Who agrees with this?
 

Long story short: googled "dhamsaic", found this:

http://bandqueers.com/3-23-02.html

Go read it, and then tell me if you agree with it.

The questions I have are as follows:

1) Do I really wish any harm come to his mother (as is implied under "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?"), or am I attempting to point out the ridiculousness of verbatim's "it's their own damn fault"?

2) Do I really convey that I hope he gets blown up in Jerusalem, or am I attempting to convey the ridiculousness of the "it's their own damn fault" statement?

3) For those that know me: do I really not welcome thoughtful opposition?

4) For those that know me: do I not actually mouth off like this in person?

5) Am I actually wishing death and rape upon anyone based upon what you read in that post?

Just an opinion poll. Thanks.

1 & 2) Yes, his statement at the top was completely wrong.
3) You do.
4) N/A
5) No

I think what it is is that sometimes your venom eclipses your actual message. When that happens, people ignore what you actually said because they're so stunned at the meanness. In my opinion, sometimes your tool for emphasis becomes a barrier to communication.

Based on the front page of the site, however, the webmaster seems to be a completely shallow, evil jerk.

Oh brother. How wierd. Whether I know you or not-
You were making your point, (a great point), passionately and with examples that brought the issue into this persons experience more concretely. Ok, so you name called. But you did have a relationship with verbatim, and whatever. Anyway, in this "critique" your strong examples that are jumped on, out of context, conveniently enabling them to ignore your point entirely which is the real arrogant frustration.

The more I check out this guys site, the sillier he is. He admits that he's that "normal" guy who tortured and farted in the faces of less "normal" 14 year olds, (the ones that learned to play musical instruments) and he hates nerds! oooohhh. How sad and stupid. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I dont think hes in a position to be seriously and thoughtfully critiquing the qualitly of human interaction on the net. Ha!

Who's this "dhamsaic" guy?

your rhetoric's over the top, but no, I would just read it as over-the-top rhetoric rather than an actual wish to have violence inflicted on anyone.

It's possible I'd answer differently if I didn't know your postings from The Cellar.

Daves daisey-cutters are something I look forward to but I could see where a newbie might get rolled. Folks have to have read a few of your more reasoned arguements to see that you really do think about stuff. This post in no way gives Dave permission to pull his shit on me as I'd wring the water out of his worthless corpse, pour it into an espresso machine for the next cellar gtg and sell his bad jerky self to Purina to be ground up and fed to his cats which would be living outa his Volvo automobile. I wonder if the people who stick it out here are more likely to have lurked for a long time or if they just jump in and take their hits?

Personally I think you were obnoxious. I also think it was intentional. Of course as usual you were right.:D

Well, I didn't really want to debate whether or not I was right. I wanted to know whether or not you folks interpreted what I said as actually threatening any harm. warch got it mostly right. I certainly feel it is ridiculous to blame the victim, and that's what I was trying to point out, albeit with more extreme examples.

There certainly seem to be more than a few people, however, who are willing to distort others' words to suit their fancy. This was one of my initial problems with LUVBUGZ, for example. I don't wish anyone bodily harm here, and I don't think I've ever actually said that in a serious manner. But we all get different impressions, and I was curious to see who interpreted it in different ways.

(Not that I think it's open to very much interpretation, of course.)

juju - you're right, and I wouldn't even debate that. :) But as I said before, it wasn't really a question of my methods, but rather of how their literal meaning was interpreted.

Your points were valid, your vitriol was at its usual level of intensity, you most assuredly did *not* wish harm on anyone's mother or anyone else, and you usually do offer a unique and often well-reasoned point of view in your arguments.

This doesn't mean that it isn't often difficult to see through your invective to get at the points contained therein, but I have a lot of experience with this sort of communication online, so I can overlook it. However, the response you got (posting on Bandqueer...what the fuck is Bandqueer, anyway?) is fairly typical from someone who *can't* get past the aggressive language and name-calling.

I prefer to avoid it myself, and that's why I don't often carry on lengthy discussions with you, Dave, but there was notihing in the argument *or* the language that implied that you wished harm to come upon anyone.

Now, tell me again, why do we care about Bandqueer, and what is it?

Awww, Spode, 'come on. I don't disagree with you *that* often, and you've earned enough of my respect that I'd only jump on you if you said something completely outrageous.

We don't care about bandqueer; my feelings weren't hurt reading it, but his interpretation was obviously different than <b>what I meant</b>, and I was just curious if others agreed with him that my message was "if you don't agree with me, I hope you die". As in, "do I really need to be <b>that</b> careful in wording my posts, or can I continue how I am?"

Incidentally, I've calmed down quite a bit, and I no longer actually get angry at posts. (Though I realize that sometimes it might seem as I wrote a response out of anger, I assure you, it's probably just me being an asshole. I never get angry here anymore.)

I wasn't indicating that I had been jumped on by you at all, I just steer away from the more feverishly pitched "discussions" on The Cellar, some of which have been known to include you.

It is a long story, and not worth the telling, really, but suffice to say that there is a member of the local Pagan community who is world-reviled for the tenor, abrasiveness and outright psychopathy of his Internet communications. He is a sick man, and I spent a couple of years going toe to toe with him before I learned to get over it, and that it meant absolutely nothing. I was just expressing that in the previous post.

Free Speech...blessing AND curse!

Dave, I'm assuming it's OK for me to post in this thread since you did mention my name. I went to the link and was a little shocked at first, mainly by the language. The first time I read it I was kind of scanning and thought what a dick this guy is wishing the other dude would be killed in Jerusalem. But then I reread it more closely and realized that you (calling the guy retarded and the tone of the post finally clued me in that it was you writing) were merely giving examples to show how stupid the guy’s remarks were. So, to answer your questions: 1, 2 & 5) No; 3) given that I don't know you I'm not entirely sure, you seem to tolerate "thoughtful opposition", but your use of "creative commentary" along with the high intensity of your posts might not seem welcoming to people who don't know you; 4) since I don't know you and have never met you in person I cannot answer this question.

Quote by Dave:
There certainly seem to be more than a few people, however, who are willing to distort others' words to suit their fancy. This was one of my initial problems with LUVBUGZ, for example.

I'm just curious Dave, so do I seem to distort other's words as bad as this guy distorted yours?

Not at all. And you haven't been doing it lately. But I'm sure you remember when you did. :)

Yeah, I remember:rolleyes: , but I still don't think I did as much twisting as everybody thought I was and (not trying to encite a riot) I don't think I was the only one doing the twisting. But, for everyone's sake lets leave it at that, I'm really trying to move past all that crap. I hope it shows:) .

Nerdiness: knowing your other messages here, I think they cheated you out of at least one star.

Arrogance: Yep, they got that pegged

Anonymity: I don't know you personally, but I get the impression that you'd say the same thing in person, in an informal sort of setting. Hey, when your handle contains your last name and your employer, just how anonymous are you?

BTW, the author of that page (Jason Samuel) is a nerd, regardless of his protestations otherwise. That thing in the banner is a self portrait.