TrialOnHowStarPilotIsUnagreeable
Did anyone notice yet how StarPilot.. disagrees with anything that is said? He rarely supports an idea, unless it is his own.
- note:He told me to make a page, I'm not feeling terribly vindictive today :)
'I'll delete this page when I'm done making my point to you, StarPilot, So don't flip out.
LOL!
Have you looked at my home page? It states I'm the resident senior Devil's Advocate here.
I do agree with people, here and elsewhere, Ken. At least from time to time. I do not automatically disagree with people, just because they state something. Even if it is a position I do not agree with.
Remember, WikiWorld is a site that works on the principle of ConsensusByDefault. You are only right until someone disagrees with you. This site is founded on people nay-saying you. Don't be so shocked that it happens. ;-)
Where are we filing this issue? WikiWorldCourt ? :-D
---StarPilot
ConsensusByDefault does apply, but unless I say something really stupid, It's usually you who objects.
WikiWorldCourt is fine with me, if you agree. Actually, I think it was AnewGo that brought it up a while ago that you needed to go to court to calm down..... I may whine with some cheese every once in a while, but your responses are always a bit sharp and sour......
PS-Honorary Member of the Devil's Advocate Club, quote me as saying it before.
WikiWorldCourt is fine by me as well.
AnewGo has some issues he needs to go calm down about himself. I tend to play (distorted) mirror, tossing back whatever attitude someone gives me while we talk. I also tend to fast escalate whenever I perceive someone is escalating. Why waste time?
And of course, I have days where I'm just more grouchy then happy. Everyone does. ;)
I have no problem being one of the resident sourpusses. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. And my sense of humor tends toward being sharp, when it isn't flat and dry. I certainly get sharper in my replies to people that seem to be focused on harping on the same political issues, who I do not see as bringing anything new to the conversation. (IE... someone that is continually stating that BushIsAnIdiot. )
So, while I do not think I'm a mean, nasty person that just disagrees with everyone, I do recognize that I'm not the constant, yes man blowing sunshine up everyone's backside. No worries by me. And when I do blow sunshine into someone, they generally see it as well deserved and well earned.
And finally, as text only communiques tend to loose all that body language information that communicate mood (light hearted, teasing, respect, etc), people have nothing but their own mental processes and views to fill in all the missing elements. I find this is one of the reasons people find me a bit sour and sharp, rather then funny/light hearted and sharp, in text, versus in person.
That's just my experience and personal view. I'm sure there are those that would disagree with me. There is always someone in the Internet world that think they know you and your opinion better then you do, after all.
---StarPilot
Laughs! Well, in a little bit, I'll get around to filing you in WikiWorldCourt. Though we need to determine if its to cool your responses down (yes, i do understand what you said, no need for a reexplanation), or make you see a blinding flash of the obvious...
No offense StarPilot, your arguments bring to light some points people may not have thought about, but from the majority of the political responses it seems to me you (may) just take up sides when you are indecisive to argue.
As with BushIsAnIdiot, you got irritated with the person (RandomNess) and then argued with me when I stated the same thing. Oh well, I'm not going to bring that into the WikiWorldCourt anyway.
So what happens if WikiWorldCourt decides that your responses are valid? The goals have already been completed, because in the future, when you post, you may have a tiny nagging voice in your head that says "StarPilot, tone it down". Sure, sticking it to idiot messages (Again, BushIsAnIdiot or maybe the AggregateReligion pages...) is fine, they learn their lesson as I did (::cough:: HumanGreed ::cough, cough::):-). In any case, even if the court is still out, the decision made itself out.
No offense taken, Ken. :D I am often known as the "Voice of Rant and Reason" in the communities that I participate in. I do flame, and flame hard and strong, from time to time. But most of the time, I'm the very model of a modern major general. :-D (Just kidding). Seriously, I have noticed a cycle in the communities I participate in: A) They think I'm the very voice of reason, B) They think I'm the very voice of Rant/Passion, C) They realize that most of the time, I'm relatively reasonable, with the occasional gamma burst of Passion or Rant or Seriously Bad Week. ;)
Just something I've noticed. I could, of course, be wrong, as people don't tend to be the most honest observers of items related to themselves. :-) However, I still feel that most of my responses here have been civil. This site isn't primarily focused on politics, and that is one of the few big ticket items that have me reaching for my napalm. ---StarPilot
Unfortunately AnewGo is living and breathing politics. I must say I do appreciate your devil's advocate position as it prevents complacency. Sorry about the "barbarian" jibe, but I suppose by my definition anyone who is not a AnewGo citizen is a "barbarian". So you can absolve it entirely if you join ;). ---PhillipBannigan
Well, I don't find the discussion on what is Deadly Force (see: AnewGoLaw) to be 'politics' (that seems more like philosophy to me) in the same way I find BushIsAnIdiot politics.
And you have stated yourself I'm an AnewGoCitizen, PhillipBannigan. So you consider even AnewGoCitizens barbarians. :-D Something for you to consider though: IIRC, JimScarver (and KenSchry?) believe in Deadly Force in Self Defense. That means the barbarians outnumber the your stated civilized folk. ;-) And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you have personal positions on matters that other people would find barbaric.
Have fun! ---StarPilot
Once again, I think this just demonstrates the need for a more formal process.
Even if we legislate by consensus, citizens must have a clear way to say, "I disagree with this but I am not vetoing it -- I'll go along". It is silly to say that StarPilot is obstructing the process when all he has done is state his beliefs. However, without a formal process, stateing his beliefs is easy to confuse with vetoing everything. Furthermore, it is hard to tell if the things he disagrees with are things that everyone else supports or things which only the poster supports.
For instance, I tend to agree with StarPilot when he disagrees.
--- BayleShanks
BayleShanks, the idea of TrialOnHowStarPilotIsUnagreeable I started as a joke, but it has meatballed on. I was merely drawing on the suggestion that StarPilot should cool his jets before a big blast response, and added some humor. --KenSchry
BayleShanks, no worries. The actual trial was held in WikiWorldCourt (IIRC). It is lost in the edits now, so you'd need to go look in the page history there for it if you are curious. KenSchry took a look through some of my postings, and noticed that his ascertation that I was always shooting people in their soft spots was not precisely true. This is the joke/humor to the more serious discussion that actually took place there. And I believe that in true WikiWorld fashion, we resolved the dispute between our positions quite easily.
So far, I am finding that I tend to agree with what you have posted here. Humm, birds of a feather? :-)
---StarPilot