slayn said:
I was not aware a lot of people considered you arrogant. It was just my personal feelings. But if enough people consider you as such don't you think there has to be *something* you are doing to spark that initial reaction?
Yes, the thought has crossed my mind, obviously. I simply disagree.
It could not come up in real life for a number reasons. Perhaps your body language and voices relax the tone of your words, or maybe you speak a little differently or speak less in real life.
Perhaps. I'm pretty much the same person online or off, however. I think maybe what it is is that "serious" discussions (about issues etc.) don't come up as often in real life. But when they do, I state my case the same way I do here. And nobody has considered that "arrogant."
As for whether I read the entireity of your posts, it depends on the length and subject matter. For instance, I only read the first paragraph of your long explanation to whoever at the beginning of the thread because I don't care. But obviously I'm going to read your post to me (kinda) in its entireity and my opinion of you is based off of the posts of yours that I read completely.
Fair enough.
I wasn't only addressing
you, btw. Some others who have called me "arrogant" (both in this thread and in the past) have stated that they don't read my posts in their entirety.
As an example lets take a look at your post I'm replying to. Read your own words, digest the tone. You come off as believing that there is no possible way in the entire universe you could ever be consider arrogant by anyone for any good reason. You present it as if you don't even give the idea consideration before completely throwing it out and immediately imply that there is something entirely wrong me for belieiving as such. There is no possible way I could even be a *little* right. I must be only focusing on small things you say and have a warped opinion of you. There is no other rational explanation.
Well...yeah.
Seriously, though, the point I was trying to make is that however you'd go about defining "arrogant," there are a number of other posters who fit the bill to a greater degree than I do. I've used various criteria (e.g., strength of conviction, tone, dismissiveness, how often a person belittles another for having a contrary opinion etc.), and each time I come up with at least 4 or 5 prominent posters who exemplify said behavior to a greater extent than I do. Yet these posters never get called out for being "arrogant," for some reason (and I don't even consider them
to be "arrogant" in most cases, since there are good reasons for them to be acting the way they act most times-- I'm just saying that the overt behavior that would/could be construed as "arrogant" is present to a greater degree than it is for me imo) . I'm not going to name names, since I'm not like that, but these people
do exist. I've always just been puzzled, more than anything else. I'm not going to (nor am I trying to) change your mind about me-- I'm just telling you how things appear from my perspective.
Btw, you (and the others saying this)
can be a "little right"-- my point was that there are others who exhibit these traits to a greater degree than I do, yet they are seldom called out for it. That's just...odd.
That is how your post came off to me, and I would call that arrogant.
And you're entitled to that opinion.
Perhaps some of my opinions-- or the way I express them-- come off as "well, if you have a different opinion, then you
can't be 'right'". I will admit that the tone of my posts is
sometimes like that, but it's usually on those subjects that I have given a
lot of thought to over the years (and, as I said, many other posters act the same exact way, if not worse imo); further, I usually only express it in such a tone if there is someone who I can
clearly tell has given the issue
no thought trying to tell me that I'm mistaken somehow. If I feel a person has legitimately considered an issue (which is evident from the quality of their thought/reasoning on the matter ), and raises valid points, then I will always respect and address those points. It depends on the person. But one thing I
don't do is suffer fools lightly.
If a person who has clearly not given an issue sufficient thought simply states their opinion, and why they disagree with me, then I will address their argument. If, however, they come into a thread telling me that I'm "wrong" (with no supporting evidence), and are confrontational/loud about it, then I will mince no words with them.
In general, I dislike people who have done no thinking in their life who think that their opinion is somehow the fact of the matter. I have
no problem with those who
have done a lot of thinking about things and have arrived at their own firm conclusions. In other words, I dislike ignorance masquerading as considered opinion, and that is the one instance where I
will possibly come off as "arrogant"-- and I make no apologies for that. Ignorant people who have never really considered an issue have no business acting as if their opinions carry some great weight, and being adamant/confrontational about it on top of it. I will not stand for that. If that's arrogance, then sue me.
But we do not have to discuss this issue further-- you've said your piece, and I've said mine. We'll leave it at that, lest we upset belgurdo.
akascream said:
So fancie gets banned, but not loki. Nice
He was banned for using the word "guido." Last I checked, I used no such word. I know you're itching to see me banned, aka, but you'll have to do better than that.
