|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Oct 15, 2007 12:59
Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other
posters.
4. They know that none of the above are true, but fear that they're
losing the argument, and want to at least appear confident.
5. They are descended from english royalty. (or wish they were)
6. They've got a buddy with them, watching them post on usenet (does
this ever happen?)
7. They have so many sockpuppets / extra nyms, they think of
themselves as a collective.
8. They are schizophrenic.
|
| |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
  |
Date: Oct 15, 2007 13:51
Because they are looking for fellow conspirators.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: WordsmithWordsmith Date: Oct 15, 2007 14:01
> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>
> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>
> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>
> 3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
> their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other
> posters.
>
> 4. They know that none of the above are true, but fear that they're
> losing the argument, and want to at least appear confident.
>
> 5. They are descended from english royalty. (or wish they were)
>
> 6. They've got a buddy with them, watching them post on usenet (does ...
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: Oct 15, 2007 14:12
On Oct 15, 4:01 pm, Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:59 pm, zo...@ yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
>> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>
>> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>
>> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
>> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
>> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>
>> 3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
>> their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other
>> posters.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: WordsmithWordsmith Date: Oct 15, 2007 14:49
> On Oct 15, 4:01 pm, Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 1:59 pm, zo...@ yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
>>> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>
>>> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>
>>> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
>>> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
>>> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>
>>> 3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
>>> their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other ...
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 15, 2007 17:47
On Oct 15, 2:01 pm, Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:59 pm, zo...@ yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
>> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>
>> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>
>> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
>> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
>> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>
>> 3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
>> their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other
>> posters.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Oct 15, 2007 18:09
We have to work hard at admitting to being a member
of the human race. "We" allows some casting of that
illusion.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: SeanSean Date: Oct 15, 2007 23:03
It's called being steeped in "group think" .... self talk says a lot about
the "self" :-)
yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192478345.540263.234330@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
> reasons, not to exclude other possible...
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Oct 16, 2007 09:26
> On Oct 15, 4:01 pm, Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 1:59 pm, zo...@ yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
>>> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>>
>>> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>>
>>> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
>>> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
>>> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>>
>>> 3. They feel that their argument is so much stronger than that of
>>> their 'rival', that they will undoubtedly have the support of other ...
|
| Show full article (1.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Oct 16, 2007 09:28
>> On Oct 15, 4:01 pm, Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 1:59 pm, zo...@ yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Some posters use "we" to refer to themselves, for the following
>>>> reasons, not to exclude other possible reasons:
>>
>>>> 1. They feel they are in the majority on the issue being discussed.
>>
>>>> 2. They feel that their rival is so uniquely wrong on the issue, and
>>>> wierd to boot, that they are basically representing 'everybody else'
>>>> in their reply. (somewhat similar to #1)
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|