GameBanshee Forums

This is something I've considered a lot, and I'm curious at what other people think.

I have many friends that I have met online, and most I have never actually met in person, though I would like to.. so I consider these friendships and internet communities to be just as valid as any that occur in the three dimensional world.

What I have noticed, though, is that often on public forums people appear far less sensitive of how others might feel when they make posts as opposed to "RL" situations.

Why does this happen? Is it the relative anonymity? Or maybe people somehow feel less responsible for the hurt they might have caused if they can't actually see the looks upon those who feel upset by what they have said.

Thoughts?

I have seen both ways being practiced online. For example the interaction here at SYM or in other more closed enviroments the level of sensitivness is imo rather close to society in general. In other more open places you can see behaviour that is rarely seen in real life, that is if you exlude bullying situations etc.

Anyway, what I think matters in regards of sensitivity, both in real life and online is dependant on how much the group in question mean to you, how much time and energy you have invested in it and the social consequences of being rude etc. Most public forums require less effort than an RL relation to become a part of, the worst thing that can happen is that you get banned, and it is quite easy to find other public forums, so perhaps that is the reason why you see less sensitivity there?

I have also met friends on the internet, whom I see as my "RL" friends even though I haven't met them before.
I have also noticed that often people on public forums have a tendency to just "burst" out sayings not thinking it could actually hurt the one they say it to. I think that's pretty annoying(could find the word to better explain) because sometimes I might have a question or is just in need of advice, about something that I couldn't speak with a "RL" friend about, and then some people just "assault" me verbally, I don't understand why some people would do that, what do they get out of it?? It would seem to be nothing at all, but me feeling either sad or annoyed And I think that could be everybody, not just me! I myself would never do something like that, because I DO care about the fact that a person asks for advice or poses a question that really means something to the person!

Cultural differences are much harder to appreciate in written forums than they are in face-to-face meetings. Expressions and arguments that might be appropriate in one country or culture might not be appropriate in a cross-cultural forum such as this, but who can know until after the feelings are hurt? This may lead one to suspect that the invisibility of the forum setting may encourage less courteous conversations, when that might not be the case. Just a thought...

I learned about internet venting in a basic psychology course. The theory states that, in general, relationships forged over the internet that do not involve immediate contact by the two persons takes the "second priority" to that of a relationship forged in real life.

What happens is that people, more commonly teens and younger kids, get the idea that the computer is just a fantasy world. It's sort of like a computer game, for example. The people you ally yourself with need to be treated "nicely" for them to like you. If you decide to turn on that group you can do so by lashing out by whatever which way. Of course, this is just a game and is not real. The relationships you build mean nothing if they have no value to you.

Unfortunately, this mentality travels to other aspects of life. You meet somebody over the internet, but "they are not real. They are just on the computer." Anything built in the internet has no value because it isn't real. This is where the mistakes are made because they don't realize that it IS another person that they are really speaking with.


Another example I've seen is between a person any myself. In real life this girl and I have had a few disagreements and have gotten into a trauma case. We refuse to speak to one another face to face. However, once we get to e-mail/messaging, we're both the bravest women and can say whatever needs to be said to get the point across. It's all about reality and being personal. it's much easier to be hurtful to somebody when you can't see them as apposed to being hurtful right to their faces.

I think there are a number of factors that contribute to this and many of them have been touched upon already.

First, there is the personal level. It is much harder to build the same type of interpersonal relationships with people you do not meet in real life. There are too many things missing from the interaction - in fact, almost everything. In some cases it may result in something as bad as what Aqua-Chan describes. The apparent anonymity is also a factor of course, but over time I believe its effect to be quite small. After all, if you have a long term commitment to a message board and its members, you dont feel anonymous for long.

Second, you have no chance of reading the expressions on the other persons face, so you cannot adapt your responses accordingly - something we do continuously and automatically. Verbal communication, no matter how fluent, is still limited and needs to be mediated by ques from the receiving party to guarantee proper delivery. Not everyone is fluent in english, so there is also a language barrier.

Third, there's culture. Most of our understanding of our own culture is not conscious, but acts automatically on our behaviour. There are courses for people working with other cultures, where you learn to identify the specifics of your own culture first to even start to put them into relation with other cultures. Very few on this board have that type of training, so culture clashes are bound to happen. Even between western Europe and the US there are enough differences for this to happen. As an example, in most of western Europe the question of free abortion is not an issue whatsoever, while in the US this view can cause great offense in some circles.

Religion is really a part of culture, but it sets up such a complex communication barrier I mention it specifically. The number of offensive and immoral behaviours described by religion are difficult to fathom, and can cause irreparable damage to communication between people.

On the other hand, if a person on the net is a true friend, the friendship will survice a few hurt feelings along the way just like your RL friends do. And on the other hand, if a relatively unknown person hurts your feelings it's no real catastrophe is it? It's the same as in real life, where that jerk in the next lane cuts you off, or someone that doesnt wait in line like the rest of us, etc.

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why "internet friends" can be so insensitive to each other, or whether there's a reason why strangers can be so insensitive to people they've never met? If I know the people I'm writing to, I am much more aware of their feelings and the effect that my words will have on them than if I'm writing in "virtual anonymity" to people I've never met.

I think, in general, when people write messages on their computers, they're not really aware of other people, so there isn't any check on their behavior as there would be if they felt that they were being observed in public. You should also consider the type of people you're dealing with. When you're dealing with people who basically despise other people and ooze negativity, you should always expect rude outbursts. They probably aren't much better in real-life situations.

I think it's also important to consider why people are writing messages. For example, if I'm having a conversation with someone, whether in real-life or on the internet, I'm very aware that I'm actually talking to someone. On the other hand, if I'm just posting messages on a message board that aren't addressed to anyone in particular, I just don't expect to have much effect on anyone. I take what other people say seriously most of the time, but I don't get upset when I read other people's messages, and that's probably why I don't expect other people to get upset by messages. I admit that I'm pretty sarcastic sometimes, and I do have a tendency to throw other people's words back at them to demonstrate the absurdity of their ideas. But it is never intended as a personal attack; I'm simply amused by irony, and I think it's important for everyone to realize how fallible our beliefs can be (even my own). I wish that we all knew the truth about everything, but we have a very long way to go. Nevertheless, I'm not going to cop out: I know that my words might upset other people sometimes, but they need to get over it. My messages couldn't possibly be the worst thing that could ever happen to them, and they need to learn how to cope with more important things. Is that harsh? Of course it is; but it's for their own good.

(I hope that people who know me well enough can tell that I was being sarcastic. If I can't indulge in self-referential parody, then what's the point?)

Anway, if you're asking why it's easier for friends to be insensitive to each other over the internet, I have wondered about that, too. For example, lately I've been hearing a lot about how people have been breaking up with each other by using email and instant messenging services (including cell phone messages and so forth). I guess it's a way of avoiding the other person and pretending that there aren't any consequences. "Out of sight, out of mind." But that isn't the same kind of insensitivity as making remarks to people with no regard for the other person's feelings. I mean, when you break up with someone, you expect it to hurt the other person, so you're not really "insensitive" per se; you just deliberately want to avoid looking the other person in the face. That's not the same thing as saying anything that comes to mind when you're not looking someone else in the face. I think the explanation for that is twofold. First of all, people are in their own little world when they're by themselves in front of their computers, and second of all, they're probably rude and insensitive to other people sometimes even in real life.

I think VonDondu hit the nail on the head at the end of his post. People have next to zero culpability for their actions (or in this case, words) while cruising Internet forums. It's as simple as the worst thing that can happen is being 'banned' from a forum. Big deal. For the most part here, I'm referring to trolls and other Inet rudeboys/gals who simply zoom through forums looking for anything or anyone to make fun of.

On the flip side, there are those whose words are not intended to hurt, however, due to a lack of eye contact, different cultures, religions, misunderstanding, context, etc..., wind up offending another. When this happens, I believe the reader or recipient of 'said offending words' is as responsible or more responsible than the writer. Everyone should realize Inet forums, instant messaging, and email are impersonal and incomplete forms of communication making it difficult to carry on a serious debate of sensitive topics (abortion, religion, Evolution vs. the paltry theory of creationism [just kidding ]). One really needs to desensitize (is that a word?) themselves when participating in online conversations, because we've all seen how quickly a simple debate can lead to harsh flaming/banning usually because someone is too sensitive and took something the wrong way.

I am one of the many who can far too easily take someone's words the wrong way which is the primary reason I stay out of the debates around here. I know it's not practicing what I preach, but emotion oft overrides common sense.

save the cohesion of your minds

Well put my friends, well put.

But for the sake of the victoms of "web abuse" i have this wonderful message:


you cant dwell on the stupidity of the "rudeboys/girls",
they should be ignored. let them bask in their idiocy, and thank whatever god or spirit you believe in that you arent like them, then make an evil little smirk and forget about it! And dont forget about this!: They are insecure, and look at the internet as a safe haven to taunt people, because they know in RL they're head would be nestled between they're prostate glands

so remember folks, you cant make pancakes in a toaster oven!
kinda like you cant let insecure, vile ****piles of the human race ruin your day!

theres my conclusion to this little package G'NITE!

I see a message thread as a debate between multiple parties - sometimes you're just not going to like what you read, just as would happen in a live debate. As in a debate, rebutt the arguments, but don't take it so personally.

Originally posted by dragon wench
What I have noticed, though, is that often on public forums people appear far less sensitive of how others might feel when they make posts as opposed to "RL" situations.

Why does this happen? Is it the relative anonymity? Or maybe people somehow feel less responsible for the hurt they might have caused if they can't actually see the looks upon those who feel upset by what they have said.

Like others have already posters, I think you can split people into three different groups: those who behave just the same as in RL (with the exception of mimic, tonality etc of course), those who become less sensitive and those who actually become more sensitive. However, there is always a sender and a receiver in all communication, and I think you can divide senders and receivers into the same three groups.

For the group people who behave badly, flame etc on internet, I think it's the lack of consequences in combination with a special personality type, that induces this change. In RL, there will mostly be a lot of consequences, for instance social punishment, for being rude and unpleasant to others, whereas on internet, you can just flame away and not come back until you feel like it, or never. In other words, you yourself can control and modulate how much you want to see of other people's responses. This I think is crucial
For the group of people who become more sensitive and considerate on internet, I think this is often a product of realising that so much information is missing compared to RL (tonality, mimic, posture and everything else visual) and also in international communities such as Gamebanshee you realise that people come from many different cultures and only a few have English as first language. All this make communcation more complicated, so some people will express themselves in a more moderate way than in RL.
For the group of people who behave the same way as in RL, not much can be said, I think.

As my myself, I belong to the group that behaves about the same towards other people in RL as on internet - I have no "internet persona" and I have no special characteristics that I hide in RL. Some people feel more free on internet, whereas I feel much more limited. If anything, I moderate myself in some ways on internet, for instance I joke less since my type of ironic humour is difficult to convey without tonality and is easily misunderstood. Irony can easily be interpreted as sarcasm if you don't hear the tonality of the voice.

I very much agree with Ned and Sojourner that internet debating about topics that are sensitive to you, is very difficult if you are the kind of person who tends to take things on a personal level. I am often surprised by how fast a serious discussion about a given topic deteriorate and sink down to a personal and emotional level instead of being an exchange of a series of presented arguments that are relevant for the actual topic and rebuttal.

Another phenomenon I have observed often on internet, is that people tend to believe that their personal opinions and beliefs should be taken for granted as right, and then they become sore and hurt when other people start opposing. This I very rarely see in RL, and it may be connected to what Vondondue describes of being in you own little world. People live in a certain social context and have a certain background, and when they sit at home before the computer, the rest of the world probably feels further away than it is when you for instance post on an internet forum. Perhaps you are not so used to being opposed from your social environment, since any social groups tend to be more intra-homogenic than inter-homogenic with other groups. And then you react with surprise and upset when you are oppsed, and may not be prepared to present arguments but rather respond on a emotional level and take it all personal. Not that this never happens IRL as well, but - I have travelled a lot to many different cultures, and also discussions and debates at an international level is part of my job, but I have never experiences anything close to what I have seen on internet when it comes to sensitivity towards opposing opinions. So I would say that increased sensitivity is as common as blunted.

Originally posted by C Elegans
For the group of people who behave badly, flame etc on internet, I think it's the lack of consequences in combination with a special personality type, that induces this change. In RL, there will mostly be a lot of consequences, for instance social punishment, for being rude and unpleasant to others, whereas on internet, you can just flame away and not come back until you feel like it, or never. In other words, you yourself can control and modulate how much you want to see of other people's responses. This I think is crucial

I agree that there's a group of people like that posting on the internet, and it must be very large. I also think there's a large group of people like that behind the wheels of cars. However, when you say, "In RL, there will mostly be consequences," you can't assume that all of these people "have a life"--that is, a social life in which they behave themselves because of their perception (conscious or not) of the consequences. Maybe they don't get out much and the way they act on the internet is the way they always act.

Originally posted by C Elegans
I very much agree with Ned and Sojourner that internet debating about topics that are sensitive to you, is very difficult if you are the kind of person who tends to take things on a personal level. I am often surprised by how fast a serious discussion about a given topic deteriorate and sink down to a personal and emotional level...

As I said earlier, I think we need to consider the reason why people post messages. For some people, the act of posting messages is a very personal thing. "These are my beliefs. I'm shaping them as I write them. They're important. I want to express them. My messages are very important." I think you can make an analogy to writing in a diary. The difference is that a diary is usually intended to be kept secret, while internet messages are meant to be seen by other people, but the personal significance is very similar. When other people contradict or fail to agree with a message that represents a person's attempts to say something really important, of course there will be hurt feelings. In my own case, I don't feel hurt when other people prove me wrong (especially not about the type of stuff I write about in public). Sometimes I am a little excited about a message I've posted and I'm anxious to see whether anyone has responded to it. But what I'm talking about is something more extreme. For example, I've seen people plead in their messages, "PLEASE. Read this message carefully. If you don't agree with it, read it again." The subtext is, "I really need for you to agree with me. What I've written is so important."

The lesson for people who get hurt when other people disagree with them is that even if your messages are important to you, you need to realize that they're not important in the same sense to anyone else, so you shouldn't think that other people are deliberately trying to wound you personally just because they're shooting holes in your ideas or calling you a moron or blowing you off.

I still say we need to make a distinction between a) the messages we write to people we actually know when we actually feel like we're having a conversation; b) the messages we write for ourselves just to put our thoughts on "paper"; and c) messages we post on message boards for total strangers to read (which might overlap with "b").

When it comes to how we react to internet debates, I think our station in life plays a role. For example, when I was a Philosophy major in college, I felt that my reputation and my worth as a person depended on how well I performed intellectually. As a result, it was very important for me to defend my position in a debate, and I reacted severely to "setbacks", embarrassing moments, and "personal attacks". But at this stage in my life, I no longer feel that it matters whether people are right or wrong (since we're so far from understanding the truth as we live our daily lives, anyway). That is to say, it doesn't influence my reaction to other people (I have other ways of judging myself and other people now). If I were a professional who traded in the world of ideas and had a reputation to maintain, I would still feel compelled to vigorously defend my ideas. Or, if I had an "internet persona" and I wanted to maintain a reputation as a wise old sage, or a crackerjack political hack, or an internet guru, or a blogmeister, or a chat god (you know, the type of person who sits in chat rooms all day trying to intimidate everyone else), etc., then maybe I would take what I write a lot more seriously. But when I could be gardening or taking care of old people or making money or shopping or vacationing or playing games or playing with my cat, etc., the internet just doesn't seem that important to me, even if I enjoy spending a lot of time on it. Some people have a lot of friends on the internet, and that's great, but in my case, my social life is full enough as it is, and (I hate to say it) being on the internet is more of a break from my social life than a way to forge deep relationships. (That doesn't mean I don't like all of you, so please don't take that the wrong way.) Again, how we use the internet reflects our station in life. And how personally we get involved in our posting affects how we react to other people's messages.

To return to a question I asked earlier, are friends really more rude to each other on the internet than they are in person or on the phone or (God forbid) in handwritten letters (if such a thing still exists)? Or can the "rudeness" sometimes be attributed to the fact that people will say unpleasant things through an impersonal medium (for example, "I'm breaking up with you") that they avoid talking about in person (not because they're unaware of the consequences but because they want to avoid them)? Maybe I don't perceive my friends to be more insensitive when they write messages than they are in person just because of the type of people they are. (You could say that my friends are "mature", ranging in age from the late 20's to the early 90's). Or perhaps I simply know how crass some of them can be in real life, and I am not shocked or hurt by what they write to me.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Another phenomenon I have observed often on internet is that people tend to believe that their personal opinions and beliefs should be taken for granted as right, and then they become sore and hurt when other people start opposing. This I very rarely see in RL, and it may be connected to what VonDondu describes of being in you own little world. People live in a certain social context and have a certain background, and when they sit at home before the computer, the rest of the world probably feels further away than it is when you for instance post on an internet forum. Perhaps you are not so used to being opposed from your social environment, since any social groups tend to be more intra-homogenic than inter-homogenic with other groups. And then you react with surprise and upset when you are opposed, and may not be prepared to present arguments but rather respond on a emotional level and take it all personal. Not that this never happens IRL as well, but - I have travelled a lot to many different cultures, and also discussions and debates at an international level is part of my job, but I have never experiences anything close to what I have seen on internet when it comes to sensitivity towards opposing opinions. So I would say that increased sensitivity is as common as blunted.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're talking about two different things in your last sentence: "blunted sensitivity" which affects what we say to other people, and "increased sensitivity" to what they say to us.

Why are people more vulnerable to criticism when they post messages on the internet? I don't quite understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that people are more sensitive to being opposed on the internet because their real life social environment is different from the (heterogeneous?) social environment of the internet. Or is there more to it than that?

I think they're more sensitive because they feel like they're putting themselves on the line when they write messages on the internet. I think there is a qualitative difference between what comes out of our mouths and what we write. When we are inside our own heads (outside of our usual social context, if you prefer), our ideas and beliefs are the measure of our worth and the source of our pride, and we are more vulnerable to disapproval or disagreement. In RL, we have lots of buffers and defenses, and we simply don't pay as much attention to what other people say because we're concerned about other things besides pure ideas (such as how people look when they're talking). In RL, other people's words are spoken into the air; but when we are on the internet and the space we're occupying is in our own mind, other people's remarks seem to be coming straight at us, right into our personal space. (I'm having trouble putting that into words, and I hope this isn't a circular argument.)

Have any of you considered the possibility that you have a more sensitive reaction when you read messages on the internet than you do when you're dealing with other people in person? Can any of you say, "I'm more sensitive when people attack my ideas on the internet than when they attack my ideas in person?" or "I misread what other people say on the internet more often than I misinterpret what people say to me in person?" That would make people on the internet seem more rude than people you meet in real life, even if they're not. That's one reason why I'm asking if they really are more rude or if you just think they're more rude.

does anyone notice?

this thread is becoming more and more repetitive as it goes along.

Re: does anyone notice?

I guess that's one way to look at this thread. It's certainly true if you ignore all of the original material that is added with each new post.

VonDondu wrote:I guess that's one way to look at this thread. It's certainly true if you ignore all of the original material that is added with each new post.

LOL Sometimes I really appreciate you kind of flat and dry statements, although I am not sure if they are meant to be funny or not

However, when you say, "In RL, there will mostly be consequences," you can't assume that all of these people "have a life"--that is, a social life in which they behave themselves because of their perception (conscious or not) of the consequences. Maybe they don't get out much and the way they act on the internet is the way they always act.

This is probably true in some cases, and in those cases it is sad. However, as deceiving as having no social life where real interaction is going on, is it to have a social life where group homogenity is very strong. This I also think is true in some cases, since many people actually interact only with people who are very similar to themselves. Some people are very dependent of confirmation from others, and the safest way to get constant confirmation is to surround yourself with people who share your thinking, opinions and emotional set up.

There has been some recent studies of internet using, and the conclusion from these studies are that many people use internet interaction to get more attention, or attention for different aspects of themselves, that they feel they can get IRL. Thus, the internet use for many people seem to be more compensatory rather than a simple reflection of a person's RL.

The lesson for people who get hurt when other people disagree with them is that even if your messages are important to you, you need to realize that they're not important in the same sense to anyone else, so you shouldn't think that other people are deliberately trying to wound you personally just because they're shooting holes in your ideas or calling you a moron or blowing you off.

I still say we need to make a distinction between a) the messages we write to people we actually know when we actually feel like we're having a conversation; b) the messages we write for ourselves just to put our thoughts on "paper"; and c) messages we post on message boards for total strangers to read (which might overlap with "b").

I agree totally with the first paragraph. I also think it is an important distiction you make here regarding the motivation people have for posting a message, as well as for using an internet message board in general. Different people wish to fill different needs by posting at an internet forum, and some seems to feel injured or unhappy when those needs are not fulfilled the way they wish. Here at SYM for instance, there have been periods when some members have complained about too many serious discussion since they felt SYM should be a place for fun and entertainment rather than discussions about controversial topics. At another forum where I post, there has been complaints that some people post too much about games, too much about sport, too much about politics etc. I think some people have unrealistic demands of how much you can control other people's respones. Everybody who use a public internet forum must be aware that what they have written is there for everyone, friend, foe or stranger, to read and respond to, and also that the internet forum is not like a computer game - made for your personal entertainment without you taking responsibility for fulfilling your needs.

Btw, the line between public and private and the illusion of public and private, is an interesting topic on internet. I think of all these people who write "internet diaries" meant for other people to read, thus creating an illusion of privacy in a totally public room. Well, that's another discussion....

When it comes to how we react to internet debates, I think our station in life plays a role.
<snip>
...the internet just doesn't seem that important to me, even if I enjoy spending a lot of time on it. Some people have a lot of friends on the internet, and that's great, but in my case, my social life is full enough as it is, and (I hate to say it) being on the internet is more of a break from my social life than a way to forge deep relationships. (That doesn't mean I don't like all of you, so please don't take that the wrong way.) Again, how we use the internet reflects our station in life. And how personally we get involved in our posting affects how we react to other people's messages.

Again, I agree with you and I actually don't think internet interaction is so different from RL interaction at the same level. A close, intimate relationship between two people may be as close and intimate over internet as in RL, minus physical appearance and contact, which may not be very important for that particular relationship anyway. A more superficial aquintance-type of relationship between two people where interaction is limited to a few aspects of life, will be the same regardless of medium. I however think that differences in expectations may be harder to identify on internet, since we miss so much communicative information about each other.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're talking about two different things in your last sentence: "blunted sensitivity" which affects what we say to other people, and "increased sensitivity" to what they say to us.

Why are people more vulnerable to criticism when they post messages on the internet? I don't quite understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that people are more sensitive to being opposed on the internet because their real life social environment is different from the (heterogeneous?) social environment of the internet. Or is there more to it than that?

I think blunted as well as increased sensitivity can occur both from sender and receiver on internet as compared to that individual would react IRL, but what I wanted to emphasize with the last paragraph of my post was the increased sensitivity I believe can occur because of the differences between a homogenous RL social environment and a heterogenous internet community.

I think they're more sensitive because they feel like they're putting themselves on the line when they write messages on the internet. I think there is a qualitative difference between what comes out of our mouths and what we write. When we are inside our own heads (outside of our usual social context, if you prefer), our ideas and beliefs are the measure of our worth and the source of our pride, and we are more vulnerable to disapproval or disagreement. In RL, we have lots of buffers and defenses, and we simply don't pay as much attention to what other people say because we're concerned about other things besides pure ideas (such as how people look when they're talking). In RL, other people's words are spoken into the air; but when we are on the internet and the space we're occupying is in our own mind, other people's remarks seem to be coming straight at us, right into our personal space. (I'm having trouble putting that into words, and I hope this isn't a circular argument.)

I think I get your point...and if I do, this is the same thing as I have been referring to when I have commented on people mixing up private and public, demanding privacy for stuff they choose to express publically. However, I am almost falling asleep now - I may post more on this topic later on.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]LOL Sometimes I really appreciate your kind of flat and dry statements, although I am not sure if they are meant to be funny or not [/QUOTE]
I post such comments because I think they're funny. "If you take away the originality, there's no originality." That's funny to me. Of course, it was also a mild retort to Kalashnikova's post: I thought he might have been referring to me. Well, if he's going to state the obvious, then so will I. I hope that Kalashnikova didn't feel that I was being rude.

In any case, I'll take your remark as a compliment. It is gratifying to know that someone appreciates my style. Thanks.

I have to admit that sometimes I feel like a "thread-killer". Sometimes when I post a message, everybody else stops posting in the thread. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it makes me wonder. The last time that you and I exchanged lengthy posts, I was afraid that maybe they were getting too long and tiresome for your taste. I mean, I know you have other things to do. But I'm always willing to scale things back or change the subject; I don't feel like I have to keep on typing until everyone sees my point of view, and I don't feel like I have to have the last word. I try to be good-humored (not necessarily funny), and sometimes I wonder if I'm not coming across that way. Just because I expound on subjects at length (quite redundantly, I might add), that doesn't mean I take myself so seriously. And just because I've written a lengthy post, that doesn't necessarily mean I want to write another one--I might have said everything I have to say.

[QUOTE=VonDondu]
-"I hope that Kalashnikova didn't feel that I was being rude."
-"that doesn't mean I take myself so seriously. "[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, considering the number of smilies you used in your last post, I'm sure you will be understood correctly


[QUOTE=VonDondu]
I have to admit that sometimes I feel like a "thread-killer". Sometimes when I post a message, everybody else stops posting in the thread. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it makes me wonder.[/QUOTE]

You could also see that as a compliment, although it's all in perception really. You see, I, for one, like reading your (and CE's) posts. They contain a lot of information (for someone who doesn’t know as much as you on the subject) and you express your opinion and knowledge on the matter in a very clear and understanding manner. I don't remember a lot of people saying; "I don't exactly know what you are talking about here". IMO that points out that people don't get confused by your posts.
Another thing, you and CE have the tendency to "hit the core" on most subjects, so perhaps people don't reply to your posts anymore, because they agree with you. Or maybe you convinced them of your argument?
But that's just me. Maybe you value my opinion, maybe you don't. If it's the last one, well, then my feelings are hurt

[QUOTE=VonDondu]I have to admit that sometimes I feel like a "thread-killer". Sometimes when I post a message, everybody else stops posting in the thread.[/QUOTE]

@Vondondu: at99 always got plenty of responses, I think you should interpret the thread-killer tendencies as a compliment.

Much have been said, already...

...as I see it, the operative word here is "rude."

Some people can be rude without knowing that they are offending others and have no intentions of doing so.