Responding is NOT Flaming

When have you been accused of flaming this time?

That's ridiculous. You are one of the more even-tempered bloggers around here, not as prone to fits of anger as some of us (myself included in this group, of course, you buncha TWITS ). I want gory details. Gimme a link.

Come one. Don't leave a brother hanging.

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=2&aid=141725#1106695

The usual suspect is doing the accusing. If she stays around JoeUser I may find myself leaving. IN MY OPINION (not a flame...this is an opinion and clearly expressed as such) she is among the top ten meanest, nastiest bloggers ever to show up on JoeUser...and she can't take it handed back to her in ANY dose.

I figured it was her, I just hadn't seen it yet.

My OPINION is congruous with yours. It's weird, when she first started blogging, I liked her, and she almost ended up in my sidebar. And then came the first explosion, with her flaming hard on a good friend of mine (Donna). And then came the "arse-licking sheep" comment, for standing up for Donna and agreeing with her.

I was done with her then, and when she disappeared for awhile, I felt relieved.

Of course, when she came back, she came back bad, and I was once again accused of being a flamer. And not the gay kind, either.

Oh well. I hope you don't end up going, even though we could all migrate to another blog site . . . the interaction is much better here, and you're a much better addition to the community than she is.

Let's just hope she does something really over the top and gets exiled for good!

Yeah, I didn't like the whole thing with Donna either. I held my tongue through it all, though.

I'm beginning to think that was a mistake.

you go guys - have your fun and enjoy feeding your childish desires .........

Gid, Gid, Gid...

Comments are for you to agree with the writer or to share your own personal, similar anecdote as long as they don't cantradict the original writer's first post!

Tsk, tsk!

I know how you feel, though. I made rebuttals in very neutral toned language about three years ago when I first started blogging. The first person, totally freaked and went on and on about how it was supposed to be sarcasm (which to this day I still think that that particular ESL speaker pulled off in that blog) and the second I contradicted someone's observation about some TV coverage (as in it was covered in a different way in Japan than the USA) and I got a "who the hell do you think you are!?"

Ultimately, I just decided that there are too many unkowns and assumptions made when responding to someone's blog that I hardly find it worthwhile to make a rebuttal anymore.

If I've enjoyed someone's blog then I'll comment, but usually (not always) I just pass a lot of the stuff I disagree with by.

... Actually, I started my comment off rather tongue in cheek only to mind that I pretty much mean it. That's kind of sad

They do it because that is why they are here. It isn't fun for them if they aren't doing it. Lucas is a masochist. Jennifer is a "champion", forever defending anyone that everyone hates because it makes her feel lofty. The moment we have the ability to make specific people's posts invisible no one will see what she or lucas says.

)jennifer1January 22, 2007 07:28:09Reply #28 Jennifer, you're a fruitcake, plain and simple. You and Lucas are well suited for each other. thats rich - from one to another hahahah! LW - I will always speak out when an unnecessary remark is made

New JU moderation...and all at no cost?

Thank you so much for your...er um, services.

Anybody for some nuts in their fruitcake?

Responding to an inflamitory comment is not flaming either. Thats usually the case I see; where an inflamitory remark is made and any retort is considered flaming.

Whatever.

you go guys - have your fun and enjoy feeding your childish desires .........

Waaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaah!

Baby needs a nap.

(I can't put baby in the corner, because, as we all know "NOBODY puts baby in a corner". Sowwy, couldn't resist!)

I'm going to say this, at the risk of offending a few of the brass:

I think Brad allowing jennifer back was a mistake. But it's his decision to make, so we'll just deal with whatever happens.

Lucas's constant dramatic exits, (in which no one, and I mean NO ONE asks him to stay) followed by ever more sheepish returns have reached the point of ridiculousness.

Yeah, he's already back, with pictures of him and his girlfriend.

And, when trying to comment, I discovered I'm officially on his blacklist. I feel so SPECIAL!

I'm all out of welcome now. I think many of us are.

I think most of us are.

You mean blacklist is actually working again?

Must be. I was even going to make marginally friendly comments about the pics, and just ask why he appears to have no teeth in the pictures. But I'm BL'ed. Yay.

About blacklisting:

I havnt made so much as 5 (if any) posts to the lunatics blog, yet the second my name is used by her; I'm blacklisted.

I make a comment on my own blog, and get politely reprimanded.

The blacklist feature is okay, but Id rather see an "Ignore" feature, and a "Remove All comments from this user" option.

Calling something a flame, or someone a troll, is just an easy excuse to be a wuss.  It is a lame, weak-minded ploy, used by lame, weak-minded people.

But that is just my flaming opinion.

Agreed. She could have actually came up with a response to that, but took the easy (and cowardly) way out.

It is called MODERATING ONES OWN THREAD of the likes of you....I will continue to delete any trolling remarks you make on my blog especially where the request has been made for there not to be be such remarks made on the blog.

It is called MODERATING ONES OWN THREAD of the likes of you....I will continue to delete any trolling remarks you make on my blog especially where the request has been made for there not to be be such remarks made on the blog.

You don't like people doing an "end around" YOUR blacklist, jennifer...it would be nice of you to reciprocate. I don't know why I can't delete posts, but I can't and that's the ONLY reason your remarks remain. I don't like you, I think you're a waste of your daddy's manjuice and a perfectly good ovum, and I think that JU at least would be better off without your presence. And because this is MY blog, it is not inappropriate at all for me to post that response here.

If you keep coming here and posting despite the blacklist, you deserve EXACTLY what you get, jennifer.

One thing I have found that fixes a few of the JU site "glitches", is after you log in, use the Ctrl-+ F5 keys. This clears the cache of the current page, without affecting the entire cache....and seems to resolve "some" issues.

Still, i wish you'd let her answer my question, because for the life of me I do not understand how one comes to the conclusion that my remark was 'trolling.'

Consider the source.

People accusing other people of being "flamers" and "trollers" should both grow the hell up. Some of you are just the biggest bunch of fucking cry babies I've ever even known about. Children with no kinder-care can find the ability to just get along in the sand box better then you folks on JU.

"A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons. A real Flamer usually attacks threads because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread or the lack thereof. The difference between a Flamer and somebody who merely disagrees is that a flamer is inappropriate in their responses."

"a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

The only flaming I'm interested in doing on JU is letting people know what I think, right or wrong. So shoot me, As for trolling, the only trolling I do is well read the last sentence for the stated purpose of my posting and commenting. Don't like it, well just censor everything I say. See where that gets ya.

If you weren't a racist, a censor, and a troll yourself, not to mention a flamer, you would be qualified to throw stones.

But since, you are

a racist,
a censor,
and a troll,

and I view that as fact, it hardly fits the definition of trolling.

i.e. you were not invited into my blog, and my post wasn't a featured article as yours was i.e. in the public domain of JU,

I have no control over what you write, on your blog, nor do I wish to become unethical or a hypocrite myself and delete your comments either, yet you should acknowledge what you do, what you say, what you believe in, and that you are in fact..

a racist,
a censor,
a troll,
a flamer,
a hypocrite,

and a lately a bitch.