?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Creepy people - shadows of echoes of memories of songs — LiveJournal
j4
j4
Creepy people
Okay, now, I'm used to people indulging in flirtatious (and at times obscene) banter on newsgroups. I don't mind people making comments about bits of my body, items of my underwear, and so on, particularly if those comments are funny. If the wordplay's good, anything goes.

But there's one person on uk.misc who is pissing me off. He's clearly only about 18 so I suppose he'll grow out of it, but he's made a couple of comments about removing my knickers and "rummaging around in my bra" which just make me feel really uncomfortable. I think if I got on with him in other threads -- if I felt he was a friend, or at least a generally decent person -- then I wouldn't object, though I still wouldn't think he was being particularly funny. But he's certainly not a friend (I've already got into one argument with him about cars -- he believes cars should be as fast as possible; he believes that he should be allowed to pay only one lot of road tax for 2 cars; he also believes that the size/power of the car has no effect on the cost of insurance) and when he's not shouting about how big his cock^H^H^H^Hcar is, he's quoting 20-page posts and only adding "ROTFPMSL!!!!" at the end. In other words, he's a wanker.

The problem is, I don't feel I can object on the group (and I certainly don't feel I can respond the way I want to, i.e. something along the lines of "fuck off, you top-posting wankfisted teenage sleazemonkey") without everybody else calling me a hypocrite, and/or telling me that if I can't take the good-natured banter I should get out of the group.

I don't like killfiling individuals but I suspect it's the only thing to do; but it makes me feel as though I've failed -- I don't want to react to something so stupid, something that basically amounts to a small boy sniggering at rude words. But I still feel uncomfortable with it.

Maybe I'm just overreacting.
Read 38 | Write
Comments
From: scat0324 Date: March 1st, 2004 03:16 am (UTC) (Link)
Killfiling isn't failing, it's the only way with uk.misc.

I get worried when the killfile catches fewer posts than it lets through.
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:01 am (UTC) (Link)
I do use killfiles on uk.misc, but AFAIR I only have one rule that killfiles an individual, and that's screamingbitch. Oh, and I keep meaning to killfile timr and possibly Deborah whats-her-name (the one with the paranoid delusions about people poisoning her fences with bad energy, but I never quite get round to it. But mostly my killfiles are based on amount of crossposting, or crossposts to specific froups; I do try to judge (if judge I must) the post rather than the poster.
nja From: nja Date: March 1st, 2004 03:26 am (UTC) (Link)
"fuck off, you top-posting wankfisted teenage sleazemonkey"

YAHugeAICMFP.

I think "P. Hucker" goes well beyond good-natured (or even bad-natured) banter, probably due to extreme social gaucherie and innate sexism rather than intentional malice, but either way I don't want to read him, especially if he's going to do those one-line ROTFPMSL posts, so he's in the killfile. I think he's possibly become confused by the amount of flirtatious stuff in the newsgroup between people who have known each other (online or in real life) for a long while.
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:40 am (UTC) (Link)
I think "P. Hucker" goes well beyond good-natured (or even bad-natured) banter, probably due to extreme social gaucherie and innate sexism rather than intentional malice

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've seen a couple of people tell him that he'd fit in just fine if he could only stop top-posting, learn to trim, etc., and I've felt extremely uneasy -- if he fits in "just fine", then I certainly don't fit in at all.

I don't think he's being intentionally malicious, no; I'm more worried that he thinks he's being irresistably funny and sexy, and slowly but surely worming his way into my, er, affections.

As a slight sidetrack, I'm not sure I believe that sexism is ever "innate". I think it's learned, and can be unlearned.

I think he's possibly become confused by the amount of flirtatious stuff in the newsgroup between people who have known each other (online or in real life) for a long while.

Maybe. I never fail to be amazed by the way people do this on usenet, though, and I can't help wondering if they're the same in real life -- I mean, if they fail to notice that people let their friends get away with things that strangers wouldn't get away with, and if they're just as quick in real life to jump in with "affectionate" insults.

To be honest, though, for me it's not even necessarily a question of how long I've known people. There are people I meet (online or IRL) with whom I just 'click'. Some of the miscreants felt like people-I'd-known-for-a-while quite quickly, possibly because misc is quite similar in tone etc. to ox.* (where I idled away most of my undergraduacy).
karen2205 From: karen2205 Date: March 1st, 2004 03:32 am (UTC) (Link)
Maybe I'm just overreacting.

Possibly - see if you feel the same way tomorrow. I often get very cross about something not very important but calm down within a day or so.

If he's engaging in sexual banter, sometimes the best response is to play him at his own game - see if he can take what he's been dishing out. And I don't see why criticising his poor netiquette would be hypocritical.

uk.misc is a bit of an odd place - I've read it on occassion and was surprised to find real posts amongst the spam - and yes even more surprised to find posts from you and a couple of other LJers I think I know. Why does the world keep getting smaller on me???
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:47 am (UTC) (Link)
see if you feel the same way tomorrow

Well, I first saw these messages last week, and have gone back to them a couple of times and thought "No, they still make me uncomfortable".

I tried to resist ranting at him, because I generally try not to get into slanging matches with small boys any more; but I've been fairly snippy in some of my replies to him so far & I think if the choice is between killfiling him and having a fullscale flamewar then I'll just have to killfile.

If he's engaging in sexual banter, sometimes the best response is to play him at his own game - see if he can take what he's been dishing out.

Hm, I suspect he'd take it as encouragement, to be honest. And I don't want to have sexual banter with people who make me feel dirty. It's something I do with people I like and trust.

And I don't see why criticising his poor netiquette would be hypocritical.

Because I've made plenty of apparently-similar comments to other people (k425 will tell you that I'm utterly shameless in some of the things I've said to her! -- though I hope she'd tell me straight away if she minded) and it would look like hypocrisy to somebody who didn't understand that friends can get away with things that strangers can't.

Also, I've had my wrists slapped before now on uk.misc for making the same mistake -- I took the piss out of somebody who everybody takes the piss out of (and I didn't think I'd done it maliciously, I thought it was only banter, he doesn't normally seem to object) and I got told that I was nasty and vicious and unfair for doing so. It would be even more hypocritical for me to object to somebody else only being as fuckwitted as me. :-/
chrisvenus From: chrisvenus Date: March 1st, 2004 03:32 am (UTC) (Link)
If you don't like killfiling people then take my appropach. When you see somebody like that in the From field at the top sit there and decided if you can be bothered to read it. Given it sounds like there will be no useful content then more often the answer will be no and you skip on merrily ignoring him.

And you won't have failed. You'll just have optimised the time used to read newsgroups. If you ever do feel like seeing if he's grown up or anything you can stop and read something. Either make you think maybe he wasn't so bad or just remind you why you started skipping his posts.

Dunno if its any better but its certainly my plan and what I'd go with.
k425 From: k425 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:07 am (UTC) (Link)
No, you're not over-reacting. Peter is yet another new poster who has jumped in without looking at how things work first, and thinks that to become a 'respected regular' (if you will) he has to reply to everything and be as objectionable as possible. The emotional maturity involved in picking a screen name like Peter Hucker told me most of what I needed to know about him straight off!

I don't think anyone would call you a hypocrite, unless they're also hypocritical. Look at Huge - he is objectionable in some posts, witty in others, is quite prepared to tell someone to fuck off if they won't play nicely, and flirts well.

Do you read uk.misc because you feel everyone should be able to say whatever they want to you, or because you want to have interesting/fun/deep discussions on your own terms? If the latter, killfiling the people who aren't doing much to add to your interest/fun isn't failing, it's sorting wheat from chaff.

Or something.
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:49 am (UTC) (Link)
Peter is yet another new poster who has jumped in without looking at how things work first, and thinks that to become a 'respected regular' (if you will) he has to reply to everything and be as objectionable as possible.

But I feel like that could just as easily be a description of me. :-(

The emotional maturity involved in picking a screen name like Peter Hucker

? Am I missing some reference here?

Do you read uk.misc because you feel everyone should be able to say whatever they want to you, or because you want to have interesting/fun/deep discussions on your own terms?

The latter; but I also know I haven't been there long enough to be allowed to define my own terms!
From: rmc28 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:31 am (UTC) (Link)
When I was reading high-volume newsgroups, I had a quick-killfile macro which would block the poster of an article for a month. The idea being that they had a chance to improve over time ... most likely if they were still annoying when they came out of the month-block I would just month-block them again.

This brought a couple of newsgroups down from 'impossible' to 'readable', but I have a much more interesting job now so don't read news nearly as much.
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 04:51 am (UTC) (Link)
a quick-killfile macro which would block the poster of an article for a month

That sounds fantastically useful. Could I snaffle it? (I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to write my own, I'm afraid.)
ewx From: ewx Date: March 1st, 2004 04:59 am (UTC) (Link)
Is killfiling an individual really all that different from, say, happening not to read their livejournal?
j4 From: j4 Date: March 1st, 2004 05:20 am (UTC) (Link)
Er, yes, it's quite a lot different.

For one thing, their livejournal doesn't form bits and pieces of a supposedly coherent thread formed of other people's livejournals, so not-reading-their-livejournal doesn't (usually) render other people's livejournals less comprehensible.

For another thing, a personal blog is an individual's own space, where AFAIAC they can say pretty much what they like (people may disagree, or object, but the person who owns the blog generally has some kind of moderator's rights over who posts what, so essentially they can quash anything they don't want to appear there, or prevent people commenting at all if they want).

For a third thing, I think there is a -- moral? conceptual, maybe? -- difference between taking active moves to block somebody's writings from your view, and passively refraining from seeking out what they write. That's why I try not to use killfiles on individuals, and I don't delete objectionable comments from my LJ, but (funnily enough) I don't actually read everybody's LJ. Generally refraining from reading an LJ is more like not reading a group which is irrelevant to me (e.g. if somebody only ever posts about knitting or golf or something else which doesn't really interest me -- same as I wouldn't read alt.rec.sports.golf or alt.rec.knitting or whatever); in other cases it's more to do with attitude than content (e.g. if somebody only ever whinges, or only ever rants -- same as I wouldn't bother reading alt.flame); but in either case I wouldn't want to block all comments from the individual (which would be more like killfiling them), because they might comment on something that I was interested in.
perdita_fysh From: perdita_fysh Date: March 1st, 2004 05:12 am (UTC) (Link)
I've only kept him out of my killfile so far because some of the other guy's are giving him the benefit of the doubt. That buys him an extra week, then he gets dropped for a couple of months. If he's still irritating by the end of that, he goes for good.

Anything else would be a waste of my life.
From: scat0324 Date: March 1st, 2004 07:20 am (UTC) (Link)
Having finally finished caught up with the weekend postings, I'm with Perdita on this one. He'd be in my killfile if the others weren't replying, but it's only for context to their replies that he remains.

I expect they'll get bored of replying, then he'll get bored of not ever getting any replies, and then he'll piss off. Or he'll stop being a prat, and their benefit-of-the-doubt will pay off, but that seems less likely.
d_floorlandmine From: d_floorlandmine Date: March 9th, 2004 09:54 am (UTC) (Link)
fuck off, you top-posting wankfisted teenage sleazemonkey

ROTFPMSL!!!! [grin]

Oops. [snigger] And even I, petrolhead that I would be if I had the finances, appreciate that road tax is an essential thing, and don't really begrudge paying more because I drive an older car, and fully appreciate the size/power to insurance ratio (hence being rather pleased that the snowmobile seen above is only a 1.6, but enough vehicular geekery ... for now ...)
Read 38 | Write