Stosh

Yes , I see that.

You're late , just eat the popcorn while its hot.

No .

I asked a simple straightforward question , which , you could answer , you choose not to. Got it.

Passive aggressive behavior again.

No, the result would be the same. You still refused to define the doormat yourself ,and after asking three times a simple question , it doesn't likely matter if I spelled it out differently. The point still stands , and I await the answer.

Yep its a usual process , and the results are as usual. sigh

Fine its dismissive when applied to a person , can you be more specific , lots of things are dismissive ,, but what is a doormat ( person) ? Last chance , this is really taking too long ...............

Then you have a vigorous imagination.

No , do you see the dodging going on , just can't answer what a doormat is.

but you know what the phrase means , right?

Yeah , you laugh Daemon , but such a question usually stumps the questionee ... which they usually then play off as rhetorical so they don't have to see how it undermines their stance.

No , it isnt , but ,,, why do you not want to be portrayed as a doormat?

So is it Possible that - I am the one more reasonable and calm , and that you are the one pissed off , wanting to vent . Aggressive, unpleasant and violent people; do we need more of them? No not overly passive , but I did say you did use passive aggressive angle in the OP the title of which derides people you feel aren't like you. You still didn't explain why you should deride - speculate on the worthlessness of people you do not think you are like. Cat got your tongue?

No that's fact , it's true regardless of my opinion. but would you care to disclose why you would pose the question if not to deride aggression ? and does not the question present the derided folks , as a 'them' ? Meaning, you are not valueless , but they are? And do you not see the aggressive side to saying people not like you are valueless for no purpose other than to paint yourself as a perfect angel ? Frankly speaking, you're not exactly a delight now.

"I've noticed that this diagnosis is usually deployed on bulletin boards as an ad hominem by actively aggressive users (the remainder of the deployments are almost invariably the projection of the passively aggressive)." There's your label , nothing inaccurate there. I'm not delightful all the time in real life. Do you spend your efforts trying to be delightful all day?

Dude, labeling people as passive aggressive , for labeling them as such , isn't a value judgement , that's correct , but you've done the same thing! You labeled. Your 'method' is exactly what I described ,, this is a forum, the point is conversation , interacting , learning etc, but you're ignoring participants using machine features , what , you can't control yourself ? they touch such sore spots you cant respond to correctly ? Its just letters on a screen , ( yes things can get highly insulting , reputations attacked and so forth , and then yes moderation is required. Like for Imsiz Biri , or whatever the hell his name was, but that's an extreme. ) I, on the other hand , Did however point out why , its problematic to do the passive aggressive thing , just as getting wrapped up in being overly aggressive- because the OP is biased the other way.

Like I said ,,, push you off your food , while you pat yourself on the back to save your ego the embarrassment. Interesting though that you paint essentially EVeryone as being, either , passive aggressive or aggressive , if they make the 'diagnosis' ... which ironically would make you one of the aggressive, or passive aggressive, people TOO !! Unless you are excluding yourself for some mystical reason , like , 'its not bad when Daemon does it.' and then ,, and then ,, to PROVE your conviction ,, wait , wait this is great ,, to PROVE your conviction , you put users on IGNORE ! so as not to deal with it ahhahhahhaaa

How, pray tell , could you possibly blame me !

I'm not suggesting anything yet, I'm trying to figure out if you make too much value of passivity , and miss out on the other side of the coin. To express yourself , to have ideas , to have impact , to be seen and be recognized. Difficult people tend to offer quite a lot , and those that are awol , do not. I admit, I don't know how you are day to day, but I do want to stick up for those who ,,, aren't easy.

No, they aren't. You described bullshiitting someone that you were pretending to listen , in order to wait them out. That this was your strategy. If they don't recognize you are working a passive aggressive strategy , that's their problem. It doesn't make the construct wrong. (responsive as any situation calls for - IF a situation calls for it. Which most don't) And if you don't care if they nod with glazed eyes wondering when you're going to run out of steam either ,, then to you , its fine using them as a doormat while you drone on. That you got scared and bit someone once , doesn't ,mean you aren't employing passive aggressive habit in this thread or elsewhere.

!st of all it doesnt go round and round , I'm already fine , I know what I am saying and why , and since I don't need to hear the arguments of people who have no conviction on their own ,, there's no 'round going'. The floor-mat had nothing to offer and doesn't offer it. They are what one calls 'dead weight'. Now while it may please you to interact with those who have no spine , because they are no threat , and have no offering.. I don't need that person to wipe my feet on , I prefer respecting those with conviction, and in return, they have things I may benefit to hear. Disingenuously waiting for people to waste their breath , is what is called 'passive aggressive' , its really an ugly thing , I wouldn't boast about doing that, myself. If you've ever loved deeply ,and lost ,, responded to insult or injustice , then you should recognize the validity of emotional state. I didn't call anyone good , or bad for that matter , ,, the OP questioned the validity or value of people who assert , as if they were to be considered justifiably un-welcomed persons.

Not if you know what it means , though you may disagree on who IS one,, and the following seems to aim in that direction . Depends on your goals , if I can shove you off your ' food ' ,,, you walk away ,,, you are the one giving in. Why should I listen to someone elses argument if it conflicts with my own ? and I can shove you off your food ? You preserve the illusion that if you were a bad person you might've stuck it out , but you didn't so you can say you're better while saving your ego. Verbal is no different IMO.

What misconception ? spell that out please.

How many floor-mats do we need ?