[quote=“patriciareed, post:5, topic:44514”]
no one was forced to respond to, or even to read them. there’s an ignore button. I vote for another chance
[/quote]Ignoring the lad is a utopian fantasy, and sets HIM and the members up for failure anyway. Ignoring is not the issue . . . turning threads south IS.
**First . . . why is ignoring him a utopian fantasy? Because it would require EVERYONE to do that, or else it isn’t going to work. The harsh reality is that this is NOT going to happen (unless of course, we apply Susanna’s solution of “site-wide ignore”.)
When just ONE person responds to the kid, that prompts an abrasive exchange and the thread heads south. And that harsh reality is that there will always be at least one person who responds.
Most of the veterans here restrain themselves, although at times get “hooked”. But a new member, and we get a lot of them, looks at this obnoxious hubris for the first time and invariably responds. That’s enough right there to send the thread south.**
Why is this setting HIM and the members up for failure? It’s like passing a student on to the next grade when he/she should have been held back. He/she is going to FAIL sooner or later, and all you’re doing is enhancing the error AND penalizing other students by allowing him/her to continue to impede progress.
When you’re sitting at the kitchen table having a discussion with OTHER adults, and a five year old comes up to the table and says, “Aunt Patsy, let me tell everyone about how brilliant I am on politics.”
Everyone smiles to be polite, but they are thinking, “A little obnoxious to interrupt like that.”
But, they let it go as simply being a precocious child.
Then, about the fourth time that happens, you say with a stern tone, “Go sit down and don’t interrupt the adults again.” Brewer is that 5 year old obnoxiously pushing his way into that adult discussion, and driving it south.
If he is foolish enough to return, one of two things is going to happen. Either:
- He will say something, could even be benign, that will prompt an abrasive response. Since brewer is not known for restraining himself (indeed, that’s what led to the ban), he will likely respond with abrasiveness himself, and thus the thread will spiral down and go south . . . as so many that he has posted in have (“habitual posts that detract/distract from thread topics”).
- In order to save face, he will mention that since the ban was only “temporary”, it wasn’t very “serious” and hence was no big deal. THAT will certainly prompt a response and again the thread will head south. We have had a lot of potentially productive discussions end up that way . . . a significant loss for the membership.
It took me months to finally inoculate myself to where I ignored brewer all the time. Though I don’t know if that would have lasted. My hot button issues are Alzheimer’s (people locked away in a place with no key), off color comments on wives and women, and one that brewer used to frequently hook me on . . . unbridled hubris. (He actually DID make some derogatory comments on wives and women once.) I finally mastered the “unbridled hubris” hook, and for about the past month I was able to ignore his frequent boasts, but knew things were going to degenerate once somebody else did.
But if he ever made a derogatory comment on Alzheimer’s care, or again slurred wives or women, I’d likely respond with an anger like a hot knife cutting through butter. I generally don’t respond while in the heat of anger, but on these topics I would.
And he’s already shown with the timeout that he won’t change his spots. At first, after being meek and mild, he returned to his old ways . . . which ultimately led to the ban. After that, why would anybody think he would change that behavior?
Bottom line, I think making the ban temporary is only setting him up for another failure if he is foolish enough to return.