell is to contain the personal. Even if the personal is mere irritation, if it is going to be aired, it belongs in Hell and not somewhere else.

And Eutychus needed to hear that his prickish passive-aggressive "let me google that for you" was the behavior of a horse's ass. I'm not going to put water in his gas tank over it. But I am going to tell him. And the only place to tell him is here.

Don't like it? There are over a hundred other threads on the ship. Ta-ta. Don't let the door hit your backside, fuckwit.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief, emphasis mine:
The purpose of Hell is to contain the personal. Even if the personal is mere irritation, if it is going to be aired, it belongs in Hell and not somewhere else.
Do you seriously think people should get called to Hell every time they provoke mere irritation?

You are a past master in provoking "mere irritation" that manages (usually) to sneak in under the radar of the Ten Commandments, and I'm sure your response if you were to be called down here every time you do it would be, um, outrage.

But if you feel you're being given just one poke back*, however mild the irritation it seems you just have to drag the perpetrator down here and pour invective on them.

==

*Or deem you are not being supplied, for any post on any thread, with a complete, exhaustive, customised brief on the backstory, meaning and context of every subject mentioned, even in passing or in jest, tailored to augment, enhance, and benefit (in doses to your exact taste), your personal precise level of knowledge on the matter and terminology in hand. I just realised you have form on this.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Perhaps we need to call people to Hell for the mild irritation of them interrupting a discussion with a question that Google would have answered in less time than it takes for the question to be asked. The irritation of having to scroll past a stupid question to get back to the discussion.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Re. lazy: Using "Let Me Google That For You" is the definition of lazy for someone who wants to be snarky but lacks the ability to come up with something snarky on their own. For people with the will but without the means. Too lazy or too stupid to think up something snarky to say, they let somebody else (makers of the website) be snarky for them.

Calling me lazy in this context is toooooo funny.
Ok, let's forget 'lazy' then, how about hyper-sensitive?
How about couldn't sleep, got up early, posting while caffiene level low?
I thought Sioni's explanation was the most rational, charitable and likely under the circumstances, until I read Mousethief's subsequent posts.

I'm hardly the one to talk, but I've always found the following aphorism to be good advice, 'If you're in a hole, stop digging.'

Now Mousethief simply sounds like a petulant hissy-fit cheerleader on an outing of the Petulant Hissy-Fit Cheerleaders' Association.

Everyone's individual mileage varies, as they say here aboard Ship, but I'd have thought the most Eutychus's interjection would have caused would be mild irritation at the most.

I agree with Doc Tor. This has to be one of the lamest Hell-Calls I've yet seen.

Frankly, I'm also surprised. I like Mousethief and thought he could do better than this.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I am going to tell him. And the only place to tell him is here.
Or a PM. Which is much more appropriate.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Not really, pms are governed by the same rules as the rest of the boards. Telling someone to go f themselves in a pm would be severely frowned on I believe.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now Mousethief simply sounds like a petulant hissy-fit cheerleader on an outing of the Petulant Hissy-Fit Cheerleaders' Association.
Whoa, pot and kettle time! At least my hissy fits aren't novellas.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Just because you write more succinctly doesn't mean you don't write shite at times.

Not always, of course ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just because you write more succinctly doesn't mean you don't write shite at times.

Not always, of course ...
I try to be considerate of my detractors; it takes them far less time to scroll past me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Indeed; you are not soft, strong, and very very long.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Are you suggesting that mousethief is the Ship's Izal?
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
What's Izal?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Just don't attempt to use the shiny side.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
What's Izal?
According to Wikipedia, it's either an English disinfectant or a Spanish rock group. Leading one to wonder if simply googling things really enables one to figure out what the fuck someone on the ship is talking about.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Why are you all disparaging Fernandel's friend?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
What's Izal?
According to Wikipedia, it's either an English disinfectant or a Spanish rock group.
Or, right at the top of the list various references to a rough and distinctly nasty type of loo-roll, beloved of schools and other institutions.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just don't attempt to use the shiny side.
Thank God you can't get it any more. My aunt always had Izal and I never understood why. If you think it looks like tracing paper, you're right, it does.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
What's Izal?
According to Wikipedia, it's either an English disinfectant or a Spanish rock group.
Or, right at the top of the list various references to a rough and distinctly nasty type of loo-roll, beloved of schools and other institutions.
Are you seeing the same page I am? There's nothing about bog roll on this page.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sorry, misread - I thought you said Google (since the whole thread is about Googling things) rather than Wikipedia.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(General question to everyone) Ever notice when we have a rape thread running everybody starts to get petty and pissy everywhere else?

( Sorry, Pissy, that just seemed the best word.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sorry, misread - I thought you said Google (since the whole thread is about Googling things) rather than Wikipedia.
Nothing like reading. I did Google. And the first hit was Wikipedia. Everything else above the fold was the rock band. Sometimes googling isn't the easiest way to find out something. Sometimes asking somebody is the easiest way. Unless that somebody is an asshole. Like Eutychus.

From one of the creators of LMGTFY
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You choose to take offence at something that, by your own lights, was a source of mild irritation. If you were called to Hell every time you were mildly irritating, we might as well rename Hell "mousethief".

Andrex was an aside to an aside. If you can't make a leap of imagination from Chesterbelloc's tangential comment about bears excreting in the forest to understanding what Andrex might be, does it really matter that much in that context? Is demanding an explanation really the most constructive way of proceeding, or is it just an invitation to thread derailment?

And then there's the how. I have never seen anybody suffer for saying something along the lines of "I've been trying to follow this discussion, and I really don't understand what 'x' [where 'x' is recurring and relevant to the discussion] is. I've Googled it and I'm no further forward. Can somebody help me out here?" - as people often do.

That is rather a long way from demanding explanations of some incidental term you happen not to understand as though you had some inalienable right to an answer by virtue of being, well, you.

[ 11. June 2016, 11:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is rather a long way from demanding explanations of some incidental term you happen not to understand as though you had some inalienable right to an answer by virtue of being, well, you.
I asked for the meaning of a word. I didn't demand explanations -- which orifice did you pull that out of?

Yes, I know, how dare I call you out when you were being cutesy and clever. How it must sting.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I asked for the meaning of a word. I didn't demand explanations -- which orifice did you pull that out of?
Which, as has been patiently explained to you several times here, it would have taken you less time to understand by Googling than it would to type an explanation, of an entirely tangential term.

It's an attitude. You expect others to do the work if their posts aren't just as intelligible as you'd like them, right down to the offhand jokes.

quote:
Yes, I know, how dare I call you out when you were being cutesy and clever. How it must sting.
I didn't think I was being cutesy and clever, and it doesn't sting in the slightest.

Neither does it surprise me in the least. What it does confirm to me is that you can't take a single tiny dose of your own practice of creating "mild irritation" with the indulgence with which you expect everyone else to take yours.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I didn't think I was being cutesy and clever, and it doesn't sting in the slightest.
So why did you use LMGTFY? Its whole purpose is being cutesy and clever. That's why it exists. To insult someone in a cutesy and clever way. Otherwise you could just say "look it up you lazy jerk" or equivalent.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
To see whether you would take it as a wry invitation to reflect on how your post came across, and do the work yourself next time - an entirely reasonable expectation - or take offence and call me to Hell.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To see whether you would take it as a wry invitation to reflect on how your post came across, and do the work yourself next time - an entirely reasonable expectation - or take offence and call me to Hell.
Really? You admit you were trying to get me to call you to Hell, and now you're all pissy about the fact that I called you to Hell? Even for you this is stupid.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's not what I said at all.

I thought you could do with a nudge about, as I saw it, spuriously asking for an explanation of a tangential term which it would have been quicker, simpler and less disruptive for you to seek out yourself.

I did that on the back of your long history of asides that qualify, at the least, in my mind as "mild irritation".

But I also entertained the possibility that you might just decide to take offence at a taste of your own medicine, and, well, here we are.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I can promise you I have never sent anybody to LMGTFY. I find it rude and tellingly ego-stroking (for the person who uses it). A hardon generator for people who think they're cleverer-than-thou. (Or "wry" if you insist. Same diff in this application.) If you had called me a fucking moron I would have nodded it off. Far better people than you do so at least once a month. But that website really gets under my skin.

ETA: At any rate thank you for engaging. One of the points of a hell call is to hammer things out, and one can't hammer anything out if one party refuses to hammer.

[ 11. June 2016, 12:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is not a major crime
Actually, it isn't a crime at all, at least in my Hostly eyes. Even if it was a bit sarcastic. As I learned from RuthW when under training donkey's years ago, sarcasm per se isn't a C3 offence.

None of which invalidates the Hell call of course. mousethief is simply exercising his freedom to vent his pissed-offness. But I thought I'd clarify the rules point.

The Styx is up thataway if anyone is interested in pursuing the point.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is not a major crime
Actually, it isn't a crime at all, at least in my Hostly eyes. Even if it was a bit sarcastic. As I learned from RuthW when under training donkey's years ago, sarcasm per se isn't a C3 offence.

None of which invalidates the Hell call of course. mousethief is simply exercising his freedom to vent his pissed-offness. But I thought I'd clarify the rules point.

The Styx is up thataway if anyone is interested in pursuing the point.
Thanks, B. If I had thought he had broken ship's rule I would have sent a PM to a host. I didn't mean to imply he had done so. It were a bit of hyperbole.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that website really gets under my skin.
Well I had no way of knowing that. (Suddenly I feel like Nathan saying to David "you are the man").

But as explained above, the point has nothing to do with that specific website.

The point was, from one shipmate to another, to provoke some thought about "mild irritation" and how it is best dealt with, by the dispenser (in terms of thought before posting) and the receiver (about not being easily offended).

If I have succeeded in that, then so much the better.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that website really gets under my skin.
Well I had no way of knowing that. (Suddenly I feel like Nathan saying to David "you are the man").

But as explained above, the point has nothing to do with that specific website.

The point was, from one shipmate to another, to provoke some thought about "mild irritation" and how it is best dealt with, by the dispenser (in terms of thought before posting) and the receiver (about not being easily offended).

If I have succeeded in that, then so much the better.
Wait, I don't understand. You posted a link to LMGTFY to make a point about mild irritation? That makes no sense at all.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[brick wall]

Your asking "What's Andrex?" in lapidary and tangential fashion was, to my mind,

a) disruptive.

The term was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and could have been guessed from the bears-in-the-woods context with a little thought or imagination. Potentially, your question paved the way for the kind of spanner-in-the-works tangent that derails a perfectly decent thread.

b) rude.

(i) Rude because the term was tangential; why should anyone else waste their time supplying you with an explanation for such an inconsequential detail when it would have been so easy for you to find out yourself?

(ii) Rude because you didn't use wording which communicated to people that

(ii)(1) not knowing was a genuine impediment to you understanding the discussion at hand (it clearly wasn't)

(ii)(2) you had made a reasonable attempt to work out what it meant yourself (you clearly hadn't) and were still none the wiser.

To spell it out, as far as I can tell, normal practice is to go through these stages and then (and only then) post a request for clarification - as outlined in (1) and (2) above*. This point of netiquette seems to have completely passed you by.

c) Symptomatic of your tendency to be disruptive with throwaway comments that are tangential to the thrust of a thread.

It was therefore "mildly irritating".

So I thought I would answer you, somewhat provocatively but within the 10Cs, as you so often do yourself.

You could perfectly well have taken this as an indication that your comment might have been any or all of a), b) (especially) or c) above, taken the point, said nothing, and who knows? been given pause for thought about the cumulative effects of your own "minor irritations".

But I did think there was a chance you would completely fail to see any of that, choose to take offence, and call me to Hell. I certainly wasn't going to bother doing that myself, because people would say (as they indeed have) "what a lame thead". But since you've brought us down here, here we are hammering it out.

==

*Just in case you think I don't practise what I'm preaching here, here is an example (from another forum) of me doing more or less that; if you scroll down a couple of posts, you'll see that I get a polite and helpful answer on a topic for which I'm a complete ignoramus compared to most of the other posters. The site is also heavily moderated before posts are approved, so I clearly didn't come across as rude or disruptive.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that website really gets under my skin.
[files under "useful information for annoying Shipmates"]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Rides past on a giant billy goat
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[brick wall]

Your asking "What's Andrex?" in lapidary and tangential fashion was, to my mind,

a) disruptive.

The term was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, <...>

b) rude.

(i) Rude because the term was tangential; <...>

Jesus H. Christ on a white palfrey. You'd think there had never been a tangent before in the history of the Ship. You poor dear.

quote:
Symptomatic of your tendency to be disruptive with throwaway comments that are tangential to the thrust of a thread.
It wasn't a comment it was a question. One that could be so easily answered with two words. The thread would have flowed on around it and it would have been soon forgotten. You make it out like it's a fucking capital offense. With formal outline form and all. My God what a tosser you are.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
With formal outline form and all.
This in response to repeated complaints from you that you don't understand what all this is about, and after an indication that you welcome interaction to clear up misunderstanding, or "hammer things out" as you put it.

I spend far too long making it as plain as I know how, in good faith, and all you can do is go and piss all over my efforts without engaging with any of the substantive points at all.

Once again, if responses don't come exactly as you'd like them (and possibly, spell things out just a little too clearly for your own comfort), you just take that as a licence to insult freely, don't you? Whether it's outright invective as down here, or little barbs elsewhere.

I guess we can look forward to lots more throwaway lines from you, followed by dumb Hell calls from you, if your little stink bombs aren't taken in just the way you seek to dictate.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread would have flowed on around it and it would have been soon forgotten. You make it out like it's a fucking capital offense.
That applies equally to your response to my LMGTFY by virtue of your Hell call, whatever you say in your OP. You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill here, not me.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[brick wall] [...]
Stop digging, Euty, mate.

<gets popcorn, turns off the footy on the telly, and sits back to watch the battle unfold> [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread would have flowed on around it and it would have been soon forgotten. You make it out like it's a fucking capital offense.
That applies equally to your response to my LMGTFY by virtue of your Hell call, whatever you say in your OP. You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill here, not me.
Cute. You say I don't respond to your content, then respond to my response to your content. How can anyone take you seriously at this point?

Your point basically is you were punishing me for disturbing a thread and for being lazy. Punishing me in-thread rather than calling me to Hell. How presumptuous can you get! Like it's your fucking job to police the threads and make sure people who don't behave in just the way you like are made to feel a little bit of shame, or at least to know that they have been twitted by a superior being. This alone is worthy of a Hell call.

[ 11. June 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your point basically is you were punishing me for disturbing a thread and for being lazy. Punishing me in-thread rather than calling me to Hell.
It wasn't punishment, and it wasn't worth a Hell call. It gave you the information you wanted, in a way that might have made you think about how you asked it. This obviously pushed the wrong buttons for you due to your hatred of LMGTFY. So be it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... in a way that might have made you think ...
It's not your call to make me think. Self-righteous asshole. "Presumptuous" needs more synonyms. I should look it up. Hmm. Nah.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Cute. You say I don't respond to your content, then respond to my response to your content.
I note you missed this part. Just as you missed the part where I responded to your content. Until you didn't. Dickfor.

[ 11. June 2016, 16:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Rides past on a giant billy goat
Kind of like watching a couple of chimpanzees play "Mirror," isn't it?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Simple, appropriate two-word response to Arse-Thief in this instance:

'Fuck off.'
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Simple, appropriate two-word response to Arse-Thief in this instance:

'Fuck off.'
If only! God, how welcome that would have been. Instead of the Thought Police trying to instill thoughts in my brain because I dared to ask a question about a brand name.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your call to make me think.
It's not yours to order me to take every minor irritation to Hell.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Cute. You say I don't respond to your content, then respond to my response to your content.
I note you missed this part. Just as you missed the part where I responded to your content. Until you didn't. Dickfor.
I'm getting dizzy, but let me ask you this. If I'd posted
quote:
Google is your friend
on the Purg thread, would you have called me to Hell?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Simple, appropriate two-word response to Arse-Thief in this instance:

'Fuck off.'
If only! God, how welcome that would have been. Instead of the Thought Police trying to instill thoughts in my brain because I dared to ask a question about a brand name.
See? You're no better. You want people to respond to being irked by you by hurling invective. What gives you the right to dictate that?

[ 11. June 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your call to make me think.
It's not yours to order me to take every minor irritation to Hell.
Reference, please.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Cute. You say I don't respond to your content, then respond to my response to your content.
I note you missed this part. Just as you missed the part where I responded to your content. Until you didn't. Dickfor.
Dear God, you're a peach. You quote this but still don't respond to it! Bahahahashaha! Bahahahahahaha!

quote:
I'm getting dizzy, but let me ask you this. If I'd posted
quote:
Google is your friend
on the Purg thread, would you have called me to Hell?
No.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Simple, appropriate two-word response to Arse-Thief in this instance:

'Fuck off.'
If only! God, how welcome that would have been. Instead of the Thought Police trying to instill thoughts in my brain because I dared to ask a question about a brand name.
See? You're no better. You want people to respond to being irked by you by hurling invective. What gives you the right to dictate that?
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It might be a good idea to google it. Oh shit! Did I just dictate something? Mea maxima culpa!

__________
my most grievous fault (roughly)

[ 11. June 2016, 16:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:

If I'd posted
quote:
Google is your friend
on the Purg thread, would you have called me to Hell?
No.
Ah. Clarity and not invective. So would it be fair for you to admit that it was the use of LMGTFY (in complete ignorance of any negative associations of this site for you), and not pointing you to Google, that pushed your buttons?

[ 11. June 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
In case you missed it, which seems all too likely, let me spell it out for you:

"You want people to do X" and "You dictate [that people do X]" aren't the same thing. Not even close. Not within shouting distance. Not on the same continent even.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So would it be fair for you to admit that it was the use of LMGTFY (in complete ignorance of any negative associations of this site for you), and not pointing you to Google, that pushed your buttons?
Here, let me remember that for you.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your call to make me think.
It's not yours to order me to take every minor irritation to Hell.
Reference, please.
You said here that
quote:
The purpose of Hell is to contain the personal. Even if the personal is mere irritation, if it is going to be aired, it belongs in Hell and not somewhere else.
I repsonded to that directly in the very next post, but you didn't come back to me at all. Which comes across as "I couldn't care less about your objections, my way of seeing things is what's valid, end of."

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dear God, you're a peach. You quote this but still don't respond to it! Bahahahashaha! Bahahahahahaha!
Could I have simply ignored your question? Yes. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Is calling me to Hell just because I used LMGTFY to answer it justified? I don't think so.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your call to make me think.
It's not yours to order me to take every minor irritation to Hell.
Reference, please.
You said here that
quote:
The purpose of Hell is to contain the personal. Even if the personal is mere irritation, if it is going to be aired, it belongs in Hell and not somewhere else.
I repsonded to that directly in the very next post, but you didn't come back to me at all. Which comes across as "I couldn't care less about your objections, my way of seeing things is what's valid, end of."
I did not order you to do anything, nor have I anywhere in this thread demanded anything. You precious poppet. If someone asks a question, they're demanding clarification. If someone says they prefer active to passive aggression, they're demanding something. Just stating a preference is DEMANDING to you! My God, it must be tough for you to get along in the world. I see nothing in the thing you quoted that would indicate I was ordering you to do anything. Another word whose meaning you don't know.

quote:
Could I have simply ignored your question? Yes. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Is calling me to Hell just because I used LMGTFY to answer it justified? I don't think so.
Who gives a fuck what you think is or is not worthy of a Hell call?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see nothing in the thing you quoted that would indicate I was ordering you to do anything. Another word whose meaning you don't know.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had a monoply on hyperbole, and none of that explains why you chose not to engage on whether Hell is to vent "mere irritation".
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who gives a fuck what you think is or is not worthy of a Hell call?
Rather than acknowledge my concession, you prefer to seize on my use of "think". What's come over you since this?
quote:
At any rate thank you for engaging. One of the points of a hell call is to hammer things out, and one can't hammer anything out if one party refuses to hammer.
Is this about "hammering it out" or not?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see nothing in the thing you quoted that would indicate I was ordering you to do anything. Another word whose meaning you don't know.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had a monoply on hyperbole, and none of that explains why you chose not to engage on whether Hell is to vent "mere irritation".
I have already said what I thought Hell was for -- to contain personal disagreement. Do I need to give you a link to where I say that, too? Your powers of memory are waning. Although I don't remember if they were every very strong.

As for "hyperbole", you have taken offense at several things I have said and hyperbolized (so you say) it all as "ordering" and "demanding." Those words have specific meanings, and "demand" is not hyperbole for "prefer" in any context frequented by native speakers of English. Because of course there is no dudgeon in "prefer." You can't have a hissy fit with "And you have the audacity to prefer blah blah blah." No, you have to change it to "demand" to make it stick. So it's not hyperbole, it's a straw man. "Hyperbole," then, turns out to be yet another word you don't know how to use properly.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who gives a fuck what you think is or is not worthy of a Hell call?
Rather than acknowledge my concession, you prefer to seize on my use of "think".
Wait, that was a concession? You are just full of word abuse today. Or incapable of writing a concession that looks like a concession and not yet more passive aggression.

You don't know how to lose gracefully.

quote:
Is this about "hammering it out" or not?
Hammering it out requires, well, hammering. As long as you keep posting passive aggressive twits, I will keep returning with active aggressive twits, which I demand -- sorry, prefer.

[ 11. June 2016, 17:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have already said what I thought Hell was for -- to contain personal disagreement.
That's not all you said. You went on to say
quote:
Even if the personal is mere irritation, if it is going to be aired, it belongs in Hell and not somewhere else
I responded to that, and you completely ignored my response. That's an odd way of dealing with disagreement.

quote:
Wait, that was a concession?
I conceded that yes, I could have simply ignored your question. It wasn't such a big deal. You conceded that if I hadn't had recourse to LMGTFY (in ignorance of you being especially incensed by that site in particuler), you wouldn't have called me to Hell. I wasn't intending to be passive-aggressive in my answer.
quote:
You don't know how to lose gracefully.
Oh, so "hammering it out" is a zero-sum game, is it? "One party refusing to hammer" simply means not providing you with a punching-ball? How does that square with Hell being to contain personal disagreement?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That was composed prior to your edit, by the way.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Since both of you morons are on deck, I have to ask -- who wins in a moron contest?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Indeed.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I vote MT thread winner on the grounds of being slightly more fun to read, and having a point.

Lmgtfy is intended to be sarcastic, it seems to me legit to be annoyed about someone posting that in response to one question. Were it the 17th question, then I'd be more leaning in Euty's direction.

[ 11. June 2016, 17:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I'm on Team Eutychus. He had a valid point to make and he's argued his point well and coherently. Go Eutychus!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Since both of you morons are on deck, I have to ask -- who wins in a moron contest?
Me.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Since both of you morons are on deck, I have to ask -- who wins in a moron contest?
Me.
Does that mean you, as winner, are the moron?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I vote MT thread winner on the grounds of being slightly more fun to read, and having a point.

Lmgtfy is intended to be sarcastic, it seems to me legit to be annoyed about someone posting that in response to one question. Were it the 17th question, then I'd be more leaning in Euty's direction.
This.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Indeed.
Having returned to this thread with that precise cartoon in mind, I'll take mousethief's acceptance of the award for moronity, admit the passive-agressiveness of LMGTFY, and hope to leave it there.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Since both of you morons are on deck, I have to ask -- who wins in a moron contest?
Me.
Does that mean you, as winner, are the moron?
Not THE moron, but the winning moron. I can live with that. I could live with being the losing moron, if I had lost, but I didn't.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Indeed.
Having returned to this thread with that precise cartoon in mind, I'll take mousethief's acceptance of the award for moronity, admit the passive-agressiveness of LMGTFY, and hope to leave it there.
I'm good with that. I demand that the hosts close the thread.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hmm. Let me take a few hours and some beer to consider your request. Also, Die Hard's on the telly...

DT
HH
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yippee kai-yay, motherfucker.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Wow. Thank you both, gentlemen - that was, um, epic. But rather exhausting. Sorry to have been the proximate if entirely incidental cause of such a tremendous trifle.

All we need now is for Russ to come along and aver that the Catholic Church is being authoritarian in its insistence that as a condition of conversion women are forced to accept the purely cultural norm of using Andrex, over which it has a monopoly, rather than another bog roll when breaking in to the facilities in the men-only, world's-only golf course of salvation. Or something.

Let's have the thread closed before that happens.

[ 11. June 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Chester, you little shit stirrer. NOW you show up? NOW, after all the pain and bloodshed you've caused? Poor Euty will be forced to live with the stigma of being the second biggest moron on the Ship. Just because you had to be cute about toilet tissue references. Are you proud? I ask you, man, are you proud???

( Well you should be, because you're right, this was epic.)

[ 11. June 2016, 21:58: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Let's have the thread closed before that happens.
As soon as the host is sufficiently lubricated.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Chester, you little shit stirrer. NOW you show up? NOW, after all the pain and bloodshed you've caused? Poor Euty will be forced to live with the stigma of being the second biggest moron on the Ship.
Demotions are hard.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Chyort voz'mi.

Thread closed.

DT
HH
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0