An Argument That All Negative Personal Feedback Here Should Be Ignored

[richardjm65]

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.......

[Whale]

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 ;+)

[Jingthing]

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.

[StreetCowboy]

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

[Jingthing]

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?

[lannarebirth]

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.

[mogandave]

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...

[lannarebirth]

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.

[StreetCowboy]

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

[smokie36]

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.

[SteeleJoe]

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

[Gsxrnz]

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

[mogandave]

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.

[SteeleJoe]

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

[Gsxrnz]

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.

[mogandave]

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.

[SteeleJoe]

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".

[SteeleJoe]

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

[SteeleJoe]

I might be wrong as well.

Might be indeed.

[rubberduck]

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 ?

[Morakot]

Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community.

Welcome to Thailand!

[metaben]

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

[Kitsune]

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.

[homeownership]

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.

[sustento]

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...

[Crossy]

A post discussing forum moderation has been removed.

[Kitsune]

If you want freedom of speech change country

137th out of 179 worldwide Press Freedom Index

[Somtamnication]

OP. You want utopia, go live in North Korea (or South Florida).

[rubberduck]

Its called freedom of speech, a concept woefully lacking in this community.

A post discussing forum moderation has been removed.

[StreetCowboy]

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