-
Posts
-
my apologies about the room, then. There was a name-changer making trouble.
I get very tired at the end of the night after work, so I am susceptible to that.
@coathanger wrote:
Agree entirely Malley in theory. Kenty can post on anything she wishes to, as can I. However, Ive written enough stories over the years on here that surely anyone will know whether they are going to enjoy them or not and can make a rational decision not to bother reading them ?
I maybe wrong (there’s a first time for everything!) but I got the impression Kenty found this particular post to be a departure from your earlier stories. If so, it’s quite possible she enjoyed your earlier posts, but believed this one overstepped a mark in some way.
@coathanger wrote:
I certainly don’t think all, or , infact any comments posted should be those agreeing with my submissions and I have never said or implied that !
Well, you kind of did. Suggesting that people who don’t like your posts or find them unfair should not read them (simples!), would seem to imply that you hope your submissions be read only by people who like them and find them fair.
I think there are three possible ‘issues’ regarding this type of opening post. Firstly, we all have different ideas on the exact position of the line between friendly banter and character attacks – or even what ‘banter’ is. We also have different views on what ‘attacks’ are justified and which aren’t, as we all have different experiences of particular chatters. We all know at least one chatter who can be the epitome of charm at their best, whilst vile and nasty at their worst. It’s conceivable, for a while at least, that an individual is witness only to the ‘nice’ side (hence the sometimes baffling jumps to defend certain people). We sometimes see chatters we consider to be ‘nice’, hurling abuse at another and quickly assume they must have been provoked, which is not always the case.
Secondly, there’s perceived by many to be an inherent injustice (and a possible breach of trust) when such posts are made by somebody considered to be ‘hiding’.
Finally, many people view the critiquing of other chatters in itself narcissistic, in a “who appointed you?” kind of way. This view is usually very closely linked to the second point, in that such posts tend to be ‘acceptable’ should the reader happen to think that the recipient(s) deserve it!
@omalleythealleycat wrote:
@coathanger wrote:
Agree entirely Malley in theory. Kenty can post on anything she wishes to, as can I. However, Ive written enough stories over the years on here that surely anyone will know whether they are going to enjoy them or not and can make a rational decision not to bother reading them ?
I maybe wrong (there’s a first time for everything!) but I got the impression Kenty found this particular post to be a departure from your earlier stories. If so, it’s quite possible she enjoyed your earlier posts, but believed this one overstepped a mark in some way.
@coathanger wrote:
I certainly don’t think all, or , infact any comments posted should be those agreeing with my submissions and I have never said or implied that !
Well, you kind of did. Suggesting that people who don’t like your posts or find them unfair should not read them (simples!), would seem to imply that you hope your submissions be read only by people who like them and find them fair.
I think there are three possible ‘issues’ regarding this type of opening post. Firstly, we all have different ideas on the exact position of the line between friendly banter and character attacks – or even what ‘banter’ is. We also have different views on what ‘attacks’ are justified and which aren’t, as we all have different experiences of particular chatters. We all know at least one chatter who can be the epitome of charm at their best, whilst vile and nasty at their worst. It’s conceivable, for a while at least, that an individual is witness only to the ‘nice’ side (hence the sometimes baffling jumps to defend certain people). We sometimes see chatters we consider to be ‘nice’, hurling abuse at another and quickly assume they must have been provoked, which is not always the case.
Secondly, there’s perceived by many to be an inherent injustice (and a possible breach of trust) when such posts are made by somebody considered to be ‘hiding’.
Finally, many people view the critiquing of other chatters in itself narcissistic, in a “who appointed you?” kind of way. This view is usually very closely linked to the second point, in that such posts ten
d to be ‘acceptable’ should the reader happen to think that the recipient(s) deserve it!Wouldn’t bother trying to explain :lol:
ok lets use balloons as an example for a minute
if I was to reply to her,well don’t you bother explain balloons
because your opinions in here carry about as much weight as a dodgy kwik save bag with one handle and a little hole just starting to flourish at the bottom
would that be perceived as1,banter
2,abusive
3,hes just having a laugh
4,sneaky snidey barstard always trying to get a dig in
5,just a case of familiarity breeding contempt
6,otherdiscuss
if you want to
like.
Funny that, this is the only story from Coathanger that i liked, because i dont go into the rooms anymore i dont know any of the chatters so when a story is put up using their names (or variations of them) i cant follow the story.
But ive chatted to Anita before (good and bad) he is a troll and he knows it, he likes getting attention and therefore he will love this thread – regardless if its taking the pee out of him or not. So if Coathanger meant to hurt Anita – Coathanger failed, however if Coathanger was just having a laugh – I had one and im sure Anita is far from offended.
Especially since no one really knows who Coathanger is, its easy to be a lurker and slag off others – I agree with Kenty – why is Coathanger hiding behind that name on the boards – why not just use the same name – is it a case of being scared to get what you give??
och away with yer ye auld eejit lucy wheest
what do you mean he will love it?
no self respecting agrophobic mummys boy man could surely like being savaged to bits
he should be ashamed of himself
he should be kicked into exile
to some far remote chat room
if anybody wrote a thread about me like that
id me mortified and would never go in a chat room again.@omalleythealleycat wrote:
I maybe wrong (there’s a first time for everything!) but I got the impression Kenty found this particular post to be a departure from your earlier stories. If so, it’s quite possible she enjoyed your earlier posts, but believed this one overstepped a mark in some way.
Correct
Finally, many people view the critiquing of other chatters in itself narcissistic, in a “who appointed you?” kind of way. This view is usually very closely linked to the second point, in that such posts tend to be ‘acceptable’ should the reader happen to think that the recipient(s) deserve it!
Also bl00dy correct
No wonder I tell you how handsome you are!!
Ok mucked up the quoting…thought I was being clever :D
Epic fail :oops:
@rogue trader wrote:
och away with yer ye auld eejit lucy wheest
what do you mean he will love it?
no self respecting agrophobic mummys boy man could surely like being savaged to bits
he should be ashamed of himself
he should be kicked into exile
to some far remote chat room
if anybody wrote a thread about me like that
id me mortified and would never go in a chat room again.Shame you didn’t say type on boards, i was almost half tempted :twisted:
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!