Locking threads

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've seen some discussions here get "locked" frozen by moderators when there was an active discussion underway.

When a participant insults others or reverts to foul language and others respond to that it can quickly deteriorate and so ends up being shutdown.

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

If this were done I'm sure it would improve things, those who feel inclined to use foul language and insults and break the rules should be the one's getting penalized, not everybody, getting locked out of a thread might also give such people food for thought.

The implementation would be simple if a poster breaks the rules to the degree that one would normally lock a thread, then don't, instead just lock the user out of that thread.

[coppercone2]

[thm_w]

You are talking about this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/mechanics-of-mcu-startup/
I didn't read it, but reading the last few posts now its degraded into a fight and was rightfully locked. To recover that a mod would have to go in, read most/all of the thread, and delete/edit posts with personal attacks, etc. which is a lot of work. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

If you want to start another thread, about a specific technical question/detail, without referring to the locked thread I would do that.

eg DO178 code requirement discussion thread, http://antena.fe.uni-lj.si/literatura/Razno/Avionika/rtca/Rtca%20Do-178B.pdf

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are talking about this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/mechanics-of-mcu-startup/
I didn't read it, but reading the last few posts now its degraded into a fight and was rightfully locked. To recover that a mod would have to go in, read most/all of the thread, and delete/edit posts with personal attacks, etc. which is a lot of work. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

If you want to start another thread, about a specific technical question/detail, without referring to the locked thread I would do that.

eg DO178 code requirement discussion thread, http://antena.fe.uni-lj.si/literatura/Razno/Avionika/rtca/Rtca%20Do-178B.pdf

Yes that thread is an example, and if people are unwilling to remain civil when disagreed with or when discussing something possibly controversial then this can and will happen again I think.

This is surely sufficient justification to warn someone that they'll be locked out of the thread:

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

Meanwhile there were others in the thread who are civil, polite and constructive participants but the conversations between us is now dead. So I'm really suggesting that these kinds of offensive outburst be not tolerated, I know in some forums people are locked out for a time or even banned but I'm not seeking that, just seeking to exclude offensive people from an otherwise harmless civil discussion.

If the forum doesn't support locking individuals out of threads then fine, that's likely the end of the matter but if it does or if its easy to add then I think it would be a big help.

[tggzzz]

From the thread title I was expecting that the OP was getting around to thinking about important topics in modern MCU languages.

Oh well

[thm_w]

I would not quote from a locked thread here.

If you have a problem with a post breaking the rules, in the future click the "Report to moderator" button and write a short note why. Likely the post will be deleted or edited and the user warned. If they keep doing it, banned.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From the thread title I was expecting that the OP was getting around to thinking about important topics in modern MCU languages.

Oh well

Oh, silly me, I was optimistically hoping your post would be on topic for a change; but do carry on, you'll probably succeed in getting even this thread locked!

 

[james_s]

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

Life isn't fair and this forum isn't a democracy, it's Dave's sandbox and whatever he says goes. I've been on here for years and have found the moderation in general to be more fair and lenient than just about anywhere else so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see a post that goes against the rules, report it to the moderators before it gets out of hand.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

Life isn't fair and this forum isn't a democracy, it's Dave's sandbox and whatever he says goes. I've been on here for years and have found the moderation in general to be more fair and lenient than just about anywhere else so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see a post that goes against the rules, report it to the moderators before it gets out of hand.

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

[james_s]

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

If you have no idea what I'm talking about then all I can suggest is reading it again until you understand it, or explain what part you don't understand. That depends on how much they were doing it and whether they settled down when told to. It doesn't matter what I'd do though or what I think is a good idea, I'm not in charge. If the mods want to lock a thread they can lock a thread, for any reason, period.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

If you have no idea what I'm talking about then all I can suggest is reading it again until you understand it, or explain what part you don't understand. That depends on how much they were doing it and whether they settled down when told to. It doesn't matter what I'd do though or what I think is a good idea, I'm not in charge. If the mods want to lock a thread they can lock a thread, for any reason, period.

OK, so you wrote "It doesn't matter what I'd do though or what I think", very well, thank you.

[T3sl4co1l]

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

...Yes?  Are you agreeing with the decision, then..?

Note that there is no option to ban certain users from a thread, or timeout or whatever.  So your analogy is imperfect.  Alternately, the rowdy participant(s) could be put on timeout or ban, in which case the analogy is the entire forum as the pub -- but being able to close just one thread is quite a bit more subtle than simply throwing them out of the pub; so you might agree in this case, closing the thread is quite a gentle way to resolve it overall.

Or, it's more like, the pub has thousands of tables to sit at, with various discussion material (or say beverages, or whatever they should have for sake of analogy, heh) at each table, and the table itself is what gets the ban.  But that's still a stretch, as it assumes rowdy patrons would stick to a given table to hash things out, rather than move away and find some space to fight.

Anyway, I don't see what was so wrong with the thread, I think one or both parties just misread a few things, got WAY too personal and aggressive about it, and the thread got locked.

Tone of voice is a very tricky thing to convey on the internet; it happens.  And criticism is very easy to give, but hard to give well, and even harder to take well.

Perhaps give it a few days to cool, review the offending post(s), edit or delete them if you think it might help, then ask a moderator to reopen it, say.  Both parties will need to do this of their own volition, no one is going to guide such a process; and pestering the mods before this has been done will just result in it staying locked.

Tim

[ebastler]

@Sherlock Holmes, if you re-read the MCU thread, you might realize that it was your attitude which drove that thread downhill and eventually got it locked. And you are showing the exact same attitude again here. I wonder what result you are expecting?

If you prefer to have your account locked instead, as suggested in the OP here, I am sure that can be arranged.

[pcprogrammer]

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.

[tggzzz]

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

Life isn't fair and this forum isn't a democracy, it's Dave's sandbox and whatever he says goes. I've been on here for years and have found the moderation in general to be more fair and lenient than just about anywhere else so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see a post that goes against the rules, report it to the moderators before it gets out of hand.

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

No, I'd call the police.

More seriously, your response is a succinct example of why your posts annoy some other people here:

• you don't bother to take the time to read and understand other people's posts, let alone think about what they are saying and why
• you monomanically follow your interest of the moment, to the exclusino of other relevant and useful points
• you seem to think you "own" the thread and can dictate the kinds of things other people discuss
• you invent an analogy that is certain to generate more heat than light (hint: we aren't in a pub)

For the record, I too was surprised when your other threads were locked. Unlike you, I don't think it was a bad decision.

Given that threads where you are the OP seem to have a common trajectory, perhaps you might like to consider there is a common cause?

[artag]

For a rowdy patron, the police is the right answer.

Much more of a problem is the pub bore who insists on turning every discussion to themselves. These are in the same class as trolls, and the best way to deal with them is to ignore them.  I'm not sure if the forum software assists that, but it might.

[Sherlock Holmes]

@Sherlock Holmes, if you re-read the MCU thread, you might realize that it was your attitude which drove that thread downhill and eventually got it locked. And you are showing the exact same attitude again here. I wonder what result you are expecting?

If you prefer to have your account locked instead, as suggested in the OP here, I am sure that can be arranged.

There are no forum rules about attitudes or taking a controversial position on a subject.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

Life isn't fair and this forum isn't a democracy, it's Dave's sandbox and whatever he says goes. I've been on here for years and have found the moderation in general to be more fair and lenient than just about anywhere else so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see a post that goes against the rules, report it to the moderators before it gets out of hand.

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

No, I'd call the police.

More seriously, your response is a succinct example of why your posts annoy some other people here:

• you don't bother to take the time to read and understand other people's posts, let alone think about what they are saying and why
• you monomanically follow your interest of the moment, to the exclusino of other relevant and useful points
• you seem to think you "own" the thread and can dictate the kinds of things other people discuss
• you invent an analogy that is certain to generate more heat than light (hint: we aren't in a pub)

For the record, I too was surprised when your other threads were locked. Unlike you, I don't think it was a bad decision.

Given that threads where you are the OP seem to have a common trajectory, perhaps you might like to consider there is a common cause?

This is your interpretation, subjective, littered with your own biases. The thread about programming languages was created by me, to discuss the subject of my choosing, that subject like many can be controversial at times, some people just can't handle controversy though. They deal with it by resorting to personal insults or condescension.

I totally agree that I express a controversial or unconventional position sometimes, but I wouldn't describe that as the cause for other people being disparaging, intolerant or condescending though, nor will I apologize for bucking convention sometimes.

It's certainly also not appropriate to publicly denigrate someone, judge their personality or competence either simply because they might see things differently. Those who condone that behavior with their supportive silence need to look in a mirror too, the hypocrisy is very real at times.

[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.

[ebastler]

There are no forum rules about attitudes [...]

The Rules
I hate rules, but unfortunately we have to have some for this forum:
1) Play nice with the other nerds
2) [...]
3) Conduct yourself as you would in a public place. [...]
4) Don't take things too seriously, chill out, life is short, have a laugh.
[...]

[Sherlock Holmes]

3. is the most violated rule in the forum.

[Nominal Animal]

The quote in reply #3 in this thread is from my post #94, where I stepped in between Sherlock Holmes and DiTBho, with my previous post being #89.

In real life, I have done exactly the same, broken up "arguments" (among students, and scientists) where one participant is either nitpicking or using sophistry to mislead or somehow socially "win", without being a participant myself.

It works well, with either the group disbanding immediately, or being ready to restart the conversation from the point it derailed.  If there is silence for 3-4 seconds, without anybody moving, I will restart the conversation myself by asking the question at or immediately before the derailing point (typically directing it to the "colossal asshole"), using perfectly calm and inquisitive voice, and letting my face show I'm only interested in proceeding with the question, not with the sophistry, but am perfectly willing to ignore the temporary derailment.

(I've even described similar techniques using a snipe to "shock" the person out of their game, then continue with actual helpful information in a neutral or positive tone.  That, too, works weirdly well, even if/when some seriously dislike it.)

By requiring Politically Correct wordage in any technical discussion, you're just asking people to be dishonest, and not say what they think, out of fear of being excluded.  While Dave is perfectly within his rights to implement such rules here, it would be exactly the point when I –– but more importantly, I suspect quite a few of the regulars who spend a lot of time here helping others with their questions, having the experience to do so effectively –– would leave.
Because that would basically stop Dave himself from discussing his Batterizer etc. videos here (because he definitely shows how ridiculous their claims are, and by your rules, that kind of talk would be forbidden here), I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, though.  (Dave can post whatever he likes, but when nobody can respond except with praise, there wouldn't be any discussion, not like there is now.)

And make no mistake: I'm not licking anyones butt here, either.  I've argued with Dave hotly before.  Thing is, we can argue about things without letting it be personal.  I've already told you that before, though; that I, and others, can argue in one thread, and in another thread at the same time, perfectly calmly discuss something else and help each other.  Because we disagree about things, not persons.

Perhaps you would be much more comfortable at one of the StackExchange network sites yourself?  They're very strict about wording and tone there, and don't separate persons from their opinions.  EEVblog forum is definitely not the only electronics/embedded software forum on the web.

[tggzzz]

I think this is unfair to the others in the thread so want to suggest that in future offenders within a thread get locked out of the thread rather than locking the entire thread and penalizing everyone.

Life isn't fair and this forum isn't a democracy, it's Dave's sandbox and whatever he says goes. I've been on here for years and have found the moderation in general to be more fair and lenient than just about anywhere else so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see a post that goes against the rules, report it to the moderators before it gets out of hand.

Right, well I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so back to the subject, do you think its a good idea to shutdown a discussion thread because of someone using foul language? Would you shutdown a pub because of a rowdy patron?

No, I'd call the police.

More seriously, your response is a succinct example of why your posts annoy some other people here:

• you don't bother to take the time to read and understand other people's posts, let alone think about what they are saying and why
• you monomanically follow your interest of the moment, to the exclusino of other relevant and useful points
• you seem to think you "own" the thread and can dictate the kinds of things other people discuss
• you invent an analogy that is certain to generate more heat than light (hint: we aren't in a pub)

For the record, I too was surprised when your other threads were locked. Unlike you, I don't think it was a bad decision.

Given that threads where you are the OP seem to have a common trajectory, perhaps you might like to consider there is a common cause?

This is your interpretation, subjective, littered with your own biases. The thread about programming languages was created by me, to discuss the subject of my choosing, that subject like many can be controversial at times, some people just can't handle controversy though. They deal with it by resorting to personal insults or condescension.

Of course it is my interpretation, and my statements are reflections of my biasses - but several other people share them. So, no surprises there.

Some people are very used to - and welcome - constructive controversy in their professional lives. Other people react by ignoring opinions that don't comply with their own. I know people contributing to these threads who fall into each category; I'll leave others to form their own opinion of whom.

I totally agree that I express a controversial or unconventional position sometimes, but I wouldn't describe that as the cause for other people being disparaging, intolerant or condescending though, nor will I apologize for bucking convention sometimes.

You are completely missing the point, unsurprisingly.

It's certainly also not appropriate to publicly denigrate someone, judge their personality or competence either simply because they might see things differently. Those who condone that behavior with their supportive silence need to look in a mirror too, the hypocrisy is very real at times.

It is inappropriate to denigrate other people.

It is completely appropriate to judge their personality and competence based on their actions.

When did you last look in the mirror?

Edit: Nominal Animal's post preceding this post is sound. I believe the OP should reflect on its contents.

I'll ask this question for a second time: "Given that threads where you are the OP seem to have a common trajectory, perhaps you might like to consider there is a common cause?"

[MK14]

 
Subscribing to thread.

[pcprogrammer]

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.

[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!