--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Many posts made to Fairfield Life seem intended to draw the unsuspecting
> into long, drawn-out, multi-post arguments or discussions. Once
> embroiled in one of these tarbaby arguments, newbs (and even many
> veteran FFLers) find themselves stuck in what can only be described as
> an enormous waste of their time and energy. In this Public Service
> Announcement post, I suggest a few "stock answers" to these kinds of
> posts.
> 
> First, it is important to realize that many FFL posts can, once one is
> hip to what is really going down, be parsed to render them down to their
> lowest common denominator -- what is really being said or demanded. Once
> you've done that, how to answer them fully and at the same time avoid a
> world of trouble is simple. I would suggest that most of these posts can
> be rendered down to the following brief synopses:
> 
> OUTRAGED DEMANDS
> 
> "I am outraged. The things you have done, said, hinted at, or
> personified just by being <spit> you offend me deeply. So I'm going to
> rant about the thing that has offended me (you or what you believe) for
> the next 100-1000 lines of text. <insert rant here> Now that *I* feel
> better having gotten all of that out of my system, *you* HAVE to respond
> to it. The proper response, of course, is to acknowledge that I am right
> and you are wrong, and that you are just as evil as I said you were.
> Failing that, you should become as angry as I obviously am. But at the
> very least you HAVE to answer every one of the points I made and insults
> I hurled at you in detail, so that I can then demean your answers and
> you, and we can continue to repeat this cycle for another 10 to 20
> posts. OK, now it's your turn to respond to my outrage."
> 
> The proper (sane) answer to posts like this is silence. Crickets. The
> sound of a wise person ignoring the demand completely, as if it never
> existed. This has the benefit of saving time and energy, and it has the
> added benefit of pissing off the person making the demand more than
> anything you could possibly say in reply.
> 
> DEMANDS FOR UNEARNED RESPECT
> 
> "I demand to be taken seriously. You *have* to take me and everything I
> say seriously, because I deserve it. Failure to do this will be
> perceived as what it is -- an attack on me personally, possibly even a
> death threat."
> 
> The proper response to posts of this type is, of course, the natural one
> -- laughter. If you can turn the whiny, needy demand to be taken
> seriously into a joke or parody, even better, because in some cases that
> can wake the person making such silly demands up and get them to laugh
> at themselves. Barring this, the most effective answer to someone
> demanding that you take them seriously is "No."
> 
> DEMANDS THAT YOU *CHANGE*
> 
> "I do not like you <you may substitute any other subject in place of
> 'you'...including FFL itself and its low-vibe ways>. You are not the way
> that I want you to be. You should CHANGE, and act the way *I* want you
> to act. Failure to do this will be perceived as a failure on your part,
> for which you should be ashamed, and other posters should 'pile on' and
> berate you."
> 
> Again, the proper time-saving answer is silence, or laughter. Many have
> found that just saying "No" is also effective. Do not be worried about
> causing the person making such demands pain or suffering; if they can't
> get you to listen to them demand over and over that you change, they'll
> just pick someone else and demand it of them.
> 
> There are probably a few more stereotypes that common FFL posts can be
> "rendered down to," but these three cover pretty much 80% of what is
> said here. For example, all but three of one person's 26 posts so far
> this week can be parsed to fit one or more of these three categories. By
> following the above guidelines, you should be able to steer free of such
> ego-silliness.
> 
> Alternatively, you could simply focus on the 20% of posters who actually
> have something to say. Have a good day.
>

Good OPINION, Barry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtwlHV1-O8

Reply via email to