I declare today "Talk Like DCP Day"

[_asbestosman]

I thought that was a decent DCP impression. You didn't like it, abs-man?

What, and my response wasn't a decent impression? ;)

I first read Buffalo's response and thought it was ironic that he'd bother responding to a post affirming that he's not going to respond to it. Then it clicked that this might be a new tactic by Buffalo to tell Simon to knock it off while simultaneously trying to do an impression. Then I thought there was probably a combination of intentional and unintentional in there. Then my head hurt. Then I fell asleep with my nose hitting the Z key.

[_Buffalo]

I thought that was a decent DCP impression. You didn't like it, abs-man?

What, and my response wasn't a decent impression? ;)

I first read Buffalo's response and thought it was ironic that he'd bother responding to a post affirming that he's not going to respond to it. Then it clicked that this might be a new tactic by Buffalo to tell Simon to knock it off while simultaneously trying to do an impression. Then I thought there was probably a combination of intentional and unintentional in there. Then my head hurt. Then I fell asleep with my nose hitting the Z key.

It's actually a direct quote from DCP, originally addressed to me. DCP would often respond to me to tell me how he'd decided not to respond to me anymore. :D

[_Some Schmo]

I thought that was a decent DCP impression. You didn't like it, abs-man?

What, and my response wasn't a decent impression? ;)

Touché.

I first read Buffalo's response and thought it was ironic that he'd bother responding to a post affirming that he's not going to respond to it. Then it clicked that this might be a new tactic by Buffalo to tell Simon to knock it off while simultaneously trying to do an impression. Then I thought there was probably a combination of intentional and unintentional in there. Then my head hurt. Then I fell asleep with my nose hitting the Z key.

Nice. I have been right slain.

[_asbestosman]

I actually do think it can be useful to tell someone you won't bother responding to him anymore. It gives him the chance to change his behavior if he wishes to engage you. From then on it will be on your terms.

If you wish to dialogue with a particular person then he probably already has the upper hand since he has something you want (his attention) while you do not have anything he wants of comparable value. That makes the negotiations for terms of discourse very one-sided. Why wouldn't someone take advantage of that situation?


Anyhow, I don't really love Daniel Peterson threads. You complain about how much attention he wants and then you guys go and give it to him. Brilliant. I know this is weird, but I imagine if everyone here quit talking about Daniel Peterson's personality, motives, or shortcomings and only focused on his arguments, he might actually like it more than the negative attention he gets. I know, I know it's too crazy to possibly be true.

[_Buffalo]

I actually do think it can be useful to tell someone you won't bother responding to him anymore. It gives him the chance to change his behavior if he wishes to engage you. From then on it will be on your terms.

Well, that's the thing. He never really stopped responding to me - he prefaced his many responses to me by telling me he had stopped responding to me. The only time he really honored that is when I made substantive points. He was always happy to respond to bickering in kind.

[_asbestosman]

The only time he really honored that is when I made substantive points. He was always happy to respond to bickering in kind.

There are two problems here. First off, what you think is substantive may not be something he thinks is substantive. Even critics like Stak don't always agree with you on what's substantive regarding atheism.

Secondly, even if he might have agreed it was substantive, he may have been so tired of the other distractions that he didn't think it was worth giving a substantive response. There may well be gems in something with a high Noise to signal ratio, but is it really worth putting in the effort when the rest of the noise makes it seem likely that it will be a wasted effort? We're only human after all.

[_Buffalo]

The only time he really honored that is when I made substantive points. He was always happy to respond to bickering in kind.

There are two problems here. First off, what you think is substantive may not be something he thinks is substantive. Even critics like Stak don't always agree with you on what's substantive regarding atheism.

Secondly, even if he might have agreed it was substantive, he may have been so tired of the other distractions that he didn't think it was worth giving a substantive response. There may well be gems in something with a high Noise to signal ratio, but is it really worth putting in the effort when the rest of the noise makes it seem likely that it will be a wasted effort? We're only human after all.

It wasn't just with me though - it didn't really matter who was making the point. If it was substantive, DCP didn't respond. He only responded to bickering, or occasionally when he thought he could score an easy point.

And that's okay - I've come to realize that Herr Doktor isn't really a debater - he's more of a talking head. That's his function, and that's okay.

[_Some Schmo]

I actually do think it can be useful to tell someone you won't bother responding to him anymore. It gives him the chance to change his behavior if he wishes to engage you. From then on it will be on your terms.

Holy crap, just how pathetic does one have to be to crave the conversation of someone else who doesn't want to talk to them?

The only people I care about not ignoring me are friends, family, and colleagues.

But strangers on the Internet? ROTFLMAO

I never cease to be amazed at how seriously some people seem to take this medium (not necessarily you, abs-man. Just in general).

Actually, this whole exchange reminds me of the time DCP said something about how he didn't care what I thought. (I replied with something like, "Well excellent. Now I can say whatever I want about you and expect it'll be hunky dory with you!")

I guess this does mean, however, that Scratch is the most important Internet friend DCP has, given how much he cares about what Scratch thinks.

[_asbestosman]

Holy crap, just how pathetic does one have to be to crave the conversation of someone else who doesn't want to talk to them?

I don't know, but a lot of people seem to want DCP to engage them with various questions when he does show up. Or maybe Daniel Peterson really does like talking with them? Truthfully I suspect it's a mix of both.

But strangers on the Internet? ROTFLMAO

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it's quite accurate. I've invested a lot of time in my asbestosman persona. In some sense I fell like I know something about the other online identities I frequently interact with. I don't care about them as much as I care about my family and friends, but I care more than I do about those I've never or rarely interacted with. The familiarity does, I believe have value. Besides entertainment or shared laughs, I also get new perspectives from people whose advice I can frame in a more certain context of our past interactions. Book recommendations are a good one, but so are anecdotes when I can put them in perspective.

I guess this does mean, however, that Scratch is the most important Internet friend DCP has, given how much he cares about what Scratch thinks.

Perhaps he cares about Scratch because of how Scratch can influence others' opninion of him. I'm not sure. It's an interesting point since I do believe he's said this is a board of no significance. If so, well, what some lunatic says on a board of no significance probably isn't worth wasting time on. I don't really care what kind of terrible things loons say about me in an asylum.

But really, most likely it's a simple aspect of human nature. We don't like it when people speak ill of us even if logically we believe their words will have little impact on our daily lives. Words hurt whether it be from cyber-bullies at school, or a bunch of trolls that have not influence on your family and friends. Logic is great and all, but it really doesn't mean much when the emotions run strong. Homo sapiens are weak that way.

[_Buffalo]

Stay tuned for tomorrow's "Talk Like Droopy Day"!