SusanDoris, something else occurred to me after posting. If I were in your situation (as I understand it), I wouldn't be feeling self-pity, but I think these hell calls would be making me increasingly frustrated and annoyed.
No, I do notfeel frustrated or annoyed by posts here; nor do I waste time feeling self-pity. I confess that very occasionally I do have a moment or two of self-pity, but do not allow it to last.
I don't know whether you are feeling this way, as you are different from me, but in your shoes, I'd be wanting to say to people: 'Look, FFS, I come to this site because I need the intellectual stimulation or I'd be bored out of my skull. I like you guys (well, most of you), I enjoy these conversations, and I'm genuinely trying to fit in and follow the rules. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of people jumping on my posts, and assuming I'm deliberately trying to thwart their discussions. I put a lot of effort into reading the threads and composing my posts, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking to the topic. But if the consensus is that I'm not, why not just create some code phrase to let me know at the time, such as 'Thank you for your post, SusanDoris. Now, getting back to topic...' And then I will stop my little strand of conversation.'
Hey, thank you - spot on!! Actually, I don't think exactly that but as near as makes no difference I suppose and because I do not get annoyed I wouldn't use the same words.
I suspect you are far less easily provoked to impatience than I am, so you wouldn't express yourself with such irritation, but would that sort of code-phrase thing work for you, do you think? Of course, there are hosts who will step in if the off-topic posts start to significantly derail the thread, but as I've said before, people do quite often post a bit of an off-topic post and the topic resumes easily without the need for a hostly intervention, which can also disrupt the flow of the conversation. But given your tendency to post a whole series of posts rather than a one-off, maybe your off-topic ones could be nipped in the bud with an inobtrusive code-phrase?
No argument there, except to say that you cannot ignore the posts of others who respond to me regardless of what I say in the same way very often, however carefully I have worded my post.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
So the phrase is simply meaningless. Dickhead.
Perhaps more like the Bolshevics then? As for not spreading propaganda. Are you serious? Maybe she actually believes it, but it's still propaganda you twat.
Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing words around?
Propaganda is not just believing something you don't. Calling someone a Nazi or a Stalinist - or saying someone is acting like one - is a serious thing.
Particularly when the person in question is doing no such thing - and some other wanker thinks it is clever to use these terms as abuse.
Heh, BF, I actually feel a bit less tired of the thread now, because SD has now responded to my post and agreed that my attempt to paraphrase what she is wanting to say to everyone is pretty much 'spot on'. Now, if she is happy for people to give her a discreet nudge back onto topic in future, there may be some hope for this whole dilemma.
@mr cheesy, I briefly did some teaching at an FE College. They taught me how to issue a shit sandwich. I realised it was something I'd been doing for a lo-oo-oong time.
Mark Betts is very welcome to sample the one I've deposited in his in box, although it won't be fresh by now.
Still, sometimes cack forms a nice crust ...
Meanwhile, I too marvel at fineline's patience and forbearance. She is like Job.
BF and Gamma, I'm not sure I am terribly patient in general. I just have more patience with some people and less with others. I don't feel the levels of irritation that others feel with SD. I quite like her, and actually admire her own patience, because in her shoes I think I'd have rolled my eyes at the ship and called a few people idiots, and then stopped engaging. Though it's hard to imagine, because I think in reality I would have engaged logically and tried to find points in common, to pinpoint the problem and find strategies to improve communication, and so wouldn't have engendered this much animosity. But if I wasn't able to do this, I'd have got impatient with people and decided they were a bunch of wankers. Thing is, though, I know many people who express themselves as she does. They're not bad people.
And Marvin, yes, that is true. My hopes are often frustrated, particularly hopes for improving my own life skills, but I do keep hoping regardless. Because if you don't keep hoping and trying, you just stop.
this is an entirely separate and very serious point:
Any contempt anyone has read in my posts is from the minds of those who think that, not mine.
Then stop using words that imply contempt like superstitious, ignorant etc when talking about other people's beliefs.
What Tubbs said.
Basic communication principles, SusanDoris: first, it takes two to tango, whether the result is understanding or misunderstanding. Second, communications involve both messages and meanings as well as 'senders' and 'receivers.' Messages and meanings are not necessarily the same.
There is no unilateral, one-side-only communication. Other people HAVE to read into your posts, and YOU have read into what's posted by others. We all do this; we none of us can help that. We all speak and write and read and listen with our whole selves. That's a normal part of the communication process.
Even when we use a common language -- in this case, English -- we each of us carry around different, individually unique, versions of that language. Our vocabularies overlap but also differ. The ways in which we organize thoughts into words are similar (word order is pretty rigid in English compared to some other languages) are similar, but also differ. Our personal histories and values systems color how we understand and react to various common-currency ideas in (overlapping) Western cultures. So when you write your message "superstitions," some people will read the meaning "stupid, ignorant, ill-informed belief." You can't prevent that reaction. That doesn't mean it's unjustified. What you CAN control is your choice of words, knowing in advance (after 13 years' experience) that the audience here contains a substantial percentage of people who will react negatively to the term "superstitions." Choosing different terminology might, then, prevent derailment of a thread.
Now -- before you you write your usual comeback ("Well, what should I call it, then? Your beloved, well-grounded Truth-above-All-Truths?" or some other equally false-dilemma response -- you can also control your own defensiveness which leads directly to these false-dilemma propositions you retreat to so often and which contribute to thread derailment. Person A's objection to having his/her beliefs characterized as superstitions does not constitute an attack on Person B's atheism. It's merely an objection to being slammed, that's all. End of story. Let the objection stand. No defense is required (though an apology might be wise).
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
So the phrase is simply meaningless. Dickhead.
Perhaps more like the Bolshevics then? As for not spreading propaganda. Are you serious? Maybe she actually believes it, but it's still propaganda you twat.
Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing words around?
Propaganda is not just believing something you don't. Calling someone a Nazi or a Stalinist - or saying someone is acting like one - is a serious thing.
Particularly when the person in question is doing no such thing - and some other wanker thinks it is clever to use these terms as abuse.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
So the phrase is simply meaningless. Dickhead.
Perhaps more like the Bolshevics then? As for not spreading propaganda. Are you serious? Maybe she actually believes it, but it's still propaganda you twat.
Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing words around?
Propaganda is not just believing something you don't. Calling someone a Nazi or a Stalinist - or saying someone is acting like one - is a serious thing.
Particularly when the person in question is doing no such thing - and some other wanker thinks it is clever to use these terms as abuse.
Now you're just talking rubbish - stfu
So you aren't going to pull up your big boy underpants and try to defend your disgusting slur.
Ah, the beautiful genius of Hell - drawing all this annoyance into one easily-avoided and somewhat-entertaining place, such that we don't need to sprinkle all this frustration with @SusanDoris's limitations all over the place all the time. And in turn she has the satisfaction of getting to respond to every single thing said to her without it necessarily taking over some other topic.
Now if only we could get Mark's Bits to stop going full-Nazi in his hyperbolic urge for description...
...except...as Susan explained, at various times: she's blind. That's one thing she wanted you to remember. The supposedly-accessible voice-to-text-and-back software ("Digital Dave", among other nicknames) she uses to access the Ship and Web is nowhere near accessible enough. An example: As I recall, from an on-board convo a few months ago, it's just very difficult for her to go back and forth between the edit box and the post she's addressing. So she mostly works from memory. And that all takes time and energy.
I'm NOT saying "oh, she's blind, give the poor thing a break". I am saying that it can affect her ability to write and post and participate. (And she's publicly said as much.) That may be what some of you are hearing, and perceiving as bad.
--Other posters have learning disabilities; or English isn't easy for them; or they have a quick or long-dragging-out temper; or they're prone to caustic comments about other Shipmates that are supposed to be funny, even though they aren't deserved; or they're shy, nervous, scared; or they're not good with computers; or don't have a computer of their own, and have to grab a few minutes, now and then, on a library computer; or their household is often chaotic, and it's hard to put two thoughts together in one post. Etc.
--I have assorted chronic health problems, some of which can cause "brain fog" (the actual term!). I often have to read someone's post several times, because I miss things--or even read the post as saying exactly the opposite of what it actually does.
Sometimes, it takes me hours to finish one post (with TV breaks and naps), proof it, be satisfied that my emotions in the post are in control, and decide I can live with what I said. And I can use preview post and *still* miss glaring typos. I can take days to get back to a post. And, most days, my only human interaction is online--again, due to health problems.
Most of us have stuff to deal with, of one kind and duration or another, at various times or all the time.
--I swear: each time we go through this, it seems like most relevant posters forget everything that was said the last time. Examples from previous times:
**Someone said S wasn't engaging a certain way, but I pointed out where she did exactly that on the first page of the thread. And other similar...confusion.
People kept poking at Susan about things she was perceived to do differently from everyone else (or, at least, from every other "proper poster"). Someone finally said I didn't have to defend S anymore, because "she's one of us, now". Yeah, that lasted.
And that was from just parts of one thread.
**Another time, when there were "troll!" murmurings, I went looking for Susan's webpage. That took some doing: there'd long been a link to it in her profile, and I'd read it; but it turned out the hosting company had closed down. Luckily, I found a copy of it at the Internet Archive, and was able to prove S was who she said. IIRC, there was at least one media article about her. Some people reluctantly decided "ok, she's probably not a troll".
--I honestly don't hear Susan the way her critics do. She's pleasant, sometimes funny, listens (yes, really!) to other's ideas, shares her own, and basically wants interesting conversation, AIUI.
--Given that folks can just scroll on by any posts they don't, I really want to shout "WTH is *wrong* with you people?!" And I hate that, because some of you are friends and people I really respect.
You've all got the right to feel and think whatever you do. But, over the past 10 years or so, years, the Ship has periodically kicked its conscience to the curb and gone after Shipmates who were different--either because they were different, or because people thought they were faking/trolling. Over and over. (Those of you who did that: you know who you are.)
And posts by Shipmates who are expressing dismay with a person but not trying to twist the knife...get mixed in with those of Shipmates who have Ginzu knives, Vegematics, and trash compacters at the ready...and it becomes one hot, painful mess.
"Trolling" is an allegation that maybe shouldn't be thrown around lightly. (Especially when repeated harassment of S and others who are different might be considered a type of trolling.) There used to be a rule about that...
The Ship has changed a lot over the years. I think we used to have more diversity of thought and approach, more heart, more passion to keep trying to make the community work, even when we weren't at all sure whether it could, would, or should. IMHO, some of the loss of that occurred in the context of leaving the old site.
I talk to blind people online every day, several times a day (I host a Facebook group with 4000 members, half of them blind) and I can categorically say you are wrong @Golden Key .
Being blind and using screen readers does not cause people to constantly bring the subject back to the same topic - which is all I asked @SusanDoris to try to stop doing.
I think the fact that people are talking to her about it is inclusive not the opposite.
Hell remains a good place to air these things because we can say what we really think. The fact that some people are more frustrated than others - and express it in strong terms/language is par for the course.
I don't think SD is a troll. Sometimes, she can post in a troll like way. There is a difference.
I suspect that is mainly inadvertent, but as even the very measured Fineline observes, it's by no means certain that she isn't winding people up deliberately at times.
It's not as if I can 'cast the first stone.'
No, whilst I accept that some Shippies jump to conclusions with her posts and often don't hear her out, she does have 'form' and a tendency to post in ways that would test the patience of a Saint.
It's still good to have her around. Even mosquitoes have their place I suppose.
I agree that being blind doesn’t get Susan a pass. I think it’s actually rather patronising to suggest it should.
Like Boogie, I have more experience of the blind than the average sighted person. I have a number of blind or visually impaired people in my family, which has led to me hanging out and volunteering with a blind organisation which among other things organises AWESOME adapted holidays in the Swiss Alps for people with visual disabilities. And because I know higher than average numbers of blind people, I know that blindness is no excuse for being an arse.
Actually, blind people run exactly the same gamut of personality as sighted people, with all the same strengths, weaknesses and foibles: some of them are admirable, charming, brilliant people, and others of them are arses. They aren’t arses because they’re blind; they’re arses because they’re arses. They’d still be arses if they could see.
My father-in-law uses the same kind of software that Susan does. In fact, he knows his way around his computer considerably better than many sighted people of his age. He wouldn’t behave the way she does.
I talk to blind people online every day, several times a day (I host a Facebook group with 4000 members, half of them blind) and I can categorically say you are wrong @Golden Key .
Being blind and using screen readers does not cause people to constantly bring the subject back to the same topic - which is all I asked @SusanDoris to try to stop doing.
I think the fact that people are talking to her about it is inclusive not the opposite.
Hell remains a good place to air these things because we can say what we really think. The fact that some people are more frustrated than others - and express it in strong terms/language is par for the course.
This. Allowing bad behaviour to go unchallenged or avoiding conflict because it makes us feel uncomfortable is likely to be more damaging to a community in the long term. And, to be clear, it's the behaviour that's being criticised. Not the individual. Not the views.
TBH, the whole, "You can't handle the truth" responses coupled with the pearl clutching is doing my head in. Although the fact we've agreed that in the cases of terminal thread derailment we can use a safe word to make it stop is progress. Of a kind.
SusanDoris has always been very adamant no one should treat her differently because she is blind. Something I do often think though is that if I were unable to see the posts and were relying on software that was reading it aloud to me, I would find it very hard to always see the thread in terms of the big picture and have in mind the OP. Purgatory threads can be quite complex and in depth - they're not just general chat threads - and I often have to glance again at the OP several times, and quickly scan through again all the posts on the page, to help ensure I'm on topic, and not missing the point. Such quick scanning for the big picture is simply not possible if you are listening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't find this a problem, but everyone is different, and we all have a mix of strengths and difficulties, so the fact of knowing lots of blind people who don't have this problem doesn't necessarily mean no blind person will find it difficult.
I supported a student who was unable to read or write and relied on Dragon software - he was very intelligent but listening to the various articles he needed to read was time consuming and limiting. He would often miss important points because he couldn't just scan back up to confirm something.
(Edited to clarify: I am not suggesting SD shouldn't be asked to stop continually returning to the same point. Just seeing it in terms of it may not be as easy for her as we think it should be.)
@mr cheesy, I briefly did some teaching at an FE College. They taught me how to issue a shit sandwich. I realised it was something I'd been doing for a lo-oo-oong time.
Mark Betts is very welcome to sample the one I've deposited in his in box, although it won't be fresh by now.
Still, sometimes cack forms a nice crust ...
...
Admin Tiara On
PMs are covered by the 10Cs and are not to be used for personal attacks.
This is Carole, my neighbour, typing for me - horrendous problems with SuperNova and I don't think I will be able to post before Monday.
I read quite a few of the above posts before the problem and I will be back as fast as I can - or sooner!!!!
Thirty-one pages is a lot of verbiage to devote to one habitual derailer. If she hasn't gotten the problem by now, she won't. (I sort of have to tip my hat to her rope-a-dope skills on this thread.) If thirty-one pages isn't enough to contain one's ire... well I'm just sorry. Yes, she goes off topic, but to truly derail a thread takes replies to the tangent. So don't. Don't feed her troll-like proclivities.
Thirty-one pages is a lot of verbiage to devote to one habitual derailer….
If she didn't keep responding to the criticisms, the thread would soon die off. I learnt that lesson years ago. You DON'T always have to have the last word.
Thirty-one pages is a lot of verbiage to devote to one habitual derailer….
If she didn't keep responding to the criticisms, the thread would soon die off. I learnt that lesson years ago. You DON'T always have to have the last word.
He says, in the final post (until now) on the thread...
Thirty-one pages is a lot of verbiage to devote to one habitual derailer….
If she didn't keep responding to the criticisms, the thread would soon die off. I learnt that lesson years ago. You DON'T always have to have the last word.
He says, in the final post (until now) on the thread...
Another clever dick! Missed the point entirely, but.... well, why should I care?
...except...as Susan explained, at various times: she's blind. That's one thing she wanted you to remember. The supposedly-accessible voice-to-text-and-back software ("Digital Dave", among other nicknames) she uses to access the Ship and Web is nowhere near accessible enough. An example: As I recall, from an on-board convo a few months ago, it's just very difficult for her to go back and forth between the edit box and the post she's addressing. So she mostly works from memory. And that all takes time and energy.
I'm NOT saying "oh, she's blind, give the poor thing a break". I am saying that it can affect her ability to write and post and participate. (And she's publicly said as much.) That may be what some of you are hearing, and perceiving as bad.
It's a tech problem. Blindness only comes into it because it means she has to use special software she finds it difficult to manage.
Perhaps there's better software, somewhere, but there are limitations to what software she's got.
SusanDoris has always been very adamant no one should treat her differently because she is blind. Something I do often think though is that if I were unable to see the posts and were relying on software that was reading it aloud to me, I would find it very hard to always see the thread in terms of the big picture and have in mind the OP. Purgatory threads can be quite complex and in depth - they're not just general chat threads - and I often have to glance again at the OP several times, and quickly scan through again all the posts on the page, to help ensure I'm on topic, and not missing the point. Such quick scanning for the big picture is simply not possible if you are listening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't find this a problem, but everyone is different, and we all have a mix of strengths and difficulties, so the fact of knowing lots of blind people who don't have this problem doesn't necessarily mean no blind person will find it difficult.
I supported a student who was unable to read or write and relied on Dragon software - he was very intelligent but listening to the various articles he needed to read was time consuming and limiting. He would often miss important points because he couldn't just scan back up to confirm something.
(Edited to clarify: I am not suggesting SD shouldn't be asked to stop continually returning to the same point. Just seeing it in terms of it may not be as easy for her as we think it should be.)
@Goldenkey: with respect, I’m not buying that the software is the problem. I know that software*. It doesn’t induce anyone to keep derailing threads by going on and on about the same tired old points. “Dave” isn’t going “now Susan, how about another round of how religion is all superstition and the scientific method will make you all see the light in the end”. If anything, I would have thought a person using a screen-reader would find it much easier to reply to general points than to try to quote and reply to Every. Single. Post.
*Which incidentally is why I used the word “arse” repeatedly in my previous post. It would sound hilarious read out by that plummy, rather monotone synthesised voice. Arse arse arse. Call me childish if you like.
No, I get that. If the Queen said 'arse' - and I'm sure she does, it's the Queen's English after all - then it'd sound funnier than if you or I said it.
It works well in an Irish accent too, as in Fr Jack on 'Father Ted': "Feck! Drink! Arse!"
But I can well imagine her Majesty saying, 'One dez net orlways see the attrection of these circular debates on Ship.Of.Fools. Meh husband end I find them most tiresome. As Defender of The Faith I think you are all making a complete arse of yourselves ...'
Enforced absence due to major problems with SuperNova...
I don’t know if you can afford it but new iPads and tablets (Apple or Android) have excellent screen readers and magnification built in - no need for any other software. I have lots of blind friends who use them.
Enforced absence due to major problems with SuperNova...
I don’t know if you can afford it but new iPads and tablets (Apple or Android) have excellent screen readers and magnification built in - no need for any other software. I have lots of blind friends who use them.
And if you are not blind and switch one on accidentally they are a bugger to switch off too.
Enforced absence due to major problems with SuperNova...
I don’t know if you can afford it but new iPads and tablets (Apple or Android) have excellent screen readers and magnification built in - no need for any other software. I have lots of blind friends who use them.
Thank you for the information. Yes, I attended a meeting a few years ago, where a totally blind man was demonstrating how he and his wife (also totally blind) used a very smart phone entirely by voice command. If I was younger, or had a daily need for what such a phone could do for me, I would not hesitate to get one and spend time learning how to use it, but as I manage my life with the equipment I have - when it is working!, it is not something I would spend the time on for now.
I hope that does not sound like a negative attitude - that is one thing I do not have!
One thing I have learnt during the last few days is that it will be useful to find out how to switch between maximum and minimum echoing of every letter and punctuation mark - which is helping at the moment avoid too many typos - I hope!
Comments
I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean. I wouldn't accuse anyone of actual contempt - this is Hell.
And I think this post has said it all.
Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing words around?
Propaganda is not just believing something you don't. Calling someone a Nazi or a Stalinist - or saying someone is acting like one - is a serious thing.
Particularly when the person in question is doing no such thing - and some other wanker thinks it is clever to use these terms as abuse.
fineline, I say this sincerely, your patience and forbearance are truly exemplary.
Where the hell's that 'not-worthy' smiley when you need the bloody thing?
Drat! Too late to remove that word not required.
Then stop using words that imply contempt like superstitious, ignorant etc when talking about other people's beliefs.
Mark Betts is very welcome to sample the one I've deposited in his in box, although it won't be fresh by now.
Still, sometimes cack forms a nice crust ...
Meanwhile, I too marvel at fineline's patience and forbearance. She is like Job.
Ah, hope. One of the greatest Christian attributes. And quite probably the most frequently frustrated.
And Marvin, yes, that is true. My hopes are often frustrated, particularly hopes for improving my own life skills, but I do keep hoping regardless. Because if you don't keep hoping and trying, you just stop.
What Tubbs said.
Basic communication principles, SusanDoris: first, it takes two to tango, whether the result is understanding or misunderstanding. Second, communications involve both messages and meanings as well as 'senders' and 'receivers.' Messages and meanings are not necessarily the same.
There is no unilateral, one-side-only communication. Other people HAVE to read into your posts, and YOU have read into what's posted by others. We all do this; we none of us can help that. We all speak and write and read and listen with our whole selves. That's a normal part of the communication process.
Even when we use a common language -- in this case, English -- we each of us carry around different, individually unique, versions of that language. Our vocabularies overlap but also differ. The ways in which we organize thoughts into words are similar (word order is pretty rigid in English compared to some other languages) are similar, but also differ. Our personal histories and values systems color how we understand and react to various common-currency ideas in (overlapping) Western cultures. So when you write your message "superstitions," some people will read the meaning "stupid, ignorant, ill-informed belief." You can't prevent that reaction. That doesn't mean it's unjustified. What you CAN control is your choice of words, knowing in advance (after 13 years' experience) that the audience here contains a substantial percentage of people who will react negatively to the term "superstitions." Choosing different terminology might, then, prevent derailment of a thread.
Now -- before you you write your usual comeback ("Well, what should I call it, then? Your beloved, well-grounded Truth-above-All-Truths?" or some other equally false-dilemma response -- you can also control your own defensiveness which leads directly to these false-dilemma propositions you retreat to so often and which contribute to thread derailment. Person A's objection to having his/her beliefs characterized as superstitions does not constitute an attack on Person B's atheism. It's merely an objection to being slammed, that's all. End of story. Let the objection stand. No defense is required (though an apology might be wise).
Now you're just talking rubbish - stfu
So you aren't going to pull up your big boy underpants and try to defend your disgusting slur.
Figures.
He can get a room and play with himself - I'm done
Now if only we could get Mark's Bits to stop going full-Nazi in his hyperbolic urge for description...
He can get a room and play with himself - I'm done
Perhaps you'd like to join him......
Quite an achievement. Chapeau.
Nice to meet you too.
Indeed. It makes you wonder if he has a birthmark.
Partly in response to Boogie's post here, but also to others.
...except...as Susan explained, at various times: she's blind. That's one thing she wanted you to remember. The supposedly-accessible voice-to-text-and-back software ("Digital Dave", among other nicknames) she uses to access the Ship and Web is nowhere near accessible enough. An example: As I recall, from an on-board convo a few months ago, it's just very difficult for her to go back and forth between the edit box and the post she's addressing. So she mostly works from memory. And that all takes time and energy.
I'm NOT saying "oh, she's blind, give the poor thing a break".
--Other posters have learning disabilities; or English isn't easy for them; or they have a quick or long-dragging-out temper; or they're prone to caustic comments about other Shipmates that are supposed to be funny, even though they aren't deserved; or they're shy, nervous, scared; or they're not good with computers; or don't have a computer of their own, and have to grab a few minutes, now and then, on a library computer; or their household is often chaotic, and it's hard to put two thoughts together in one post. Etc.
--I have assorted chronic health problems, some of which can cause "brain fog" (the actual term!). I often have to read someone's post several times, because I miss things--or even read the post as saying exactly the opposite of what it actually does.
Sometimes, it takes me hours to finish one post (with TV breaks and naps), proof it, be satisfied that my emotions in the post are in control, and decide I can live with what I said. And I can use preview post and *still* miss glaring typos. I can take days to get back to a post. And, most days, my only human interaction is online--again, due to health problems.
Most of us have stuff to deal with, of one kind and duration or another, at various times or all the time.
--I swear: each time we go through this, it seems like most relevant posters forget everything that was said the last time. Examples from previous times:
**Someone said S wasn't engaging a certain way, but I pointed out where she did exactly that on the first page of the thread. And other similar...confusion.
People kept poking at Susan about things she was perceived to do differently from everyone else (or, at least, from every other "proper poster"). Someone finally said I didn't have to defend S anymore, because "she's one of us, now". Yeah, that lasted.
And that was from just parts of one thread.
**Another time, when there were "troll!" murmurings, I went looking for Susan's webpage. That took some doing: there'd long been a link to it in her profile, and I'd read it; but it turned out the hosting company had closed down. Luckily, I found a copy of it at the Internet Archive, and was able to prove S was who she said. IIRC, there was at least one media article about her. Some people reluctantly decided "ok, she's probably not a troll".
--I honestly don't hear Susan the way her critics do. She's pleasant, sometimes funny, listens (yes, really!) to other's ideas, shares her own, and basically wants interesting conversation, AIUI.
--Given that folks can just scroll on by any posts they don't, I really want to shout "WTH is *wrong* with you people?!" And I hate that, because some of you are friends and people I really respect.
You've all got the right to feel and think whatever you do. But, over the past 10 years or so, years, the Ship has periodically kicked its conscience to the curb and gone after Shipmates who were different--either because they were different, or because people thought they were faking/trolling. Over and over. (Those of you who did that: you know who you are.)
And posts by Shipmates who are expressing dismay with a person but not trying to twist the knife...get mixed in with those of Shipmates who have Ginzu knives, Vegematics, and trash compacters at the ready...and it becomes one hot, painful mess.
"Trolling" is an allegation that maybe shouldn't be thrown around lightly. (Especially when repeated harassment of S and others who are different might be considered a type of trolling.) There used to be a rule about that...
The Ship has changed a lot over the years. I think we used to have more diversity of thought and approach, more heart, more passion to keep trying to make the community work, even when we weren't at all sure whether it could, would, or should. IMHO, some of the loss of that occurred in the context of leaving the old site.
Maybe we can get some of that back?
(votive)
Being blind and using screen readers does not cause people to constantly bring the subject back to the same topic - which is all I asked @SusanDoris to try to stop doing.
I think the fact that people are talking to her about it is inclusive not the opposite.
Hell remains a good place to air these things because we can say what we really think. The fact that some people are more frustrated than others - and express it in strong terms/language is par for the course.
I suspect that is mainly inadvertent, but as even the very measured Fineline observes, it's by no means certain that she isn't winding people up deliberately at times.
It's not as if I can 'cast the first stone.'
No, whilst I accept that some Shippies jump to conclusions with her posts and often don't hear her out, she does have 'form' and a tendency to post in ways that would test the patience of a Saint.
It's still good to have her around. Even mosquitoes have their place I suppose.
Like Boogie, I have more experience of the blind than the average sighted person. I have a number of blind or visually impaired people in my family, which has led to me hanging out and volunteering with a blind organisation which among other things organises AWESOME adapted holidays in the Swiss Alps for people with visual disabilities. And because I know higher than average numbers of blind people, I know that blindness is no excuse for being an arse.
Actually, blind people run exactly the same gamut of personality as sighted people, with all the same strengths, weaknesses and foibles: some of them are admirable, charming, brilliant people, and others of them are arses. They aren’t arses because they’re blind; they’re arses because they’re arses. They’d still be arses if they could see.
My father-in-law uses the same kind of software that Susan does. In fact, he knows his way around his computer considerably better than many sighted people of his age. He wouldn’t behave the way she does.
This. Allowing bad behaviour to go unchallenged or avoiding conflict because it makes us feel uncomfortable is likely to be more damaging to a community in the long term. And, to be clear, it's the behaviour that's being criticised. Not the individual. Not the views.
TBH, the whole, "You can't handle the truth" responses coupled with the pearl clutching is doing my head in. Although the fact we've agreed that in the cases of terminal thread derailment we can use a safe word to make it stop is progress. Of a kind.
I supported a student who was unable to read or write and relied on Dragon software - he was very intelligent but listening to the various articles he needed to read was time consuming and limiting. He would often miss important points because he couldn't just scan back up to confirm something.
(Edited to clarify: I am not suggesting SD shouldn't be asked to stop continually returning to the same point. Just seeing it in terms of it may not be as easy for her as we think it should be.)
Admin Tiara On
PMs are covered by the 10Cs and are not to be used for personal attacks.
Admin Tiara Off
I read quite a few of the above posts before the problem and I will be back as fast as I can - or sooner!!!!
I was simply messing around with the shit sandwich trope.
My message to Mark contained no cack and no animals were harmed in the writing of it.
I can see why the warning was issued though. It looked as though I was squeezing fresh turds through Mark's letter box.
Yes I'm still around - and no, I'll verify that there were no unpleasant "surprises" contained therein.
He says, in the final post (until now) on the thread...
Another clever dick! Missed the point entirely, but.... well, why should I care?
It's a tech problem. Blindness only comes into it because it means she has to use special software she finds it difficult to manage.
Perhaps there's better software, somewhere, but there are limitations to what software she's got.
This.
Excellent. Thank you both for clarifying.
*Which incidentally is why I used the word “arse” repeatedly in my previous post. It would sound hilarious read out by that plummy, rather monotone synthesised voice. Arse arse arse. Call me childish if you like.
It works well in an Irish accent too, as in Fr Jack on 'Father Ted': "Feck! Drink! Arse!"
But I can well imagine her Majesty saying, 'One dez net orlways see the attrection of these circular debates on Ship.Of.Fools. Meh husband end I find them most tiresome. As Defender of The Faith I think you are all making a complete arse of yourselves ...'
(But with grateful thanks to LVER and GG for a lovely moment of light relief!
With mg up to 10x, nose to screen and learning - more quickly than I intended! - how to use Google Chrom, I'm watching!!!
I don’t know if you can afford it but new iPads and tablets (Apple or Android) have excellent screen readers and magnification built in - no need for any other software. I have lots of blind friends who use them.
And if you are not blind and switch one on accidentally they are a bugger to switch off too.
I hope that does not sound like a negative attitude - that is one thing I do not have!
One thing I have learnt during the last few days is that it will be useful to find out how to switch between maximum and minimum echoing of every letter and punctuation mark - which is helping at the moment avoid too many typos - I hope!