[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@trapper wrote:

Start a thread calling someone a twat you have an instant success (if it can be called that) simples

Wonder which kind of ‘dig’ post would see most activity.. one where the subject is generally highly regarded (genuinely!) or one where where the ‘victim’ of the opening post is almost universally disliked.

I think I need to find a hobby.

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

Ya see how difficult it is? In reality, both are forced smiles brought about by my ramming a coathanger (the clothes thing, not the chatter) into each of em’s gobs :lol:

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@rogue trader wrote:

@omalleythealleycat wrote:

@rogue trader wrote:

well yeh mal good point
so
I suppose its just a case of horses for courses
different strokes for>>>>>>
we are basically all onions in the same melting pot
and that folks

is why we are here.

Aye Rogue. Add in the fact that interpreting the typed word is far from an exact science.. and the result is pretty predictable. How many times do you read comments/reactions on these boards and think to yourself “Okayyyy.. I think someone got the wrong end of the stick there” ?

well I don’t really want to go deep into this mal,but I think its just a case of the written word shows no emotion,thats why lol and emoticons were invented so sensitive people knew ,you weren’t having a “pop” at them.

I think emoticons suffer the same problem. One of these is a sarcastic smile… the other is genuine > :) :)
Spot the difference.

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@kent f OBE wrote:

No wonder I tell you how handsome you are!!

Awww bless ya! If I was capable of blushing, I would be doing just that right now!

Will I still be as handsome if I disagree with ya on something? :P

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@rogue trader wrote:

well yeh mal good point
so
I suppose its just a case of horses for courses
different strokes for>>>>>>
we are basically all onions in the same melting pot
and that folks

is why we are here.

Aye Rogue. Add in the fact that interpreting the typed word is far from an exact science.. and the result is pretty predictable. How many times do you read comments/reactions on these boards and think to yourself “Okayyyy.. I think someone got the wrong end of the stick there” ?

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@kent f OBE wrote:

Love the bit of the amount of views and no comments….but Coats not bothered…..oh no!! Who the hell reads how many views they get???
The issue we have here is …Coat doesn’t like negative feedback……historically he hasn’t had much negativity….its all been praise.

I think, if everybody is being honest, then we’re all ‘bothered’ to a certain extent – otherwise, why post on a public forum in the first place? Does anybody really post a new topic and not check for replies? Exactly. Anybody who claims they’re not bothered are fooling one person, maximum – and it ain’t anybody else :D

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@irish_lucy wrote:

@rogue trader wrote:

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:

Had to chuckle at that!

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@rogue trader wrote:

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 as

1,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,other

To whom? Balloons… or other readers?

You asked how it would be perceived – but that’s the key point, perception. There are several factors that would determine what category this fell into – and the category would be different for each individual. Your past interactions with Balloons play a part – for her as well as other readers – i.e. is this something you two do for fun etc.

Any prior experience of you would also play a part. If people consider you a ‘digger’ in general, then that would most likely shape their view of this post, for example. Others may see it as a little wind up not intended to cause much offence but just to provoke a reaction. Those who speak to you in private, will have a different opinion to those who don’t etc. etc. The same applies to Balloons – what perception do people have of her?

In short, there are a multitude of factors that would determine how such a post would be perceived by each individual reader – leading to many different conclusions.

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@balloons wrote:

Wouldn’t bother trying to explain :lol:

Now ya tell me!
:lol:

[OMalleyTheAlleyCat]

@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!

[Author]

Posts