Sending Angry Emails Just Makes You Angrier

An anonymous reader writes: Sending a blistering email can be cathartic. People consistently report feeling better after venting, and doing so over email is no exception. But researchers find those who vent their anger tend to only become angrier and more aggressive, and doing so in an impersonal way like email only makes it worse. "E-venting is particularly risky, experts say. We think it's private because we can do it in a secluded place, like our bed while we're in our pajamas. We have our phones with us all the time so we often e-vent before we've had a chance to calm down. A rant put out via the Internet is a click away from being shared." Combine this with how we typically sound angrier in print, and can't see feedback from our targets, it can lead to more volatile situations than we intended.

Comments

HOW DARE YOU!

[ganjadude]

try and tell ME that Ill be more angry after writing angry emails. I oughta come over there right now and show you how angry I can get

sincerely

Dude~

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, please spare us the wrath of your flab and drug abuse.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this out when you're actually paying for those emails. Like, you're going through the divorce process. Your soon-to-be ex sends you a nice snarky email regarding something. Doesn't matter what. So you quickly blast right back, with a well-reasoned, but empassioned, response. You know, the "principle of the matter".

You forget to email your attorney first. OK, there could go several hundred dollars of lawyer time trying to defuse that situation.

Even then, sending the email to your attorney first, asking for advise/how to respond, will cost a couple of hours of lawyer time too, but cheaper than the first situation where you just destroyed any possibility of good will later on down the road, as well as $$$.

As my attorney explained to me, principles are expensive.

Good luck.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[mjwx]

Sending angry emails does not make me angry, quite the opposite, I find it cathartic.

Its the angry responses I get that make me angry. Some people just dont know when to shut up and be abused.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[blue trane]

Indeed. The whole thrust of this story is that you shouldn't tit-for-tat. Fuck that. Online anger is a good thing. I think the researchers are humorless fucks who can't take a joke, and are way too thin-skinned. Oh noes, words on the internet hurt me!

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[KGIII]

I have a suggestion. You should send them an email and tell them what you really think.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[LaurenCates]

I find writing angry emails to be cathartic.

Sending them, and then getting responses back that escalate the situation, is not.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[fatalbert1]

I have a principle I try to live by:

"Write the good stuff, Tell the bad stuff"

If you know the receiving party will not like what you're going to write then it is your responsibility to talk to them face to face about it.

My company instituted this policy and it significantly reduced "at home work stress" from angry work emails during personal time.

I also use the trick of writing out that crappy email and just not pressing send. Mostly because it helps me clarify my thoughts before I discuss with them my concerns.

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[blue trane]

That's what I'm doing by posting here! I'm disappointed, the promised "volatile situation" hasn't developed :(

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[blue trane]

Who uses email in this day and age anyways? Old ppl in Japan or Korea?

Re:HOW DARE YOU!

[KGIII]

So you are patiently awaiting your anger, then?

I POST ON SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

So fuck you!

Re: I POST ON SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you back bitch ass cocksucker

Re: I POST ON SLASHDOT

[blue trane]

Careful now, you're creating a "volatile situation"! Oh won't somebody please think of the children?!?!??

E-Vent

[Anonymous Coward]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis, and can send a more civil email later (or no email at all, handle it politely in person).

Re:E-Vent

[Wain13001]

This has legitimately worked for me on several occasions.

Re:E-Vent

[macs4all]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis, and can send a more civil email later (or no email at all, handle it politely in person).

After sending some Career-Limiting-Emails in my time, I have had to learn this trick, too. It really does help. And help you to keep your job!

Re:E-Vent

[jafiwam]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis, and can send a more civil email later (or no email at all, handle it politely in person).

Yup. This is a good strategy.

One minor point, REMOVE the email addresses from the "to" and "Cc" lines and then save it as a draft. That prevents accidental sending later (even months later.)

Most of the time, it's hard to get email messages right in tone, meaning and intent without a rant in it. Likewise, don't be stupid, that stuff hangs around forever and will be used against you more effectively than the rant could ever be...

Re:E-Vent

[JackieBrown]

I have forgotten that before. It makes for an awkward (and job changing) conversation.

Re:E-Vent

[Dutch Gun]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis, and can send a more civil email later (or no email at all, handle it politely in person).

I've actually done that a number of times with posts here on slashdot. I've had, like almost anyone else, extremely rude or ignorant (IMO) responses before, and my first impulse is to write a long post detailing exactly why they're wrong (i.e. "Someone is WRONG on the internet!") or some snarky response. After writing all that out, I then belatedly realize that the best way to deal with a troll or idiot (again, IMO) is to ignore them, and I end up closing the browser without posting.

If I do respond, I often tend to moderate my tone from the first drafts, taking our unnecessary swearing (it often just makes you sound angry or ignorant) and removing excessive snark (makes you sound like a stuck-up prick), and so on. The trick is that this requires the discipline to NOT hit the submit button right away, but to let the post sit for a few minutes first while you re-read it a few times. Nearly every time I've posted something that sounded snarky or angry I've regretted it later, so I've gotten better at doing this.

And how topical as well! Here's a great example of someone who should not have vented in public.

Re:E-Vent

[Anubis IV]

Ayup. I'll occasionally pen angry e-mails or e-mails that take on a frustrated tone, only to scrap them and try again. There have been times it's taken three, four, even five iterations before I get something I'm content to send, but I've never once regretted it afterwards, so it's always been worth the delay.

At least for me, it's not so much about venting or having cathartic experience, so much as it is just a matter of analyzing and working through the source of the aggravation. The act of putting it into words makes it easier for me to break it down, understand it, and work through it, which is the how I deal with wayward emotions.

Re:E-Vent

[ljw1004]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis

Problem is that catharsis is a literary and theater concept -- not one rooted in science or human psychology.

Re:E-Vent

[The Real Dr John]

Every time I send an angry email to myself, I get pissed off.

Re:E-Vent

[Forever Wondering]

At lunch, a man complains to his co-workers that all he ever gets in his lunch box are PB&J sandwiches. They say: "Why don't you get your wife to make you a ham sandwich?". He replies: "No, I couldn't do that. I pack my lunch myself".

Re:E-Vent

[hey!]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis, and can send a more civil email later (or no email at all, handle it politely in person).

I don't believe that kind of catharsis actually exists. People conflate the relief from the momentary impulse to do something with relief from the underlying anger. They're not the same thing. I think writing the angry email reviewing all the reasons the other guy is a contemptible, bad person is actually practicing being angry at him. And anything you practice comes more and more naturally with time.

Let's say someone cuts you off while you're driving, and lets say you start venting at the other driver -- maybe you chase him for a bit, yelling at him. Does that, in your experience, actually make you calmer and more rational toward the other driver? *I* think you're actually prolonging the fear and anger of a momentary encounter that would be best put behind you. It also reinforces the underlying irrational assumptions that turn ordinarily rational people into aggressive, reactive drivers. What you *should* do when you get cut off is immediately remind yourself that everybody, even good, considerate drivers, have bad days. All it takes is a single instant where your attention lapses -- and that happens to everyone occasionally, even you. And even if the other guy's a bad driver, by the time you realized what happened the encounter was already over. Chances are you'll never encounter that guy again.

In other words deal with the fallacious belief that very momentary negative interaction calls for immediate and aggressive response. Then you can make a rational decision about what the optimal response would be. You can't reason with an angry person, and when that angry person is you you can't reason, period.

So I'd change the old trick to this: write a conciliatory email and then sleep on it before sending the real one. The reason for not sending the conciliatory email right away is that you don't want to do anything irreversible under the influence of strong emotion. Once you've dealt with the anger you can do a better job of being reasonably assertive; you don't have to let people walk all over you buy you do need some perspective when pushing back.

Re:E-Vent

[Snotnose]

When I think I'm writing one of these I cc DONT_SEND. Then if I send it I get an 'invalid recipient' error and I get to think about it some more.

Re:E-Vent

[bledri]

An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis

Problem is that catharsis is a literary and theater concept -- not one rooted in science or human psychology.

I wish I had mod-points. What most of the slashdotter's are missing is that writing the email is just another form of ruminating. Even if you don't send it, all you've done is spend more time being angry and possibly engaging in a bunch of confirmation bias fueled "research" to justify your position. After reinforcing your beliefs you're just more primed to get triggered again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The whole "emotion as pressure to be released" belief is complete bunk

.

Re:E-Vent

[KGIII]

I have sent off an irate email that resulted in my being told my company would, "Never work for the State of Washington again!" I replied saying that I agreed entirely. As far as I know, they still have not ever consulted in Washington since - in any city nor for the State nor any facility situated in Washington. I sold and retired. I think my angry email was justified.

Many times, however, I will have a rant typed out here (or at other sites) and will meander off or stop and think about it and never send it at all. Sometimes I just realize that I do not really have anything to say that is going to contribute to the conversation. Sometimes I realize that I am being baited and that nobody can be that stupid and still manage to operate a computer so they must be trying to troll.

Re:E-Vent

[AthanasiusKircher]

One minor point, REMOVE the email addresses from the "to" and "Cc" lines and then save it as a draft. That prevents accidental sending later (even months later.)

Yes -- this is essential. Or send it to yourself.

Most of the time, it's hard to get email messages right in tone, meaning and intent without a rant in it. Likewise, don't be stupid, that stuff hangs around forever and will be used against you more effectively than the rant could ever be...

I'd go so far as to say that rants in e-mail are NEVER very effective. Well, that's true at least for rants actually directed at the recipient. It may be at least therapeutic sometimes to rant to a 3rd party (though that is also often not a good idea in a professional context, lest your rant ever get back to the person you're ranting about).

Anyhow, there's just no good reason to rant AT someone over e-mail. E-mail is impersonal and too prone to misinterpretation. Even a calm, logical argument can be perceived as aggressive or result in defensiveness in the recipient over an issue where there's already some controversy.

If there's a need to "rant" -- do it in person, or over the phone at least. That way you have a chance to actually have a dialogue with the person or at least see/hear the reactions to your speech. If a misunderstanding arises as you're explaining your issue, you can correct it immediately, rather than having the recipient misunderstand something a few sentences in, and then grow to seething after reading the remaining paragraphs of your ranting. (This isn't productive for anyone.)

Better yet -- simply don't "rant." Rambling on when you're angry is rarely effective at communication. Wait until you're calm; then address the issue. Yes, there are times when a "rhetorical rant" is appropriate -- when you can dramatize your speech deliberately. But that should only be done when you are calm, cool, and collected -- and you make a deliberate decision that the appearance of "ranting" will be helpful in conveying your message.

It rarely is necessary.

I first realized all this as a parent. Sure, you can be the parent who screams at a kid every 10 minutes about whatever and goes on a rant about what they should be doing. But kids will just learn to ignore your screaming, or -- worse -- realize that they can "push your buttons" for attention. Either way, discipline becomes ineffective.

I've only ever raised my voice in anger or frustration as a parent a handful of times. It's just not useful. However, particularly with young children, sometimes they need something to grab their attention about something that is legitimately dangerous -- and that's when you raise your voice... calmly and deliberately, but with the necessary force.

Similarly, it's extremely rare to find a circumstance where an uncivil rant is actually productive. If it actually is necessary, it should only ever be delivered in person and when you're calm enough to plan out exactly what you're saying and the dramatic effects you intend.

Re:E-Vent

[Anonymous Coward]

And should I also punch myself in the face?

Re:E-Vent

[Anonymous Coward]

Another useful trick is to read through your email as if it is being read before a jury. Now try to imagine how will they interpret it.

Re:E-Vent

[LaurenCates]

No mod points, just want to call this interesting.

Some of the best people I know (best, as in "least stressed out" and "happy most of the time") are the ones who I describe not so much as "don't give a fuck", but more likely "wouldn't know what to do with it if they had a fuck to give".

"Just Makes You"

[Lew Perin]

Bad grammar MAKES ME ANGRY!

Re:"Just Makes You"

[Lew Perin]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wrote it before the article header was corrected. For the record, the article's original title was "Sending Angry Emails Just Make You Angrier".

Re:"Just Makes You"

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying to your own posts MAKES ME ANGRY!

Re:"Just Makes You"

[cyberchondriac]

HULK SMASH

Same as off line

[gurps_npc]

There used to be a popular psychiatric idea that people needed to vent their anger. People were told to yell or even hit pillows. This was pretty much proven wrong.

Venting of - ANY kind - tends to reinforce the issue, not make you feel less angry.

Some people even now state that bottling them up is better. But most state that discussing the issue calmly, preferably with someone whose job it is to keep you calm, works best.

Re:Same as off line

[phantomfive]

Yeah, the best thing to do is to turn the energy of your rage towards solving the problem that caused it in the first place. If your coworker is chewing loudly in the cubicle next to you, then you need to talk to him, or you're going to keep getting angry over and over and over. If your boss is lousy and making you angry, then you need to improve your communication with him, or find a new job.

Re:Same as off line

[Anonymous Coward]

Punching pillows doesn't work because pillows feel no pain. The psychological satisfaction from violent expressions of anger stems primarily from the fact that you are inflicting suffering upon the object of your anger.

That's why the best anger-management strategy involves careful planning, a good mask, rubber gloves, and a solid alibi.

Re:Same as off line

[macs4all]

Some people even now state that bottling them up is better.

Sounds like one of my favorite Marge Simpson quotes, from the Episode "Moaning Lisa":

"It doesn't matter how you feel inside, you know. It's what shows up on the outside that counts. Take all your bad feelings and push them down, all the way down past your knees, until you're almost walking on them. And then you'll fit in, and you'll be invited to parties, and boys will like you. And happiness will follow."

Re:Same as off line

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, the best thing to do is to turn the energy of your rage towards solving the problem that caused it in the first place. If your coworker is chewing loudly in the cubicle next to you...

Politely remove his teeth with an elbow strike?

Re:Same as off line

[phantomfive]

If you can do that politely, you are a better man than me.

Re:Same as off line

[phantomfive]

I would argue that rage-energy is no more useful than venting.

I don't know, it works for me lol. I try to calm down before actually doing anything, though.

Write it out

[Anonymous Coward]

never send it. if it makes you feel better, start it in email, but don't put a subject or even an address in any of the fields. write it out, save it in drafts and wait 24-48 hours, re-read it. don't send it. but to be safe, use your favorite text editor instead of an accidental email going out

don't use facebook/twitter or anything else were posting is literally a click away.

Some people don't know when to give up...

[__aaclcg7560]

A former roommate still replies to the emails that I wrote 15 years ago, still angry and unwilling to let go of the past.

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[techno-vampire]

If that's the only type of email you get from this person, add their email address to your killfile and never see their ranting again.

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[Pfhorrest]

Personally, I would be happy to know that certain former housemates of mine were still so pissed off that they were still writing me angry emails. I would skim them and ignore them and laugh that those fuckers are still suffering, because for the bullshit they inflicted on me for all those years, they'd fucking deserve it.

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[__aaclcg7560]

Silicon Valley is a very small world. I still run into him from time to time. He's always polite in person, but never asks why I don't respond to his emails. It's easier to shake my head and delete the email.

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[antdude]

Play Frozen's Let It Go song for h(im/er). :P

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[blue trane]

Thus your experience contradicts the research presented. A volatile situation has not resulted from sending angry emails.

Re:Some people don't know when to give up...

[Anonymous Coward]

for Himmler? man just let it go!

woot Godwin FTW!

One of the oldest rules of email...

[cyberkine]

Flame in haste, repent at leisure.

Same with comments

[Anonymous Coward]

The Angry Left always posts angry comments.

Re:Same with comments

[blue trane]

It's like how Trump calls himself a "whiner" and is proud of it. Fuck your PC crap you asshole righty.

Anger is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all angry cows. Angry cows say moo-grr. MOOOOO-GRRRR! MOOOOOO-GRRRRR! Moo-grr angry cows MOOO-GRRR. Moo-grrr say the angry cows. YOU ANGRY COWS!!

Re:Anger is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Angry cows? You mean feminists?

-Man pig

Re:Anger is for cows.

[bughunter]

That sounds like a lot of bull...

Re:Anger is for cows.

[bughunter]

Replying to my own comment just to say whoever modded me "insightful" deserves a metamod of "funny."

Abraham Lincoln

[operagost]

Lincoln used to write harsh letters to people who deserved it-- like his sluggish generals-- then place them in his desk for a day before sending them. He almost never sent them.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[Anonymous Coward]

Lincoln was also known for saying "I don't like that man, I must get to know him better."

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Lincoln used to write harsh letters to people who deserved it-- like his sluggish generals-- then place them in his desk for a day before sending them. He almost never sent them.

He probably should have to a few of them. The union's generalship was extremely bad at the start of the war. You think General Tso is chicken? General McClellan is chickener, might even be chickenest. He got the battle plans of the traitors mistakenly left behind in a camp site for the battle of Antietam. Still managed to rack up one of the highest casuality rates in the entire war.

Hooker and others were extremely bad. He was scrapping the bottom of the barrel when he picked Grant.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[PopeRatzo]

Lincoln was also known for saying, "I'm Abraham Lincoln! The stylin', profilin', limousine riding, jet flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin' n' dealin' son of a gun!"

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[KGIII]

It turns out that a drunken depressed fuck who does not give a shit really makes an effective general. Who knew? (Notice, I did not say good...) I am related to Grant on my honky half. It appears the white half of me is related to all sorts of famous people. My mother was one of the Prescotts. Yes, I am even related to Bush - very distantly. I do not consider that a good thing but, hopefully, I am not to be judged by my relatives though I am to understand that I am somehow related to Obama (on the same side) as well though I learned this recently from a relative that cares about such. I guess I am even distantly related to the Queen of England and to others of note. They do not send me a Christmas card. I should try sending the Queen an email and invite myself over for dinner.

Anyhow, I guess some of this stuff is available online. I knew nothing about Bush, the Queen, or Obama until just recently. I did know about Grant and the Bunker Hill Prescott ("Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes!"). I guess Bush makes sense, it is the same family as Prescott-Bush of yore. There's a family crest and everything it seems. Meh... It is not really all that important to me. Well, no, it is of no importance. I just hope nobody equates me with Bush.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[Sardaukar86]

I just hope nobody equates me with Bush.

I think you're safe. The public persona that we all saw of Dubya was stupid enough to convince anyone that the above post could never have been his work.

There are those who claim he was actually very clever. If so, his 'dumb cowboy' routine that got him elected might actually border on genius. What a discomforting thought.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[painandgreed]

Hooker and others were extremely bad. He was scrapping the bottom of the barrel when he picked Grant.

Not really the bottom of the barrel, just from a secondary front where he had been racking up success after success, invading Tennessee, isolating Texas, controlling the Mississippi, and pushing the enemy lines back.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[david_thornley]

I have a third-hand report, with no reason to think the person who passed it on to me was lying, that W was intelligent and articulate and a good conversationalist on the golf course.

You've now got a fourth-hand report of this.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[david_thornley]

FWIW, my wife is descended from "Lighthorse" Harry Lee through Robert E. Lee's younger brother.

Grant was quite possibly the best general in the Civil War. He won a daring and very important victory at Vicksburg, then executed a strategy of holding the main Confederate forces with Meade and the Army of the Potomac while Sherman tore the guts out of the Confederacy. (Grant never commanded the Army of the Potomac, but he was Meade's superior and traveled with him.)

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[toddestan]

According to this website:
http://www.geni.com/blog/look-whos-related-george-washington-and-all-the-presidents-325451.html
if you're related to any of the people who have been elected President, then you're somehow related to the rest of them. Note the word elected, as the only President that has not somehow been linked to George Washington is Gerald Ford.

Re:Abraham Lincoln

[KGIII]

Son of a... Damn it... Thanks. I will send the link to my relative who finds this shit interesting. Thank you for posting it. I had thought I had read something like that a while back though. By extension I am related the royalty of Europe that still remains and is related to the Queen of England - The Windsor line I guess. I believe I mentioned it was on the Prescott side.

Yes, that means Bush and (oddly) Obama and a whole bunch of other famous people. Not one of those bastards writes or invites me to anything. I am even fairly polished - yet nobody cares. :/

I find my other half more interesting. That is a mix of black, Italian, and Micmac. There's some interesting history there.

But verbal abuse works on the phone

[TWX]

I've found that when I'm horribly verbally abusive to telemarketers they actually take me off of their calling list. For that to work one has to make it very personal to the individual on the other end of the line. Be careful though, do not stray into threat territory. It actually works best when one suggests an action for them to perform upon themselves, the more vulgar, the better. The goal is to put the call center operator out-of-sorts. They're used to people being rude, but if one is vulgar in a way they're not expecting then it can work.

I also once managed to figure out the name of a telemarketing firm, and from there was able to find the name of the owner, and due to his Linked In profile I was able to find his home telephone number, and it turned out he was actually local. I called him at dinner time and we had a little chat. They never called me again after that. Probably helped that his firm was somewhat trying to run as a local business regarding energy efficiency (something like the Go Green campaign) and were doing the telemarketing in-house instead of contracting it out, but after our little chat the calls from his company ended.

I think this is a wider issue than just email

[LunaticTippy]

I find that focusing on anger leads to more anger, and just about anything else is better. You can try to ignore it, figure out a solution or workaround, try to discuss it calmly, talk to a third party to get an outside perspective, sleep on it, etc.

We all know angry people, and I don't think many of us intentionally want to be that way. It takes some discipline to change and is an ongoing effort.

Re:I think this is a wider issue than just email

[ewibble]

While true I believe it is true in the short term ignoring it does not make the issue go away. If it is recurring issue then it is much better the long run to express your feelings, and sometimes that feeling is anger.

Of course there are limits, you need to find a middle ground (don't go beating anyone up). Letting people walk all over you does lead to a happy life either.

Re:I think this is a wider issue than just email

[LunaticTippy]

I think in many cases ignoring is a very healthy response. For example, we are subjected to insults throughout our lives. Maybe someone cuts us off in traffic, or some paperwork gets fouled up and needs to be done again. Nothing is gained by angrily honking your horn or waving a finger or a gun. Nothing is gained by screaming at your insurance provider.

If your favorite sports team, political regime, tribal affiliation or operating system is badmouthed I think the most healthy response is to simply ignore it.

Re:I think this is a wider issue than just email

[blue trane]

It should be an individual choice. Lots of times it's fun and therapeutic for me to come up with creative insults. I'm laughing after I post it, not angry. I can see how some PC researcher who doesn't know me might think I'm getting angrier and angrier though. But that just says more about them than about me.

Re:I think this is a wider issue than just email

[KGIII]

If you are honking your horn or waving a finger then no, you will not get much in the way of results. I do beg to differ about the firearm. If you are waving about a firearm in public (or in private, in some situations) then you may very well get meaningful results. They may not be the results you were hoping for but they will be results. They may even be resolutions. There are not so very many places left that you can wildly wave around a firearm and expect people to just ignore your behavior. We can discuss that as being good or bad, if you would like, but that does not change anything as to how it will likely pan out.

You can *probably* get away with it on my lawn or something. You will still, certainly, get results and maybe a resolution. I will likely walk out and ask you what the hell you're doing and why are you doing it on my lawn. I'd be very unlikely to harm you in any way, I'd assume you were drunk - or that I was hallucinating. I've never had anyone show up on my lawn and wave a firearm about. I'd figure it had something to do with one of your female relatives and maybe some LSD. I'd probably tease you a little bit for showing up and waving a gun about. If you were going to shoot me then you would have been sneakier about it. I mean, yeah, come on... You're standing on my lawn and waving a gun around. I'd say the odds are pretty good that I am not going to be hurt or that you're a hallucination and I should stop eating acid for breakfast.

I would not try it on my neighbor's lawn for a variety of reasons. The important reason is that you will still get results but he will likely shoot you. The second is, well, he probably did not sex your daughter, wife, sister, or mother - that was me and you have the wrong address and should be waving the gun about on my lawn.

There is one advantage to this...

[bobbied]

You are not within arms reach when the person receiving your angry assault is reacting to what you wrote, so you are unlikely to be physically assaulted...

On the other hand, you won't be there to see them react to all those stinging statements you made, nor can you stick out your tongue and go "Nana Nanna Na a" when you see their brow wrinkled in anger...

Re:There is one advantage to this...

[KGIII]

That reminds me of the adage... Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. After that? Well, you're a mile away and you have his shoes.

Re:There is one advantage to this...

[bobbied]

I like that one... Thanks..

To Paraphrase Orwell

[sehlat]

The object of love is love. The object of hate is hate. The object of anger is anger.

Re:To Paraphrase Orwell

[Austerity Empowers]

More importantly: the object should agree with the subject.

Re:To Paraphrase Orwell

[sehlat]

Subjects should not necessarily agree with objects. This country was founded by subjects who did not agree.

Re:To Paraphrase Orwell

[blue trane]

The object of trolling with an angry post is to provoke an inappropriate response. The object of posting angrily on the internet is, most often, humor.

Not replying is even more disrespectful

[CustomSolvers2]

I used to think that ignoring someone's email was the worst you could do to that person. In fact, I used to write lengthy replies with a quite aggressive tone to people doing really stupid things; having ignored them would have been 1000 times easier for me. I wasn't angry at all (I have rarely done anything on the lines of e-venting), but didn't find any other way to communicate with people not able to understand the simplest idea (e.g., spammer continue spamming after you say that are not interested in these products).

The results were really bad. I came to the sad conclusion that there are quite a few people with not much self-respect, who just look for any excuse to blow everything out of proportion and evade all responsibility for their actions (e.g., "why are you screaming to me?", "because you screamed to me before", "I don't care! You cannot scream to me!").

Now I am always using the easiest alternative (although I still think that it is the most aggressive and disrespectful one): I plainly ignore people showing nonsensical behaviours.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to be all meta and imply that your post was nonsensical by ignoring it and not responding to it. But if I did that then nobody would know that I was doing that, and the humor-value of my action would be lost. On the other hand, explaining this (as I have just done) undoes the effect.

So I guess I will go meta-meta and ignore all the people who ignored your post.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[CustomSolvers2]

Thanks for having shared so profound thoughts. I do understand the intrinsic limitations of your actions and will overlook the tremendous irony underlying your whole post. The fact that you wanted to ignore what I wrote has indeed hurt my feelings. I hope that other person will inflict you approximately the same pain which I am feeling right now.

PS: I will not say anything about your meta references.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[AthanasiusKircher]

The results were really bad. I came to the sad conclusion that there are quite a few people with not much self-respect, who just look for any excuse to blow everything out of proportion and evade all responsibility for their actions (e.g., "why are you screaming to me?", "because you screamed to me before", "I don't care! You cannot scream to me!").

I agree with your general sentiment, though I think the problem may not always be "people with not much self-respect." I think it's really hard to calibrate tone in an impersonal medium like e-mail. You may think you're discussing something in a calm, logical way -- but to the other person whom you're criticizing, all they see is a point-by-point attack on their work. All it takes is a couple little places where the meaning could be misconstrued, and suddenly they can become very defensive.

In these cases, it's often nobody's fault. It doesn't require someone actively seeking to "evade all responsibility for their actions" to feel like a lengthy e-mail telling them why they are wrong might be a little aggressive. It's just human nature to be emotionally invested in what you do and who you are, and when someone gives a long drawn-out explanation of what you screwed up, most people are going to feel a little put out.

It's a truly rare person who can always "step back" and "see the bigger picture" and be magnanimous in responding to detailed criticism. I'm not saying we shouldn't aspire to be that kind of person when it's part of our jobs, but for most people it can be difficult.

But I agree with you that the most important thing is just to try to de-escalate, no matter what the circumstances. And sometimes it's just not productive to engage further at all.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[KGIII]

When everybody is yelling then nobody is listening. I refuse to even attempt to communicate with someone who is being loud unless they are being loud so that they can be heard above the din of the music or reasonable. Sadly, that took me a long time to learn.

On the other hand, when I do get angry (and I do) then it gets blown off pretty quickly. If it does not then I do not get loud. I get quiet. My voice lowers, is quieter, and is metered. I.. do... not... want... to... have... to... say... this... a... second... time... I am told it is scary but effective. I do not do it consciously, it just happens. It is not as slow as I typed it but it is hard to convey that sort of thing in text. I have never had much use for yelling even though I used to try to converse with the person who was yelling at me. I have since realized that it is generally ineffective.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[IamTheRealMike]

You may think you're discussing something in a calm, logical way -- but to the other person whom you're criticizing, all they see is a point-by-point attack on their work. All it takes is a couple little places where the meaning could be misconstrued, and suddenly they can become very defensive.

Yes, but ultimately that's their problem. Unless they are your boss, of course, in which case it's your problem AND the companies problem.

Whilst it's true that writing an email and then trashing it, or waiting a day to send it, is often a useful strategy (and I've done that myself a bunch of times) ..... it rarely solves anything long term. The underlying reason for the anger will still be there. People who deflect attention from their mistakes by saying "he/she offended me" don't actually improve the workplace, they just push the pain off onto another day (and make it worse next time).

The problem with email is not that it's an impersonal medium where it's hard to calibrate your tone. The problem is the opposite - when face to face with someone who is visibly angry or upset it's very hard to speak plainly and tell it like it is. People chicken out, they bail when they see the signs of anger or hurt on the other persons face. Nobody likes to be a meanie.

But now think about all the completely nonsensical, illogical, vastly disruptive rubbish that organisations engage in all over the world, every day. Someone, somewhere in that organisation knows that what they're doing is bad for the customer, or is a huge waste of money, but cannot say it without hurting someone's feelings. So things just carry on. People who really shouldn't be in the job are left alone or even promoted, and the people who can see plainly how messed up things are leave, making the problem worse. How many times have you heard people complain about a corporate culture of ass kissing?

We internalise this sort of thing as "big companies are slow, only startups can innovate" and other such business aphorisms, but often all it boils down to is that without a medium like email, it's often too hard to speak plainly and lay out harsh truths. Small companies don't have enough of a financial cushion to place being nice to your colleague above factual reality. Big companies do. But with email, natural instincts like "oh shit he's going to whack me" or "this woman is crying and probably won't mate with me now" get buried. So people find it easier to say things that might be hurtful, but might also be true and ultimately better long term for the organisation.

Of course, the line is very blurry. There are sometimes people who aren't speaking hard truths, they're just genuinely assholes. But my experience has been that genuine assholes are rare, whereas everyone can just have a bad day or get irritated at poor behaviour by someone else.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[CustomSolvers2]

This is how I (used to) see things:
1. You are doing something which can be criticised by others without being truly able to defend your position. Example: keep using someone else's email address after a nice request from its rightful owner.
2. You are not fully aware about the aforementioned situation for whatever reason.
3. Someone replies you quite aggressively but by providing lots of useful information.
4 (what I was expecting). Think carefully about what you are exactly doing, understand that you cannot defend your position, learn the lesson and move on.
4 (what I have seen lots of times). People obsessively repeating the same actions by completely altering the original intention. For example: keep sending the same offers to a person who has let very clear his position regarding the product/company.

Among grow-ups I don't have to take care of the education (and/or account for the complexes) of each single person I met. My aforementioned previous (aggressive) attempts were quite generous gestures, which some people might have taken as a help to understand that they were acting wrong.

Your whole speech, although undoubtedly nice and coherent in appearance, actually hides ideas on the lines of "never say you did it wrong", "everyone is right" or similar; the kind of trendy educational attitudes outputting spoiled children with neither boundaries nor respect for others. If you did something wrong, accept the consequences; and stop looking for excuses to somehow compensate your actions.

I have always been an extremely adaptable and understanding person, always thinking that we all are identical and trying to help my fellow men to see their errors. I am very tired now and I have confirmed that generosity can only be delivered within properly-understanding contexts; that’s why I only want to deal with properly understanding individuals. With all the other people, I will rely on the referred “better ignoring them" attitude, much more egoist than my previous behaviour but proven required.

Re:Not replying is even more disrespectful

[CustomSolvers2]

Sorry to read about your problems, but all this has nothing to do with me: I rarely get angry; and when I do, I would rarely make decisions; and even in case of making decisions, I would always take full responsibility for my actions (I take responsibility for what I did even when being a kid) and eventually re-decide anything.

I am a very sensible guy who has traditionally been surrounded by very sensible people. During the last years, I have been forced to deal with not-too-sensible individuals, the kind of people with whom your statement "when everybody is yelling then nobody is listening" makes sense at all.

As explained in my reply to the comment above, the referred aggressive emails were a gesture of generosity (not of angriness); equivalently to what I have done in quite a few other contexts. But also as explained, I am quite tired now but also sure that, in some situations, I should be more egoist.

No...

[Karmashock]

The issue was that his angry rant against his boss was seen by his boss. The "error" is in venting in places where you'll get in trouble for it.

And this notion that venting makes you angrier? What? All evidence points to the contrary.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much anger you show here on slashdot in the majority of the comments you post here, you should certainly be an expert on anger.

Yet, you manage to get it wrong anyways. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, kid.

Re:No...

[KGIII]

I have made mental note of their username and generally read their comments. Do you have a specific idea in mind as to what they are angry about? They do not seem very angry to me, in other words. Certainly not as angry as some... Maybe I am just not good at picking up on those clues?

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

This kid flies off the handle routinely. A good example is the thread he started last week. While he wasn't angry with his first post, it didn't take long before he was shouting obscenities at (nearly) everyone who bothered to write a reply to his comments. If you can go back further into his comment history, just look for any time he's been moderated down, it usually is for shouting angrily at other users for daring to disagree with him.

Why is he so angry, so often? No idea. Based on the way he writes - and the frequency with which he writes - he likely is unemployed and underqualified. He probably has convinced himself he's getting a "raw deal" and is taking it out on everyone he sees here.

Re:No...

[KGIII]

Hmm... None of the ones that I read (I only read your link, thanks) looked angry, just vulgar and aggressive. Then again, I am not the greatest at picking up on behavioral cues I do not think. I am not an Aspie or anything, I just tend to not see the same thing others see. I'd call them an ass (I am one, personally) but not angry. Hell, I am almost never angry. I do not give you the right to control me - you can not make me angry. That sort of thing...

Maybe I am projecting and they are really angry? It just looks like an ass being an ass and we can decide if that is good or bad, I suppose. I am a bit of an ass but I am honest about it. I am also not infallible and freely admit that and am grateful for correction. But I am still an ass. I am just not an angry, or egotistical, ass.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

There is no anger. He's calling me angry as an insult. He's an AC troll. He's clearly been e-stalking me on the site and likes to make little snipe comments at me in most threads.

To be angry, I'd have to be afraid. You don't get anger without the fright/flight response getting triggered and flipping to fight.

Anger is an institutional emotion used to transition the defensive posture of fear into an aggressive offensive posture in anger. Anger is generally a response to an attack or damage or a threat.

If you're not getting harmed or threatened by something then you're not going to get angry. The little twit wishes to conflate hostility with anger. Hostility has no inherent emotional component. A shark or a wolf can be hostile without being angry. I company can do a hostile take over without being angry. A warlord can invade a neighboring tribe... slaughtering, raping, and pillaging... with no anger.

The reason he believes "anger" is an insult is because anger cannot exist without fear on my part. Thus by calling me angry he presumes to call me cowardly or intimidated or threatened by him. This inflates his ego and argues in favor of his superiority which is something trolls generally crave.

For the lolz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

When he says I'm angry, he's really just sticking his troll tongue out and saying "You Mad Bro?"... and the reason trolls desire that is that in making someone angry they scared/threatened/intimidated them... sort of like spooking a deer or a cow makes you feel superior to the herd beast. This large powerful animal just bolts.

No fear.
And where there is no fear... there is no anger.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

is anger drives a rather severe case of last-post-itis amongst other things. Someone in control of their emotions would be able to hold off on that better; he has in the past posted over 50 expletive-laden comments in a single day just trying to shout down AC comments. He also shows no concern for the truth when he is fully engaged in an angry attack on whomever he feels has wronged him.

One deviation from his usual M.O. is that he was not as quick to tell people to kill themselves in that discussion. If we dug further back in his comment history we'd find he was often quick to go for that in various ways.

Notice also that he came here to reply to your reply, to try to convince you that he is not driven simply by anger. Nobody forced him to do that but himself - and his own anger.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're so not angry that you jumped on the thread about your anger to promptly declare your non-anger and insult the people who you have previously directed your non-anger at. yep, clearly you're not angry. you apparently just mastered the art of non-angry communication involving rampant use of expletives, minimal use of facts or reality, and rapid-fire insults.

certainly, no anger in that behavior. because an angry person would just walk away rather than cursing t the people calling them angry, right?

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

Commenting on your delusion to someone else I respect... which is not you... is not a sign of anger, little one.

Your attempt to claim it is especially in that context where it is especially absurd merely underscores my point about your actual motivations.

I pegged you perfectly from the start. You're entirely transparent to me. I've dealt with enough trolls to know you better than you know yourself.

https://youtu.be/z2mXrndt1ZI?t...

You are pathetic. ;)

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. you are so not angry, that you wrote that not angry response at almost 3 in the morning, to tell us how not angry you are. wrapping it all up with feeble put-downs and a link to a youtube video really shows us just how not angry you are.

yep, keep telling us how you're not angry. you might convince yourself of it if you keep repeating it enough.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

So, you're falling back on the old Troll response that ANYONE that responds to your stupid ass must be angry?

Dumb dumb dumb.

As to 3 am... I don't keep a regular schedule... and if I'm up eating cherrios and shit talking on the internet... why does that confer anger?

You don't really know what anger is in the first place. Given that you don't understand what a thing is you can't say that I am or am not it.

It would be like saying something is an apple when you don't know what an apple is... its sort of fundamental.

Idiot. :D ---- Apparently this means I'm angry... if you're stupid.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you controlled your emotions - rather than the other way around - you would be able to walk away from this discussion rather than coming back to hurl more insults. You are a slave to your anger, son. Get help, and then get a job. Maybe you'll be able to overcome your failings that way. What you're currently doing is clearly not working.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

His high-frequency angry postings at all hours of the day certainly make a solid case against him having any kind of employment, don't they?

Re:No...

[Ol Olsoc]

So, you're falling back on the old Troll response that ANYONE that responds to your stupid ass must be angry?

So what you are telling us is that you are not really angry. It's just that all your posts look exactly like what an angry person writes?

I mean seriously Karmashock, I've read your posts for a while now, and I'm serious when I say that you come across as a person who just might go postal some day.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

Not really, it just means I don't keep 9-5 hours. And you over estimate how much time I spend on this.

What I do generally is read all your comments, respond to them... generally takes about 10 minutes to respond to about 10 comments unless I go into detail with something. Then I check for new articles and make comments on those if I want to... but I can't just press submit when they're through. I have to wait. So while doing other things i check back and press 'send'... I do that at work a lot. On a break I'll respond to everything... and then while working I might press send. But I literally didn't do anything besides that.

As to anger... your fixation on that presumed emotion admits that you're attempting to use it as an insult.

I've given my explanation for why you think anger is an insult.

In your own words, why do you think that me being angry is an insult? You're ultimately going to circle around to exactly what I was talking about thus validating my entire position. My prediction. But I'd be fascinated to see your attempt to avoid the inevitable.

I'm hyper rational. You demonstrably have no experience with my mentality. Otherwise you would realize you're playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

In your own words, why do you think that me being angry is an insult?

That is a nice example of the complex question fallacy. How do you know that the AC thinks that saying you are angry is an insult? You don't, but your question assumes that must be true. After all, the AC could just be making an observation about your posts, or offering what he/she see as a valid critique of your behavior.

I'm hyper rational.

A truly amusing assertion, considering it came just a few sentences after the aforementioned fallacy.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

I think we may have a cultural issue then. In my culture people call other people dog shit without needing to be angry or out of control.

You might be presuming your cultural norms and projecting them on me. I suppose you might be thinking that I am restrained by cultural taboos that require me to be polite to people. And if I am impolite it means that I am so emotionally out of control that I can't control myself.

What you do not understand is that I am not trying to control myself. I call people shitheads with the same emotional content that you use to breath. It has no emotional content. Its just an opinion.

Lets say we were talking about a given type of food and you said "I don't like that food, I prefer X"... are you mad? You dismissed possibly an entire culinary tradition that millions of people could hold as very important to their society.

You don't need to be angry to think something is shit. I think you know that.

Where the confusion might be is that you think I need to be upset to say someone is shit. I don't. I "think it" and then I "say it". There's no need to get mad to over come an arbitary cultural barrier that I don't observe... especially on line.

In person, I conduct myself one way. In professional settings with superiors I conduct myself another way. When I engage with subordinates I conduct myself a different way... etc.

Every code of conduct is contextual. In this environment I have no reason to observe any code of conduct besides what I find most pleasing to myself. Its sort of like taking your shoes off and walking around your house without any pants... and possibly without underwear.

Am I a pervert because I walk around my home in underwear? Nope. Neither am I angry when I dismiss someone as a piece of shit on the internet.

As to angry posts that you feel someone about to go postal would make. Please cite one. I'd like to see what you consider "postal" warnings.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

I know they think citing anger is an insult because they cite it in a derogatory context.

It would be how you'd know the difference between someone saying someone is short is an insult versus saying someone is short simply as an observation.

As to fallacies, outright false. By the context, the assertion where there is no hostility to even misrepresent, and the constant repetition by critical elements we can see it is not meant merely as an observation but is intended as a negative quality they are assigning to my behavior.

Are you presuming to say that they are saying my supposed anger is of neutral value or that it is positive?

You can't.

It is clearly meant as a negative judgment. And as I said, it is asserted that I am angry in posts such as this one where it is frankly impossible to say that I am angry in this post...

What is misrepresented as anger is typically insults, foul language, or a dismissive attitude.

Calling someone a moron doesn't mean I'm angry with them. You don't need to be angry with someone to insult them or to express a negative opinion. Were this not the case then all criticism of me would be from angry people.

Are you angry? To quote the trolls... "U Mad Bro?"

And that quote right there further underscores that suggesting someone is angry is a common troll tactic/insult/victory cry. To pretend ignorance of that is not credible.

I could go on, but why? Its patiently obvious you've got nothing and will be unable and unwilling to actually defend your position.

If I have any great weakness it is that I explain myself too much and I argue points too honestly. People like you presume to exploit that... asking stupid questions... making stupid comments... you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.

As I said, I'm hyper rational... your tactics don't work on me. They'd work on you... but our minds don't work the same way. My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate. The fact that you'll interpreter as a boast or put down is further emblematic of our difference. Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.

Talking to people like you is akin to communicating with animals... if they were intelligent enough to talk. Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different. The things that will annoy a cat won't annoy a horse or vice versa. And a human being of course has their own frame work. I am not insulting you. You are very normal. I am not. Your entire display means about as much to me as a chimp strutting around waving his arms in the air to make himself look bigger. Its meaningless to me. I know what you intend to convey... it simply has no meaning to me besides an intellectual awareness of your intentions.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

By the context, the assertion where there is no hostility to even misrepresent, and the constant repetition by critical elements we can see it is not meant merely as an observation but is intended as a negative quality they are assigning to my behavior.

Sorry, but that sentence is a jumbled mess. If you want, you can try to rephrase it into something coherent. Anyway, you don't know that the ACs calling you angry all think it is an insult. They could merely be offering a critique with no intent to insult. Asking a question based on an unverified assumption is a fallacy.

I could go on, but why? Its patiently obvious you've got nothing and will be unable and unwilling to actually defend your position.

For future reference, I think the phrase you are looking for is "patently obvious," not "patiently obvious."

The fact that you'll interpreter as a boast or put down is further emblematic of our difference.

I'll "interpreter as a boast or put down?" That is truly meaningless. The main difference I see in that sentence is that I can write coherently, but you seem to struggle to do so.

you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.

My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate.

Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.

Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different.

You are very normal.

And there we have a whole pile of factual statements by you that are nothing but unverified assumptions about me.

As I said, I'm hyper rational...

And yet you're still persisting with the "I'm hyper rational" garbage. No -- making a bunch of dismissive assumptions about my "instincts," my "emotional framework," my "mental flexibility," how I will respond to you, and my objectives, all based on a single post of five sentences , is anything but "hyper rational." Keep this up, and I'll be more than happy to write you off as a delusional idiot.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

You are clouding the issue now.

I am schooled in rhetoric... these stalling tactics designed to reach a stalemate are of no interest.

You can either address my argument or I will be able to claim your concession on each evaded point by default.

I anticipate your will not change your tactics and will attempt to defend the evasion. If you do this... I'll simply stop talking to you in this thread accepting your concession by default.

You will argue against this... but so too does a stuck pig struggle. You will respond to my point or you will have conceded.

Its checkmate. You either lose by virtue of being wrong and crushed by a superior argument or lose by evading and conceding the positions by default.

Game over.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that was a post with almost zero useful content. You are accusing me of evasion? How about you ignoring virtually everything in my last comment?

First, I did "address your argument," thin as it was. I'll repeat what I said: "You don't know that the ACs calling you angry all think it is an insult. They could merely be offering a critique with no intent to insult. Asking a question based on an unverified assumption is a fallacy." No matter how confident you are that they are all trying to insult you, it is still a guess on your part.

Look, just admit you made an error here. It's not a big deal, and a simple acknowledgment would look far better than your attempts to weasel out of it. You could have just asked the ACs, "Can you explain why you keep saying I am angry?" That would have posed the question without making any fallacious assumptions.

Now, the point I am more interested in, that you have totally ignored, is your ridiculous claim to be "hyper rational" while providing ample evidence that you are quite irrational. After reading a grand total of five sentences from me, you made all of these factual statements about me:

you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.

My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate.

Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.

Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different.

You are very normal.

That's right -- based on a single post of five sentences, you made all of those statements, most of which are sweeping generalizations about my entire personality, motivations, cognitive capabilities, etc. That behavior is the complete opposite of hyper rational. Now, if you really are hyper rational, I expect you to admit you made a mistake here.

Its checkmate. You either lose by virtue of being wrong and crushed by a superior argument or lose by evading and conceding the positions by default.

That is hilarious! You don't give any substantive response to my comments, but instead just declare, without further argument or defense, that "its checkmate." (Oh, and I think you meant "it's".) Is that another example of your hyper rationality? Just declaring you've won without actually doing anything to win?

At this point, all you've done is provide more evidence to support my hypothesis that you are a delusional idiot.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

IF you're not angry when you are investing time swearing incessantly at people you have never met - and that is an IF too big for the use of only bold and italics - then what emotion is driving you to bother replying to these people in such an immature manner? A mature person would just walk away from a discussion if they felt there was no way for it to reach a useful conclusion. Instead you keep going back and swearing at people, and you put quite a bit of time into it at that. A rational person would recognize such things to be a waste of time and not bother with them at all.

Your claim of not being angry is not supported by your actions. People have been demonstrating that for a while now.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

I don't see the reply as being immature.

Again, you're projecting your culture on me. You think I am breaking one of YOUR cultural taboos by swearing. And in your mind the only way I could be doing that is if I were so emotionally distressed that I can't control myself.

What I just told you is that I'm not trying to control myself. There's no need for an emotion to break through a taboo... I don't believe in the taboo in the first place and especially not in the context of an internet forum.

If I see a fucktard... I call him a fucktard. I don't need to feel anything. There is no cultural barrier I have to overcome.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep showing that your emotions are driving you. Your emotions have convinced you that you can "win" this discussion by coming back and swearing at everyone who disagrees with you. A rational person - which you are not, in spite of your claims to the contrary - would have walked away some time ago. Instead, because you cannot keep your emotions in check, you keep coming back and you keep betraying your own claims to not being angry and emotionally out of control.

How fitting that the captcha is "facade"; as in your facade is not helping you.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

No... I don't see what swearing has to do with emotions. As I made clear, you're projecting your cultural taboos into situations they don't have to exist in.

Are you saying that anyone that calls another person a "cocktoddler" is inherently angry? That's obviously fallacious.

As to your belief that I am irrational because I am responding to a troll that has no intellectual integrity... which really all you admitted in the above post... you're presuming to know my motives. You don't know my motives and thus cannot assess whether I am trying to rationally obtain them.

What I was actually doing was hearing you out. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to see if you had anything backing up your position. I was attempting to see if I had made errors in judgement or logic which you were attempting to correct.

What you did was validate my previous opinion, show you had no counter argument, and then you proceeded to undermine your own credibility which I only extended to you for the sake of argument in the first place.

Your self immolation is complete in this thread. People like you like to be AC because it hides all the times you've been ruined by just about anyone that even tries. Its one of the many reasons I'm not a fan of the AC concept.

Regardless. We're done. You lose again. I will not comment to you further in this thread. You're done.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any reply to my last post at all, or have you just given up? I am quite interested in how you reconcile your professed "hyper rationality" with the obviously irrational behavior you've displayed in this thread. Thus, I'll simply copy my previous post below, in case you missed it before. Of course, if you've decided not to reply rather than admit error, that is certainly an understandable reaction.

So, here it is again, my reply to your last comment.

Well, that was a post with almost zero useful content. You are accusing me of evasion? How about you ignoring virtually everything in my last comment?

First, I did "address your argument," thin as it was. I'll repeat what I said: "You don't know that the ACs calling you angry all think it is an insult. They could merely be offering a critique with no intent to insult. Asking a question based on an unverified assumption is a fallacy." No matter how confident you are that they are all trying to insult you, it is still a guess on your part.

Look, just admit you made an error here. It's not a big deal, and a simple acknowledgment would look far better than your attempts to weasel out of it. You could have just asked the ACs, "Can you explain why you keep saying I am angry?" That would have posed the question without making any fallacious assumptions.

Now, the point I am more interested in, that you have totally ignored, is your ridiculous claim to be "hyper rational" while providing ample evidence that you are quite irrational. After reading a grand total of five sentences from me, you made all of these factual statements about me:

you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.

My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate.

Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.

Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different.

You are very normal.

That's right -- based on a single post of five sentences, you made all of those statements, most of which are sweeping generalizations about my entire personality, motivations, cognitive capabilities, etc. That behavior is the complete opposite of hyper rational. Now, if you really are hyper rational, I expect you to admit you made a mistake here.

Its checkmate. You either lose by virtue of being wrong and crushed by a superior argument or lose by evading and conceding the positions by default.

That is hilarious! You don't give any substantive response to my comments, but instead just declare, without further argument or defense, that "its checkmate." (Oh, and I think you meant "it's".) Is that another example of your hyper rationality? Just declaring you've won without actually doing anything to win?

At this point, all you've done is provide more evidence to support my hypothesis that you are a delusional idiot.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

Login to your real account instead of your sockpuppet AC nonsense and I'll extend the benefit of the doubt again. Its still checkmate in 3 moves but I'm prepared to go through the exercise if you respond under your real account.

If for whatever reason you don't do that... then I have no incentive to pretend this isn't over. Your argument rests on the notion that when I call someone a moron, I must be angry.

The position is idiotic and anyone that isn't an idiot knows its indefensible. I don't think you're that stupid... I just think you're a troll. Trolls don't care if they're full of shit. They just like to troll.

Regardless... if you want to engage deeper on the issue you're going to have to use better bait. Login on your account or I'll just take my obvious victory and leave the thread.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have claimed many times before that you would not reply to AC, and yet here you did it again. Not just once, but approaching a dozen times just in this thread. As said before, if you were rational and had control of your emotions - rather than being irrational and controlled by them - you would have been able to walk away from this a long time ago. You have allowed your anger to show through a great many times here on slashdot and a great number of people know it. The way you keep trying to declare victory is cure, but not connected in any way to reality. Mature and rational people don't behave that way either.

Seriously kid, get help. It's not healthy to live at that constant level of anger, you're likely to end up hurting yourself sometime in the real world.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument rests on the notion that when I call someone a moron, I must be angry.

Total BS. My main argument was that your claim to be "hyper rational" is contradicted by your huge leaps to sweeping, general conclusions about my cognitive abilities, motivations, personality, etc, all based on five sentences in a single post. That was the main argument in my last post. It had nothing at all to do with whether you were angry. If you were really hyper rational, you'd admit that you were in error. Instead, you've not responded to that at all, even though I laid out the argument for you multiple times.

Actually, your claim that my argument rests on your being angry is another piece of evidence contradicting your supposed hyper rationality. You are trying to establish a precondition that is both unnecessary and illogical.

I am about to conclude that you either 1) actually can't see that you've obviously made mistakes here, in which case my hypothesis that you are a delusional fool is correct; or 2) lack the integrity to acknowledge said mistakes and are now using "I don't respond to ACs" as a smokescreen. Either way, I hope I'm wrong -- for your sake, at least.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

AC trolls and sockpuppets are the issue. If it is clear you're neither then I'll engage. You're upset because I don't talk to anymore about anything but your lack of logging on or your trolling or your sockpuppeting.

Tough. You e-stalk me from thread to thread begging me to talk to you about something. I've made it clear, I'm done with you. You can either log in or eat every last dick on earth.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

No, that was a minor point in a larger argument. You're attempting to cloud and gaslight me. This only works if my personal memory is poor. It is good enough to remember what we were talking about initially.

You kept saying "U MAD BRO"?... and I responded to you with cold logic.

Trolls don't know how to deal with that. They can't deal with people that have stronger intellects than emotions. Your behavior works on children and the immature. Not on people that are mentally adult.

You lost every point. All of them. The simple fact that I was able to crush you arguments 1-10 proves me to be more rational than you. Here you make the cry of every internet shit head and say "well you didn't win anything because there's no official judge to determine who wins or loses"... All this admits is that you have no integrity and must exist in an environment where it is imposed on you externally. That's basically like someone that only doesn't murder or rape because there are cops there to stop him.

I don't need the police there to stop me from doing bad things. And I don't need an arbiter to decide when an argument has failed or not. I police myself. This is another mark of my superiority over you.

You're garbage.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have established quite a track record of making a liar out of yourself. You keep trying to convince us that you are not submissive to your emotions, but your own writing shows otherwise, pretty much every time you hit submit.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't deal with people that have stronger intellects than emotions.

Then it is no wonder "they" have no trouble pushing you around, as your intellect is almost nonexistent and your emotions dictate almost every thing you do.
 
 

I don't need an arbiter to decide when an argument has failed or not.

That is your participation trophies talking for you, kid. Go outside and face the uncaring world for a change, and then get back to us.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

The lie you're referring to is responding to your troll comments. I've explained that.

As to submission to emotions that is merely your admission to being a troll. You're basically just saying "U MAD BRO" over and over again. The simple fact that you do that is an admission of trolling.

As to the rest... You've been excluded from any serious discussion I've had on this forum for ages now. So... its mission accomplished from my perspective. All you do is whine and pathetically attempt to insert yourself into situations. But everyone can see you're just trolling which makes signature under my posts... which you can read which proves you are logged in... well, you prove me right.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

AC trolls and sockpuppets are the issue. If it is clear you're neither then I'll engage.

Nice try. You were fully engaged on this thread until I pointed out that your claim to be "hyper rational" was contradicted by multiple examples of irrational behavior. That was when you started with the "I don't talk to ACs" BS.

You're upset because I don't talk to anymore about anything but your lack of logging on or your trolling or your sockpuppeting.

Not at all. I did think it would be interesting to see how you might try to reconcile your belief that you are hyper rational with your consistently irrational behavior here, but I can certainly see why you don't want to address that.

I've made it clear, I'm done with you.

Yes, you have. And then you continue replying to me and others on this thread. Saying you'll do one thing and then repeatedly doing the opposite doesn't seem very rational, does it? Or at least not very honest.

You can either log in or eat every last dick on earth.

Then, to top it all off, you conclude with that inane false dichotomy. So yet another example of irrational behavior by you. That one is really sad because the sentence itself is totally unnecessary and contributes nothing substantive to the discussion.

I've clearly pointed out multiple examples of obviously irrational behavior by you on this thread, all of which strongly contradict your claim to be "hyper rational." I've given you multiple opportunities to demonstrate you have the integrity to acknowledge those mistakes. Instead, you've chosen to punt every single time. The best you can do is say, "I'm not talking to you anymore." Worse, your replies to me have provided yet more examples of irrational behavior.

So far, the weight of the evidence in this exchange supports the hypothesis that you are a delusional idiot. And so far, the support for that hypothesis has gotten stronger with each of your replies.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lie you're referring to is responding to your troll comments. I've explained that.

What planet are you on, kid? You have done no such thing. Your most obvious lie is when you claim you won't reply to AC comments in this thread, and then you go right on to do exactly that. A rational person would recognize the complete disconnect of the statement and the deed and call the statement a lie.
 
 

which makes signature under my posts

Another lie.

Re:No...

[Karmashock]

hey bingo, I'll admit that I responded to a sockpuppet troll AC if you'll admit that you are a sockpuppet troll AC.

And you admit that my change in policy has shut you out of serious discussions with me since I implemented it.

Do that and I'll admit to going back on what I said I would do.

As to carrying on with any serious discussion... you are conflating answering you at all with anything with actually engaging with you in a substantive way.

If you don't log in... the instant I detect YOU. And there are not dozens of you. Its at most two of you but probably just you... Bingo... Bingo the clowno. And if you don't login to your actual account... then all you're going to get out of me is discussions about ACs, Trolls, Sockpuppets, and other things that have to bore you at this point as much as they bore me.

You're an idiot, bingo. You're stupid, you're poorly informed on anything you've bothered to expound upon, you're not funny, you're not creative, and you're not interesting.

What you are is persistent and irritating. That's all you've got going for yourself. And what kills you is that you're dealing with someone that is far more stubborn than any troll yet born. You can't troll me off this site, bingo. Nothing you say actually matters to me. You're just this sad creature that thinks he can get somewhere by acting like a moron.

All that will ever get out of me is that I will call you a moron. You don't intimidate me. You don't scare me. You don't impress me. All you are is annoying... and pathetic because you don't realize it.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

have you always been this angry and disconnected from reality, or only since your daddy signed you up on slashdot in hopes that it would somehow make you into a functioning human being?

you have been exposed as a liar and hypocrite repeatedly now and you regularly let your emotions hurl you off into the deep end. your misuse of a few terms here is amusing at times, but that is the best thing you have going for you. you generally have the logical and linguistic capabilities of a discarded chunk of granite. you also don't seem to have any sense of the fact that by shadow-boxing - and losing - with the ac, you just make yourself look like an ever bigger fool as anyone browsing at +1 will just see a long string of you angrily cussing at nothing in particular.

as the others have said, get help kid. you are on a path to self destruction, it is not surprising that you can't hold a job or get out of your parents' basement. hopefully your mom hasn't been taking you to the gun range.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do that and I'll admit to going back on what I said I would do.

All anyone needs to do is look at this comment, where you said you'd no longer respond to ACs "on this thread," then look at how many times you've responded to ACs since then. Who cares if you "admit" to it or not? The truth is right here for anyone to see. Whether or not you can see it is your problem, unfortunately.

And there are not dozens of you. Its at most two of you but probably just you...

What evidence do you have that the ACs that respond to your comments are "probably" just one person? That's wishful thinking, not rational thinking. And it's an absurd conjecture.

You're stupid, you're poorly informed on anything you've bothered to expound upon, you're not funny, you're not creative, and you're not interesting.

The veracity of that sentence rests squarely on your assumption that there is only one AC responding to you. You don't know if that is correct (it isn't), so you have a set of sweeping conclusions drawn from an unverified (and absurd) assumption. Yet another example of completely irrational and illogical behavior from you. And, as a counterpoint, the ACs that respond to you often provide comments that are much better informed, more insightful, and far more interesting than your comments. Just look at some of the AC replies to you on this thread for some very recent examples.

All that will ever get out of me is that I will call you a moron.

Another lie. A quick look at your recent comments readily reveals that you've spent plenty of time writing substantive comments to ACs. E.g., see the previous link. You've done it in this thread, too.

You're not "hyper rational." You've repeatedly acted irrationally on this thread, and you provide more examples nearly every time you comment. If you really believe you are "hyper rational," then you are delusional.

No surpise if you have read Bushman et al

[John Bokma]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/... http://www-personal.umich.edu/... Yet there are still pop-psychologists who recommend hitting your pillow...

Re:No surpise if you have read Bushman et al

[PopeRatzo]

there are still pop-psychologists who recommend hitting your pillow...

I wonder if "hitting your pillow" is a euphemism. It sounds like something you'd look up on Urban Dictionary.

"So Bob from Accounting's boss walked in on him in the men's room, and he was, you know, hitting the pillow.

Re:No surpise if you have read Bushman et al

[John Bokma]

No, it isn't. I sincerely hope that even pop-psychologists are able to use the word "masturbate."

Re:No surpise if you have read Bushman et al

[blue trane]

It's funny how many articles come up that say most research is flawed and unrepeatable, and slashdotters jump all over themselves agreeing; but when a research study supports your personal biased opinion, you're the first to cite it as the ultimate proof that you are right!

Re:No surpise if you have read Bushman et al

[Anonymous Coward]

They are but mine would always make a funny face

You, sir....

[McPierce]

...shall be receiving a MOST strongly worded response shortly.

Re:You, sir....

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Recovery

[StikyPad]

Recovering angry e-mailer here. I used to do this all the time, particularly when I got upset at a loved one. It's easier for me to organize and lay out my thoughts coherently in writing than verbally. Unfortunately, I've often done more damage than good by hitting send, but I have a patient and loving GF who has, over time, convinced me NOT to hit Send, and just read them to her in person. That's given me the instant feedback they talk about in the article, and I can tell when I've gone too far, or when something I've said has been misinterpreted. And of course, I can omit things that I would never say to her face, because I recognize that they're just person attacks that are hurtful and harmful.

I hate admitting when I'm wrong, but I forwarded this article to her so she could feel vindicated by science. She deserves it.

Anyway, enough sincerity.. how 'bout them local sports teams?

Re:Recovery

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyway, enough sincerity.. how 'bout them local sports teams?"

Sports Go Sports!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fraSdN-PG8

Re:Recovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, enough sincerity.. how 'bout them local sports teams?

piggers
are
#1 (scroll down to old men in the locker room)

What about posting on Slashdot?

[Required Snark]

Does that count as ANGRY EMAIL??? I THINK IT SHOULD!, DAMMIT!!!!!

I guess the article is wrong. I feel better already.

Its not just email

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just vented off at a shitty post here on slash dot and i don't feel any better. i feel even more wound up than if i had just ignored it

Re:Its not just email

[blue trane]

I've just done the same on a lot of comments in this story, and I feel awesome! I'm laughing.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

axl rose or mel gibson, totally different effect

those researches probably dont get mad at all, they dont even know what they are talking about

Wait, what?

[wonkey_monkey]

We think it's private because we can do it in a secluded place, like our bed while we're in our pajamas.

Huh? I zoned out for a moment there. What's this story about?!

Count to a thousand first

[Krishnoid]

Outlook can be set to delay outgoing emails.

The sent message sits in the Outbox until the configured delay elapses, after which Outlook automatically sends it. I've found it handy for recalling a sent email and reviewing it, making minor edits, or moving it back into Drafts and reworking it before resending it out.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Just noticed the dept on this one, nice.

Introspection is an art, it takes practice.

[TapeCutter]

I tend to do the same thing when distressed, I spend hours crafting a rant and then throw it away, it's always about personal relationships, I don't do personal rants at work and never have, I don't socialise much with workmates outside the office, and I'm very careful to attack their ideas, not their person.

The trick is to manage your anger long enough to realise you are ranting, to do that you need to deliberately switch your brain from rant mode to introspection mode. Suggestions such as posting a draft to yourself gives the brain time to flush the adrenaline and the mind time to make that tricky gear shift from anger to introspection. As a grandad, I've noticed switching to introspection mode gets easier with age and practice, but it takes time to do it, and always will.

Of course, there will be occasions when a public poison pen letter is exactly what is needed to break a "cone of silence" surrounding some grievous injustice, but those occasions are rare.

That is what the research says ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... it is definitely not what our culture says though. So let's ignore it.

Anger is like steam, and must be "vented". You can see how well that has worked; how calm and peaceful we've become since the 60s when we discovered the steam like properties of anger.

Re:That is what the research says ...

[blue trane]

Yes, passive-aggressiveness is a much better way of dealing with anger.

OBEY!

[BrendaEM]

OBEY!

Practicing anger

[jdavidb]

Newton Hightower's book Anger Busters contains a great overview of anger management techniques that work and anger management techniques that don't work. Venting doesn't work. It just reinforces the neural pathways that are involved in anger. Sure you feel great, but it makes it harder to avoid the angry outburst next time, when you might really need to. Meanwhile, if you had prevented yourself from expressing anger, you could have instead been training your brain to devote its efforts to problem solving, instead.

I did a lot of anger management work a few years ago and as a result I discovered solutions to lots of my problems. As a result I'm much much happier with every aspect of my life, because I've been able to actually fix the problems that were frustrating me.

Slashdot

[morgauxo]

I don't send a lot of angry emails but I'm pretty sure that angry Slashdot comments do the same thing.

Serenity Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the answer, every time you get upset, is to just bottle everything up and chant "serenity now!"

This is a facile article. Sometimes in life, confronting someone or explaining your (mistreated or ignored) emotions is EXACTLY the appropriate response. If this mode of conflict resolution is the dominant one in your life, though, you might need to see a therapist to find out if the problem is YOU and not THEM.

Also, why does art therapy even EXIST then? "Sorry, writing that moving essay about what being raped at 10 did to you just 'reinforces those neural pathways'—shut up and keep repressing!"

Yes, which is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why I generally put aside any angry post or e-mail before I send it. About 2/3rds of the time I just delete the message as with a few hours of calming it doesn't seem to make so much sense or have so much urgency. Crazy me for having a bit of self-control - clearly not evolved for todays world.

I agree.

[djnforce9]

I agree with this article. Sending an angry e-mail is akin to getting revenge in that you are upset and want the other person to know it. This may feel satisfying at first but it tends not to end well.

Either it opens the door to escalating matters (should you receive an even ANGRIER response) or the sender reads their message after calming down only to be horrified at what they said.

I prefer to wait until I am calm and collected; always easier to type when not emotional and it ensures I never say anything I will regret later.

Redundancy...

[iq145]

That makes me angry :-) http://www.newser.com/story/21...