It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Respected Foes

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I don't think some folks understand what 'respected foes' means. Ya'll might want to take a good look at the meanings of 'respected' and 'worthy' before hitting the 'foe' button.


This is what it says on our profiles in regards to respected foes -

These members have picked me as their worthy adversaries.

and

These are my worthy adversaries who keep me on my toes.

Keep me on my toes .. as in ... make me work hard to understand an issue or to better get my point across, etc.

Dictionary definition of respected -
- admiration for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person.
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position
- the condition of being esteemed or honored

To respect a person is to hold them in great esteem.
To admire them.

Dictionary definition of worthy -
- having adequate great merit
- of commendable excellence or merit
- a person of eminent worth, merit, or position

Meritorious, worthwhile, excellent, exemplary, righteous, upright, honest.

Around ATS the 'respected foes' title should be considered a BADGE OF HONOR . However, I have encountered more than a few people who seem to think it's more of a 'I can't stand the person' kind of button. And two or three who have blasted me in threads calling me names just to turn around and hit the foe button - obviously thinking it was some kind of slap or insult.

I have no 'respected foes' listed on my profile. Anyone who can discuss a subject honestly, and without resorting to off topic personal insults, is not a foe as far as I'm concerned. No matter where they stand on a subject. And those members who I think are ... uh ... not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree ... don't deserve the title of 'respected' or 'worthy'. So therefore my respected foes list is empty.


Anyways, I just thought I'd bring up the respected foes subject because I thought it would be good to remind people what exactly a 'respected foe' is.




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
So what you're saying is you have no worthy adversaries here on ATS?

Must get pretty boring for you.




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
So what you're saying is you have no worthy adversaries here on ATS?

No. What I'm saying is that people on the other side of an issue aren't adversaries. They aren't foes. I wouldn't give them the title of foe. I don't see them that way.

And those few that aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas Tree don't get the title 'respected foe' because they aren't worthy of being 'respected'.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
So what you're saying is you have no worthy adversaries here on ATS?

Must get pretty boring for you.



I don't. This is the internet, I can get into a heated debate without turning someone into a foe. I've never clicked someone as a foe on any board I've ever posted on.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Examples

- Grover is usually on the other side of issues. But I don't have him as a respected foe because I don't see him as a foe. I respect him, but he's not a foe. DGTempe as well. She's usually on the other side of issues, and although she's respected by me she's not a 'foe'.

I won't list the very few who are on the other side of issues and that I don't respect because they aren't worthy of respect or even of mention. Since they are not 'respected' by me .. they don't get on the 'respected foes' list.

See?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
to the OP...

you are now my foe...and i dont respect you...

i see your point...



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Next_Heap_With
you are now my foe...and i dont respect you...

Then why did I just get a notice that you have me on your 'RESPECTED' foes list? Doesn't make much sense. Does it?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This makes complete sense to me.

I don't have anyone on my foes list either, and FF and I have bumped heads a few times, but I respect FF's opinion and valued contributions, even if I don't always agrre with them, but it would be anathema to me to put FF on a foe list simply because we don't always see eye to eye on a subject.

On the other side of the coin, a couple of members who were debating in the thread about the steering committee recently, "foe'd" me and a couple of others just because we didn't agree with them - an act I found hilariously childish.

Truth be told, I don't see anyone here as a foe - although I understand why the option is there, I just don't choose to use it.

I'd much rather use the friend feature, even with members I disagree with a lot - it flags up a post which is going to be interesting, enjoyable and educational in many instances, rather than the big red foe banner which seems to have a negative connotation.

For others, there's judicious use of the ignore button



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


While I am in many people's list of "foes" I also keep mine clear, like Flyer, because truly I don't see foes but just good debaters that happen to disagree with my perspective.

Still a person that act in disrespectful manner against me doesn't fall in the definition of "Respected Foes".



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I added someone as a friend yesterday, a gentleman with whom I disagreed. But we disagreed in such an agreeable way I thought he'd be better off as a friend. I even gave him a little star when he punctured holes in my arguments ! And a flag for his thread.

I find myself giving stars & flags to well written and presented posts, even though I'm totally against what the person is saying. Is that wrong ? Sorry about that.

Is there a thread which explains the friends, foes, flags & stars ?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I don't have anyone on my foes list either, but I am on other's foes list.

I think everyone has a right to their own opinon about things, so no one to me is a "foe".

I have found it interesting, that there are some who put me as a "foe" yet I had never seen their name before nor had they posted in one of my threads or I in theirs.

I like your analogy flyer. Good thoughts and work.

S and F! Friend!!



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Good points FF. My thoughts exactly, we need a "disrespectful jerk button"


Just kidding...sort of.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Lass
I added someone as a friend yesterday, a gentleman with whom I disagreed. But we disagreed in such an agreeable way I thought he'd be better off as a friend. I even gave him a little star when he punctured holes in my arguments ! And a flag for his thread.

I find myself giving stars & flags to well written and presented posts, even though I'm totally against what the person is saying. Is that wrong ? Sorry about that.

Is there a thread which explains the friends, foes, flags & stars ?


I'm similar in these respects. People I've seriously disagreed with on one thread, I've happily starred and/or flagged on another thread. I've also starred people I've disagreed with in the middle of that disagreement if I thought they'd done so in way that, whilst might not have changed my mind, was perhaps well presented.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I have a few "respected foes". As I understand the classification, a title of respected adversary is someone with whom one disagrees on fundamental issues but is able to present their point of view with such logic and clarity as to win your respect for them as a debater.

I frequently star and flag the posts of my "worthy adversaries" even if I don't agree with them.

There are, however, a few who got put on my respected foes list just because my "ignore" section was full. I review my ignore section pretty frequently because those trolls usually manage to get banned anyway.

When reading a heated and controversial topic, having that little red bar above a posters name serves as a warning to me to put on my "armor", read quickly and don't get too upset over what they had to say.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
just because my "ignore" section was full. .

The poster would have to be an absolute waste of time - not even
a troll worthy of playing with before tossing aside - before I'd use
the ignore button.

edited ...

[edit on 3/30/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
"foe'd" me and a couple of others just because we didn't agree with them - an act I found hilariously childish.

Yep. That has happened a couple of times to me as well. Posters would be sitting there tossing off topic personal insults and then ... wham .. I get the notice that they have me on the 'respected foes' list.
It doesn't make any sense. They just got through telling me how they couldn't stand me - and then suddenly I'm a RESPECTED foe. Comical.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
we need a "disrespectful jerk button"

Won't happen, but it's fun to think about!


[edit on 3/30/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
How do you think a 'red' star would work out?

Blue can mean many things, most of them relating to the quality of the post.

A red star would show that a particular post wasn't worth the time.


Just because a person didn't star a particular post doesn't mean much.

Lots of reasons for that, but I think a red star would be useful.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Desert Dawg
 


Actually I'm not too keen on the stars thing. All they end up meaning is that there are people who agree with your post. Any idiot can agree with any other idiot. It doesn't make the post correct.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by whitewave
The poster would have to be an absolute waste of time - not even
a troll worthy of playing with before tossing aside - before I'd use
the ignore button.


There are a few that fit that description. I've had 2 that follow me around on a few threads and their only contribution is to call me names and pepper their responses with off-topic comments and knee-jerk "buzz" words.

I haven't even seen a "warn" on them.

There are a few posters with whom I disagree on just about everything but they remain civil so I don't put them in any special category. Those are the ones I usually learn from and who expand my thinking.

I didn't sign on to ATS to "be right" or popular or to have my beliefs validated. I signed on because lurking revealed that there are people on here who know what's going on (in their areas of expertise &/or interest) and that I could learn from them (and hopefully they could learn from me as well).

When the mud-slinging starts I lose interest in the topic and meander over to some other thread. There are the patheticaly insecure who feel the need to shout down all who disagree with their point of view. I guess that to their way of thinking being louder equates to being correct.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


If you will note the only ones listed on my profile as respected foes put themselves there because they chose me as one.

I will debate anyone but I don't consider anyone a foe...

... I have after years of resisting it put people in ignore and kept them there because they deserved it... but that is not the same thing... I don't respect them because of their behavior... my only regret is (besides not using it earlier
) is that ignore is only limited to 10... so if someone annoys me now... I have to weigh just how annoying they are cause I am going to have to remove someone.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join