Re: OT: writing style
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:42:19 +0100
Message-ID: <44006c7a$0$11073$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Mark Johnson wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote: > >>Mark Johnson wrote: >> >>>mAsterdam wrote: > >>>>He is not clogging up this ng, he is trying to tell you something. >>>>Read carefully: he is /not/ calling you a troll. > >>>I recall that you asked me to apologize to Spight, > > >>Your recollection is wrong. I pointed out that he had shown >>patience and given nice explanations and that you called him >>a troll.
Undelete:
>> Though I did not ask you to apologize, I would have
>> liked it if you had done that.
Let me repeat with emphasis: I did /not/ ask you to apologize.
These would be the relevant quotes, right? Quote one:
Marshall Spight wrote:
> Bob Hairgrove wrote:
>
>>Troll. *plonk*
>
>
> Indeed. I am reminded of a certain young man who styled himself
> after a character in the Matrix. We see the same insistence on
> trying to redefine fundamental terms, and the same tefflon response
> to any attempts at edification.
To me this reads as an interpretation
of Bob Hairgrove's calling you a troll.
Another quote:
> Mark Johnson wrote:
>
>>Calling someone who isn't being unresponsive a troll, is abusive.
>
>
> But you *are* being unresponsive. You ask the same question
> over and over, and don't ever respond to the answers you get.
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend the answer.
> Furthermore, the things you are talking about are all elementary
> set theory; reading any beginning text would clarify all the
> issues you're bringing up. And your objections are obscure;
> you ask about the definition of a term, you are given the
> definition, and then you object that that's "merely" the definition.
> Then you ask the same question again.
, explaining to you why you got called a troll.
Marshall Spight wrote:
> Mark Johnson wrote:
>
>>Apparently, if a set cannot include proper ordering, then a proper
>>ordering of n-elements must be reduced to n-sets? Nine players in the
>>starting line-up require nine separate relations? or practically, nine
>>separate tables?
>
>
> See, this is the sort of thing that makes you look like a troll.
> I have told you several times that this requires *two* relations,
> but here you come up with nine. What are we to make of this?
> Why don't you seem to have read any of the previous posts,
> or be able to remember them? Why do you shift analogies
> with every post? Why do you not respond to the strong
> counterarguments that people provide?
>
> Hypotheses I can think of:
> 1) The Neo Hypothesis. You don't actually care what other
> people say--you're convinced you're right and everyone
> else is wrong. And you're going to prove it to us via your
> analogies.
> 2) The Learning Disability Hypothesis. You really want to know
> more, but are not capable of understanding this material.
> 3) The Troll Hypothesis. You are just asking these questions
> over and over because you enjoy the exasperation of the
> people responding.
>
> My current working hypothesis is 1).
Explicitly /not/ 3), The Troll Hypothesis.
And finally:
Marshall Spight wrote:
> JOG wrote:
>
>>Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>
>>>This dudes a troll - tilt - game over!
>>
>>yes, sadly proven now.
>
>
> Reluctantly, I must agree. I hate to think ill of anyone, but
> then, this is part of what trolls rely on. The Neo hypothesis
> doesn't work any more; unlike the current subject, I believe
> Neo really believed what he was saying.
>
> The misunderstanding of the issues is just too egregious to be
> anything other than extreme stupidity or deliberate. The
> stupidity idea seems unlikely in this case, so that leaves only
> willfull misunderstanding.
>
> The subject's pre-emptive application of the "troll" label, along
> with his pre-emptive scolding for etiquette violations, were
> excellent ways to fend off later accusations of trolling and
> etiquette violations on the subject's part.
>>I would have liked it if you had done that. (that = apologize)
> > > I guess you are just not getting half these message or something.
Provide relevant quotes.
> That's just what I did, and then I told you, that was clearly a > mistake. In short order, he became very explicit in his name calling. > And I called him on it, and I should have. And by all that is right, > you should be in agreement with precisely that. > > > >>>sure he had fallen to calling people names. Shortly after I mistakenly >>>apologized, > > >>You did not apologize > > > I have certainly taken it back, given what he wrote, since. And you > don't seem to show the least concern over his behavior. Not the least.
I am not concerned over his behaviour.
I /am/ concerned that your writing style causes piles
of misunderstandings so effectively that people think you
are doing this intentionally. I still hope they are wrong.
> As I said: > > >>>apologized, his intention became clear. And I also realized that I had >>>made a mistake, and should have followed my hunch and instinct on >>>that. And I'll try not to repeat that mistake again. > > >>>You don't give any indication of having discovered >>>that, yourself, by the existence this very message. > > >>This may make perfect sense to you - but it doesn't to me > > > Then I don't know what to tell you. And you of all people, after > talking about addressing the issues, and not the personalities, about > not getting hung up on 'noise' and messages that shouldn't be posted, > have posted two or three messages, now, doing just that. You have to > walk the walk.
I'm trying to adress an issue here.
What is "walk the walk"?
> Nothing can be accomplished, this way. And if you are not getting all > the messages on your news server, I have double checked on > groups.google. And their archive is pretty complete, even for messages > posted today, not even to mention yesterday. > > So, that would be my advice.
Do you still think my archive is flawed? Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 15:42:19 CET