Jersey Girl wrote:Jersey Girl's "How to deal with bullies who are real life chickens***" Policy:
1. Accept that the bully behind the screen is a pathetic weakling with no life to speak of. 2. Realize that the computer is their only weapon and you run the risk of them using it against you in real life ...or not. 3. Come to terms with the real possibility that they perceive you as a threat to them and not the reverse. (See #1) 4. Avail yourself of one of the two options:
Jersey Girl wrote:Jersey Girl's "How to deal with bullies who are real life chickens***" Policy:
1. Accept that the bully behind the screen is a pathetic weakling with no life to speak of. 2. Realize that the computer is their only weapon and you run the risk of them using it against you in real life ...or not. 3. Come to terms with the real possibility that they perceive you as a threat to them and not the reverse. (See #1) 4. Avail yourself of one of the two options:
4a. Stand your ground. 4b. Ignore them entirely.
I'm thinking of going for the bold portion.
Yes, with one person in particular, I've gone that route. It becomes tiresome and stupid after a while.
Jersey Girl wrote:Now to the unhealthy aspects. There appears to be a consensus of board participants over the years, that I tend to be tenacious on the boards. Not always, but I do go that route sometimes. Someone even likened me to a Pit Bull. :-D
Having said that...the unhealthy aspects of board participation are those times when a poster has attempted to figuratively reach through the screen to me on the ground and the implied threat was "back off or I'll screw with you in real life". Those times, which fortunately are in the past (at least at the moment), are times when I've actually lost sleep over my participation... but didn't back off. (I refer you to my "how to deal with bullies who are real life chickens***" policy)
So yeah, there are some very unhealthy people behind the screens "out here" and in those instances where someone gets a real case of the ass for you, they could indeed do you harm in real life and if nothing else, cause you to have anxious moments.
Jersey Girl (woof! grrrrr...)
Ha! That's funny. I've been called a pit-bull as well. Can you believe it? It takes a lot to get me super pissed -- but when I go there, I GO THERE!
Ray! You don't bite. Come on now! You just want people to think you do!
Nehor, You're right about Coggies. His entire religious and political philosophies are intertwined. I find him fascinating to watch when he gets going.
I almost never become truly pissed on a board. I don't understand the Pit Bull label. You know, I'm a very nice person in real life and I would remain very nice on a board if certain people didn't go out of their way to annoy me with their blather and make me stay on them. It's all their fault!
Well the flip side is ignorance. Boards like these where freedom of speech is not squelched and people not banned, unlike the apologetic boards, make one more aware.
So would I rather be informed and irratated or ignorant and happy?
I choose informed anyday of the week.
I refuse to be a Utah Vally-ite where "ignorance is bliss" and they are very happy people.
I think ignorance could be bliss. Apparently, it works for some people. You know what irritates me? When I attempt to discover the truth and my attempts are thwarted. This causes discomfit and unhappiness for me -- so much so that it is incredibly maddening.
So, like you, I'd rather be informed any day of the week.
I'm getting to this thread late but I thought I'd add my two cents since this has been on my mind.
I have no idea how to answer the "healthy" part--aspects of it are, aspects of it aren't both for me and the population in general.
As many people here know, I've been lucky to have not just good but downright miraculous experiences via message boards. I only visit a few message boards and chats---since I've been online starting in the mid 90's I've probably only participated in 6 or 7. I've been able to reconnect with "lost" friends, make significant and important new friendships and have some adventures beyond my wildest dreams. I've also found board and chat participation to be very intellectually stimulating; I've gotten ideas for and help with a number of writing projects both scholarly and incidental. And I've certainly been exposed to a range of people and ideas I would not have been otherwise because cyberspace facillitates connections across geographic barriers and cultural niches.
Of course I've had few run-ins with oddballs, too, but in the long run these were really just annoyances.
Before chancing on RfM (the serendipitous randomness of the internet led me there while searching information on something only very, very loosely connected to Mormonism) and then starting to read a number of Mormon/exmormon message boards and blogs and post on a few, my experience was with boards and chats related to art, culture and cybertechnology/theory (my first experience was with "Club Wired" the in real life chat connected to the late HotWired webzine). One experiences "flaming" and other internet behaviors everywhere---but truly, I've only been emotionally upset by things I've encountered in the realm of Mormon message boards. I witnessed a level of personal vindictiveness and visciousness I've not really seen elsewhere. And I'm not talking about the juvenile ranting or venting of exmormons: that seems more like typical flaming and is pretty explainable in terms of the context. What I've been surprised by is the level of discourse among both apologistic Mormon posters (for lack of a better term) engaging with non and exmormons and commentary in various places in the "Bloggernacle." Many times I've read opinions that strike me as devoid of any humanity in their sheer authoritarian absoluteness.
So that's the "not healthy" part---the part that's not healthy for me to dwell on because it does have an emotional impact on me. I think, too, that because of this I'm slowly pulling back from reading and participating. I'd like to keep the good parts (interacting with friends and making new ones/interesting discussion) while limited the effects of the bad parts. I'm not sure if this is feasible. I wonder if the potential for the kind of discussion and exchange I want is ironically made difficult by a loosely moderated board. I often wish I could start threads on particular subjects and I don't because I know the kind of crap they'll attract and even if you ignore efforts to block or derail discussion, invariably the crap sticks to everybody's shoes and the footprints are all over.
Anyway, sabbatical's over and its back to work for me.
edit: I forgot to add that one reason I've been interested in this board is that its afforded me the opportunity to see a different kind of Mormon than the ones I alluded to above: members who are not blind conformists or fanatics, who understand many of the problem areas in Mormon history and doctrine and yet who still participate. I get a lot out of just reading the posts by Jason, liz, harmony, moksha and others. Reading their responses has helped me flesh out my knowledge of contemporary Mormonism as it is lived. I'm also clear about what it is in Mormonism that produces the other kind of responses, i.e., the need to morally condemn or vilify the opposition. It is the history of Mormonism that fascinates me, though, and such behavior has a long and venerable tradition within it.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Like others, I believe the "healthiness" of board participation is dependant upon a variety of factors--not the least of which has to do with the purpose being served through the participation. If participation is helping to improve one's life and the life of others, so as to become better people; and if it best enables us to satisfy the basic human need to love and be loved and to feel worthwhile to self and others; then, to me, participation may be healthy.
However, if otherwise, then it may not be in our interest to participate, and delitarious to our health (individually and collectively).
At least that is how I assess "healthiness".
I am curious, though, whether other people here assess "healthiness" in some other way? And, if so, what?
Blixa wrote:Anyway, sabbatical's over and its back to work for me.
edit: I forgot to add that one reason I've been interested in this board is that its afforded me the opportunity to see a different kind of Mormon than the ones I alluded to above: members who are not blind conformists or fanatics, who understand many of the problem areas in Mormon history and doctrine and yet who still participate. I get a lot out of just reading the posts by Jason, liz, harmony, moksha and others. Reading their responses has helped me flesh out my knowledge of contemporary Mormonism as it is lived. I'm also clear about what it is in Mormonism that produces the other kind of responses, I.e., the need to morally condemn or vilify the opposition. It is the history of Mormonism that fascinates me, though, and such behavior has a long and venerable tradition within it.
Thanks, Blixa. I think there are more "contemporary" Mormons out there than some care to admit..at least I hope so. ;)
Your sabbatical is over already! That was fast. Bummer about having to go back to work. Are you ready, or still wishing you had a bit longer?