Help support TMP


"Dear Editor: Please define “snark”" Topic


23 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the TMP Talk Message Board



1,471 hits since 13 Feb 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 8:22 a.m. PST

We've seen some DHing lately over some stuff on Napoleonic Discussion. Nothing new about that! evil grin
However, lately the Hanging Judge has used "snark" as the reason.
I'm sorry, but that is unconstitutionally vague.
Please define "snark" in the FAQ, so we can avoid that in the future.

To be honest, it appeared to me that the snarkiness was merely asking for sources. Something that you yourself have done on the "GIs murdered Nazis!" thread.
I am puzzled. Please clarify.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 8:27 a.m. PST

Btw, a dictionary definition is pointless. I want to know how it's interpreted here.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 9:50 a.m. PST

What Kevin have said (visit the dawnhouse)… (smile)


I don't get it too… seems is if you ask for any source…

Amicalement
Armand

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 10:49 a.m. PST

Yes for us poor fiendish foreigners

Marc at work13 Feb 2018 11:01 a.m. PST

Seriously? Any of those threads are the epitome of snark.

Let's not pretend they are civilised requests and friendly banter. They verge on bullying

I am glad to see some DH. Maybe it will calm them down

Marc

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 11:03 a.m. PST

Marc: "Any of those threads are the epitome of snark … They verge on bullying"

I dunno. What are your sources, and if you actually have any, are they credible or not? :)

Dan
PS. That's gonna be my new favorite question from now on.

Personal logo Zeelow Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 12:07 p.m. PST

objective or subjective…that is the ???

zoneofcontrol Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 12:07 p.m. PST

AND… has it been decided? Can we abuse them while their accounts are locked or while they inhabit the kennel?

Timbo W13 Feb 2018 12:41 p.m. PST

Snark? I think one is supposed to hunt it.

PrivateSnafu13 Feb 2018 12:53 p.m. PST

I think it quacks, you'll recognize it then.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 1:08 p.m. PST

It's OK to hunt snark unless they turn out to be boojums.

Give it up, guys. I've been trying to get a workable definition of "snark" (and "twee") out of an English and Philosophy PhD for years now. It means something she doesn't like. I don't think you're going to do better here.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian13 Feb 2018 1:29 p.m. PST

Snark is a 'mean girls' thing. Unnecessary rudeness. In-your-face sarcasm.

Obey the Golden Rule and you'll be fine. grin

Stepman3 Inactive Member13 Feb 2018 1:45 p.m. PST

So is there necessary rudeness?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2018 1:56 p.m. PST

So… if I understand well… when you ask for "sources" to other fellow member that have said/sustain any phrase relationed with history… you are acting as a rude person with him/her?…

What if we ask: "Can you give us the name of the book/document you have read/pick up this…?…

This is Snarking too?…

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian13 Feb 2018 5:19 p.m. PST

Asking for sources is not being snarky, it is throwing in the casual insult simultaneously that is the problem (i.e., "If you have any…").

emckinney13 Feb 2018 7:43 p.m. PST

Given the number of times I've read something and completely forgotten where it was, "If you have any" would be appropriate :)

Seriously, though, context is everything, and there are times when the surface and the real meaning are very different. Still, I hate to see people DHed for sloppy writing …

Choctaw14 Feb 2018 11:28 a.m. PST

Wait, sarcasm will get you locked up? I can't communicate without sarcasm.

Personal logo War Artisan Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Feb 2018 12:28 p.m. PST

I can't believe any of you are having trouble getting your heads around this. Asking for sources is not the problem (although demanding them on this, a decidedly un-academic forum, is stretching it a bit).

Questioning the existence of someone's sources, or the veracity of sources one has not seen ("if you actually have any, are they credible or not?") is snark. Doubting a poster's ability to interpret his sources, or his right to hold what you judge to be an essentially unsupported opinion, is a personal attack. It is entirely possible to just disagree with an opinion, state why you disagree and move on, rather than attempting to hold it up to ridicule because it doesn't meet your academic standards. Making ad hominem attacks because someone doesn't submit to your opinions is the conversational equivalent of the gamer who flips the table because he's not winning.

A request for sources is fine if it arises from a genuine curiosity about the reasons for a poster's opinion rather than a desire to discredit that opinion. Really, it's not that hard to understand.

So is there necessary rudeness?

Yes, there is . . . but this isn't the right place for that, either.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2018 1:11 p.m. PST

WA: +1

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2018 4:53 p.m. PST

Choctaw: "I can't communicate without sarcasm."

You're not alone.

Dan

Personal logo COL Scott ret Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2018 10:38 p.m. PST

Sarcasm is just another free service that I offer.

Although I must admit to few takers of my offer. wink

Personal logo Doctor X Supporting Member of TMP15 Feb 2018 9:53 a.m. PST

WA +2

Marc at work15 Feb 2018 11:46 a.m. PST

WA +3

CaC -1 Not cool

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.