quite a few things I post - especially when it is only one or two lines in a reply - have a humorous ironic slant to them. Most people - especially Americans, in my experience - tend to miss that and read everything as if it is all serious business, so it doesn't greatly surprise me that you've got the wrong end of the stick.
Please, James, no. Your "humorous ironic slant" is very often projection. Here, let me show you an example from not so long ago:
Lest our readers get the wrong idea, see that bit in brackets, where I wrote "see what I did there?" Those words were to make it clear to you, if there was any doubt, that I do not have "intense hatred" for anybody here. Most likely, I used the term "intense hatred" to mirror something that you had previously written as a characterisation of me. I know Americans don't do irony well, but here's another example. Good we cleared that up for you, though.
In this example, you simply skipped over what someone wrote in order to respond to a straw man.
This is what you responded to:
• Given your tendency to forget your own words and actions, I admit it wouldn't be surprising if you said you cannot recall what I'm reminding. But it's also true you used, in the spilled dispute, the word "hatred", and, yes, we get its colloquial meaning as well as the darker suggestion; maybe it's time you reconsidered your relationship to the hatred itself: "This in spite of my intense hatred of the lot of them (see what I did there?). Funny that."
(#3581593/566↗)
Yes, let's highlight that:
"yes, we get its colloquial meaning as well as the darker suggestion".
Let me try a joke for you, James: I know Australians don't do reading comprehension well, but there's another example. Now, as an Aussie joke, should I try the sample of two? Or the sample of
you? Let's face it, this isn't really about Americans or Australians; it's about you.
Your sense of humor is what it is, James, but what you're overlooking is the degree to which it reflects your prejudice, priorities, and perspective. That is to say, yeah, we get your joke, but what it describes and exploits also echoes in your behvior. What you did in your response to me was skip over what I wrote, that, "we get its colloquial meaning as well as the darker suggestion"; more particularly, the part that, "we get its colloquial meaning". And a pretentious straw man performance for the audience is what we got in return.
Here's an interesting thing about knowing you, better, James: It's actually kind of hard. I've known you for seventeen years, and maybe offscreen you're someone entirely different, but James R, the Sciforums member and Adminsitrator, is not really someone I would want to know; he's often duplicitous and manipulative and petty, to the point clownish self-defeat. And he drags everyone else through it with him, apparently because he can. Last month,
you said↗, "I am quite happy for my honesty to be judged by readers based on my record", but if we're honest, James, the analysis would hurt your feelings, and you know it.
(Honestly, at eight posts into it, I started wondering how I was going to ever come back 'round to what ought to be a simple point, but between the short form confusing you, the long form confusing you, the colloquial confusing you, and something more formal confusing you, as well as the growing realization, as more and more time passed, that you really were just out for sport, well, yeah, they're just sitting there.)
And part of it really is that you're way too delicate. I mean, sure, I'm fine with the end of dumbassed Buckwheat tropes, and all that, but there is an aspect of it that goes,
"Really? Okay, then." The bit about not being an American, though—and, let me be clear, I'm fine with that point, too, in and of itself—cracked me up because a handful of significant policy disputes we've had over the years included you telling me about Americans, and being (
ahem!) kind of wrong, but, hey, at least you found some sort of satisfaction in those moments. Maybe.
To a certain degree, a problem this community faces—or, perhaps not, if numbers really worked out such that people apparently want it this way—is that enough front with a "humorous ironic slant", and tend to "read everything as if it is all serious business", that anyone thinking themselves at all sincere is best advised to presume everyone else somehow insincere. It's actually kind of problematic for those who are sincere, and, meanwhile, we're all aware Seattle could easily retort by saying ... well, right, but, again, it's not really about Australians or Americans, something, something, sample of
you.
(One of the interesting things about the idea of eight posts and counting, is even that much was written fully knowing you don't take what I say seriously. How seriously will you take this post, given that my long posts are often laced with darkly humorous irony that some tend to miss for reading everything as if it is all serious business, so it never surprises me when you're huffing after the wrong end of your scarecrow?)
In truth—
You did the wrong thing and somebody called you out on it. Suck it up.
—my problem isn't that you're giving Seattle shit, just like it isn't that you've given a couple others a little roughing up of late, either. It's just the way you're doing it. And I'm trying to be sympathetic about that point, James. Look: He's simply not sincere. One of the tragedies of how we fail to get along is that there are some jokes I just can't share with the guy who clearly doesn't understand my sense of humor, or some approximate such. But if there is a next-gen version of an old joke about particular superstition, Seattle's not actually it, but, rather, a fascinatingly self-demonstrative variation on the theme. But it really is hilarious, to me, and would be to the twelve psychologists, nine sociologists, and two historians who accidentally understood it.
Compared to everything else I might yell at you about over time, Seattle's insincerity, quite honestly, is best left to itself. Consider it this way: If he said that to someone in the pub, and the other guy smacked him squar', we would, as we hauled the two apart, be asking our friend Seattle why the hell he went and said that, because, well,
¡Duh!
Ask yourself: Do you really believe he can't figure that out? Okay, okay, okay; so, cut him some random, contrived, not even necessarily enumerated, benefit of the doubt. What is it? And, sure, I said not necessarily enumerated, so just think of it for yourself; it's probably pretty silly. I just went looking for another, more severe example of problematic cluelessness, and, yeah, it was two episodes; comparatively, that other member is even less believable in the sense of not understanding why people are looking at him askew and saying, "Uh, dude ...."
Still, I mean, have at Seattle, if you want, but—
If you knew me better, and read a bit more closely, you'd realise quite a few things I post - especially when it is only one or two lines in a reply - have a humorous ironic slant to them. Most people - especially Americans, in my experience - tend to miss that and read everything as if it is all serious business, so it doesn't greatly surprise me that you've got the wrong end of the stick.
—c'mon, James, don't just walk into it like that. In the first place, you left yourself for hoisting by your own petard; to the other, though, and perhaps a bit more subtly, the question of knowing you better is complicated by your efforts to conceal and protect yourself, and that behavior, while it has its own reasons, over time has not only stands out as at least a little strange, but also affects what goes on around you.
Here's a contrast that will help us bring it 'round: An old scrap of detail in memory has to do with the caution that comes with knowing what it's like to have a cyberstalker causing real-world results, and in that context, I think of our most recent run of dispute and wonder if you could please stop acting like the actual problem is something else. It's a weird sentiment that runs, "Could you please fail to ...?" When it spilled into public view in January, what stood out was not your move to that existing thread, but that you missed the point of reference to that thread, which in turn you cited as your reason for carrying over.
It's part of a pattern, like the other recent joke about Americans; you're skipping past what people say in order to answer a fallacy of your own construction, in order to fit a neat talking point that does not necessarily otherwise apply. And that's the thing; the sincerity of our neighbor's insincerity is what it is.
But it's also a neat ribbon to tie a package: Seattle operates so inside the confines of comfort
you have insisted on, over the years, that he has no external incentive to do any better. So if I remind that you need it here even if it's full of shite, the point isn't to shred you for that, but, rather, to remind that it is futile to you individually, and generally unhelpful for the community, to take certain people seriously. The infraction? Well, right, duh. Your assessment, that he did the wrong thing and somebody called him out on it, is correct. Taking seriously his assessment of your sense of humor? Okay, if you want. But that sniffy, self-righteous shovel job just does not, on this, or, really, any occasion, help you. To wit, the important point:
Do you really believe he does not understand the infraction? His assessment of your humor? How often is he right, or even sincere, about anything?