05-02-2017, 09:13 AM
Tomk to me: I'm fairly certain Eric was referring to your original post that started this thread, where you posted several comments without context (or humor). Very few came from the discovery thread.
Not one came from “Discoveries.” I had barely looked at “Discoveries” then; my brief glance at it suggested that it would be above the ridiculing so common at other sites.
There were/are two separate things going on:
1A. I first wrote the Humor section, based on the 2 TMT threads and others. I find most of these comments funny, but my writing of Humor had a message, well stated by Chas' comment: No, he's pointing out that you can disagree..without starting out with...(very thinly) veiled insults.
I am a Newbie only a month, wrote things, which, while controversial, were hardly offensive, IMO. The insults in the responses to me surprised me. But OK. I now understand that is how many of you folks communicate.
1B. Not clear on the big issue of context. Some of these insults were gratuitous, some were part of a back and forth in good jest. Either type, I see, is common at Punatalk.
Re the one quip, the “...outrageous opinions...” statement, I understand the context issue. To be charitable to the author, I made it clear that I had embellished. Whatever the case, if this quip or any other was not funny to you--well, I was annoyed at the insults to me.
I am sure we will both get over our respective concerns.
And given the prevalence of insults and people deliberately taking statements out of context on Punatalk, it is odd that any Punatic would offer an objection. [Perhaps a case of a chicken coming home to roost?]
Seems that most of the people commenting agreed the quips were funny and that far worse was omitted.
2. Far worse--not perhaps as an individual concern (insult), but general inappropriateness--seems to be the following:
YOUR OWN IGNORANT BULL****. I'm getting really fed up...people on this board NOT EVEN ****ING READING.... What the ****? (Party 2): to hijack a thread, as the asshole has clearly done.”
After writing Humor, I went on “Discoveries” and found the above. The first part was written by glassnumbers.
I then opined on “Discoveries” the same sentiment as glassnumbers: hijackers get off the thread. But more politely. And I wrote a message to Rob.
The sentiment was not to ban someone; it was to use the threat to ensure compliance. Most Punatalk writers seem highly interested in being here. I gather compliance would be no problem to achieve. (The issue for me was both the cursing and the hijacking. The second led to the first.)
But my message to Rob (an unsolicited input on "Discoveries") was clearly inappropriate. I am sorry. It is up to Rob and you folks, the initiators of “Discoveries,” to decide the tone in this thread.
And now my “academics” statement is of issue. (Does this ever end?)
Was there basis to think I used the term pejoratively? (Such pejorative use comes primarily on Fox News.) That is academics as in scholars, researchers, scientists, (professors?) etc. at astronomical facilities.
I praised "Discoveries" several times as a collaboration of astronomical insights and observations for the benefit of other astronomers and science buffs in the community. Do I have it wrong? What is the offensive mischaracterization in "academics?"
Not one came from “Discoveries.” I had barely looked at “Discoveries” then; my brief glance at it suggested that it would be above the ridiculing so common at other sites.
There were/are two separate things going on:
1A. I first wrote the Humor section, based on the 2 TMT threads and others. I find most of these comments funny, but my writing of Humor had a message, well stated by Chas' comment: No, he's pointing out that you can disagree..without starting out with...(very thinly) veiled insults.
I am a Newbie only a month, wrote things, which, while controversial, were hardly offensive, IMO. The insults in the responses to me surprised me. But OK. I now understand that is how many of you folks communicate.
1B. Not clear on the big issue of context. Some of these insults were gratuitous, some were part of a back and forth in good jest. Either type, I see, is common at Punatalk.
Re the one quip, the “...outrageous opinions...” statement, I understand the context issue. To be charitable to the author, I made it clear that I had embellished. Whatever the case, if this quip or any other was not funny to you--well, I was annoyed at the insults to me.
I am sure we will both get over our respective concerns.
And given the prevalence of insults and people deliberately taking statements out of context on Punatalk, it is odd that any Punatic would offer an objection. [Perhaps a case of a chicken coming home to roost?]
Seems that most of the people commenting agreed the quips were funny and that far worse was omitted.
2. Far worse--not perhaps as an individual concern (insult), but general inappropriateness--seems to be the following:
YOUR OWN IGNORANT BULL****. I'm getting really fed up...people on this board NOT EVEN ****ING READING.... What the ****? (Party 2): to hijack a thread, as the asshole has clearly done.”
After writing Humor, I went on “Discoveries” and found the above. The first part was written by glassnumbers.
I then opined on “Discoveries” the same sentiment as glassnumbers: hijackers get off the thread. But more politely. And I wrote a message to Rob.
The sentiment was not to ban someone; it was to use the threat to ensure compliance. Most Punatalk writers seem highly interested in being here. I gather compliance would be no problem to achieve. (The issue for me was both the cursing and the hijacking. The second led to the first.)
But my message to Rob (an unsolicited input on "Discoveries") was clearly inappropriate. I am sorry. It is up to Rob and you folks, the initiators of “Discoveries,” to decide the tone in this thread.
And now my “academics” statement is of issue. (Does this ever end?)
Was there basis to think I used the term pejoratively? (Such pejorative use comes primarily on Fox News.) That is academics as in scholars, researchers, scientists, (professors?) etc. at astronomical facilities.
I praised "Discoveries" several times as a collaboration of astronomical insights and observations for the benefit of other astronomers and science buffs in the community. Do I have it wrong? What is the offensive mischaracterization in "academics?"