Is heavy questioning appropriate in light threads?

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1407817 wrote: No, i got the light and fluffy part just fine and was enjoying that part as well, if you go back and reread my earlier posts. But as I looked into the Darwin Awards, of which I'd never heard of before, it dawned on me that the linking of this particular radio broadcast was odd, and so i inquired. There's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps how i posed my question was more blunt than it could have been, and as i said, I'm up for that criticism. Like bruv and snooze, I'm not always very tactful in my questioning because I like to be sure my meaning comes across the first time around.

In no way was i looking for a fight here, though it appears others were lying in wait for one. The defensive posture and personality this forum has taken on is troubling, and should be of concern to you.


If you got the light and fluffy then I'd have to say that your manner did not just come across as blunt but as aggressive under the circumstances - light and fluffy is hardly the place for heavy questioning.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1407831 wrote: If you got the light and fluffy then I'd have to say that your manner did not just come across as blunt but as aggressive under the circumstances - light and fluffy is hardly the place for heavy questioning.There's no question that you're correct on how my question was interpreted, or taken, if you will. That goes to the state of mind or emotional state of the person[s] reading it. To some it may be blunt and to others it may be aggressive. The fact that it appeared aggressive to many here indicates a shared mentality. My question would have died long ago had it been simply ignored rather than jumped on. If I had then insisted on an answer then I could see where aggression could be claimed. That 's not the case here, go back and reread the thread. I had reasoned that my questions would probably go unanswered and I was okay with that. I then reiterated that after some posts.

Should it be assumed now that any light hearted post in any serious thread is no longer tolerated on FG? Because that's the argument being made here, and if that's the case, FG's further down the road of non-recovery than I thought.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1407834 wrote: There's no question that you're correct on how my question was interpreted, or taken, if you will. That goes to the state of mind or emotional state of the person[s] reading it. To some it may be blunt and to others it may be aggressive. The fact that it appeared aggressive to many here indicates a shared mentality. My question would have died long ago had it been simply ignored rather than jumped on. If I had then insisted on an answer then I could see where aggression could be claimed. That 's not the case here, go back and reread the thread. I had reasoned that my questions would probably go unanswered and I was okay with that. I then reiterated that after some posts.

Should it be assumed now that any light hearted post in any serious thread is no longer tolerated on FG? Because that's the argument being made here, and if that's the case, FG's further down the road of non-recovery than I thought.


Please explain the logic here. How does a comment about heavyweight posting in a light hearted thread imply that light hearted posts in and serious thread will not be tolerated?

Also, there is no suggestion here that anything will "not be tolerated" - I'm just trying to point out that you are coming across as unnecessarily heavy in a fluffy thread.

[Snooz]

Maybe a separate thread/split could be initiated when a question goes that far off topic. A thread concerning the real meaning of the Darwin Awards, for example. Then the original thread could be enjoyed for what it was meant to be.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1407843 wrote: Please explain the logic here. How does a comment about heavyweight posting in a light hearted thread imply that light hearted posts in and serious thread will not be tolerated?

Also, there is no suggestion here that anything will "not be tolerated" - I'm just trying to point out that you are coming across as unnecessarily heavy in a fluffy thread.I've been asked and advised to leave this be, which I'm willing to do. I simply don't consider my question as being "heavyweight". If it appears that way to you, fine, I accept that. The converse could be subjectively true for people engaging in serious discussion where a light hearted post is inserted. The point is that in the serious thread the light hearted post would most likely be looked past if it wasn't welcomed. That's all. I'm done with this thread.

[Snooz]

Great minds. Thanks for splitting the thread. :wah:

[AnneBoleyn]

In no way was i looking for a fight here, though it appears others were lying in wait for one. The defensive posture and personality this forum has taken on is troubling, and should be of concern to you.
Do you think people 'pick' on you here? Do you think it happens often?

[YZGI]

Darwin Awards? Hmm how ironic.

[valerie]

I did give some thought about posting again in my thread

but since this has been split, I'll give 'er a go.

I don't mind AT ALL if someone has a differing opinion (as

to in this case whether something was legit or a joke) but

what I do mind is the aggressive poking of a person. Yeah

I'm of an age (and self-esteem level) where water off a duck's

back and all, but my feeling is nobody here should have to

have a thread title called "sloppy" or referred to as "she

ought to be able to handle that" it just to me smacks of

baiting. And, especially now that the thread got a high number

of views/interest, I do consider all those out there who are

seeing this as a place where things like that happen, and maybe

change their mind about joining and/or posting.

I guess my time is a little limited when it comes to posting,

especially when the weather is nice and a good book calls.

I simply can't waste time thinking about HOW I should post,

or what user is going to say what and how in the heck do I

forestall that. I like some fluff threads and some serious, it's

a nice mix.

I don't think it's any secret that ahso and I might have a bit

of a tension or 'history'. When I saw him question what

exactly the Darwin Awards were, I thought instead of ME

saying something snarky (or just not interacting at all) I

would put down something that I thought would be

helpful, and also to maybe direct those outside viewers to

additional stuff here in the Garden. Otherwise I could

have just posted the LMGTFY link!

So now, instead of giving that user additional chances or

more interaction, I'll just go back to NOT, no skin off my

nose. But me being able to do it is not doing anything

for those who can't, and I feel for a lot them, I really do.

[Accountable]

valerie;1407902 wrote: I did give some thought about posting again in my thread

but since this has been split, I'll give 'er a go.

I don't mind AT ALL if someone has a differing opinion (as

to in this case whether something was legit or a joke) but

what I do mind is the aggressive poking of a person. Yeah

I'm of an age (and self-esteem level) where water off a duck's

back and all, but my feeling is nobody here should have to

have a thread title called "sloppy" or referred to as "she

ought to be able to handle that" it just to me smacks of

baiting. And, especially now that the thread got a high number

of views/interest, I do consider all those out there who are

seeing this as a place where things like that happen, and maybe

change their mind about joining and/or posting.
There ya go.

[Ahso!]

So let me attempt to explain what happened here. I'm doing this because the accusations are completely inaccurate. Then I'll drop this unless others choose to extend the conversation in what would hopefully be a respectful manner.

I saw Valerie's thread via reading the title "Candidate For The Darwinian Award, Maybe", and so i watched the video expecting to hear or see something relating to a Darwinian perspective. I didn't see anything that relates to Darwin, so I asked the questions: "what's the reference to Darwin? What does it mean?". I then watched the Video again with my wife and she pointed out that the caller appeared being silly. At that point I got the humor of the video. I had missed it the first time around because I was focused on a Darwinian perspective. Valerie then directed me to the threads at the bottom of the page and I read some posts in a couple of them. I still didn't get the reference so i asked Valerie to clarify herself by posting "Why can't you simply explain? You wrote it.". I then went looking on the internet and found the Darwin Awards and posted my findings.

After thinking about it for a bit and considering that Darwinian theory is more often than not misunderstood I asked my next question of: "So after reading the Darwin Awards website and rereading your title and op, it appears you're saying this lady is stupid and should die. Is that accurate?" which is when all hell broke loose. I got chided by BB, lectured by Bruv, accused of being aggressive by SF and, of course, passive-aggressively ridiculed by Snooze.

A simple "no, Ahso!, you've misunderstood the meaning behind my thread title, here's what I meant to convey..." (which is what Koan and Bryn basically said) would have sufficed and we all could have moved on. It's hard to say for sure, but perhaps more clarification might have been requested, to which any understanding person would try to accommodate. However, had I insisted that I knew what was in Valerie's mind better than she did, assuming she's to be taken at her word, which I have no reason to do otherwise, then I could see the validity of accusations of aggressiveness on my part. That's not the case here.

What did happen is that some individuals claimed to know what was in my mind. They were wrong, so I spent much of yesterday morning defending my integrity by attempting clarify my meaning.

I'll ask Valerie to what history between her and I she refers other than one thread about animals where we had a strong disagreement? I'm not baiting, Valerie, I'm asking. Though that doesn't mean I won't follow up with any comment or question afterwards which would be dependent on your reply. And that isn't any set up either.