On 2009-Mar-16, at 06:08, mmalc Crawford wrote: > Don't know... why is it that you cant help being a git?
git: Total and utter tosser who is incapable of doing anything other than annoying people, and not in a way that is funny to others. Best used idly. e.g. "Git." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git Well, true. I do it deliberately, when I think I have a different angle on something. It can get annoying when I'm poking and prodding. But that's mostly part of debating stuff. Once I was talking to some people in a spiritual community[1], and they all thought that their guru was doing something unique and completely different. As it happens I had been in some other groups and I thought some of the stuff was similar, and said so, "yeah I saw something like this elsewhere". They did not like hearing that. They were visibly annoyed. But there I didn't press the point too far, bearing in mind personal safety as well as just respecting people. And in many places, bickering over stuff is just not the culture. When I've been in therapy or counselling type groups, I participate in being nice, open, friendly, easy going, agreeable. People let each other say whatever they need to, and you keep your disagreements to yourself, and empathize a lot. Everyone is there to be heard. We all join in consensus building. It is a group process and people don't want to take energy away from the space. Now online, well the internet has all these men arguing till the late hours of the night. That's how I do it here. I worry that I'm being too annoying, but some annoyance is par for the course and as long as people are willing to reply then so be it. Still, if people want to say, "enough already", then ok. I dunno. It's the culture of the group that sets the way things are. David, for example, may think I'm highly misguided, but if he's happy to debate, I appreciate that. So here we are and a video of Jon is posted and some people think he's great. And I watch it and I get the impression he's using the excuse that he's "just a comedian" to evade the question. But people on Nutters think that I am just singularly wrong, and I try to debate that. Gets tedious. I wish though I'd have found earlier the Wikipedia reference to the media critic Dan Kennedy[2] who said Jon came across as "duplicitous", exactly for claiming he's just a comedian. At least it would have shortened the thread, relieved the boredom and annoyance, no? Stefano [1] http://www.andrewcohen.org/ [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dankennedy _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
