http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=870417


in reply to Re^13: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

Except now I am! ;-)

(Sorry to get serious again but ... ) At last! It only took 7 levels to get that across.

... your reputation for heated debates precedes you ...

Yes. You, like others, anticipate a heated response, and read it even when it isn't there. And there is nothing I can do about it.

You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.

Of course, Tye will (has, often) accused me of doing the same. But it simply isn't so.

I read what he writes. I detect the supercilious, condescending undertones. See him revert to personal attacks to distract whenever his arguments are weak. I see him dissemble with irrelevancies, and make quotes out of context, all to conceal his lack of knowledge and/or mistakes. (Deliberate and otherwise.) And I when I do, I call him on it. And then sit back and watch as world+dog leap to his defence.

He has gotten away with it so long, he doesn't even realise he is doing it. Nor even recognise it, when it is pointed out to him.

He's been (collectively) allowed to get away with it for so long--to the significant detriment of this place--that he's come to believe his own legend.

As I said way back up there somewhere, when I see him (and others, but especially him), being subject to the same judgements as you are applying to me, I'll take them to heart.

I remain unbowed in this. Neither by "peer pressure", nor the inane, two-faced, underhand and cowardly ramblings of an insider's, sock-puppet alter-ego. Throw stones at me, and I'll throw them right back. Stick to the subject, and we'll get on just fine.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 10, 2010 at 01:08 UTC
    I read what he writes. I detect the supercilious, condescending undertones. See him revert to personal attacks to distract whenever his arguments are weak. I see him dissemble with irrelevancies, and make quotes out of context, all to conceal his lack of knowledge and/or mistakes. (Deliberate and otherwise.)
    Except that arguably with just some minor changes, that could easily be used to describe your posts in various heated debates! And what about ikegami and others? Seems a stretch to compare tye and ikegami.
    You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.
    That quote only works in an ideal world. In the real world it is poor advice given that there are often times when it is more important to know who is speaking. Politicians are an obvious example, where everything they say should in general be treated as suspect. Beyond that, the written word is often ambiguous and subject to interpretation. That's true even when it comes to legalese, which is a much more rigid form of English, something your quote doesn't address. And it seems folly to deny oneself the benefits of past experience to help resolve said ambiguity, etc.
    Yes. You, like others, anticipate a heated response, and read it even when it isn't there. And there is nothing I can do about it.
    Yes you can! You may be sparring with tye or ikegami, but do not forget that you have an audience that goes beyond them as well. Instead of just continuing your sparring match, try writing for the rest of the audience as well. In short, try being more civil.
    I remain unbowed in this. Neither by "peer pressure", nor the inane, two-faced, underhand and cowardly ramblings of an insider's, sock-puppet alter-ego.
    Can't you see that comments like this just reinforce negative impressions people have of you!?!

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]
      Can't you see that comments like this just reinforce negative impressions people have of you!?!

      Had you restricted the quote upto the first comma, I might have thought about that. But you didn't.

      IBGS is all of what I said he is. And more that I suppressed 'in the interests of the community'.

[reply]
        If anything you have it backwards. The first part is fairly tame, maybe even admirable to some. The latter part, whether true or not, is easily seen as inflammatory, etc. Not to mention that if he is as bad as you think he is then all you are doing is boosting his ego -- and to your detriment no less!!

        You say there is nothing you can do about it, but you're like an American football coach who keeps calling the same play over and over again and then wondering why your team lost. The conclusion is obvious -- if you want to do something about the situation then you need to change your approach. As an example, do you really think the rest of us care about your inflammatory sock-puppet diatribe? Try leaving inflammatory comments like that out next time and see where things go.

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]
[reply]

        Characterization: "I a) correct him. b) tell him his assertions are false; c) politely request a demonstration or retraction; explaining why." (underlining added by me).

        Bits of actual content:

        IMPOSSIBLE. IT CANNOT HAPPEN.

        Which makes your unfounded speculation: FUD.

        Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD.

        Yes, included in what I left out was the word "please" and a compliment. Given the "shouting" and especially the last sentence I quoted, I personally can forgive some if they interpreted one or both of the "polite" bits that I didn't quote as bitter sarcasm.

        Now, who started the insults?

        You clearly started the shouting. And an accusation of "deliberately malicious FUD" is pretty darn insulting (so you started the insults, too). It is much more insulting than "Why are you playing dumb?", so ikegami actually lowered the heat after you raised it, just not all the way.

        That thread mostly demonstrates you two talking past each other; one talking about "thread safe" and one talking about "iThreads safe" but both (reasonably) spelling it "thread safe". (Yes, I find ikegami's interpretation of the question surprising given the context.)

        But it also demonstrates you flying off the handle and getting quite insulting due to your frustration at this talking past each other (which you appear to have interpreted as ikegami being dense and possibly "deliberately malicious"):

        You hadn't--and indeed haven't, and never will have--demonstrated anything except your "dumb" speculations.

        Even the merest modicum of rational thought would lead to the conclusion that this must be the case, and must have been the case from the very inception

        Implying that somebody lacks "the merest modicum of rational thought" is very much not "(what most people would see as) the very mildest form of technical personal chiding". And you thought asking about "playing dumb" was the big insult of the thread? Lacking "the merest modicum of rational thought" is not just playing dumb. It isn't just being dumb. It is being really, really, really dumb. Objectively much, much worse of an insult.

        And what you characterized as "Ike respond with defensive rebukes, attacking the form of the message rather than its content, and erroneous rhetorical distractions" doesn't actually contain any insults and seems a quite reasonable response to a long-running failure to understand each other, especially after it suddenly got rather heated.

        If one of you had gotten "off topic" sooner (before you both got frustrated and the shouting and insults started), one of you might have realized that the reason you weren't understanding each other was that you were talking about different things.

        That you still fail to see most of this after re-reading the thread and even chose to hold it up as an example of your reasonableness and ikegami's rashness(?) is, well, I'm torn between "sad" and "worrying". ikegami eventually figured it out.

        I mean you even get simple stuff wrong like "Ike then a) admits he hasn't yet demonstrated" when ikegami re-demonstrates "more explicitly". There is no admission there.

        And after re-reading, you still don't realize that you and ikegami were using different but both valid definitions of the word "demonstrate":

        1. To display the method of using an object
        2. To show the steps taken to create a logical argument or equation

        Actually, ikegami was using (2) more correctly than you were using (1).

        But, of course, I am wasting my time. One, because I'm just world+dog jumping to ikegami's defense (clearly for completely invalid reasons though those reasons are not stated). Two, because I signed my name to it and...

        For the record, I don't believe that BrowserUk makes deliberate mistakes (for "political" reasons) nor assume that any defense of him is done out of insincere or illogical motivation. Nor do I believe that BrowserUk has become "legend".

        Stick to the subject, and we'll get on just fine.

        Oh, that reminds me. The prior thread that you held up as an example of you getting along fine with me because I didn't get bilious: I had to give up on you in that thread as well. I thanked you for what I got, disappointed as I was. I didn't tell you that when you referenced the thread because I had already given up again.

        The difference in that thread was not a lack of bile on my part -- you have repeatedly found bile when none is intended which is why you have to characterize it as "condescending undertones". The difference was just your lack of imagining bile. And that was likely possible mostly because I wasn't replying to you.

        But nothing that I say matters (my infractions are so severe now that BrowserUk is justified in simply replying with what he himself calls "indefensible" remarks). And nothing anybody else says matters because they would just be jumping up to defend my "legend". So BrowserUk's view of events is completely safe. A waste of time to ever comment on such. It might be worth rethinking that mental barricade, though, IMO.

        For the record, BrowserUk can be uncommonly helpful. It is easy to find many examples of that here. I've thanked him for that before and I do it again now: Thank you, BrowserUk, for your impressive volume of fine contributions to this site and to those who visit it.

        I also won't fault him for not really "hearing" that after such a frank critique of stuff that is surely difficult to hear. But I want to discourage others from demonizing BrowserUk. There is plenty of goodness and I see (much of) it, despite also trying to point out "areas for improvement".

        Also, for the record, I have certainly on many occasions been sharp with people including BrowserUk. Yes, I also believe that there have been no small number of times when people have seen bile that wasn't there (as BrowserUk well explained can happen). But I don't deny frequently having a sharp tongue nor my persistent penchant for sarcasm (sometimes biting, sometimes playful, often hard to tell for sure which).

        I hope somebody (anybody) finds something useful in this node. Right now, that seems unlikely to me (it is "Re^17"; I doubt even a dozen people will read it). I'll still hope.

        - tye        

[reply]

In Section Meditations