Here's the thing

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm trying real hard to understand posts that attack my character, but dangitall, when I think they do, I feel like I need to respond in kind.

I reject arguments that I'm trying to use the trickery of words, or that I'm disingenuous. Where disingenuous is readily and reliably understood to be you're a Iiar, you danged ol' liar you. I feel fair to reject the argument that I'm up to tricks. And if folks won't speak for me, ain't it fair that I do?

By what grace do we accept being accused of disingenuitididiousness? By what grace do we extend the notion of fairness of thought to the idiot?

By what standard will we apply, that accusing me of nefarity (disingenuosetidnicity), is acceptable, but that me calling that idiot an idiot is somehow so far out of bounds, that my own accuser becomes immune to his own attacks against me?

"Joey ain't being him fair about about it"

Is so much stronger an argument than...

"You're a gol' danged idiot!"

I'll not suffer me no argument that says I'm rude to respond to a rude argument. When moderators think it's acceptable to attack my character - such it is, cause let's be honest, I'm a doofus.

Quit these idiots calling me disingenuous, and I'll quit calling these idiots idiots.

I've been accused in this thread of nefarity. I reject the charge, and expect a moderator ruling that I ain't guilty of it. Lacking such, well don't it beat all, I get to 'cuse every dang one of y'all of it!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm trying real hard to understand posts that attack my character, but dangitall, when I think they do, I feel like I need to respond in kind.

I reject arguments that I'm trying to use the trickery of words, or that I'm disingenuous. Where disingenuous is readily and reliably understood to be you're a Iiar, you danged ol' liar you. I feel fair to reject the argument that I'm up to tricks. And if folks won't speak for me, ain't it fair that I do?

By what grace do we accept being accused of disingenuitididiousness? By what grace do we extend the notion of fairness of thought to the idiot?

By what standard will we apply, that accusing me of nefarity (disingenuosetidnicity), is acceptable, but that me calling that idiot an idiot is somehow so far out of bounds, that my own accuser becomes immune to his own attacks against me?

"Joey ain't being him fair about about it"

Is so much stronger an argument than...

"You're a gol' danged idiot!"

I'll not suffer me no argument that says I'm rude to respond to a rude argument. When moderators think it's acceptable to attack my character - such it is, cause let's be honest, I'm a doofus.

Quit these idiots calling me disingenuous, and I'll quit calling these idiots idiots.

I've been accused in this thread of nefarity. I reject the charge, and expect a moderator ruling that I ain't guilty of it. Lacking such, well don't it beat all, I get to 'cuse every dang one of y'all of it!

I had my life threatened on another forum years ago Joey, and the administrators of that forum took it very seriously. Let's just say that there are times when one must roll with the punches and that responding in kind just is not the answer.

[otseng]

When a poster accuses you of something, viewers will not have a negative view of you. However, if you retaliate back, viewers will then have a negative view of you.

[Goat]

I'm trying real hard to understand posts that attack my character, but dangitall, when I think they do, I feel like I need to respond in kind.

I reject arguments that I'm trying to use the trickery of words, or that I'm disingenuous. Where disingenuous is readily and reliably understood to be you're a Iiar, you danged ol' liar you. I feel fair to reject the argument that I'm up to tricks. And if folks won't speak for me, ain't it fair that I do?

By what grace do we accept being accused of disingenuitididiousness? By what grace do we extend the notion of fairness of thought to the idiot?

By what standard will we apply, that accusing me of nefarity (disingenuosetidnicity), is acceptable, but that me calling that idiot an idiot is somehow so far out of bounds, that my own accuser becomes immune to his own attacks against me?

"Joey ain't being him fair about about it"

Is so much stronger an argument than...

"You're a gol' danged idiot!"

I'll not suffer me no argument that says I'm rude to respond to a rude argument. When moderators think it's acceptable to attack my character - such it is, cause let's be honest, I'm a doofus.

Quit these idiots calling me disingenuous, and I'll quit calling these idiots idiots.

I've been accused in this thread of nefarity. I reject the charge, and expect a moderator ruling that I ain't guilty of it. Lacking such, well don't it beat all, I get to 'cuse every dang one of y'all of it!

Well, one thing you will have to just learn one of these days, particularly when it comes to this internet stuff, when some person attacks you, quite often (or most often as a matter of fact), it's not about you. It's about them, and how your viewpoint is running counter to what they NEED to believe for themselves.

So, you have to then examine your self, and figure out why some random person, who doesn't know you in person, gets you upset when they are less than complimentary. You can't control them, but you can try to figure out what that triggers you. Why do you feel you have to respond in return? What does that tell you about yourself?? Questions to ask yourself.. as part of the road to self discovery. I know a number of people who respond like that because they had controlling parts, and it was a defensive mechanism not to be overwhelmed as a child. They never out grew it. It would be easier for them if they could let it go... but they couldn't see it.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by JoeyKnothead]

In addition to the above advise... one way to address someone who has falsely accused you of doing or being something, without responding in kind, is to simply ask them to explain how exactly you are doing or being this thing.

So if someone says that you are being disingenuous:

"Really? In what way am I being disingenuous?"

There are various ways to respond, including to ignore, but that is my preferred response if I do respond. The person then has to make their case. If they can make their case, well, then, I would need to take a look at myself, lol. If they cannot, then the accusation is shown to be false.

At the very least you will have an opportunity to defend yourself, and all without having to respond in kind.

It is also possible that there is a genuine misunderstanding on behalf of your accuser. In which case, you could win your accuser over by NOT getting offended or responding in kind, and instead discussing calmly.


Sometimes it may be wise to just ignore an insult or false aspiration against your character - and sometimes it may be wise to address it. Either way, those who know you, know you... and it should take more than someone else making an incorrect aspiration against your character to sway them.


Peace to you Joey!

[bluethread]

I'm trying real hard to understand posts that attack my character, but dangitall, when I think they do, I feel like I need to respond in kind.

I reject arguments that I'm trying to use the trickery of words, or that I'm disingenuous. Where disingenuous is readily and reliably understood to be you're a Iiar, you danged ol' liar you. I feel fair to reject the argument that I'm up to tricks. And if folks won't speak for me, ain't it fair that I do?

By what grace do we accept being accused of disingenuitididiousness? By what grace do we extend the notion of fairness of thought to the idiot?

. . . . . . .

I've been accused in this thread of nefarity. I reject the charge, and expect a moderator ruling that I ain't guilty of it. Lacking such, well don't it beat all, I get to 'cuse every dang one of y'all of it!

I think you and Trump have a similar problem, not that I intend on insulting either of you. You both have a tendency to shoot from the lip. That is very ingratiating to some, ie lot's of folks like it. However, that leaves one's statements open to misunderstanding. For example, disingenuous does not imply intent. I can say I eat my veggies, when I really don't, 'cause dang it, I 'member seein' some on my plate a week ago last Sunday. Does that mean I'm a lyin', not really. Does that mean I eat veggies as I should, no. So, if you say I'm lyin' 'bout eatin' my veggies, I might get up on my haunches, but if you say I am being disingenuous, I might admit that I ain't quite thought it through. Now if one accuses you of being nefarious, then they dang well better show the nefarity, 'cause I can't say your a wantin' to beat my kids, if you ain't yet raise your hand.

[JoeyKnothead]

I fess I tend to my spells, but danged if there ain't some sound advice in this thread.

I write it here - I alone'm responsible for my failures, all my violations. But having this thread here, y'all take credit when I can do me a good, that's on y'all.

It's so hard being a paranoid schizophrene, trying to fit in with y'all that ain't.


If I don't do it, I swear to my soul, I wanna. Politely. Rightly. Smartly. Now on that last'n there, I can't say I'll ever live up to smartly, but I swear if I can do me the other'ns, maybe y'all'll think I did me that last'n.

Thank y'all so much, my friends, for helping me, even if I can't figure out how to do it myself.