By definition not all bold statements are offensive, while all offensive statements are certainly bold. Your statements about a movie and moviemaking on a public forum about movies weren't offensive, just strongly put. The point was that by nature strong statements are bound to inspire others to share their own views about what you've said. Some in agreement, some not, and some like me who partly agree and partly don't. And if in response to your further posts someone responds in turn, that is completely fair.
You don't have to read the differing views, and you don't have to respond to them. Nobody can "force" or "cram" their views down anyone else's throat. If you're intolerant of such normal customs on public forums you shouldn't come on them and make strong statements. You should reserve such statements for private, moderated forums where you can be assured that readers will never ruffle your feathers by sharing their own differing views.
I never said what you said was outrageous per se, but your response to my original comment certainly is.
That statement is nonsensical. Either you said it was outrageous or you didn't. And in fact you did say that:
"I don't believe anything I said warranted such an outrageous response from you or anyone."
To apply such a label is just hyperbole. Again, no sense of proportion.
I'll set aside your complaint that my comments have been "pretty off-base" because it's just an empty epithet.
You can't expect to treat a public forum as a soapbox where people are only allowed to read your ongoing responses but can't respond to them in turn. If you don't want to read responses you can simply stop reading them and responding to them. Yet you choose not to. As mentioned it's unreasonable to expect others to self-censor because you can't stop yourself from reading and responding.
you have commented me every single day since my original comment telling me my opinion was wrong instead of just accepting that we have different opinions.As mentioned I haven't commented on your original comment for some time. The majority of our exchange has concerned the issue of propriety on public forums. Again, if you're intolerant of people responding to your ongoing posts about that subject, then all you need to do is stop reading and responding. But it's unreasonable to expect to make ongoing posts and have people suppress their own responses in turn.
trying to convince me that the way I feel is wrong.
I've never tried to convince you that the way you feel is wrong. Your feelings aren't wrong; I think some of your expectations and assumptions are unreasonable. You've come to this public forum and made strong statements about the movie and moviemaking and the conventions of public forums, and I've responded to those ongoing posts with differing viewpoints for potential consideration by you and/or others.
As for your charge of "harrassing" I think yours is a highly idiosyncratic definition which again displays a lack of proportion. As mentioned, if in response you say something new, or fine-tune, then I have the right to speak to those things. That's completely fair. If you don't want to engage, all you have to do is stop. No one can "force" anything on you.
I've shown you much more than the slightest bit of respect. I'm fine with you not changing your opinion, whether about killing a dog in this movie or killing them in any movie, and about expectations on public forums. I'm also fine with you responding to my views on these subjects. I present my own views in response to what you say. What you say is ongoing, but you can stop at any time. You're not a robot under my control. If you persist in responding then it's only reasonable to expect responses in turn.
Of course you've tried to influence people to take you seriously. To deny this makes no sense. No one comes on a public forum and wants to have zero influence. That's the whole point of posting. I mean, come on.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Our dialogue was never about having to agree. As far as I'm concerned it's been a free exchange of views, with no expectation that either of us would or should come to agree with the other.
I'll outline what I'll do going forward. If what you say happens to be something I'd like to respond to, I'll respond to it. At such points, as always, you'll be free to not read and/or respond. That's only fair, and the normal way of public forums.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Whatlarks
8 years ago
A reminder that there's been no one subject. For some time we haven't been discussing the subject that's your "one weakness with movies," to which you feel extreme sensitivity. That was quickly supplanted by the subject of public forum propriety, which we've been discussing ever since.
It's undeniable that you've been motivated to discuss the latter subject, since as you acknowledge "We've been leaving each other long, exhaustive comments."
An interesting fact of life, and cause for hope, is that a closed mind doesn't necessarily preclude an ongoing conversation. Extended conversations are actually commonplace among parties who've vowed not to change their minds.
Your consistent choice to contribute, at length, to this conversation is wholly your responsibility. Blaming another for responding to your continuous flow of responses on a public forum is unreasonable. Instead of taking responsibility for yourself you've now made a threat. That is indeed uncivil. In fact my posts have always been more restrained than your own.
If you do choose to report it will be an education for you about public forums since you'll discover that no category that remotely matches my behaviour will be taken seriously by IMDb. At that point you'll face the choice of lying by picking a category unrepresentative of my behaviour yet one that IMDb does take seriously. For example, hate speech. However, if you do that you'll find your own account jeopardized because IMDb doesn't like false reporting.
The honest course would be either to accept your interest in this ongoing conversation, or to simply ignore my responses. If your willpower is lacking you can give it a boost by using the Ignore function.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Whatlarks
8 years ago
You obviousliy misread the first sentence, since it refers to the subject at hand.
Furthermore if you'd taken the extra 30 seconds to read my post to the end you wouldn't have needed to waste the time it took to make your response, asking that question and going on about irrelevancies.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Like you I'm interested in the subject, specifically public forum propriety. That interest clearly motivates each of us to respond to the others' ongoing flow of responses.
Your consistent choice to contribute, at length, to a conversation about that subject is wholly your responsibility. Complaining about others responding to your continuous flow of responses on a public forum is unreasonable.
An interesting fact of life, and cause for hope, is that a closed mind doesn't necessarily preclude an ongoing conversation. Extended conversations are actually commonplace among parties who've vowed not to change their minds.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I'm not PreachCaleb. I don't agree with all they've said to you, and I don't agree with their approach.
to someone who has shown no interest in debating my opinion
You're someone who has shown much enthusiasm for debating your opinion. Not your opinion on dogs/movies, but on public forum propriety. I'm not interested in pursuing the dog/movie subject, which we dropped ages ago, so I would ask you to please stop referring to it.
The subject of public forum propriety has overwhelmingly dominated our exchange. You've been relentlessly trying to convince me that it's wrong to engage you further on the dog/movie subject, yet I haven't done that for some time.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
You've shared two opinions, one on dogs/movies, the other on public forum propriety. Your confusion is odd since you've been speaking directly to the latter subject, at length, for days now. That commitment of time and energy shows that this second subject matters to you as well.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
the only reason I've kept talking to you is because you haven't been outright rude
At least I haven't made any unfounded threats to report you. That aside, evidently you've also been interested enough in the subject to keep co-responding.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Your threat was unfounded since I violated none of IMDb's terms and conditions of use. In the dropdown menu for reporting none of the categories IMDb takes seriously would remotely match any of my posts.
What we were talking about is acceptable conduct on public forums. Resolution can be achieved on any subject simply if each party knows their views have been received with good grace by the other, regardless of disagreement. No threats, or name-calling, or accusations of multiple accounts.
reply
share
jidici
8 years ago
Your the one who should be reported, you havent even seen it. You just want to step on everyones good time, think you know the whole movie by hearsay. Fact is The Babadook didnt kill any animals but what it did do for real is be a voice for people with mental issues. But please keep on spewing your righteousness all over the place cuz youre...expressing your opinions. Well la di da, I took a dump today too.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Understand your own words: you made a threat. Period. No excuses.
Not only is making a threat rude, yours wasn't founded on IMDb terms and conditions as you assumed or pretended. Because even if a conversation gets "ugly" IMDb's terms and conditions of use do not accept that as a reportable violation.
PreachCaleb sounded nothing like me. That's just a form of insult.
The convo was started by you.
"Starting" isn't the only or most important context. The fact is you've been an equal participant. You're always trying to absolve yourself of responsibility as if you're somehow being forced to read and respond, pinning all responsibility on your co-respondent. That's unfair.
I've haven't relentlessly tried to tell you you're wrong about the subject of dogs/movies. I dropped that subject long ago. In fact I've directly asked you to stop referring to it, yet you continue to flout that request by bringing up the subject.
To declare that you don't want to debate a subject, yet to continually bring it up is not acting with good grace. It's the equivalent of continually bringing out a ball as if to play then saying you don't want to play, and that people who keep responding are mean and should be punished.
So that is that.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I've asked you several times now to stop mentioning the subject of animal deaths in movies. Yet you're compelled to mention it in every post.
Nothing PreachCaleb said violated IMDb terms and conditions of use. You couldn't make a report to IMDb.
I should be happy that you've only threatened me. Terrific. You get to be extremely rude, but that lenience only applies to yourself. You're blissfully unaware of the double-standard you set for yourself and others.
You've made a couple of strong claims about the fictional killing of animals in films. I'm going to follow up on them, but since you don't want to talk about that subject, I'll start a separate thread. Perhaps others will be interested. I hope it spawns a healthy debate.
So we'll end here. All the best.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
No no, I didn't tell you what to say, I asked you to stop bringing up a subject you claim you don't want to discuss.
One sees something similar in fundamentalists who condemn lust yet mention the subject so darn much they advertise an unhealthy fixation with it.
It stands to reason that anyone who consistently brings up a subject, must, on some level, desire further exposure to it, even if they claim otherwise. Your actions betray a need to attract attention to this subject. It seems there's a sort of split within you that you're not yet conscious of.
Regarding confusing me with PreachCaleb, I've noticed that paranoia tends to go with hypersensitivity. I suppose it might be tempting for someone to confuse you with Mikel3, but I'm able to stay grounded and not assume you're the same person.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
You can think I'm Mikel3 if you want, even though I'm not.
So at least we share a common feeling about that kind of thing.
Also I have heard things about you being known as a troll on this site.
Hmm. I received two PM's about you, saying you're a notorious troll. While the usernames were different, I assume it was the same person PM'ing me, trying to stir up trouble. I told each of "them" not to PM me anymore. Yuck.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I've always accepted that we have different views/opinions/whatever, and have never thought of you as an enemy trying to fight with me.
I've thought of our conversation as a free exchange of views, without any expectation of changing the other's mind. As mentioned, my intention was to present my responses to your views for potential consideration by you and/or other readers. C'est tout.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I asked you why you would want to continue doing so
Note the words in the quote, "for potential consideration by you and/or other readers."
I gave clear answers for my continued responses, as follows:
- one, at the beginning I said I had hoped to continue connecting and sharing thoughts from the standpoint of mutual respect;
- two, because this is a public forum I consider my comments open to anyone who reads them, beyond just the one I happen to be replying to, in this case you;
- three, the subject changed from dogs/movies to public forum propriety, so you couldn't claim that I was persisting in a subject you didn't want to discuss.
Regarding the latter subject, I disagreed with your attitude that "respect" implies acquiescing to your preference that people self-censor and refrain from responding to the flow of things you say on a public forum. I think that's dressing up intolerance in righteous clothing.
if you want to have the last word that's perfectly fine with me.
A gracious offer. I would only say that our opinions apparently remain the same, and that all is well. No harm, no foul.
reply
share