SGW - Was it worth it?

[_Kishkumen]

While over-the-top teasing may turn into bullying and that is unacceptable, the sort of mundane teasing that occurs on many internet boards really can't be held responsible for over-reactions on the part of less stable individuals. Something is going to set them off, and it could be anything.

OK, beastie, but it seems to me that you are reintroducing some kind of moral question here, when I am trying to say that morality should be put aside.

The question is not what is right, as far as I am concerned. The question is whether we like the consequences of what some people did. If we don't care about the trouble it has caused enough to refrain from doing the same thing again, we ought to be prepared for similar consequences.

Frankly, I don't care about the moral question at all.

[_beastie]

OK, beastie, but it seems to me that you are reintroducing some kind of moral question here, when I am trying to say that morality should be put aside.

The question is not what is right, as far as I am concerned. The question is whether we like the consequences of what some people did. If we don't care about the trouble it has caused enough to refrain from doing the same thing again, we ought to be prepared for similar consequences.

Frankly, I don't care about the moral question at all.

I didn't do so deliberately. I was talking about the consequences in terms of less stable individuals being set-off by the sort of internet banter that more stable persons could shrug off.

No one is going to like the consequences of the actions of a less stable individual enraged by silly banter on the internet, but unless posters are going to walk on eggshells around other posters, it's just not avoidable. And even if posters walked on eggshells, chances are that something would still set off a less stable individual.

Note: I am not talking about internet bullying, which is always unacceptable. I'm talking about the type of silly banter that set SGW off. I mean, really. How many times have I been called names and insulted in various manners by defenders of the faith, particularly at MAD? But you don't see me going ballistic over it, because I'm an emotionally stable person. There is just no way to predict what will set off a less stable person, and hence, no way to avoid it.

I'm not advocating meanness and rudeness by any means. I'm saying that a more stable person than SGW would have recognized that some poorly written erotica by a defender of the faith would inevitably trigger some teasing. Big deal.

Of course, on MAD he claimed that he'd been the victim of all sorts of malacious behavior off the board, but I don't believe him for a second. I think when even some believers acted as if he'd over-reacted, he built some sort of fanciful background story to make it seem more dramatic.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, well, posting the picture of some guy and his family, when none of them have much of anything to do with the board, is simply a bad idea. Let's just not do it. I am not saying, "naughty you, I am so disappointed." I am saying, "hey, look at what happened! I didn't like that. If you didn't, let's not do it again, OK?"

Refraining from doing something that hardly ever happens to people unassociated with the board is probably not so difficult to do, is it?

I'm talking about the type of silly banter that set SGW off. I mean, really. How many times have I been called names and insulted in various manners by defenders of the faith, particularly at MAD? But you don't see me going ballistic over it, because I'm an emotionally stable person. There is just no way to predict what will set off a less stable person, and hence, no way to avoid it.

I'm not advocating meanness and rudeness by any means. I'm saying that a more stable person than SGW would have recognized that some poorly written erotica by a defender of the faith would inevitably trigger some teasing. Big deal.

Of course, on MAD he claimed that he'd been the victim of all sorts of malacious behavior off the board, but I don't believe him for a second. I think when even some believers acted as if he'd over-reacted, he built some sort of fanciful background story to make it seem more dramatic.

[_beastie]

Yeah, well, posting the picture of some guy and his family, when none of them have much of anything to do with the board, is simply a bad idea. Let's just not do it. I am not saying, "naughty you, I am so disappointed." I am saying, "hey, look at what happened! I didn't like that. If you didn't, let's not do it again, OK?"

Refraining from doing something that hardly ever happens to people unassociated with the board is probably not so difficult to do, is it?

I'm always opposed to posting pictures of people without their consent.

But remember that SGW posted that exact same picture in his MDD profile at one point (not sure if it's still there, it was in the cached version).

I may be wrong, but more than the pictures, I suspect SGW was angry about the emphasis on his erotic writing.

[_Kishkumen]

But remember that SGW posted that exact same picture in his MDD profile at one point (not sure if it's still there, it was in the cached version).

I may be wrong, but more than the pictures, I suspect SGW was angry about the emphasis on his erotic writing.

Again, this business about the status of the picture is a red herring. Or whether it was the picture or the writing sample that really ticked him off.

I am all about risk management here. My bottom line: don't find random people of small consequence to ridicule, and especially don't scour the internet in search of anything from the person's private life one can find that will add to the cheap laughs.

[_CaliforniaKid]

My bottom line: don't find random people of small consequence to ridicule

It was stupid of me to post the OP of that thread. I don't know what I was thinking. My sincere apologies to Tim, Shades, and the members of this forum.

[_Kishkumen]

My bottom line: don't find random people of small consequence to ridicule

It was stupid of me to post the OP of that thread. I don't know what I was thinking. My sincere apologies to Tim, Shades, and the members of this forum.

CK,

I think the OP fell within the purview of the usual MDB fare. In any case, it seems to me that it was a fine topic. I was more talking about the sharp turn the discussion took at the introduction of SWG's fiction and family photos.

[_Simon Belmont]

Always let sleeping dogs lie. He's lucky this didn't hit the chans.

Or the SAs.


P.S. I still can't believe you're a channer.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think the OP fell within the purview of the usual MDB fare. In any case, it seems to me that it was a fine topic. I was more talking about the sharp turn the discussion took at the introduction of SWG's fiction and family photos.

Perhaps. But I did poke fun at a non-member of the board, and I did use his real name, and it did occur to me that the thread might turn ugly. I think that's enough to qualify as stupid.

[_MsJack]

Chris, the discussion of his ego apologetics journal only got five posts. Once TrashCanMan79 found SeattleSmutWriter's dirty fiction and linked to that, the entire thread was about that. It doesn't sound like you were aware that the latter even existed, so this is hardly your fault.