Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:46 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Question about personal attacks 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:12 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:59 am
Posts: 300
Location: Near Hwy 101 & Cty Rd 5
Profanity not withstanding, is the term "smug" really that derogatory to ones character?

Not trying to incite a riot, just trying to understand the nature of the reaction.


MM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
A personal attack includes name-calling.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:10 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Posts: 179
Location: Waconia, MN
I have never heard the term smug without hearing something much worst after it.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:26 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
I might be convinced its a character description, and depending on use, might or might not be acceptable, frankly i would have thicker skin than letting that bother me, I mean, until I was 12 I thought S*** for brains was an endearment.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:16 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:59 am
Posts: 300
Location: Near Hwy 101 & Cty Rd 5
With this being moved here, much of the context of the question is missed.

To really understand the question, it should not have been moved.... copied, yes... but not entirely removed from the original place of posting.

The dictionary definition of smug:
Having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements

If being called this is name calling, I guess I've missed many a lesson in my few number of days. Rather, it seems to be an opinionated observation of another's musings on an internet forum, which is what I thought internet forums are about.

The reaction seems to be one of someone that may feel it is correct, as the reaction was very hasty and seemed emotional rather than question the poster about the intent.

Thicker skin is exactly what I was thinking as well... especially with the term "smug"

(here comes the wrath)



MM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:27 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 234
Location: Apple-Mount Farming-Ville
Jai9100 wrote:
I have never heard the term smug without hearing something much worst after it.


VERY True... It is an adjective... There is usually a much worse noun following.

_________________
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shothell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer

MNbasecamp.com - Minnesota Outdoors Community


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:59 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
1911fan wrote:
I might be convinced its a character description, and depending on use, might or might not be acceptable, frankly i would have thicker skin than letting that bother me, I mean, until I was 12 I thought S*** for brains was an endearment.

Smug-for-brains??


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:09 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Pat Cannon wrote:
1911fan wrote:
I might be convinced its a character description, and depending on use, might or might not be acceptable, frankly i would have thicker skin than letting that bother me, I mean, until I was 12 I thought S*** for brains was an endearment.

Smug-for-brains??


you know, I've never heard that combination but come to think of it there are people at my work for whom it is a PERFECT description :-)

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:15 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
a911scanner wrote:
With this being moved here, much of the context of the question is missed.
To really understand the question, it should not have been moved.... copied, yes... but not entirely removed from the original place of posting.


There are two things going on here:
1) software limitation. Without a lot of work and the risk of assigning quotes to other people, it's not feasible to leave a post in two places at the same time. It's either in one discussion or another

2) This site is thought of and treated as a resource for Carry related information. That means short thread jacks or wandering topics work but for the long run ability of people new and experienced to use what we produce here as a reference we try to keep things topical.

I suspect that since the smug and personal attack was set to derail the conversation it started in, it was moved. I can see your point about context. feel free to go grab the accurate quote if you think it's necessary to your argument.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:48 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
1. If you have questions about what constitutes a personal attack, go read the rules again. Bottom line, attack the idea, not the person.

2. Paul accurately described why the post was moved: it was not germane to the gun-related discussion.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:55 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
a911scanner wrote:
With this being moved here, much of the context of the question is missed.
I think that's not only a fair observation, but an accurate one.

Here's a few ways to handle it:

1. Persuade me to overturn a moderator's decision. It's never happened before -- and that's not always because I agree with the mods' decisions; I don't, and can think of one thread-locking one recently that I disagree with -- but you might be the first.

2. Persuade the moderator in question to overturn his own decision. I know that's happened; I've done that.

3. Quote some of the context, or point to it, over here.

Of all of those, I think the one that'd most suit your desires is probably #2, but the easiest one is #3.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:43 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:59 am
Posts: 300
Location: Near Hwy 101 & Cty Rd 5
Andrew Rothman wrote:
1. If you have questions about what constitutes a personal attack, go read the rules again. Bottom line, attack the idea, not the person.

2. Paul accurately described why the post was moved: it was not germane to the gun-related discussion.


My question has nothing to do with a personal attack. You are " ____ " would constitute a personal attack. I understand this, I believe, hence your point

I do understand that from your "moderators" opinion Andrew, the question was a thread drift from the original topic. But the question has a different meaning based on the thread, not just the question in general.

Here are my original points:

1. That without emotional responses involved, the term "smug" is hardly a personal attack. A criticism at best, but hardly an attack. One might be able to see this better without "rose-colored glasses"

2. That using both an "opinion based on being a forum member" hat & a "moderator" hat at the same time is a slippery slope. I have seen this be a bit of a problem at times here, and should be looked at by the mod team, as well as introspectively by individual moderators. Impartiality is key, I think it was missed in this case.

3. That maybe no one is perfect, regardless of their job title. Even mods need to be moderated some times.

And some further points based on the following:

joelr wrote:
I think that's not only a fair observation, but an accurate one.

Here's a few ways to handle it:

1. Persuade me to overturn a moderator's decision. It's never happened before -- and that's not always because I agree with the mods' decisions; I don't, and can think of one thread-locking one recently that I disagree with -- but you might be the first.

2. Persuade the moderator in question to overturn his own decision. I know that's happened; I've done that.

3. Quote some of the context, or point to it, over here.

Of all of those, I think the one that'd most suit your desires is probably #2, but the easiest one is #3.


1. This is a wonderfully moderated site based on responses like the above

2. That most of the the time, Joel, Andrew and the rest of the mods respond with impartiality

3. That both of the mods mentioned have been in the middle of such affairs in the past, and those situations lend to make the site a bit uncomfortable. More of a "What I say is the way it is" vs "While I don't agree, I can see your point" undercurrent.

4. That my opinions are mine, whether shared or not.

5. That my diatribe on this point was based on doing things the American way, which includes questions posed to the leaders.

Any further discussions I have will be done in PM, so feel free to send them.


MM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:54 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
You make some strong points and make them well.

Of course, When Joel's speaking, I assume it's "that's the way it is" given who pays the bills and carries the water hereabouts.

Fortunately, he's a benevolent host most of the time and bends over backwards to restrain the heavy hand and be VERY clear which hat he's wearing. I'm not sure I'm capable of the forbearance I've seen him display, even when I've disagreed with him on details small or large. Hell, ESPECIALLY when I've disagreed with him :-)

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:39 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
a911scanner wrote:
My question has nothing to do with a personal attack. You are " ____ " would constitute a personal attack. I understand this, I believe, hence your point.


Now I'm getting impatient. "You are smug" is a personal attack. Feel free to disagree, but the call was made.

a911scanner wrote:
I do understand that from your "moderators" opinion Andrew, the question was a thread drift from the original topic.


It pretty clearly. objectively was. And the call was made.

a911scanner wrote:
One might be able to see this better without "rose-colored glasses"


I don't think that means what you think it means. Would you explain what you mean?

Quote:
2. That using both an "opinion based on being a forum member" hat & a "moderator" hat at the same time is a slippery slope. I have seen this be a bit of a problem at times here, and should be looked at by the mod team, as well as introspectively by individual moderators. Impartiality is key, I think it was missed in this case.


You'll note that I took no action except a polite warning. Mods accept some shit that we wouldn't tolerate aimed at a "regular member."

Quote:
3. That maybe no one is perfect, regardless of their job title. Even mods need to be moderated some times.


Joel has thoroughly addressed that issue.



Bottom line: it is impossible to make everyone happy. We do the best we can. If you enjoy visiting the forum, do so. If not, there are other places to spend your time.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:03 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
FWIW, there's no way to moderate me here. Heaven knows, some folks have tried -- but the fellow who went over the edge in that and attempted to encourage one of the other admins to take over the Forum was, err, patently unsuccessful.

In terms of the mods/admins, even -- particularly -- when I disagree with them, I do have weigh the costs/benefits of doing what I think best in a given situation with undercutting their ability to be effective as mods/admins.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group