Locking threads

[Sherlock Holmes]

I agree with some of the other members here. @Sherlock Holmes, it is not just the latest thread that got locked, but also the other one, about the making your own super language, that makes me believe it to be you that is the real problem here.

Go back and read james_s his response. It clearly explains how it works on this forum. No democracy, Dave's rules go. If that is not to your liking just stay away, or do like what the TEA group did. Start your own forum and do what you want there.

Now look at your own response to it. You did not see that it was on topic.

And lets not start another bashing on the moderators like what happened during the TEA crisis. There are only two left due to it, not counting Dave.

For some reason they decided to close some of your threads, and if you want to know why, send them a personal message. Maybe they will tell you the reason, but they won't tell you who requested it. It might well have been many members on the forum.

Because that is how it mostly works on this forum. It is the members that do the moderating by reporting something to the moderators. But in the end it is the moderators who decide. Fair or not, it is how it is.

Listen to yourself! Am I "bashing moderators"? Have I claimed the forum is or should be a "democracy"? I have simply posted a polite suggestion about an alternative course of action. I suggest you watch Orson Welles' The Trial, from the Kafka novel, it captures the character of some people here.

I think it is you who should learn to read.

What I wrote is "lets not start another bashing" which is not "you are bashing". I was referring to something, I guess, before you joined the forum, where the moderators became the target of disgruntled members because of the removal and censuring of off topic post. What you are suggesting in your original post here is that they become policemen and remove every body from threads that you started and that do not agree with you. If they were to do so, it would lead to similar reactions.

To my opinion you are overly sensitive and definitely not open for constructive criticism and see quite a bit of what is written as a personal attack. For example posts from ataradov that you took as personal insults that were nothing of the sort.

What is being written in this thread, yes you can start seeing it as personal attacks, but that is a response to your behavior. A lot of your writing comes across as you being the superior being and we are mere idiots. But that might be just me, although based on the reactions here I doubt it.

I'm done here, I made my suggestion and that's all I have to say now save this which reveals what was directed at me and which is a violation of rule 3. and in your world, only an "overly sensitive" person would take offence at I suppose.

If you weren't such a colossal asshole, you would have just said "OK, my mistake; apologies." and moved on.

Nobody, not a single person expressed disapproval, no "constructive criticism" was levelled at that poster, for that obscene and abusive language, so please don't pretend you care about the rules, all you care about is who violates them; I rest my case, have a good day.

[pcprogrammer]

If you weren't such a colossal asshole, you would have just said "OK, my mistake; apologies." and moved on.

Nobody, not a single person expressed disapproval at that obscene and abusive language, so don't pretend anyone cares about the rules, all you care about is who violates them; I rest my case, have a good day.

Sorry, but what church do you belong to?

I don't find the term "colossal asshole" all that obscene or abusive, certainly not when it fits the bill. But again, that is just me.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you weren't such a colossal asshole, you would have just said "OK, my mistake; apologies." and moved on.

Nobody, not a single person expressed disapproval at that obscene and abusive language, so don't pretend anyone cares about the rules, all you care about is who violates them; I rest my case, have a good day.

Sorry, but what church do you belong to?

I don't find the term "colossal asshole" all that obscene or abusive, certainly not when it fits the bill. But again, that is just me.

Oh, well in that case, go fuck yourself then.

 

[IanB]

If you weren't such a colossal asshole, you would have just said "OK, my mistake; apologies." and moved on.

Nobody, not a single person expressed disapproval, no "constructive criticism" was levelled at that poster, for that obscene and abusive language, so please don't pretend you care about the rules, all you care about is who violates them; I rest my case, have a good day.

This is just a slight language problem from someone who is not a native speaker, perhaps. Native speakers of British or Australian English might have called someone "a colossal ass" instead (an ass being a pompous, self-righteous person).

This is blunt and forthright language, but few would consider it obscene and abusive. One should usually have thicker skin than to take offence at such criticism. It should be better taken as a wake-up call.

[IanB]

Oh, well in that case, go fuck yourself then.

 

And as if to illustrate the point above, don't be such a colossal ass 

[MK14]

Oh, well in that case, go **** yourself then.

 

You are going to end up getting yourself banned, I suspect.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you weren't such a colossal asshole, you would have just said "OK, my mistake; apologies." and moved on.

Nobody, not a single person expressed disapproval, no "constructive criticism" was levelled at that poster, for that obscene and abusive language, so please don't pretend you care about the rules, all you care about is who violates them; I rest my case, have a good day.

This is just a slight language problem from someone who is not a native speaker. Native speakers of British or Australian English might have called someone "a colossal ass" instead (an ass being a pompous, self-righteous person).

This is blunt and forthright language, but few would consider it obscene and abusive. One should usually have thicker skin than to take offence at such criticism. It should be better taken as a wake-up call.

Then its a shame, because if you expressed yourself that way toward a coworker in a meeting with others present, perhaps a more junior person or a black person or a female intern then you'd likely lose your job in any respectable company anyway.

I'm not sensitive, I'm from Liverpool England and can handle anything stuck up turds like you (that's called blunt and forthright language incidentally) can dish out, but it ultimately destroys the conversation, but that suits those who don't want the conversation to take place doesn't it...

Read rule 3, think about it.

[pcprogrammer]

Oh, well in that case, go fuck yourself then.

 

Well if you don't mind I rather masturbate 

[Nominal Animal]

Native speakers of British or Australian English might have called someone "a colossal ass" instead (an ass being a pompous, self-righteous person).

I can confirm that it was intended as a wake-up call as to how pompous and self-centered their last few posts read, with emphasis on "jerk" and "contemptible" connotations, for engaging in such sophistry and social gaming, when others are trying to just talk tech.  And not for the first time, either.

Specifically, I thought "don't be an asshole" has the same connotations as "don't be a dick", except the latter reminds me personally of Andy Dick which is why I tend to avoid it.  I often see Americans commenting "What an asshole!" when someone is making an unnecessary scene or bothering others for no reason –– except when they self-censor due to the fear of being excluded.

I definitely didn't intend to convey that I suspected their rectum was inhumanly large, or anything else about physiology, if that is what they're implying I did.

[IanB]

It is worth thinking about language and toning down language when writing in forums perhaps. It is tempting to say things in forums that you might not say personally in face to face conversations.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is worth thinking about language and toning down language when writing in forums perhaps. It is tempting to say things in forums that you might not say personally in face to face conversations.

In addition those who enjoy such abusive language and insults, actually generate work for the site owner. Pointing out how few moderators we have and that their time is stretched while at the same time submitting posts that lead to complaints being lodged by others, is kind of two faced, hypocritical. If they really cared then they'd be behave like model forum users.

[pcprogrammer]

It is worth thinking about language and toning down language when writing in forums perhaps. It is tempting to say things in forums that you might not say personally in face to face conversations.

True, but in face to face conversations it sometimes slips through in the heat of the moment. Behind the keyboard there is some time to think about what you write. It is also a matter of learning on how to behave and react on a forum. I like to think I have dialed down a bit compared to when I became more involved on the forum.

That I expressed my meaning here in, maybe somewhat, stronger wordings is due to a growing antipathy against Sherlock. I intentionally stayed out of the later threads he started, but here he is just asking for it.

To me it looks he is just out looking for praise and endorsement of what he brings to the table, and flips every time someone disagrees. Even in this one.

Just look at the distribution of "say thanks" given in the locked threads. The ones confronting him get plenty, he not so many. It is other members showing they agree with what is being expressed.

In addition those who enjoy such abusive language and insults, actually generate work for the site owner. Pointing out how few moderators we have and that their time is stretched while at the same time submitting posts that lead to complaints being lodged by others, is kind of two faced, hypocritical. If they really cared then they'd be behave like model forum users.

The only ones that can shed light on this are the moderators. We can easily invite them in by reporting one of the posts here.

I agree that to some extend we are all hypocrites, but should we just let you roam free. No I don't think so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is worth thinking about language and toning down language when writing in forums perhaps. It is tempting to say things in forums that you might not say personally in face to face conversations.

True, but in face to face conversations it sometimes slips through in the heat of the moment. Behind the keyboard there is some time to think about what you write. It is also a matter of learning on how to behave and react on a forum. I like to think I have dialed down a bit compared to when I became more involved on the forum.

That I expressed my meaning here in, maybe somewhat, stronger wordings is due to a growing antipathy against Sherlock. I intentionally stayed out of the later threads he started, but here he is just asking for it.

There's a concept in human discourse called an "apology" that's the customary method that mature people use when they sometimes say something regrettable.

To me it looks he is just out looking for praise and endorsement of what he brings to the table, and flips every time someone disagrees. Even in this one.

Well how it "looks" to you is your concern, the facts are something to keep in mind, not your interpretation of them, these are different things altogether. A good way to reduce the risk of misinterpretation is to simply quote the person verbatim not paraphrase them or mischaracterize them.

Just look at the distribution of "say thanks" given in the locked threads. The ones confronting him get plenty, he not so many. It is other members showing they agree with what is being expressed.

Perhaps but we can speculate all day about how to interpret that, people do love a spectacle, if they can't kick a man themselves they love to see someone else do it, read the New Testament, you'll love it.

In addition those who enjoy such abusive language and insults, actually generate work for the site owner. Pointing out how few moderators we have and that their time is stretched while at the same time submitting posts that lead to complaints being lodged by others, is kind of two faced, hypocritical. If they really cared then they'd be behave like model forum users.

The only ones that can shed light on this are the moderators. We can easily invite them in by reporting one of the posts here.

I agree that to some extend we are all hypocrites, but should we just let you roam free. No I don't think so.

Ah, finally! the pack mentality "we" should not let "you", such melodrama! But you'll throw a fit at my reply I suspect, daring to disagree with you, how traumatic, you poor thing.

But how about me giving my interpretation for a change? sound fair well here it is, this is EXACTY how I interpret some of you, the same way Mr. Douglas does...

https://youtu.be/0jSVwZ8w3C4?t=152

So please, keep out of my face.

[pcprogrammer]

There's a concept in human discourse called an "apology" that's the customary method that mature people use when they sometimes say something regrettable.

I don't regret a single word I wrote here, so don't hold your breath.

Well how it "looks" to you is your concern, the facts are something to keep in mind, not your interpretation of them, these are different things altogether. A good way to reduce the risk if misinterpretation is to simply quote the person verbatim not paraphrase them or mischaracterize them.

You talk about "facts", tell us what "facts". The matter is that multiple members here are expressing having a problem with you.

Perhaps but we can speculate all day about how to interpret that, people do love a spectacle, if they can't kick a man themselves they love to see someone else do it, read the New Testament, you'll love it.

I don't buy into the fairy tail of books about religion. And I don't need others to do the kicking for me. I'm doing it right here, right now.

But maybe it is what you are after. Maybe you just come off on getting abuse. You are pulling open all registers.

Ah, finally! the pack mentality "we" should not let "you", such melodrama! But you'll throw a fit at my reply I suspect, daring to disagree with you, how traumatic, you poor thing.

I don't mind, you can disagree as much as you like. But don't forget that in all of this it was you who cast the first stone, and if you don't believe me feel free to go back to what you posted in your first thread after getting some negative response. And with that I mean responses disagreeing with your premise. Because I did not see the abusive and condescending language there, that you go on and on about.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's a concept in human discourse called an "apology" that's the customary method that mature people use when they sometimes say something regrettable.

I don't regret a single word I wrote here, so don't hold your breath.

Well how it "looks" to you is your concern, the facts are something to keep in mind, not your interpretation of them, these are different things altogether. A good way to reduce the risk if misinterpretation is to simply quote the person verbatim not paraphrase them or mischaracterize them.

You talk about "facts", tell us what "facts". The matter is that multiple members here are expressing having a problem with you.

Perhaps but we can speculate all day about how to interpret that, people do love a spectacle, if they can't kick a man themselves they love to see someone else do it, read the New Testament, you'll love it.

I don't buy into the fairy tail of books about religion. And I don't need others to do the kicking for me. I'm doing it right here, right now.

But maybe it is what you are after. Maybe you just come off on getting abuse. You are pulling open all registers.

Ah, finally! the pack mentality "we" should not let "you", such melodrama! But you'll throw a fit at my reply I suspect, daring to disagree with you, how traumatic, you poor thing.

I don't mind, you can disagree as much as you like. But don't forget that in all of this it was you who cast the first stone, and if you don't believe me feel free to go back to what you posted in your first thread after getting some negative response. And with that I mean responses disagreeing with your premise. Because I did not see the abusive and condescending language there, that you go on and on about.

You seek facts? you say I "cast the first stone" (odd for someone who regards the New Testament as mythical) well consider the thread on "Mechanics of MCU  Startup" that was going along fine, several people all engaged and no sniping or insinuations, some 79 mutually respectful posts in when one of the "regulars" just had to make a snide remark, remember this is after 79 posts with no animosity or condescension:

That's why I suggested OP to get experienced before starting loooong discussions like he did in his topic.

That's inflammatory, deny it if you want, sanitize it if you want, but it is inflammatory. It's not for DitBho to set the criteria that others must meet in order to discuss any subject. He can disagree or agree with things I say, he can challenge things I say but he cannot object to what I say on the basis of his personal criteria or opinion of my education and knowledge.

As soon he did that the subject changed from what it was to who it was, from what was being said to the person saying it, in any refereed formal debate a person gets laughed off stage for doing that, it's called an ad-hominem.

Because DitBho attacked me, my eligibility to even discuss the subject, I responded likewise and therefore questioned his own expertise in the matter of being permitted to use embedded assembly code in Avionics, I did not attack him though, I attacked his argument, I asked for evidence, proof of his claim.

The the usual cavemen gathered round and joined in the attack, attacking me for requesting proof and evidence of said claim.

Frankly some here are laughable, a mathematician would never object to some mathematical argument on the basis of a person's "experience" or any aspect of his person, do you know what he would do? he would look at THE ARGUMENT and it's reasoning and correctness or flaws NOT THE PERSON.

So there's some facts for you, but please don't blame me for giving them to you.

(To put it bluntly, in a forthright manner, its one of TitBos fucking business what I discuss or with whom).

[james_s]

Oh, well in that case, go **** yourself then.

 

You are going to end up getting yourself banned, I suspect.

Indeed. Personal attacks like that are one of the things that are explicitly against the rules.

[Nominal Animal]

I did a quick search here as to what kind of swear words and pejoratives and such have been used.
In general, just about every well-known swearword I can think of in English seems to have been used here.

I seem to be a "main" user of "asshole".  Interesting; I think I need to look at a dictionary for some less used but more apt words, perhaps older ones.
I like "unscrupulous dodger", but it just doesn't have the same zing.

Well how it "looks" to you is your concern, the facts are something to keep in mind, not your interpretation of them, these are different things altogether. A good way to reduce the risk if misinterpretation is to simply quote the person verbatim not paraphrase them or mischaracterize them.

You talk about "facts", tell us what "facts". The matter is that multiple members here are expressing having a problem with you.

To be very specific, nobody has a problem with the person in control of the Sherlock Holmes account here.

Multiple members have a problem with the responses made by the member Sherlock Holmes.

That's the thing in using a pseudonym online: your person is never under attack in posts, because your person is not involved.  Only your previous posts, your output, is.

You don't need to change your personality, just adjust your own output (and perhaps input filters) a bit.

Of course, asking everyone else to change instead, is much easier.  Invoking "you are being unprofessional" makes it more likely to work.

[Simon]

Oh, well in that case, go **** yourself then.

 

You are going to end up getting yourself banned, I suspect.

ironically in his opening post he complains about this very behavior meaning threads get locked and people don't get to discuss in it anymore..... lacked!