Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^17: What is "aggressive" argument? (shouting, insults)

by tye (Cardinal)
on Nov 10, 2010 at 10:11 UTC ( #870540=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^16: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

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        


Comment on Re^17: What is "aggressive" argument? (shouting, insults)
Re^18: What is "aggressive" argument? (shouting, insults)
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 10, 2010 at 11:40 UTC
    You clearly started the shouting.

    That's not "shouting", it is strong emphasis. You cannot apply volume to the written word despite the hoary old internet newbie-bashing meme.

    Strongly emphasised because, from history I knew that he has a habit of "missing" important information.

    Vis. Despite that strong emphasis, just a few posts later he accuses me of So you knew it was thread safe, but decided to try to catch me in a non-existent lie instead saying so? wtf?

    And there it is. I could go on and refute that your other out-of-context quotes are insults. I could suggest that they are simply making a strong case in prelude to my polite and respectfully asking him to carefully review his assertions.

    Which, when quoted in full reads:

    Which makes your unfounded speculation: FUD. And, given that it is coming from you, a usually reliable and knowledgeable source, makes it dangerous and significant FUD. Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD.

    So please, demonstrate your good intent by either:

    1. demonstrating a segfault using one of your original three perl statements.
    2. withdrawing the FUD.

    Makes for a completely different reading from that which you have manipulated.

    Unfounded--no foundation; no evidence to suggest truth--therefore speculation, will (whether intended or otherwise), create "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". FUD (despite peoples reading of it), is not rude, or insulting.

    Given ikegami's well deserved reputation for accuracy, it becomes significant.

    And for anyone who knows it to be "unfounded speculation", and knows that he has sufficient knowledge of threads(*) and locking to have felt able to write a tutorial on the subject: Threads: why locking is required when using shared variables, then "Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD", is a reasonable conclusion that he might seek to avert.

    So, what you read as the "opening of hostilities", I read now, and meant at the time, to be a desperate attempt to make the case for him to seek to verify his own assertions or rescind them. As much for his own benefit as for any gain I might get from it.

    I'm not the author nor maintainer of threads. Just an enthusiastic user who sees the value they bring--especially to platforms that don't have fork. For example the simplicity--despite the rough edge--of Re: Windows, threads and IPC::Open3 compared to the complexity of IPC::Run, and even this. Their value in enabling this compared with this.

    Demonstration means "show", "prove". On a code site, that means code. His time-line diagram is not a demonstration by any meaning of the term. The fact that it came 6 posts after he first claimed to have made it, just re-enforces the issue.

    (*)This is perlmonks! There is only one form of threads available to Perl and they are iThreads. So I absolutely refute in the strongest possible terms the need to distinguish between those terms in this place. The module is called threads. When someone comes here asking about threads, they are by implication and specifically, discussing that module, and its properties. Your attempt to bend this into a "talking past each other" situation is, as politely as I know how to say it:bunkum.

    As for "the merest modicum of rational thought being: really, really, really dumb. Objectively much, much worse of an insult., Wrong again. It simply means he didn't, on this occasion, think before posting.

    And I never said that acting dumb was a big insult. Just the first. Which, despite your attempts to re-write history through selective quoting(*) and creative re-interpretation, it was.

    That's why I didn't quote. I linked--with paraphrasing to show my reading of events, but linked so anyone, if there are any such, that care to read it in its original context, could.

    And yes, I do see your re-intervention in this discussion as yet another attempt for you to forward your agenda. Not world+dog, just Tye being Tye.

    Even once you get into your luke-warn praise of me, you still can't resist the urge to 'apply Tye' to the narrative by slipping into referring to me as if you were not replying to me directly, by talking about me in the third person. Like I say, you no longer even realise you are doing it.

    So now, despite my resolution to the contrary, I've replied to (the real) you, it will be the last time.

    Belated thought: I didn't even get around to discussing your role in raising the temperature in that thread and this thread and the other thread.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://870540]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-07-30 06:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (229 votes), past polls