Do You Ever Go Back And Apologize To Someone You Fought With In GD?

[Intelsucks]

I do it all the time.

Every time I "venture" into that mine-field we call GENERAL DISCUSSION (which isn't very often), I try my best to be tactful yet non-confrontational. It almost never works. Occasionally, another DU'er will attempt a quasi-rescue effort and come to my aid, but more times than not, I find myself flanked, cut-off, and surrounded.

Then, even if I feel as though I'm right, I end up feeling bad about it and I go back and try to patch things up with that/those individual(s).O8)

How about you? Are you a softie, or do you adopt the "take no prisoners" attitude?

[arwalden]

1. Once... But She Wouldn't Hear Of It...

Actually, it was more of a "lets-call-a-truce" and a "lets-agree-to-disagree" kind of approach rather than an apology.

But, sadly some folks would rather be smug and hold a grudge rather than be adult. I guess it's more satisfying to be sanctimonious than to be reasonable.

But in all fairness, I think that I might have been expecting too much to begin with. The weak hit-and-run tactics and the unwarranted drive-by verbal assaults are never defended by her. Even with bystanders agree that her comments were unfair or unwarranted... she never returns to defend her words or to explain exactly why she felt she wasn't being a hypocrite.

Oh well... It takes all kinds. I'm guessing our so-called (online) friendship was just-pretend and unimportant to her.

-- Allen

[Maeve]

5. Allen, dear, I can think of another time!

You and I fought at first! Only because we didn't understand where the other was coming from...
:hi:

[arwalden]

9. I remember that, Maeve...

and I'm so glad that we're friends now.

Love ya!
-- Allen

[UTUSN]

10. "hit-and-run tactics and the unwarranted drive-by verbal assaults"

Great description. I call it "sucker punches".

On edit: Oh, and when they do it with WITHERING CONTEMPT. Sheer hatefulness.

[trof]

2. I have.

In cases where I have misunderstood the message or have been misunderstood.

[Iverson]

3. it's rare, but it happens

It can't just be a matter of vigorous disagreement. It has to be an unfair personal comment. Once I began a purely inflammatory thread and then apologized to the mods. It's not easy to own up, but it's good for the spirit.

[moof]

4. No Way, Those sick perverts in GD ...

are not worth arguing with, especially Zombywoof.

Seriously, only since the GD was split into plain & peanut has there been any desire to venture into the GD.

[blondeatlast]

7. Plain and peanut! ROFLMAO!

I've been wondering about a good term for it, you got it on the nail. Perfect.

[rasputin1952]

6. Twice...

and one of those, when I had to eat crow because I was in the wrong, I actually sent a PM to explain a little more about WHY I was wrong, and added to the appology.

Much to my chagrin, I was answered witha damn near death threat, (put me on ignore, LOL)!

Most of us can gracefully accept defeat; those that cannot gracefully accept success truly need some help.

O8)

[blondeatlast]

8. I have, with no attendant repercussions.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

11. Yeah

I'm naturally a softie so uh, I almost always apologize!

[Dogmudgeon]

12. My own take on things

I've gotten into many a dust-up on line since the late 1980s. There is really only one way to deal with it -- that all such "fights" are between disembodied "agents" on-line. The content is to be taken seriously, but not the hostile intent of the person. But I "live in my head" when it comes to such matters, anyway.

My attitude was that arguing on-line was like boxing. You might be the closest of friends outside of the ring, but inside the ring, it's a battle for complete dominance. Muhammad Ali, for instance, seemed to take that approach; Joe Frasier did not, and his spites festered inside of him for years.

Then there are the people who have to be right so badly, it absorbs their entire life.

I had a friend who was the target of a right-wing stalker for years. I mean years. They were two mid-level brawlers on the Skeptical circuit; the righty followed, taunted, ragged on, and dogged this friend of mine from about 1989 until, oh, 2000, and may still be at it.

If I took everything that was said to me on-line to heart, I'd be long dead. As the internet becomes more of a common utility, I've restrained myself a lot more. Fighting seems to be an acquired skill, one that requires a certain kind of understanding, and most people don't understand -- as if they ever did.

Many of the problems in GD seem to be from a lack of appreciation of how fighting, when it's done well, works. Many of them just want to destroy the other guy. This is the way the Freeper element works in society. It just wants to destroy.

There's really no ideal way to deal with aggression. It's necessary (for instance, it will be needed to defeat George Bush) but it's messy. Contemplating the insights of the great martial artists help, but ultimately, it's just The Hero and The Adversary on the battleground.

The relationship between the two usually has more bearing on the outcome than the fight itself. Which does not bode well for America.

--bkl