Pete please explain
« on: July 27, 2018, 05:48:07 PM »
Here's the conversation...

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it?
There it is.

Categorize this under personal conjecture.
Yeah. I'm condescending AF. Fair enough.

And Pete's response:
Yeah, try not to do that in the upper. If you need to vent, take it to Angry Ranting. Most people will still read it and get suitably outraged ;)

I'm not gonna issue a proper warning since this does look like a genuine slip-up, but let's go with a polite request.

People like to call me condescending, and I'm happy to own that. Here is some more of what I expect could be called "condescending"...

Pete, what did you mean by that?

Do you mean to say that my original post: "I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?" is unacceptable under your rules?

Or do you mean to say that this response: "You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it? There it is." is unacceptable?

The thing is, text can be imprecise if you aren't careful with it. Your text did not specify whom you were addressing. I personally do not see anyone "venting" in any of that exchange. I asked a poster whether they were serious or joking. On this board, that seems like a pretty fair question. I also tried to ask them whether or not they were inviting debate on the topic. That's not "venting." If you're being extremely strict, I could imagine finding JHelzer's response to be a personal attack, but somehow that's not the impression I got from your response. I think it was directed at me.

In my opinion, what you read as "condescension" was, in this case, merely asking for clarification. People who are being serious find it condescending when you ask them if they are joking. People also find it condescending when you explain their mistakes to them by going back to extremely basic fundamentals, but when someone is making a mistake with basic fundamentals, there's no way around that. That's all I'm here for. I'm here to try to get a few people to stop and rethink their basic fundamentals, and that is going to come across as condescending. There's no getting around that, so I'll own up to it, but if that's against the rules, I'll need a refresher course.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Pete please explain
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2018, 06:23:48 PM »
A fundamental unwritten rule of online communication is that if someone didn't specify who they're responding to, they're responding to the post immediately above.

As I said, I fully believe that this was an honest slip-up, and no action is being taken against you. I do think it's unlikely that you sincerely thought something in our Wiki would be a joke (why would we publish jokes in between theories?), but I'm not gonna look into that much further - no point. Plus, if someone points out that they've found your attitude to be condescending, saying "yeah, I'm condescending AF" is not a helpful response.

On this board, that seems like a pretty fair question.
I disagree. You may have mistaken us for another similarly-named group, with which we have very little in common anymore.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Pete please explain
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2018, 06:42:15 PM »
A fundamental unwritten rule of online communication is that if someone didn't specify who they're responding to, they're responding to the post immediately above.

As I said, I fully believe that this was an honest slip-up, and no action is being taken against you. I do think it's unlikely that you sincerely thought something in our Wiki would be a joke (why would we publish jokes in between theories?), but I'm not gonna look into that much further - no point. Plus, if someone points out that they've found your attitude to be condescending, saying "yeah, I'm condescending AF" is not a helpful response.

On this board, that seems like a pretty fair question.
I disagree. You may have mistaken us for another similarly-named group, with which we have very little in common anymore.

Aha! I totally misunderstood you. Thanks for explaining.

If you don't mind, I have some follow-ups...
1) I guess you got the impression I was suggesting the wiki post was a joke. I think this is a result of the imprecision of my text. I meant to ask about this portion:
Quote
We are shielded from UA and are therefore accelerated by the Earth pushing us along.
If it is possible to escape Earth's shielding, then a body would be accelerated by UA directly and would move synchronously with the Earth.
Is that part of the wiki? I didn't get that from reading the wiki.

2) Where can I go to find out more about the differences between the 2 sites?