richardjm65 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Jingthing, I just had your handwriting analyzed and determined that you are: aggressive aloof arrogant belligerent big-headed bitchy boastful bone-idle boring bossy callous cantankerous careless changeable clinging compulsive conservative cowardly cruel cunning cynical deceitful detached dishonest dogmatic domineering finicky flirtatious foolish foolhardy fussy greedy grumpy gullible harsh impatient impolite impulsive inconsiderate inconsistent indecisive indiscreet inflexible interfering intolerant introverted irresponsible jealous lazy Machiavellian materialistic mean miserly moody narrow-minded nasty naughty nervous obsessive obstinate overcritical overemotional parsimonious patronizing perverse pessimistic pompous possessive pusillanimous quarrelsome quick-tempered resentful rude ruthless sarcastic secretive selfish self-centred self-indulgent silly sneaky stingy stubborn stupid superficial tactless timid touchy thoughtless truculent unkind unpredictable unreliable untidy untrustworthy vague vain vengeful vulgar weak-willed That's all well and good, but there must be a few bad things too....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Its one of the main reasons I read ThaiVisa, to wallow in my self delight that I am not as bitter and twisted as many of the other posters ;+) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. What do you mean by "valid"? Who judges "the source"? Sounds like a good basis for labelling and damning those with whom you disagree and commending those whom you support when they commit the same sins of abuse. SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. What do you mean by "valid"? Who judges "the source"? Sounds like a good basis for labelling and damning those with whom you disagree and commending those whom you support when they commit the same sins of abuse. SC Oh please. The basis is clearly defined in the chart. You are telling me you don't understand the chart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Well, I learned something today. You can call someone an ignoramus if its in a graphic, but if you write it out in your post its a month long holiday. Live and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. What do you mean by "valid"? Who judges "the source"? Sounds like a good basis for labelling and damning those with whom you disagree and commending those whom you support when they commit the same sins of abuse. SC Oh please. The basis is clearly defined in the chart. You are telling me you don't understand the chart? Exactly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. What do you mean by "valid"? Who judges "the source"? Sounds like a good basis for labelling and damning those with whom you disagree and commending those whom you support when they commit the same sins of abuse. SC If it's from The Washington Post, Slate.com or Salon.com it is judged a valid source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem with the matrix is that it's effectiveness is subject to the "victim's" objectivity or lack thereof. For example, more often then not, anyone with an opinion that differs from the "victim's" is immediately moved into the "hater" box and everything they say is ignored, while everyone that agrees with the "victim" is moved into one of the the loving-caring boxes. That's not how the matrix is designed. It accepts negative criticism as valid based on the SOURCE. What do you mean by "valid"? Who judges "the source"? Sounds like a good basis for labelling and damning those with whom you disagree and commending those whom you support when they commit the same sins of abuse. SC If it's from The Washington Post, Slate.com or Salon.com it is judged a valid source. I'm not criticising the principle, other than that it will be used as a means of legitimising the prejudice, bickering and name-calling that we already see. I see the most constructive use of this principle would be in the review of our own material, before we post it, rather than in the use of the tool as a means of criticising the posting of others. SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I would probably be concerned were people sending me death threats by PM. However I have yet to experience this. And no....that is not an invitation thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. Not so, I'm afraid. No such specificity or limitation is implied in the phrase (or typically in law, as far as I know) nor are they by any means universally perceived. Edited May 1, 2013 by SteeleJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gsxrnz Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Here's an interesting link regarding Conversational Terrorism that we could all take a few hints from. It will take 10 minutes to read it, and is somewhat enlightening. The following is a brief synopsis of what the article is about, but I still suggest you follow the link for clearer definition and examples - it's quite a good read. "First, we have the Ad Hominem Variants where you attack the person as a way to avoid truth, science, or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong. Next are the Sleight of Mind Fallacies, which act as "mental magic" to make sure the unwanted subject disappears. Then, we move on to Delay Tactics, which are subtle means to buy time when put on the spot. Then, the ever popular Question as Opportunity ploys, where any question can be deftly averted. Finally, we have the Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants, which are basically "below the belt" punches." http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. Not so, I'm afraid. No such specificity or limitation is implied in the phrase (or typically in law, as far as I know) nor are they by any means universally perceived. As far as you know indeed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. Not so, I'm afraid. No such specificity or limitation is implied in the phrase (or typically in law, as far as I know) nor are they by any means universally perceived. As far as you know indeed. Yes, indeed.You imply, in a gratuitously derisive way, that I'm wrong or uninformed. I used the phrase precisely because I recognized that I might be, so please inform me. Which law specifies that "freedom of speech" is a right limited only to "political speech"? Edited May 1, 2013 by SteeleJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gsxrnz Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. Not so, I'm afraid. No such specificity or limitation is implied in the phrase (or typically in law, as far as I know) nor are they by any means universally perceived. As far as you know indeed. Yes, indeed.You imply, in a gratuitously derisive way, that I'm wrong or uninformed. I used the phrase precisely because I recognized that I might be, so please inform me. Which law specifies that "freedom of speech" is a right limited only to "political speech"? I think you're maybe confusing "freedom of expression" with "freedom of speech".. However, I could be wrong and I don't want to offend anyone, so if I'm wrong feel free to express freely what you think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. Not so, I'm afraid. No such specificity or limitation is implied in the phrase (or typically in law, as far as I know) nor are they by any means universally perceived. As far as you know indeed. Yes, indeed.You imply, in a gratuitously derisive way, that I'm wrong or uninformed. I used the phrase precisely because I recognized that I might be, so please inform me. Which law specifies that "freedom of speech" is a right limited only to "political speech"? I might be wrong as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think you're maybe confusing "freedom of expression" with "freedom of speech".. However, I could be wrong and I don't want to offend anyone, so if I'm wrong feel free to express freely what you think. Maybe but I don't think so. I am aware of the expression and that some make a distinction between the two, but I am not aware that either limits the freedom only to "political speech". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) DISCLAIMER: I know that Wiki is hardly infallible but it's easy and I think in this instance it can perhaps be trusted to a reasonable degree: " Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used." ................... Obviously the right is generally deemed important and has been enshrined in the constitutions or legal framework of many countries because of the importance of protecting the right to political dissent. However, clearly people recognize the right to all sorts of expression even that which has no discernible links to politics. If I want to tell everyone I know that I hate asparagus and anyone who doesn't is f***ing verminous moron or make a film about it or write it on the Internet - then I'd be a very strange and unpleasant person but I believe I would be allowed to in a country with Freedom of Speech. .........,, "Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[7] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects: the right to seek information and ideas; the right to receive information and ideas; the right to impart information and ideas" Edited May 1, 2013 by SteeleJoe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I might be wrong as well. Might be indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberduck Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 41.000 posts, I wonder how one can ventilate his opinion on a forum for 41,000 times and still having healthy and free life, getting enough fresh air and maintain a normal social life with real friends. Is that really possible ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morakot Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. Welcome to Thailand! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaben Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Here's an interesting link regarding Conversational Terrorism that we could all take a few hints from. It will take 10 minutes to read it, and is somewhat enlightening. The following is a brief synopsis of what the article is about, but I still suggest you follow the link for clearer definition and examples - it's quite a good read. "First, we have the Ad Hominem Variants where you attack the person as a way to avoid truth, science, or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong. Next are the Sleight of Mind Fallacies, which act as "mental magic" to make sure the unwanted subject disappears. Then, we move on to Delay Tactics, which are subtle means to buy time when put on the spot. Then, the ever popular Question as Opportunity ploys, where any question can be deftly averted. Finally, we have the Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants, which are basically "below the belt" punches." http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html Excellent article... Another must read The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitsune Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. Nice wishful thinking. I think you have not yet realized where you are This is Thailand and there is no such thing as freedom of speech here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeownership Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. I suppose we're all entitled to our own opinion, and, apparently, within reasonable constraints, to voice it. I say repress freedom of speech and suffer the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustento Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. Freedom of speech refers to political speech, not name-calling and or vulgarities. I suppose we're all entitled to our own opinion, and, apparently, within reasonable constraints, to voice it. I say repress freedom of speech and suffer the consequences. If you want freedom of speech you could always start your own forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossy Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 A post discussing forum moderation has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitsune Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 If you want freedom of speech change country 137th out of 179 worldwide Press Freedom Index Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamnication Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 OP. You want utopia, go live in North Korea (or South Florida). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberduck Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. A post discussing forum moderation has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community. >A post discussing forum moderation has been removed. Speech is free. Publication is not. We are none of us obliged to promulgate the opinions of others 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now