Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Habits: Removing friends

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 12

Well, i went to foe another user id today, and hit the 400 limit. Since foeing is more productive than friending, i removed a few friends, mostly with no JEs, or did not recognize the name.

Apparently though, there is some confusion why i unfriend/foe. I don't think saying it again will help, but it's worth a shot.

Well, i went to foe another user id today, and hit the 400 limit. Since foeing is more productive than friending, i removed a few friends, mostly with no JEs, or did not recognize the name.

Apparently though, there is some confusion why i unfriend/foe. I don't think saying it again will help, but it's worth a shot.

Mainly i do this when people people use offensive language. I hold nothing against the person, but i choose not to see it, where controllable. Thus, if it is in a friend's JE, i unfriend them. There is no reason to foe them, since unfriending them means i won't see their JEs anyway. If it is in a comment, i foe them. Since i give a -6 modifier to foes, and i don't usually read under +1, i don't see them.

I don't like the term foe. I have though about friending them (and applying the -6 modifier to friends) but then i won't see any friend's journals, and i will see the foes' journals. The other option would be friend of foe, and have a designated login to friend people i want to filter, and then foe that user, but this is not an availible option.

The question then is why i filter them. Simply, because i believe everything affects me, even the smallest of things, and i know that the more i am near people who use such language it comes up in my thoughts. So, i need to filter it where i can, and take an action against it. Similar to what i do when commercials on the radio make fun of some group of people (competitors, men, average people), i do the action fo turning off the radio or changing the station to counteract their influence.

But there is another reason. Some people start their arguments off logically, then, when chanllenged, turn extremely emotional. This can be seen by the use of polite words at the beginiing, and more vulgar language later in the discussion. Since i want to argue logic and values, but not get too emotional, filtering those people makes it so i won't see their comments, and thus won't get into that situation again.

But, i never foe on a disagreement. Some people will note that i friended them exactly as i fired off a responmse completely disagreeing with them. I also won't foe if someone challenges my morals or values. Though, i did once unfriend somone when he choose not to respect others as people. I found his JE, friended him, made a number of objections because he promoted Democrats and bashed Republicans, and read some comment from him about which told me that he didn't respect Bush as a person. I commented that he could despise him, but a person is a person, and every person is able to hold their own opinions. He responded otherwise, and i unfriended. (Or did i foe, don't remember.)

Anyway, i rarely read anyone's journal, mostly because the title's are non-descriptive. So, friending people is mostly to see more +5 comments. But that may be going down, and the need to foe rises.

cancel ×

12 comments

Hello! (2, Insightful)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7230270)

Thank you for your insightful commentary! As a foe of yours, I often wonder what I could have done to inspire your hatred of me. This journal entry does nothing to clear that up. I don't believe I have ever used "offensive language" in any of my posts and therefore, don't understand how I ended up on your foes list. It's truly perplexing.

Bush (1)

keesh (202812) | more than 10 years ago | (#7230308)

Unfortunately, Bush doesn't really qualify as a 'person'. He's more of a semi-evolved simian...

Or at least, that's how most of us UKians see him :)

Re:Bush (1)

Cyberdyne (104305) | more than 10 years ago | (#7230858)

[Bush-bashing] Or at least, that's how most of us UKians see him :)

Of course, others of us hold similar opinions of those of you who latch on to the uninformed 'articles' which decorate the Grauniad or Daily Mirror brand litter-tray liners, somehow agreeing with their shrill demands for the US to violate the Geneva Convention by subjecting detainees to illegal civilian courts, rather than the military tribunal dictated by international law...

Re:Bush (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7231823)


I listened to Tariq Ali this mourning give a talk to a chearing (I think British) crowd about his latest book "Bush in Babylon, the colonization of Iraq". For some reason it came in over the classical music channel I rarely listen to but was on my radio when I turned my car on in any case.

His speach was resplendent in paying lipservice to the ideal of international law, but disrespecting the law as it stands. I've noted that truely political speach has three components...

1) Facts: These are truths that can be verified but have little point or charge.
2) Accusations: Given the right selection of facts, the right accusation can act as an intangible artificial connection that may otherwise have been impossible.
3) Big Lie: This is where the real elephant herding happens. They don't try to glue disparent facts together with these statements, in fact they are rather dissattached from the immediate context. They are the axioms, the statements of faith that need no facts becuase people already believe it and want to hear it.

Without a complete deconstruction of his talk, I'll suffice with noting that I'm amazed how few people have actually read resolution 1441, and the previous Iraqi resolutions. Whenever I hear "illegal occupation" I know they haven't read it. Whenever I hear "unwarranted campaign" I know they haven't read the resolutions before that.

Re:Bush (0)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7231166)

Found it [slashdot.org] . I commented "Whether we agree with his opinions is a matter of debate, but to say he's incomepetant is to insult all that voted for him.". To which he responded "I suppose saying he is incompetant is to insult the people who voted for him. In my opinion, though, they deserve it - I feel they voted for an idiot". I then responded and unfriended.

It's the insult to millions of people that did it. He simply does not respect other people.

Fucking bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7230453)

That is goddamn fucking bastardized, sperm-burping, ball-sucking, shithead, polesmoking, bullshit I tell you. Utter cocksucking fucked up bullshit.

What the fuck!

And fuck you too!

let me know (1)

SolemnDragon (593956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7230638)

if i do something that warrants unfriending. i try to keep my language reasonable, and value your opinions and thoughts.

sol

Re:let me know (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7230923)

Note that it's all because of me. I mean *nothing* against the person i foe.

Unfortunately for you.. (1)

GoRK (10018) | more than 10 years ago | (#7231140)

Unfortunately for you, I have answered quite a few questions in your recent JE's since you foe'd me for some reason that I can't mesh with one of your points above, and you never saw them!

Your loss is everyone else's gain.

I agree... (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7231740)

Foul language only makes you look like an @$%@$ ^%&#@ ()&(^ idiot! ;-)

Do not be too concerned about foul language though. While it is quite distasteful to put up with it does not harm you. As Christ said, it is not what enters a man that condemns him, it is that which comes from his heart and proceedes from him.

To make a stand though is good. However, I would be careful to totally discredit someone's opinions simpley because of their language. Myself, I use my "foe" marker for folks I think are general idiots, but set the modifier to +0.

Re:I agree... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7232133)

While it is quite distasteful to put up with it does not harm you.

I believe everything affects me. The question is only in what direction. If i don't like the direction, even minute, it does harm me.

it is not what enters a man that condemns him,

Unless, of corse, he put himself in such a position first.

it is that which comes from his heart and proceedes from him.

Or, that is not fought off. If a person lets everything affect him, he is accountable for his soul, even if he never did anything.

CHRIST ALSO SAID GET YOUR DICK OUTTA MY ASS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7252697)

the subject line should still be visible.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...