Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: OT: writing style

Re: OT: writing style

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:42:19 +0100
Message-ID: <44006c7a$0$11073$e4fe514c@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.

> That's what he called me.

Only much later.

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.

Yet another quote:

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 - 08:42:19 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US