Two items about website etiquette.
First, as the readership has grown larger, the commentariat has gotten more fractious. That may mean only that as the sample size increases, the people in the tails (including the “nasty” tail) become more numerous. Regardless, I would like for readers to treat each other with respect. Lately there has been a lot of yelling, name-calling, and one-on-one debates here, in which two individuals go after each other ad nauseum. If that happens, please take it to private email. Do realize that nobody ever changes their mind in these one-on-one things. If I ask you to apologize for an over-the-top insult, please do so. If you don’t, I will ban you.
Second, please don’t automatically claim that photographs I put up are PhotoShopped if you don’t know for sure. If you suspect they are, you may say so, but please provide evidence. One of the unwritten truths of this site is that for every amazing photograph I put up, someone will say it’s not real. I don’t mind skepticism, but please adduce evidence for your claims. And again, don’t be nasty.
With respect, I think that poster has been photoshopped. 😉
Beat me!
/@
As opposed to divine Providence. 😉
With a 1962 copyright notice? Most people I know who can turn a Photoshop up the right way are dubious of the existence of “1962.”
Ah — that’s just the © from the original cat picture that was later (duh!) Photoshopped…
/@
LOL everyone is a comedian.
You’d’ve liked to have been first with that comment too, ne?
/@
Who moi? I’m too serious for jokes.
Sounds fair enough, but the ‘no one-on-one debates’ thing is tricky I think. Obviously, at some point enough is enough, but if the subject is legitimate, significant, and complicated it can be very hard not to reply to a reply to a reply. And so forth. Getting “snake-y” (into the long and narrow.)
So if the disagreement is cordial and cool, should we simply use our best judgement on when to quit — or is there some rule or rule-of-thumb you want us to abide by?
No rule of thumb, just be aware when there is no progress being made, when people have assumed their final positions and are just hurling insults at each other, and when it’s time to take it to private email (which never happens, of course).
+1
How would you know they never take it to private email?
Because they never request email addresses from Jerry. 🙂 One of the commenter would likely request of the other, that they contact each other privately to continue, I would assume.
Not necessarily. I’ve found others’ email addresses without asking Jerry. And some of us have Twitter handles (although it might not occur to Jerry that you could continue a debate via email 😉 — but at least you could ask for an email address via Twitter).
/@
Yeah, I agree that could happen but, that would necessitate one of them unilaterally deciding to move the disagreement to email. It would seem more appropriate, at least to me, if there was a comment in the thread by at least one of them that they wished to continue via email.
That’s what I was trying to imply in the second sentence of my prior comment. I should have made it clear that I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that a request to Jerry was the only way for them to proceed. 🙂
However I will admit to having seen, in other forums, comments similar to; “Hey this bozo (other commenter) has just sent me a private email, apparently afraid to continue in public” (sometimes resulting in rules stating “Don’t contact others by private email without prior consent”), or something similar. So Jerry’s “never” may not be strictly factual but, he didn’t state; “never, as in never ever” either. Oh! See, communication in English is just so damned christian difficult, that’s why I gave up on it in my early English instruction – my protest obviously wasn’t effective, more people use it now than ever before and English gets even more twisted as time goes on!
Oh, I don’t disagree with your view here, I was just falsifying your particular argument! 😉
/@
and i(both intended) was just explaining that you misunderstood my intended meaning, which you haven’t falsified. 🙂
One of the things I like about the commentary here is that the longer exchanges you’re writing about descend into content-free insult comparatively infrequently. And they are often interesting and enlightening. I’ve learned quite a lot and had my thinking profoundly affected from reading some of the meatier comments and exchanges found here.
My rule-of-thumb is that if I have to scroll back a few pages to find a Reply button, it’s probably not worth the trouble.
Another rule is that if I find myself thinking “This is a great chance to segue into favorite argument X“, I try to resist that urge. You’ve probably heard X before and don’t need to hear it again.
And of course if it’s pushing lunchtime and I’m still in my pajamas, then it’s way past time to give it a rest.
Thanks sir! One of the main reasons I loev your bl … er, website is the roolz …
ad nauseAm…
Perhaps pedantic corrections of our host’s English (well, Latin) is not good etti-cat?
/@
Just for pedantic laughs you should’ve italicized that Latin 😀
Oh that you could become Roolz Master elsewhere. There may be an opening forthcoming in the Republican Party. 😉
Nice fonts on that sign. Anyone know what they are?
The “ETTI-CAT” reminds me of one of the fonts you would see as an example you could create with a Speed-Ball pen – pens (nibs, actually) for special lettering, in the pre-computer era.
Sorry, that is “Speedball”, not “Speed-Ball” – they’re apparently still around.
This is quite close: Cal Humanist Miniscule.
But not perfect…
/@
Da Roolz are why this website is so great.
And da Owna of course.
I enjoy the debates,don’t read all of them don’t have the time. you have to realize the internet is sometimes like going to a phone book,picking out a random stranger calling them up and talking.
Marella
Posted August 19, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
Da Roolz are why this website is so great.
Marella
Posted August 19, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
And da Owna of course.
Marella Roolz…. 🙂
Would Etti-Cat be offended if I pointed out that the consequences he mentions are probably “regrettable”, not “regretful”?
Yours sincerely, A. Pedant
As someone skeptical of the unadulteratedness (just deal with it, spellcheck!) of many photographs, I apologize for expressing that skepticism here.
Sigh. And sub.