Pondering

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I was wondering about something and was curious if anyone wanted to give their views or opinions.

What does it say about someone who gets upset with how what they post is perceived, will not answer questions directly and says they are done with everything and leaving. Yet..........................that same person keeps coming back. :confused:

Now I am not talking about any ONE particular individual here so do not jump to conclusions. :D

But, over the years I have seen several people threaten to take their toys and leave to go to another sandbox.....................and yet they keep returning.
This really does have me puzzled and I am wondering if it may be some sort of medical or mental condition.
It also leads me to wonder about what level of skill, if any, they truly have. I mean if you are so thin skinned that an internet forum can get you upset then how do you function in real life. If your Sifu does not promote you or acknowledge your great skill do you stick it out or go elsewhere???

I am kind of bored today and this was something I was wondering about.

Your thoughts..............................

[JPinAZ]

Good question Dave,

One simple answer is: some people crave the attention - good or bad (and some just the bad). And, I think some people really get off and even gain some strange satisfaction on the negative attention and seeing people get riled up over what they've said or done. I have many ideas why they are that way, but would rather leave that part alone.

[Paddington]

Hello,

I was wondering about something and was curious if anyone wanted to give their views or opinions.

What does it say about someone who gets upset with how what they post is perceived, will not answer questions directly and says they are done with everything and leaving. Yet..........................that same person keeps coming back. :confused:

Now I am not talking about any ONE particular individual here so do not jump to conclusions. :D

But, over the years I have seen several people threaten to take their toys and leave to go to another sandbox.....................and yet they keep returning.
This really does have me puzzled and I am wondering if it may be some sort of medical or mental condition.
It also leads me to wonder about what level of skill, if any, they truly have. I mean if you are so thin skinned that an internet forum can get you upset then how do you function in real life. If your Sifu does not promote you or acknowledge your great skill do you stick it out or go elsewhere???

I am kind of bored today and this was something I was wondering about.

Your thoughts..............................

A good post.

I think it is always difficult to spot one's own faults, even when looking in the mirror. Sometimes people become excited by what they perceive to be 'newly discovered' or of great importance to them and it is a mistake to assume that others are going to feel the same way; a 'fetish for the new', if you will, and even if the item is an antique, coming into ownership renders it 'new' to the owner for a while.

I think it is important not to conflate issues, sihing73, and to realise that as Miguel noted, it is a number of people and their conduct that has created a hostile environment here.

It is not just about being thin skinned even though in some cases this is true. It is more like a group of 'bullshido' members / posters intentionally derailing and wrecking havoc on these forums (phrost). I am not saying that that is the case or stating that this is people's intent. Rather, I am saying that the result of people's conduct on these forums results in a similar hostile atmosphere being created here.

[YouKnowWho]

A good friend of mine asked me,

- Why do you spend time on internet discussion?
- What can you do when someone said something bad about you?

The answer to the 1st question is easy. You want to find people who can share the same interest and talk about TCMA with you. The answer to the 2nd question is not that easy.

[Wayfaring]

Perhaps it is a little bit of THIS.....

8673

[KPM]

I think it is important not to conflate issues, sihing73, and to realise that as Miguel noted, it is a number of people and their conduct that has created a hostile environment here.

It is not just about being thin skinned even though in some cases this is true. It is more like a group of 'bullshido' members / posters intentionally derailing and wrecking havoc on these forums (phrost). I am not saying that that is the case or stating that this is people's intent. Rather, I am saying that the result of people's conduct on these forums results in a similar hostile atmosphere being created here.

+1. I agree completely.

[Wayfaring]

I think it is important not to conflate issues, sihing73, and to realise that as Miguel noted, it is a number of people and their conduct that has created a hostile environment here.

It is not just about being thin skinned even though in some cases this is true. It is more like a group of 'bullshido' members / posters intentionally derailing and wrecking havoc on these forums (phrost). I am not saying that that is the case or stating that this is people's intent. Rather, I am saying that the result of people's conduct on these forums results in a similar hostile atmosphere being created here.

Actually it is probably your perception of "a number of people and their conduct" that makes this a hostile environment TO YOU. One of my worries about the thin skinned and all that is that if people react like this on the internet with all this drama / hostile environment stuff how would they actually react in a challenging real life scenario wherein they may have to use their martial arts training? Would they have a different persona than they portray on the internet? I sure hope so. "I'm sorry mister attacker I really don't want to make this a hostile environment for you. Can't we just talk it out?"

I don't consider this a hostile environment even though Gene just told everyone don't be a ranting clown or you'll get banned. And there have been a lot of people who have treated me in a hostile fashion over years.

I don't think Neal (phrost) posts here from bullshido, or any of the mods over there (actually there was one guy Tom Kagan??? I think but he doesn't post here much any more and doesn't mod much over there any more - funny thing he's more of a traditionalist in his WCK views). I don't post over there but read sometimes - that forum also has a problem with interesting content. There are relatively few investigations going on compared to past and activity is down like it has been here outside of people arguing. To me it's interesting to read their investigations as it provides insight into what fraud looks like represented on the internet.

In reality what is closer to truth is that there has always been some kind of a contingent that posts on this wing chun forum that is a proponent of realistic training and sparring (and the people in that contingent has changed over the past too - not the same people). that contingent holds quite different views than those who train wing chun for more holistic reasons. So the difference in views results in disconnects and at times bickering. But this is true of any group of people anywhere.

The reality for Gene as a publisher is that it's probably to his advantage to keep the drama as increased page views are the result and that helps his magazine sales indirectly. The only thing that would threaten that is accusations of intolerable actions being tolerated like racism or hate speech which might drive clientele away.

[Faux Newbie]

Actually it is probably your perception of "a number of people and their conduct" that makes this a hostile environment TO YOU. One of my worries about the thin skinned and all that is that if people react like this on the internet with all this drama / hostile environment stuff how would they actually react in a challenging real life scenario wherein they may have to use their martial arts training? Would they have a different persona than they portray on the internet? I sure hope so. "I'm sorry mister attacker I really don't want to make this a hostile environment for you. Can't we just talk it out?"


That is a terrible theory. People who argue all day know how to fight, people who don't put up with people who want to argue in space they occupy on a daily basis have conflict management problems?

If I'm going to argue, I will get something done. Flame wars are ineffectual in the extreme. Aside from clicks for Gene, not sure how much effect that has.

[Wayfaring]

That is a terrible theory. People who argue all day know how to fight, people who don't put up with people who want to argue in space they occupy on a daily basis have conflict management problems?

If I'm going to argue, I will get something done. Flame wars are ineffectual in the extreme. Aside from clicks for Gene, not sure how much effect that has.

Nice jump to conclusions there. I don't have a theory. "People who don't put up with people who want to argue in space they occupy on a daily basis"????? Not sure WTF you are talking about there, ace.

There are two sides to a main argument here on realistic training. Those on one side are painted as "people who want to argue"???? Yet on the other side people only seem to want to talk with those with the same view. So they want to "not put up with people who argue", or in other words "lobby to moderators to ban those with opposing views".

So now, which of those sides do you represent?

[KPM]

Actually it is probably your perception of "a number of people and their conduct" that makes this a hostile environment TO YOU. One of my worries about the thin skinned and all that is that if people react like this on the internet with all this drama / hostile environment stuff how would they actually react in a challenging real life scenario wherein they may have to use their martial arts training? Would they have a different persona than they portray on the internet? I sure hope so. "I'm sorry mister attacker I really don't want to make this a hostile environment for you. Can't we just talk it out?"

.

I don't think that's a good analogy or conclusion WF. This is a discussion forum for people with similar interests. Its not too much of a stretch to expect to be treated with some level of politeness and respect, just as we would be in a face to face discussion. When people are rude and disrepectful that discourages others from posting. It has nothing to do with being "thin skinned." It has more to do with being unwilling to put up with BS. And I don't think it has anything to do with how one might respond in a real life scenario to an attacker. If anything, the one's being "hostile" are probably more likely to get into a fight in public vs. the one's that ignore them or try to make efforts to change things around here. Those are the one's more likely to try to avoid or difuse a bad situation. What does your martial arts training tell you to do? Look for a fight? Or try and avoid one?

[Wayfaring]

I don't think that's a good analogy or conclusion WF. This is a discussion forum for people with similar interests. Its not too much of a stretch to expect to be treated with some level of politeness and respect, just as we would be in a face to face discussion. When people are rude and disrepectful that discourages others from posting. It has nothing to do with being "thin skinned." It has more to do with being unwilling to put up with BS. And I don't think it has anything to do with how one might respond in a real life scenario to an attacker. If anything, the one's being "hostile" are probably more likely to get into a fight in public vs. the one's that ignore them or try to make efforts to change things around here. Those are the one's more likely to try to avoid or difuse a bad situation. What does your martial arts training tell you to do? Look for a fight? Or try and avoid one?

But people don't talk on the internet like they do face to face. Even the best of them. And you are a prime example. And so are the mods at times. Those on the other side of the argument from you also feel that they are "unwilling to put up with BS". Your BS is arguing about certain topics. Their BS is endless postulation about technique with zero crucible testing.

So what makes your BS right over theirs? To the point where mods ought to ban those with their view and only keep people with your view?

Sounds fishy to me.

[Faux Newbie]

Nice jump to conclusions there. I don't have a theory.

You suggested posting style and ability in self defense are linked, I was only responding to that. The biggest talkers seem to set up a lot of challenges they then lose, including on mma sites amongst mma guys.


There are two sides to a main argument here on realistic training.

That's one argument on here. Not an important one for either people who train realistically already or don't care to, but apparently we must care, because no matter what thread one is one, these people will drag tangent arguments into it from both sides.


Those on one side are painted as "people who want to argue"???? Yet on the other side people only seem to want to talk with those with the same view.

Which in no way is not your choice or anyone elses. Nor is it a real problem. And, to be clear, I pick on people who want to argue, not just one group. And they do argue to a degree that clearly annoys everyone else, and craps up this forum. You can't possibly believe this forum is not crapped up.


So they want to "not put up with people who argue", or in other words "lobby to moderators to ban those with opposing views".

Ban anyone who follows people around to any thread to carry on specific arguments regardless what the thread is about or what other people on it wish is, to my awareness, the ONLY thing that causes banning on the kung fu taiji forum. I'm fine with that, and it defines exactly what was happening on here. Nor did I call for banning, you will note, I said people should restrain themselves.

Your statement here is a false choice. I repeatedly have suggested arguing with fine, carrying on those arguments across the forum is not. Do you actually not see the difference?


So now, which of those sides do you represent?

This statement is all or nothing thinking. Apparently you are saying that one cannot argue and keep that argument from getting ridiculously out of hand. And those who can do that apparently then cannot do conflict management in real life, or fight if needed to, over those who cannot stop themselves from online argument.

But, if one must choose a side because the people arguing insist on it, I'm on my side. I try to discuss technique, sometimes shoot the ****. I owe you no explanation of my training methods, nor do you owe me the same. I do not need you to weed out the fakes for me, I can decide what methodologies are worthwhile to me by hearing about them, thinking them over, trying them, I really don't need them proselytized to me, and I even less need two groups proselytizing their stuff.

I have largely only argued this point on the threads related to it. So apparently, self restraint can actually be done. This argument that not letting an argument infringe on other's forum time means not allowing argument is totally false.

[Faux Newbie]

But people don't talk on the internet like they do face to face. Even the best of them. And you are a prime example. And so are the mods at times. Those on the other side of the argument from you also feel that they are "unwilling to put up with BS". Your BS is arguing about certain topics. Their BS is endless postulation about technique with zero crucible testing.

So what makes your BS right over theirs? To the point where mods ought to ban those with their view and only keep people with your view?

Sounds fishy to me.

I don't put my BS on threads that don't relate to my BS, they do.

This is what gets a member banned here.

It's not the same, because the issue is what is messing up every thread. And that's a group of people ignoring the thread topics to carry on their arguments, and one or the other of them seemed to have a sense yesterday that reigning it in was necessary, and they sure did, so obviously they can while still arguing on topic most of the time, thus still being able to argue.

[Paddington]

I don't put my BS on threads that don't relate to my BS, they do.

This is what gets a member banned here.

It's not the same, because the issue is what is messing up every thread. And that's a group of people ignoring the thread topics to carry on their arguments, and one or the other of them seemed to have a sense yesterday that reigning it in was necessary, and they sure did, so obviously they can while still arguing on topic most of the time, thus still being able to argue.

One solution to a lot of these issues is to allow the person that started the thread to moderate it. You can set up forum privileges like that. If Gene et al are serious about allowing us to moderate ourselves and affording us the greatest degree of freedom possible, then this is perhaps the best solution.

[Grumblegeezer]

I don't put my BS on threads that don't relate to my BS, they do.

This is what gets a member banned here.

It's not the same, because the issue is what is messing up every thread. And that's a group of people ignoring the thread topics to carry on their arguments, and one or the other of them seemed to have a sense yesterday that reigning it in was necessary, and they sure did, so obviously they can while still arguing on topic most of the time, thus still being able to argue.

Is there a reason why we can't name the culprits? I'm so sick of this thing between Hendrick and Ron & Co. that I could barf. The next time either side follows the other onto a thread dealing with a different topic, their posts should be instantly deleted. Each side has already had their say a dozen times over.

Now they are just messing the forum up. We all need to say STFU and the mods need to delete their off-topic posts. If they persist, yes ban them too!

[Faux Newbie]

Is there a reason why we can't name the culprits? I'm so sick of this thing between Hendrick and Ron & Co. that I could barf. The next time either side follows the other onto a thread dealing with a different topic, their posts should be instantly deleted. Each side has already had their say a dozen times over.

Now they are just messing the forum up. We all need to say STFU and the mods need to delete their off-topic posts. If they persist, yes ban them too!

Precisely.

It's not "no one can argue".

It is, if the forum were:

50% technical discussion of Wing Chun, and...

50% flaming screaming lineage wars, flame wars, etc, kept in their respective topics...

...it would be a 900% improvement on the current situation.

[JPinAZ]

And, to be clear, I pick on people who want to argue, not just one group. And they do argue to a degree that clearly annoys everyone else, and craps up this forum.

Just to interject, and I may have misread you. But the above statement seems to say that you target people that you feel 'like to argue', confront them about their 'arguing', and then in turn argue with them about (as I feel you did me). Or argue about it with others, like you seem to be doing with wayfaring. Can't you seem irony in that? You don't seem any better than those you say target other people just to argue, except you do it under the guise of wanting to make the forum a better place. lol, half of your posts here seem to be you arguing about arguing :)
Your intentions may be good, but you seem to be failing in your methods

And really, why are you picking on anyone? That sounds just like what you accuse Ron of doing to Hendrik....

[Faux Newbie]

Just to interject, and I may have misread you. But the above statement seems to say that you target people that you feel 'like to argue', confront them about their 'arguing', and then in turn argue with them about (as I feel you did me). Or argue about it with others, like you seem to be doing with wayfaring. Can't you seem irony in that? You don't seem any better than those you say target other people just to argue, except you do it under the guise of wanting to make the forum a better place. lol, half of your posts here seem to be you arguing about arguing :)
Your intentions may be good, but you seem to be failing in your methods

And really, why are you picking on anyone? That sounds just like what you accuse Ron of doing to Hendrik....

To reiterate, I'm not anti-arguing in threads that the argument is about. It's continuing it in other threads, which I'm actively seeking not to do, that is clearly the problem, imo.


Additionally, I am curious how you are measuring my success. All the flames about Hendrick's history are on Hendrick's history threads. All the posts about the state of the forum are in threads about that. All the technical discussions are in threads about that. All the flame posts are in their relevant topics, all the technique posts are in their relevant topics. This was not the case two days ago. I am not saying I am the reason, but I am curious how you are determining that the opinions of those tired of the flame wars aren't.

If you take the position that my argument is that people shouldn't argue, when I am actually taking a different position, I am stuck responding to a straw man argument that I did not make.

I have argued about the flame wars carried from thread to thread on threads about the state of the forum. I have discussed technique on threads about technique. There is nothing inconsistent or ironic about this. I spoke with you on the wing chun range thread, and this argument did not come up.

A good example of irony would be when you said half my posts(50%) are arguing about arguing on the same page where I said that if the forum were 50% flame wars about claims and lineage in their pertinent threads, and 50% on topic posts on martial arts, it would be a 900% improvement. I cannot claim that, though, as discussion with you and Wayfarer is not quite the same as flame wars. :D

Finally, I am posting in response to clarify my position. At any point where someone doesn't ask me a question or make a statement in regards to this that I should respond to in order to make my view clear, then there's nothing more to say. Since a couple people mistakenly thought I was saying one thing when I was not, I am just clearing that up.

And, in fairness, I could have chosen my words better in regards to Wayfarer. The idea that how one communicated by posting will have some bearing on fighting is not really something I've seen to be true, but I believe I said the theory was silly or some such thing, and that certainly was a poor choice in terms.

[Wayfaring]

You suggested posting style and ability in self defense are linked, I was only responding to that. The biggest talkers seem to set up a lot of challenges they then lose, including on mma sites amongst mma guys.

I suggested nothing of the sort. I said I hoped they were not.



That's one argument on here. Not an important one for either people who train realistically already or don't care to, but apparently we must care, because no matter what thread one is one, these people will drag tangent arguments into it from both sides.

So your complaint is people carry on different conversations than the thread title? Yeah welcome to life and the internetz. You sound a little OCD though. Does silverware out of place bug you too?



Which in no way is not your choice or anyone elses. Nor is it a real problem. And, to be clear, I pick on people who want to argue, not just one group. And they do argue to a degree that clearly annoys everyone else, and craps up this forum. You can't possibly believe this forum is not crapped up.

So you are the vigilante arguing police without a mod title or powers? How's that working out for you?



Ban anyone who follows people around to any thread to carry on specific arguments regardless what the thread is about or what other people on it wish is, to my awareness, the ONLY thing that causes banning on the kung fu taiji forum. I'm fine with that, and it defines exactly what was happening on here. Nor did I call for banning, you will note, I said people should restrain themselves.


People, including you, should restrain themselves.



Your statement here is a false choice. I repeatedly have suggested arguing with fine, carrying on those arguments across the forum is not. Do you actually not see the difference?

When people get really upset with each other they stalk each other on different threads. Not good. However, an argument between two different philosophies that carries on across threads and spills into different conversations is probably just normal. Do you not see the difference?




This statement is all or nothing thinking. Apparently you are saying that one cannot argue and keep that argument from getting ridiculously out of hand. And those who can do that apparently then cannot do conflict management in real life, or fight if needed to, over those who cannot stop themselves from online argument.


I don't view the statement as all or nothing thinking. However, the other sentences in that paragraph are a very good example of all or nothing thinking after jumping to a conclusion first. I didn't jump to that conclusion, you did, then accused me of it due to poor reading skills.



But, if one must choose a side because the people arguing insist on it, I'm on my side. I try to discuss technique, sometimes shoot the ****. I owe you no explanation of my training methods, nor do you owe me the same. I do not need you to weed out the fakes for me, I can decide what methodologies are worthwhile to me by hearing about them, thinking them over, trying them, I really don't need them proselytized to me, and I even less need two groups proselytizing their stuff.

I have largely only argued this point on the threads related to it. So apparently, self restraint can actually be done. This argument that not letting an argument infringe on other's forum time means not allowing argument is totally false.

So your side is to be unaware of the dynamics of the group you are speaking with, and insistent on your own views and wanting to do so without anyone else bothering you? I agree with Gene - start a blog. Then you can moderate comments. If anyone reads it.

[YouKnowWho]

The art of online discussion is to know when to stop. Your opponent may agree with you 95%. But if he dis-agrees with you on the other 5%, if you just keep arguing with him on that 5% dis-agreement, you may just turn a friend into an enemy. This is 1/2 empty and 1/2 full comparsion. A 95% full is much better than just 1/2 full. It should be more than enough.

[KPM]

The art of online discussion is to know when to stop. Your opponent may agree with you 95%. But if he dis-agrees with you on the other 5%, if you just keep arguing with him on that 5% dis-agreement, you may just turn a friend into an enemy. This is 1/2 empty and 1/2 full comparsion. A 95% full is much better than just 1/2 full. It should be more than enough.

Good point John! That is the trap I fall into and the one Faux has fallen into as well. A conversation starts off with good intentions, but goes easily off course when it becomes a back and forth on why the other person is wrong rather than just stating one's own understanding of the topic and leaving it at that. The trap is when someone says something that is a disagreement or that shows they missed what you were saying, and you feel obligated to respond to clarify what you said. Then the other person feels the need to defend themselves and explain why you are wrong about why they are wrong, etc. Its a tough trap to avoid. What makes this trap even stickier is when the person responding baits it with comments about your knowledge or understanding rather than just sticking to the actual topic. You see that over and over.

[Faux Newbie]

Good point John! That is the trap I fall into and the one Faux has fallen into as well. A conversation starts off with good intentions, but goes easily off course when it becomes a back and forth on why the other person is wrong rather than just stating one's own understanding of the topic and leaving it at that. The trap is when someone says something that is a disagreement or that shows they missed what you were saying, and you feel obligated to respond to clarify what you said. Then the other person feels the need to defend themselves and explain why you are wrong about why they are wrong, etc. Its a tough trap to avoid. What makes this trap even stickier is when the person responding baits it with comments about your knowledge or understanding rather than just sticking to the actual topic. You see that over and over.

Point taken, and I agree on all points.

[JPinAZ]

To reiterate, I'm not anti-arguing in threads that the argument is about. It's continuing it in other threads, which I'm actively seeking not to do, that is clearly the problem,......
.... The idea that how one communicated by posting will have some bearing on fighting is not really something I've seen to be true, but I believe I said the theory was silly or some such thing, and that certainly was a poor choice in terms.

Sorry, but that post just made me dizzy - And I have pretty good reading comprehension skills. I don't have the time or energy to make sense of what you wrote, or the interest to debate the topic of arguing about arguing with you. I made my point and I think Wayfaring will appreciate your apology.

[Faux Newbie]

Sigh.

Okay, fine.

[Paddington]

Sigh.

Okay, fine.

I understand and feel your pain.

[Faux Newbie]

I understand and feel your pain.

LOL! Why good sir, I have no idea what you mean!

[JPinAZ]

Sigh.

Okay, fine.

I'm sorry if you not happy that I refuse to argue with you. Let it go already.
If you're here to make things better, contribute to the positive discussions and leave this nonsense behind.

[Faux Newbie]

Have I not been contributing to the positive discussions before you suggested it?:D

But, in fairness to others, I will ignore your next reply, you can have the last word.

[Grumblegeezer]

To reiterate, I'm not anti-arguing in threads that the argument is about. It's continuing it in other threads, ...that is clearly the problem, imo.

@JP: Faux's comments (quoted above) seem to make sense to me. I thought he was addressing the problem we have with certain individuals getting into an endless back-and forth argument and then following each other from thread to thread across the forum.

The second part you quoted below was addressing a different topic:


The idea that how one communicated by posting will have some bearing on fighting is not really something I've seen to be true, but I believe I said the theory was silly or some such thing, and that certainly was a poor choice in terms.

This also seemed to be an entirely sensible statement, ...unusual (on this forum at least) only in that it seems to be sort of an apology.

Oh well, I'm probably wrong since I do NOT have especially good reading comprehension. I may have adult A.D.D. because I find myself getting bored quickly, losing concentration and resorting to hurriedly skimming the posts on these threads. Especially the endless arguments involving Hendricks.

I mean, like why does Hendricks even bother trying to justify his ideas at such length? If I were him and some fool asked me to apologize I'd probably just say "Hey that's what I think. You don't like it, then pyss off!" It might not make for great "historical research" but at least it wouldn't drag on forever! Sorry, I digress.... A.D.D. remember? Well, carry on.

[Paddington]

Have I not been contributing to the positive discussions before you suggested it?:D

But, in fairness to others, I will ignore your next reply, you can have the last word.

You are a better man than I! I shall endeavor to follow your lead!

[JPinAZ]

@JP: Faux's comments (quoted above) seem to make sense to me. I thought he was addressing the problem we have with certain individuals getting into an endless back-and forth argument and then following each other from thread to thread across the forum.

The second part you quoted below was addressing a different topic:

This also seemed to be an entirely sensible statement, ...unusual (on this forum at least) only in that it seems to be sort of an apology. .

I hear ya, and those 2 parts did make sense. It was all of the stuff in between that I didn't quote that I was referring to. Nothing personal against Faux, but even if I cared enough to continue the discussion, it was too much convoluted talk to sift thru on arguing about arguing . Or maybe I have adult A.D.D. too! :)

[Faux Newbie]

I hear ya, and those 2 parts did make sense. It was all of the stuff in between that I didn't quote that I was referring to. Nothing personal against Faux, but even if I cared enough to continue the discussion, it was too much convoluted talk to sift thru on arguing about arguing . Or maybe I have adult A.D.D. too! :)

Perhaps we could all start a support group. Forum Anonymous. It's been three days since my last youtube binge.

[YouKnowWho]

getting into an endless back-and forth argument ...
I had the following conversation with someone in another forum.

A: What will you do when you are 70?
B: Age 70!? I am looking forward towards age 90!
C: That's the right attitude. If you don't stop your training, you should still be able to do ...
B: But you can lose something...it all depends on your health or any disease(s) you may have.
C: You can rebuild it, ...
B: Rebuild is not the situation. Re-design or go another direction could be the best approach.

I was the guy C. I let him to have the last words and I didn't want to continue any further.

It's interested to see that I started with positive "right", I get negative respond "but". I then still respond positive "can". I got another negative respond "not".

C: ... right ...
B: ... but ...
C: ... can ...
B: ... not ...

The

- good thing was the dis-agreement did not continue.
- bad thing was that thread just stopped right there.

Did I kill that thread because I didn't want to continue that discussion? I don't know.