|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
Re^17: What is "aggressive" argument? (shouting, insults)by tye (Sage)
|on Nov 10, 2010 at 10:11 UTC||Need Help??|
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:
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"):
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.
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.