Agreement, Disagreement, and Getting Along with Other Members

[Debater Slayer]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

 

[PureX]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

I think you're projecting. I don't 'know' anyone on here. And I have no like or dislike of anyone as a result. All I know is what the post in front of me is saying, or I think is saying, and that's all I have to respond to. So I can't assign personalities to aliases, or even to individual posts a lot of the time. If I did, it'd be based mostly on writing style rather than any actual knowledge of the person writing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you're projecting. I don't 'know' anyone on here. And I have no like or dislike of anyone as a result. All I know is what the post in front of me is saying, or I think is saying, and that's all I have to respond to. So I can't assign personalities to aliases, or even to individual posts a lot of the time. If I did, it'd be based mostly on writing style rather than any actual knowledge of the person writing.

Perhaps I should have clarified that I'm referring to situations where posters may know each other beyond the surface level of public posts. This has been a core aspect of the RF community for years; many members have even met each other in person.

I have several long-term friends with whom I stay in touch elsewhere, and I first met them here.

 

[Brian2]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

Sometimes it might be that being honest about areas of disagreement is better than hiding disagreements.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm sure some of us can understand why we and others might disagree, and possibly will never do so, but I don't personally see others as just the sum of what they express here on RF and can understand that they have as different experiences of life as I have had. But if not much agreement is likely as to our views coinciding then I will mostly not bother with discussing or arguing with them, given I am not so interested in proving points rather than discovering new information, and they perhaps are not so often likely to change their views or beliefs.

 

[danieldemol]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

I generally find it easy enough to like people i disagree with, except for where I think their actions are harmful to the poor if I'm being honest.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm sure some of us can understand why we and others might disagree, and possibly will never do so, but I don't personally see others as just the sum of what they express here on RF and can understand that they have as different experiences of life as I have had. But if not much agreement is likely as to our views coinciding then I will mostly not bother with discussing or arguing with them, given I am not so interested in proving points rather than discovering new information, and they perhaps are not so often likely to change their views or beliefs.

Seeing others as much more than words on a screen is something I think social media direly need more of nowadays.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

Being frequently attacked with ad hominems seems to be very popular with some usual posters.

Not much actual topic related banter going back and forth, but some still do have reasonable postings time to time which is refreshing to see in response to what I post.

I don't mind the fray mind you, but it does a world of good if things are explained in an educated context, rather than shotgunning all kinds of emotionally driven stuff to see what sticks in a reactionary dueling of wits, or witless banter as applicable.

I could do better myself in that regard as well, as there's only foreword to contend with in future debates and conservations.

 

[ChristineM]

Some people i get along with quite well, others not so much. Though I don't believe it is agreement or disagreement on the content of their posts but the personality and political stance that comes acres in their posts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some people i get along with quite well, others not so much. Though I don't believe it is agreement or disagreement on the content of their posts but the personality and political stance that comes acres in their posts.

Isn't the political stance an element of agreement and disagreement?

It's also not really about agreement or disagreement for me. I have never used the ignore feature, nor do I feel any need to, and agreement also isn't usually why I end up being friends with people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're projecting. I don't 'know' anyone on here. And I have no like or dislike of anyone as a result. All I know is what the post in front of me is saying, or I think is saying, and that's all I have to respond to. So I can't assign personalities to aliases, or even to individual posts a lot of the time. If I did, it'd be based mostly on writing style rather than any actual knowledge of the person writing.

Old Revoltistanian saying....
Poster, know thyself.

You ain't there yet, bub.

 

[Revoltingest]

....others not so much.

Is it my obsession with heavy cream sauce on snails?
I've cut way back on that stereotype lately.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Being frequently attacked with ad hominems seems to be very popular with some usual posters.

Not much actual topic related banter going back and forth, but some still do have reasonable postings time to time which is refreshing to see in response to what I post.

I don't mind the fray mind you, but it does a world of good if things are explained in an educated context, rather than shotgunning all kinds of emotionally driven stuff to see what sticks in a reactionary dueling of wits, or witless banter as applicable.

I could do better myself in that regard as well, as there's only foreword to contend with in future debates and conservations.

We could always talk about trucks. We'd only agree on their majesty and mechanical beauty. No room for any trouble!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Isn't the political stance an element of agreement and disagreement?

It's also not really about agreement or disagreement for me. I have never used the ignore feature, nor do I feel any need to, and agreement also isn't usually why I end up being friends with people.

Me either. No matter how vitriolic the exchange, I have no one on ignore. Taking things raw is good medicine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We could always talk about trucks. We'd only agree on their majesty and mechanical beauty. No room for any trouble!

Yea. If people followed my postings I have some rather passionate exchanges to put it mildly with a poster on one topic, and on another topic we banter like best buds! Heh.

Anyways just don't mention government regulations on truckers, I might go loopy!

 

[pearl]

, but we disagree left and right on the forums

Reminds me of something former House Speaker John Boehner said of Nancy Policy, 'we often disagreed, but we were never disagreeable."

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea. If people followed my postings I have some rather passionate exchanges to put it mildly with a poster on one topic, and on another topic we banter like best buds! Heh.

Anyways just don't mention government regulations on truckers, I might go loopy!

You've always been civil, despite being so frequently wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't the political stance an element of agreement and disagreement?

It's also not really about agreement or disagreement for me. I have never used the ignore feature, nor do I feel any need to, and agreement also isn't usually why I end up being friends with people.

Not in my view when married to a persons personality.

Oh, i do use ignore on occasion when it will keep me out of admins clutches

 

[PureX]

Old Revoltistanian saying....
Poster, know thyself.

You ain't there yet, bub.

And you ain't no one's judge or teacher. Please don't post these kinds of comments to me in the future.

 

[Heyo]

Over the years, I have always noticed that some posters may completely disagree with each other on numerous issues in different threads but still get along well, while others may agree on most issues of note but still not be exactly fond of each other.

Have you noticed this in your own interactions? I have. There are multiple members here whom I consider friends or at least people I'm on good terms with, but we disagree left and right on the forums. To me, that doesn't change my friendly terms with them in the slightest.

It goes without saying, but per Rule 1, please avoid naming names if you talk about unpleasant or less friendly interactions.

It's not that we disagree, it's how you voice your disagreement.