Re: CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param "item")

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:00:29 AM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 6 Ιούν, 02:42, David Masover <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > It doesn't seem that "violation" was the primary concern, so much as that
> > there wasn't enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn't
> > the case, I have to imagine that "notability" would've kicked in.
> 
> " The article is one of these "I want to attack the guy without
> crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line" "

That was one opinion. Others were:

"Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a blog."

"the problem here is that while you might have found the article useful, we 
cannot guarantee its reliability and that's a big problem."

Note that even the quote you pointed out suggests that it _doesn't_ cross that 
line. If the issue were only that it was a personal attack, or abusive, it 
could've probably been rewritten from a neutral point of view. The more 
obvious criteria for deletion are whether or not it's actually notable, or 
contains any verifiable information.

> > > The most important thing to learn is:
> > > 
> > > when is it "expressing negative feelings" and when is it "defamation
> > 
> > > of character":
> > Legal threats again?
> 
> There is no threat, you just interpret one.

Then what would you call this?

"If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level, I'll
have to react at some point."

This immediately after your comment about defamation of character. I suppose 
it's theoretically possible you didn't intend it, but the subtext is clear: 
Stop saying mean things about me or I'll sue for defamation.

> > Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you seriously?
> 
> > Alright, I'll use your source this time:
> [...] - aborted reading, due to time constraints.

Bullshit. We've already established that you have more than enough time, 
mostly because of how inefficient your methods are. You've already spent more 
time responding to me than it would take to answer the questions asked in some 
of your recent topics.

> I don't care if you (or people of your kind) take me serious.

Yes, you do, or why would you continue to threaten me (or people of "my kind", 
whatever that is) with legal action?

For that matter, why would you continue to ask questions? You even pointed out 
that James Gray's solution "looks very good, and seems to work as expected" -- 
surely there would be an advantage to having someone who can consistently 
provide solutions like that actually take you seriously, instead of doing 
their best to ignore you?

> I respect people which have the discipline to stay unbiased, even if
> they have possible negative personal feelings against me (e.g. because
> the dislike mey *personal* writing style, which is part of my
> individuality.).

"Part of your individuality" apparently involves:

 - Making legal threats at the slightest provocation
 - Marking all questions as urgent ("BARRIER" or "CORE")
 - Not reading any answers "too complicated"
 - "Summarizing" (read: strawmanning), rather than quoting in your replies
 - Dismissing as "offtopic" or "unprofessional" anyone who asks for enough 
context to give you a good answer, or who points out any of the above.

There's individuality, and then there's rudeness. If "part of your 
individuality" is to be insufferably rude to those who are genuinely trying to 
help you, that suggests you're the sort of individual I wouldn't want to know.

> I respect people which understand that there is a difference between
> "analytic ability" and "knowledge", and that knowledge can many times
> reduce the analytic ability, thus it must be assimilated with care.

In other words: You actually want to know *less*, not more. Wow.

> Stay in-topic and in-context - or stay out of the topics.
> 
> You owe this not only to me, but to every current and future reader of
> the archives.

First: I don't owe you anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I 
first started reading, but given responses like these, nope, not even that.

Second: This is an open forum. You in no way control it, and neither do I. You 
have no more call than I do to tell anyone to "stay out of the topics."

> It's far more professional than to
> destroy a clearly technical thread with 80% irrelevant content.

Ilias, as unlikely as it is that you'll actually read this far -- you seem to 
have far more time to write a response than you do to actually read what 
you're responding to -- seriously, consider this:

Well above 90% of the threads on this list do not end up this way.

Most simple questions are answered quickly, within a single message, and 
several people will rush to respond with an answer.

Most threads which devolve into offtopic stuff like this end up with one or 
two people arguing back and forth, or with a group of people on both sides. 
It's much rarer for there to be one person arguing against every single other 
poster who has an opinion. Usually this indicates a newbie who's asked a 
stupid question, so usually it's friendly, they learn what they need to learn, 
and they come back more intelligent -- so it's even less common for everyone 
who has an opinion on someone's etiquette or personal conduct to side against 
them.

Well over half your threads end up this way, with three or four well-respected 
people telling you the same things I have been, quite a few avoiding the 
discussion but talking about how to add you to a killfile, and several chiming 
in every now and then with cheap shots.

This is *incredibly* unusual. I can't ever remember seeing this kind of 
behavior with other people in the years I've been active here. Even spammers 
don't elicit the same amount of contempt you have from the entire community.

If you would like to not have "80% irrelevant content," it is in your own best 
interest to figure out what it is about your attitude and conduct that leads 
to this.

It's also in the best interests of the community, because personal issues 
aside, it's clear that you are intelligent enough to have something to 
contribute, and I'd much rather have you as a productive member of the 
community than effectively a troll. But no amount of "posting on-topic" will 
do that. That's something you have to do yourself.