Living off the land 100%

[kabbes]

Stanley wannabees vs the self appointed forum police and their craven henchmen.

Urgh

Who is policing the forum? Calling Stanley on his unpleasantness is not policing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Stanley wannabees

Stan would spit on their craven conformity. Unless they're young women

 

[friedaweed]

I liked the meltdown thread about off grid babies.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Nearly 28 pages. SE presses the buttons, the machine responds. This thread is shaping up into being a classic.

The guy appears risible tbh. Who knows what's true.

 

[not-bono-ever]

fucking hell, just when you think the placer is mined out and barren, some hip young gunslinger digs up another nugget of pure gold. I had forgotten about that babby one

 

[weltweit]

I liked the meltdown thread about off grid babies.

I thought that thread had potential, a few people came on with viewpoints I hadn't expected, but I couldn't stick around to follow it.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I was interested in the grand plan to buy a Spanish abandoned village and turn it into a commune of some ilk. I now dread to think of what kinds of Waco/Jonestown/William Golding/ heart of darkness mashup it would have been. No one here gets out alive kinda vibe

 

[existentialist]

BTW, if It was brought to my attention that the shite that is being posting in this thread is being taken as bullying by the recipient, I would be utterly utterly horrified.

I wouldn't be. One of the unfortunate (but inevitable) consequences of growing awareness of bullying and willingness to take it seriously is that there will be people who choose to exploit that by claiming to be bullied, knowing that it carries an element of power with it.

And they don't need to explicitly say "I'm being bullied" - there will be people who do that interpreting for them. So, to take this example, Stan decides he doesn't like it that he's being (somewhat mercilessly) ripped into for the inconsistencies in his story, and flounces. Others then characterise the grief he got as "bullying", and that's it - all of a sudden, a bunch of people whose intentions may have been perfectly noble are having to fight through a wall of allegations that they're no better than bullies.

Which makes it that much harder to see what's going on when real bullying is taking place. Which, FTR, I don't think it is here.

 

[kebabking]

I was interested in the grand plan to buy a Spanish abandoned village and turn it into a commune of some ilk. I now dread to think of what kinds of Waco/Jonestown/William Golding/ heart of darkness mashup it would have been. No one here gets out alive kinda vibe

That's the problem - the threads often start off as interesting/comic adventures of a harmless, sozzled, delusional middle-aged bloke who has the freedom to up sticks whenever and to wherever he likes.

And then you remember that he has very unsavoury tastes and not one tiny smear of concern for the best interests of those who he uses to satisfy those tastes.

And he smells like roadkill.

 

[existentialist]

I just wanted to point out that my likes on this thread were not made with the intention of bullying weltweit.

 

[kebabking]

Is it possible to bully a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

 

[Supine]

I'd class the group attack mentality here as bullying for what it's worth. There are some genuinely nasty posts on this thread by keyboard warriors who wouldn't say the same face to face.

 

[chilango]

I'd class the group attack mentality here as bullying for what it's worth. There are some genuinely nasty posts on this thread by keyboard warriors who wouldn't say the same face to face.

Group attack mentality?

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[weltweit]

I'd class the group attack mentality here as bullying for what it's worth. There are some genuinely nasty posts on this thread by keyboard warriors who wouldn't say the same face to face.

I agree Supine and what is more I feel that if people are prepared to be that nasty towards someone else, it says something about them, even if they feel justified in not liking said person.

A number of the people who have been having a go at stanley often throw their insults around at many and various posters for all sorts of slights. They often throw unpleasentries and I think it reflects on who they are.

 

[kabbes]

I'd class the group attack mentality here as bullying for what it's worth. There are some genuinely nasty posts on this thread by keyboard warriors who wouldn't say the same face to face.

You mean I wouldn't say truths to the face of an unpredictable violent and drunken predator? No, funny that. Doesn't mean they aren't true though.

And I'm happy to repeat my earlier assertion to you too: fuck right off.

 

[weltweit]

I just wanted to point out that my likes on this thread were not made with the intention of bullying weltweit.

Is it possible to bully a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

What evidence do you have kebabking that I am a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

 

[kabbes]

What evidence do you have kebabking that I am a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

He's talking about Stanley. You're just a dull little weasel.

 

[weltweit]

He's talking about Stanley. You're just a dull little weasel.

Haven't you got some work you should be doing?

 

[existentialist]

I'd class the group attack mentality here as bullying for what it's worth. There are some genuinely nasty posts on this thread by keyboard warriors who wouldn't say the same face to face.

I think there have been some eloquent posts on this very thread about why a consensus of people taking exception to the behaviour of another does not constitute "group attack". Did you read those posts? Perhaps you'd care to address them, rather than throwing around generalities?

ETA: and there is precious little I say on here that I would not be prepared to say to someone's face. Indeed, one of my golden tests for "shall I make this post?" is "would I be prepared to meet this person IRL and account for my words there?"

 

[existentialist]

What evidence do you have kebabking that I am a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

I'm mildly curious as to what relevance your quote of my post has to your response.

 

[weltweit]

I'm mildly curious as to what relevance your quoting of my post has to your response.

His post occurred immediately after yours referring to me, making it seem he was referring to me.

 

[existentialist]

I agree Supine and what is more I feel that if people are prepared to be that nasty towards someone else, it says something about them, even if they feel justified in not liking said person.

A number of the people who have been having a go at stanley often throw their insults around at many and various posters for all sorts of slights. They often throw unpleasentries and I think it reflects on who they are.

"A number". Interesting that you focus on those, although you're acknowledging (by inference) that "a number" of people having a go at Stanley might NOT be the kind of generalised stereotypical types you claim.

Don't you think that's a little intellectually dishonest?

 

[existentialist]

His post occurred immediately after yours referring to me, making it seem he was referring to me.

You have a lot to learn about the workings of Internet discussion fora, grasshopper.

Though it does explain some of the rather extravagant handwavery you go in for on these discussions...

 

[weltweit]

"A number". Interesting that you focus on those, although you're acknowledging (by inference) that "a number" of people having a go at Stanley might NOT be the kind of generalised stereotypical types you claim.

Don't you think that's a little intellectually dishonest?

I don't follow the boards as much as I used to. There are people who frequently belittle and generally have a go at others for whatever reason, I am sure you have also seen this. No I don't think it is dishonest.

 

[kebabking]

What evidence do you have kebabking that I am a psychopathic, utterly amoral sex pest?

I wasn't talking about you.

Something so obvious that I'm staggered you could have thought I was.

 

[existentialist]

I agree Supine

"Group Attack Mentality". Right there

 

[existentialist]

I don't follow the boards as much as I used to. There are people who frequently belittle and generally have a go at others for whatever reason, I am sure you have also seen this. No I don't think it is dishonest.

What is dishonest is acknowledging that you're only talking about the behaviour of "a number" and yet going on to paint the whole lot with the same brush.

What's even more dishonest is using your unwillingness to read threads properly as a justification for such sloppy generalisation. Why should anyone take what you write seriously, given that you admit to such dishonesty?

 

[Supine]

I think there have been some eloquent posts on this very thread about why a consensus of people taking exception to the behaviour of another does not constitute "group attack". Did you read those posts? Perhaps you'd care to address them, rather than throwing around generalities?

I've read the whole thread thanks. My main takeaway is as posted above. I'm not here for an in depth discussion on bullying, I was here to read about somebody's adventures in a foreign land. Spoilt by a few people, at least one of who wants me to 'fuck off'. A sentiment they wouldn't offer me in real life.

 

[kebabking]

... I was here to read about somebody's adventures in a foreign land...

Gary Glitter in Vietnam?

 

[existentialist]

I've read the whole thread thanks. My main takeaway is as posted above. I'm not here for an in depth discussion on bullying, I was here to read about somebody's adventures in a foreign land. Spoilt by a few people, at least one of who wants me to 'fuck off'. A sentiment they wouldn't offer me in real life.

Unlike the estimable kabbes, I have never told you to fuck off online.

But I have frequently thought it while reading your posts. And I think I'd be happy to say it to your face if the situation warranted.