Searching \ for '[OT] was Re: P I C based ASP.NET/SQL client.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=c
Search entire site for: 'was Re: P I C based ASP.NET/SQL client.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] was Re: P I C based ASP.NET/SQL client.'
2008\07\23@064249 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> ... this thread
> has turned into a dialog, and other list members are
> starting to get
> annoyed.

It is unlikely that anyone is more sick of it than I am.
Some points you raise are too important to leave lie, alas.
I hope that we can soon let this go. I don't feel I have to
have the last word, but I am liable to be unhappy if major
misunderstandings have been left hanging. (Yeah, I know how
that sounds ... - I don't have to have the last word but I
have to have the last word ... :-) ).

The following are out of original order:
_________________

>> then taking people to task over attacking a newcomer
>> seems appropriate. We have enough expert
>> necomer-driver-outers here already without the saner list
>> members joining the band wagon with no cause.

> Oh, I see what it's about. You want to teach *me* a
> lesson!

I really sorry that that came across that way.
That's quite orthogonal to what I was trying to convey.
"Teaching people lessons" is seldom useful or effective.
The odds that we two old goats butting heads are liable to
teach each other a useful lesson is small.
"A man convinced against his will ...".

Rather, I was concerned that attempts to teach people
lessons (in this case T') were liable to misfire. "Teaching
T' lessons" because of MH's input seemed liable to risk
driving a newcomer from the list when the aim is to
brainwash all such into becoming useful & productive members
of out glorious community.

__________

>> He's the man in red here.
>
> FWIW, I'm 150% his size, by volume.

I resemble that.
I suspect that that's not an advantage when people are
dancing around you kicking you in sundry places :-).

______________________

> > entirely because people
>> decide that he is MH (and he says he isn't)(and i believe
>> him)(in part because it is most illogical to think that
>> he
>> is)

> You are entitled to your opinion. May I be entitled to
> mine?

I thought that meant you HAD to be calling him or me a liar,
but I see on re-reading that what I said may perhaps be
unclear.

When I said "(and he says he isn't)" I meant that he has
explicitly said this to me.
As I noted in another post at about the same time (response
to Tamas)

> T' has told me that he is NOT MH. Does that make a
> difference to your approach?

He *may* not have said so on list, but he has told me that
that he is not MH.
Does that make any difference?
(I assume that doubting-Thomas style first person fulfilment
is not required).

_________________________

>>> ...  and I am yet to hear Tomas
>>>      deny the connection.

>> And why should he have to do so?

> He doesn't *have* to. Others have, and I would -- if I was
> in that
> situation.

That's awfully close to "guilty until proven innocent" and
also seems a bad fit to the great importance that the US
seems to place on freedom of speech, which surely (but I may
be wrong) includes the freedom to not have to speak without
it being held against you.

>> And why do you think that he would respond rather than
>> just
>> walk away if he did see them and ignore them - whether he
>> is/was MH or not.

> Because past behavior is a good predictor of future
> behavior?

As he has told me that he isn't MH, and he hasn't responded
on list, it seems he is both learning and breaking
expectations based on past behaviour. All can rejoice ! ;-)

_________________________

This point is very important (to me anyway :-) ).

> Of course it is. I just wish I could understand why you
> didn't give Tomas a
> hard time when he was insulting others (some arguably your
> friends).

'Without fear or favour.'
Anyone who wants to be is my friend.
Some few have said that they specifically don't want to be
:-) :-(.
When people are insulting each other on a level playing
field, or a somewhat sloping one, I'd rather leave them to
it. But one hope is that the young and the brash and the
arrogant who step through our doorway may perhaps yet be
redeemed and become valuable members of our group. There are
(I wot) enough self appointed people here who will try to
persuade them to leave. If it seems apposite I try to
persuade them to stay. When abuser and abusee seem up to the
task I can find better things to do with my time. In the
past when people have given newcomers a hard time I have
often enough talked to the newcomer offlist and advised them
to ride the storm a while and see how it goes. I advised T'
accordingly when it was obvious that he was going to be
roundly drubbed, but he chose to go head to head with people
who knew where the fine line was and, as he didn't, he
crossed it and was placed on moderation. He took that in his
stride and shows signs of yet becoming a longer term member
of the community. (As the video shows he is up to being
roundly drubbed and giving about as good and coming back for
more). I would much the rather that he had done a bit more
Googling and Wikipediaing on various issues, that he had not
got into slanging matches, and that he had better noted the
valuable advice from Olin and many others. But if I can help
ensure that he makes the transition to what is required to
survive  here long term, and do so without too too much
upsetting of others, then it may be worth trying. Or may
not.

__________________________

>> And
>> ;-)
>> Why would you think that the admions would let an
>> *appropriate* reply from T' through the moderation
>> process?
>
> Perhaps the admions would kindly forward said reply to me?


I didn't mean to suggest that he had sent one (although that
is an entirely reasonable interpretation of what I said) but
that anything that was appropriate would be purple enough to
ensure that it would not be allowed. By admions or admins
:-) (my typo).

_________________________

> I'd like to try. Please tell me which part of what I said
> is insulting.

As I'm sure you are aware, when dealing with people, the
vector sum of untruth and half truth and just plain insult
tends to be greater than the individual parts.

Taking out some parts, the following seems a pretty good
insult to me:

<Insult>

The only person who fits the following profile:

> - Is very obnoxious
> - Comes up with ridiculous "inventions"
> - Thinks he is smarter than everyone on this list
...is also the one who was recently put on moderation for
using profanity,
and dropped off the radar as suddenly as Mongol Herdsman has
appeared on it.
The name of the disturbed young man is T...

</Insult>

'Obnoxious' is of course relative and situationally
dependent.

The claim of "Ridiculous inventions" is a hanging offence
(after drawing and quartering) and not worthy of origination
by a fellow engineer or repeating by another. There are
ridiculous inventions but eg T's C4 game implementation is
not one of them by any normal standard.

"Thinks he is smarter than ..." would be far easier to level
at quite a few other list members. (One of them will be
right :-) ).
(I'm smart enough to know that it's not me :-) ).

"Disturbed young man" is easily levelled, and disturbed old
men can and do argue over the justice of such things
interminably, but its indefensibly ad hominem.

The essentially firm claim that he IS MH (when he's not
:-) ) is icing on the cake.

If you can justify all the above away as non-insulting then
you are an even more disturbed old man than I am.




       Russell



2008\07\24@021115 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Apptech wrote:
[snip]
> That's quite orthogonal to what I was trying to convey.

Then perhaps it would help if you clearly state your aims in continuing this
conversation? In other words, what do you want to accomplish?

> "Teaching people lessons" is seldom useful or effective.

Agreed.

> The odds that we two old goats butting heads are liable to
> teach each other a useful lesson is small.

Sorry Russell, but I'm NOT old. :-)

> Rather, I was concerned that attempts to teach people
> lessons (in this case T') were liable to misfire.

As I've said once previously, I wasn't trying to teach anyone a lesson.

>> FWIW, I'm 150% his size, by volume.
>
> I resemble that.
> I suspect that that's not an advantage when people are
> dancing around you kicking you in sundry places :-).

It is, if you grab 'em and sit on 'em.

> He *may* not have said so on list, but he has told me that
> that he is not MH.
> Does that make any difference?
> (I assume that doubting-Thomas style first person fulfilment
> is not required).

I've known you long enough to know that you're telling the truth.

> That's awfully close to "guilty until proven innocent" and
> also seems a bad fit to the great importance that the US
> seems to place on freedom of speech, which surely (but I may
> be wrong) includes the freedom to not have to speak without
> it being held against you.

You're right.

> As he has told me that he isn't MH, and he hasn't responded
> on list, it seems he is both learning and breaking
> expectations based on past behaviour. All can rejoice ! ;-)

I hope you're right.

[snip]
> When people are insulting each other on a level playing
> field, or a somewhat sloping one, I'd rather leave them to
> it. But one hope is that the young and the brash and the
> arrogant who step through our doorway may perhaps yet be
> redeemed and become valuable members of our group.

I see, you stick up for the underdog. I tend to feel the same way in most
cases, but not this one. Most newbies that crossed the line and got what was
coming to them, quickly came to their senses. Sometimes a stern but polite
explanation of what they were doing wrong is sufficient. However, as someone
said on a different list,

-> He does not appear to have learnt his lesson but still thinks he has the
"higher moral ground"

Perhaps you're right and he finally realized what he was doing wrong. Time
will tell.

> There are
> (I wot) enough self appointed people here who will try to
> persuade them to leave. If it seems apposite I try to
> persuade them to stay. When abuser and abusee seem up to the
> task I can find better things to do with my time.

One can argue that a law-abiding citizen of this list is at a disadvantage
when confronted by an insolent newcomer. For example, I can't imagine you
responding in kind at being called a "dickhead".

[snip]
{Quote hidden}

I stand by everything I said, except maybe the "disturbed" part. If MH is
indeed not T's sock puppett, I apologize for saying he is.

> 'Obnoxious' is of course relative and situationally
> dependent.

Rule of thumb is, if more than one person thinks you're obnoxious, you
probably are. I hope you're not going to argue that a good number of people
were annoyed by Tomas.

> The claim of "Ridiculous inventions" is a hanging offence
> (after drawing and quartering) and not worthy of origination
> by a fellow engineer or repeating by another.

How does the statement above not contradict this:

> There are ridiculous inventions

> ... but eg T's C4 game implementation is
> not one of them by any normal standard.

Sure, and I never said it was ridiculous.

> "Thinks he is smarter than ..." would be far easier to level
> at quite a few other list members. (One of them will be
> right :-) ).
> (I'm smart enough to know that it's not me :-) ).

I guess I should have said "makes considerable attempts to demonstrate.."
instead.

> "Disturbed young man" is easily levelled, and disturbed old
> men can and do argue over the justice of such things
> interminably, but its indefensibly ad hominem.

The issue is not the issue, but the person, therefore of course it's ad
hominem. I'm *NOT* old.

> The essentially firm claim that he IS MH (when he's not
> :-) ) is icing on the cake.

FWIW, you don't *know* that, and you have to admit that if my theory is
correct T would have a strong incentive to deny it. I know, I know --  
presumption of innocence, I must give him the benefit of a doubt, etc... :)

> If you can justify all the above away as non-insulting then
> you are an even more disturbed old man than I am.

I'm NOT old. Honestly. :-)

Vitaliy

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...