| Winston Smith | 13 Feb 2018 9:22 a.m. PST |
We've seen some DHing lately over some stuff on Napoleonic Discussion. Nothing new about that! 
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 | 13 Feb 2018 9:27 a.m. PST |
Btw, a dictionary definition is pointless. I want to know how it's interpreted here. |
| Tango01 | 13 Feb 2018 10:50 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 | 13 Feb 2018 11:49 a.m. PST |
Yes for us poor fiendish foreigners |
| Marc at work | 13 Feb 2018 12:01 p.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 |
| Cacique Caribe | 13 Feb 2018 12:03 p.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. |
| Zeelow | 13 Feb 2018 1:07 p.m. PST |
objective or subjective…that is the ??? |
| zoneofcontrol | 13 Feb 2018 1:07 p.m. PST |
AND… has it been decided? Can we abuse them while their accounts are locked or while they inhabit the kennel? |
| Timbo W | 13 Feb 2018 1:41 p.m. PST |
Snark? I think one is supposed to hunt it. |
| PrivateSnafu | 13 Feb 2018 1:53 p.m. PST |
I think it quacks, you'll recognize it then. |
robert piepenbrink  | 13 Feb 2018 2:08 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. |
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 13 Feb 2018 2:29 p.m. PST |
Snark is a 'mean girls' thing. Unnecessary rudeness. In-your-face sarcasm. Obey the Golden Rule and you'll be fine.  |
| Stepman3 | 13 Feb 2018 2:45 p.m. PST |
So is there necessary rudeness? |
| Tango01 | 13 Feb 2018 2:56 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 |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 13 Feb 2018 6:19 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…"). |
| emckinney | 13 Feb 2018 8:43 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 … |
| Choctaw | 14 Feb 2018 12:28 p.m. PST |
Wait, sarcasm will get you locked up? I can't communicate without sarcasm. |
 War Artisan  | 14 Feb 2018 1:28 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 | 14 Feb 2018 2:11 p.m. PST |
|
| Cacique Caribe | 14 Feb 2018 5:53 p.m. PST |
Choctaw: "I can't communicate without sarcasm." You're not alone. Dan |
| COL Scott ret | 14 Feb 2018 11:38 p.m. PST |
Sarcasm is just another free service that I offer. Although I must admit to few takers of my offer.  |
 Doctor X | 15 Feb 2018 10:53 a.m. PST |
|
| Marc at work | 15 Feb 2018 12:46 p.m. PST |
|
