Split from: Are you AFRAID to Post?

[ScubaSteve]

....who show little to no respect for the opinions of others

As you are now?

 

[DCBC]

I don't see it as a pejorative. We have an assortment of Dog Pilers, POV Warriors, PADI Bashers and just plain meanies who are quick to subtly slam others up until their behavior is pointed out.

I don't think so NetDoc. I haven't seen anyone changed their position because you've pointed anything out in this manner. Your consistent use of your "pet terms" against others has caused people to think less of you and question your professionalism.

If someone calls you a POV Warrior, you can do one of two things...

1. Be insulted. Hey, it's the easy way out.
2. Look within and try to understand why they called you that.

... or just consider the source and try to ignore it. You don't start an intelligent conversation by insulting the other person.

 

[Walter]

what's a "POV Warrior?"

Someone with whom Pete disagrees, but with whom he doesn't want to discuss the points of disagreement.

 

[The Chairman]

SB was actually pretty strongly anti BP/W and DIR a few years ago. Perhaps the animosity runs in cycles?

We've been accused of being both since almost our inception. I hear the complaints and they lean towards us being pro DIR and BP/W.

Good discussion by the way. However, I have to ask ( don't have time for research ) what's a "POV Warrior?"

Point of View Warrior: A person who aggressively promotes their POV over all others, often accusing those who disagree of having various motives including greed and avarice.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Call him on it? I simply asked him if that was the case. He said "no" and I accepted his answer. The whole point of forums is to communicate... if you feel slighted, ask for clarification. If you don't understand something... ask for clarification. If you think someone has it out for you... ASK THEM. I very rarely call people out on anything. However, I am a bit more terse with mean people or POV warriors. I don't consider mpetryk as either of those.

Sorry, but by "Call him on it" I meant "Question him", "Ask him about it", "Say something", etc. And I used your words as an example of what I meant.

On the other hand, "Calling him out" implies "Pistols at 10 yards", which is neither what I said, or what I meant.

 

[The Chairman]

Someone with whom Pete disagrees, but with whom he doesn't want to discuss the points of disagreement.

Wow. Calling someone a POV Warrior is bad, but misrepresenting how I use the term is somehow "OK"? Simply amazing.

I disagree with many, many people. Yet, I have only anointed a few with that label.

 

[The Chairman]

Sorry, but by "Call him on it" I meant "Question him", "Ask him about it", "Say something", etc. And I used your words as an example of what I meant.

On the other hand, "Calling him out" implies "Pistols at 10 yards", which is neither what I said, or what I meant.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Randy43068]

Sorry, but by "Call him on it" I meant "Question him", "Ask him about it", "Say something", etc. And I used your words as an example of what I meant.

On the other hand, "Calling him out" implies "Pistols at 10 yards", which is neither what I said, or what I meant.

I like the the pistol at 10 yard idea.

 

[DCBC]

I like the the pistol at 10 yard idea.

It would provide the benefit of shortening the argument.

 

[dbulmer]

Randy,
I disagree - it's more like hand bags at 10 yards