I think the personal attacks come from the fact that when anyone posts their opinion and it does match your opinion you feel the need to respond to it. Why not just let people have their opinions and leave it at that?
Dear mainzer:
What's wrong with my responses? Do you have objection to differing opinions?
When people have differing opinions, WHY, ALL TOO OFTEN, IS THERE PERSONAL CRITICISM INVOLVED? Why can't there be a discussion and comparison of those opinions, rather than constant attempts to make it PERSONAL?
If a person disagrees with another's opinion, why not simply say something such as, "With all due respect, I disagree" (followed by discussion as to the reasons why there is disagreement)? But some posters obviously enjoy taking personal pot-shots at others, usually behind the veil of an anonymous screen name.
If I disagree with someone's opinion, I don't start attacking that poster on a personal basis, and I don't call such poster a moron or an idiot (or worse) because they have a differing opinion. Wouldn't this be a more polite and constructive forum if all posters conducted themselves likewise?
Mighty Fish,
While you might not come across and blatantly attack people, the manner in which you respond can be taken that way. Prime example was in what you replied back to me in response to a simple question.
In my post, I clearly state that you've had informative stuff written and I won't dispute that. The reference to the crap that's there isn't specific to what you write, but the never ending posts that make the original topic too much to bear as it takes way too much time to sift through the name calling and everything else there to read posts that comment on the topic at hand.
Let's see how you responded :
There was no ulterior motive in my REPORTING of the previous week's high scores, and all of the feedback from LOCAL bowlers (about that article) has been positive. Only in a forum such as this is such a column likely to be criticized, which prompts me to ask: What is YOUR motive for asking me about the "intent" of the article? Just what issue(s) do you take with it?
Obviously, if I used such scoring comparisons (with previous years) in all -- or even a more limited amount -- of such columns, I could understand your "objections" ... but the fact is that such is not the case. And if you don't believe me, here is a link to hundreds of my past columns, and see if you can find anything similar in previous weekly high-score reports. Frankly, I don't see a "problem" although you apparently do.
While not an attack, it still is. There was no name calling, but the manner in which you respond is no different than you coming back and calling me an idiot because I asked a simple question. I asked the question because I wanted an honest answer from you without you knowing my intent. After you answered, I gave you the reason for why I asked it. But had I done that before, your answer would have been based on what my opinion....not my question.
I responded to your post and will say the same thing again....I enjoy reading your posts. I don't care that they might be about 'the good ole days' or that you were a great bowler, etc. Fact is I asked a question and you attacked the question...period.
Now, in response to many of the other comments about who reads what, I think that because of the way many of your posts go, people have a hard time reading them for the reasons mentioned above: original post...plenty of attacks...counter attacks...oh, legitimate post on original topic...more counter attacks on the counter attack...and so on...and so on.
After a while, it gets hard to go through post to actually find something. But I still do.
