Although, I don't know how Excliber's postings could be seen as anything but calm and reasonable.74novaman wrote:First time I've ever heard Excaliber called a bully.
Search found 3 matches
- Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:03 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Why I own guns.
- Replies: 52
- Views: 5481
Re: Why I own guns.
- Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:01 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Why I own guns.
- Replies: 52
- Views: 5481
Re: Why I own guns.
I don't think you can say that with certainty. I'm not defending his reactions - certainly not his use of crude references in the last post. But he could easily simply be a hot-head who let the escalation in the other post get the better of him.williamkevin wrote:Troll if I ever saw one....YIKES!!
If our forum had responded more rationally in the beginning, then we could say with certainty that he was/is a troll.
-just sayin
- Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:13 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Why I own guns.
- Replies: 52
- Views: 5481
Re: Why I own guns.
[peacemaker hat]
Look guys, everyone, I read JC's other thread as well. I understand and agree that his initial post was suspicious. As presented, the two most likely scenarios are:
1. He is, in fact, a troll
2. He is painfully unaware: one - that he drives aggressively and two - of just how legally ill-advised and serious his 'on the seat weapon display' was
However, IMO, our forum (of which I am also a fairly new member) has not reacted very well. If we are all well practiced at deescalation, we are certainly not displaying those traits here.
JC has been accused of ignoring the very advice he is asking for. I suppose that may be the case. But I also think that sometimes the tolerance for what is considered reasonable debate on this forum can be a little short. I have experienced this myself.
Many times, the first few responses to an argument will generate additional questions. Or, if the responses seem to be a near miss to the information presented, the OP will feel compelled to elaborate on the conditions a bit more to ensure that all of the initial facts are well understood. This should not be immediately considered to be disrespect to senior members or ignoring the given advice. It is the process of teasing out information that can be present in any healthy conversation or debate. Usually, reasoned and patient dialog will work to persuade one party or both, or at least boil it down to the few points at which the parties will have to agree to disagree. Deep seated opinions and beliefs are not changed overnight and they are certainly not changed by confrontational dialog.
Again, I am not coming to JC's defense to say that he has responded appropriately either (in the car or on this board). I am also not saying he is not a troll (watch the double negative
). I am saying that I think our community may not have given him much of a chance early on - if you reread the initial pages of postings on in his other thread.
Text communication cannot convey the subtleties of human to human interaction. Some people are worse than others at wording things in a way that expresses proper intent.
If our community had taken the higher road and chosen to be a little more patient, we would certainly soon know whether he is trolling, irrevocably delusional, or merely misguided. Because we jumped a bit quickly, IMO, on the trolling bandwagon, we may never know.
[/peacemaker hat]
[edited to reduce tone]
Look guys, everyone, I read JC's other thread as well. I understand and agree that his initial post was suspicious. As presented, the two most likely scenarios are:
1. He is, in fact, a troll
2. He is painfully unaware: one - that he drives aggressively and two - of just how legally ill-advised and serious his 'on the seat weapon display' was
However, IMO, our forum (of which I am also a fairly new member) has not reacted very well. If we are all well practiced at deescalation, we are certainly not displaying those traits here.
JC has been accused of ignoring the very advice he is asking for. I suppose that may be the case. But I also think that sometimes the tolerance for what is considered reasonable debate on this forum can be a little short. I have experienced this myself.
Many times, the first few responses to an argument will generate additional questions. Or, if the responses seem to be a near miss to the information presented, the OP will feel compelled to elaborate on the conditions a bit more to ensure that all of the initial facts are well understood. This should not be immediately considered to be disrespect to senior members or ignoring the given advice. It is the process of teasing out information that can be present in any healthy conversation or debate. Usually, reasoned and patient dialog will work to persuade one party or both, or at least boil it down to the few points at which the parties will have to agree to disagree. Deep seated opinions and beliefs are not changed overnight and they are certainly not changed by confrontational dialog.
Again, I am not coming to JC's defense to say that he has responded appropriately either (in the car or on this board). I am also not saying he is not a troll (watch the double negative
). I am saying that I think our community may not have given him much of a chance early on - if you reread the initial pages of postings on in his other thread. Text communication cannot convey the subtleties of human to human interaction. Some people are worse than others at wording things in a way that expresses proper intent.
If our community had taken the higher road and chosen to be a little more patient, we would certainly soon know whether he is trolling, irrevocably delusional, or merely misguided. Because we jumped a bit quickly, IMO, on the trolling bandwagon, we may never know.
[/peacemaker hat]
[edited to reduce tone]