Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^24: What is "aggressive" argument?

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Nov 13, 2010 at 01:03 UTC ( #871179=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^23: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

BTW, why do you think I am telling you what you can or cannot do??? I'm not!!

Sorry? But you are:

1) the onus is on you to try and be more civil,

More civil than what? More civil than who? Define "civil"?

Please express your design for my "betterment" in terms that mean I do not have to refer everything I write to you for approval before posting.


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.


Comment on Re^24: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^25: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 13, 2010 at 02:43 UTC
    No, I'm not! If I was really telling you what you can or cannot do then I would need to have some power over you -- e.g. the ability to revoke your account, abusing authority, etc. However, I have no power or authority over you. Well, maybe I should say that the only power I have over you is that which you give to me. An obvious example of this is when we let a troll get the best of us.

    I can only offer advice. Any time it looks like I am telling you what you can or cannot do is as I indicated before: in the context of "if you want to achieve goal Z then you will need to do X and Y" (where "will" is obviously based on my evaluation of the situation).

    Please express your design for my "betterment" in terms that mean I do not have to refer everything I write to you for approval before posting.
    I think herveus summed things up really well, so lets revisit his post:
    My sense, from a number of years of experience, is that you are prone to being needlessly contentious. You elect confrontational language on slight provocation. You do normally include substantive technical content, but it's effectiveness is lessened by the static around it.
    So, some things to look for:
    • Are you attacking the theory/idea/code (good) or the person (bad)?
    • How emotionally involved are you (normally a bad thing)?
      • Is that post you are about to publish heavy on [potentially] inflammatory content and light on relevant technical details?
      • Do you feel like you have to get the last word in? Or that you have to prove you are right?
      • Does letting go feel like a huge if not impossible challenge?
    • How many levels deep has the thread gone (deeper is usually bad)?

    The other thing you can do is brush up on the Netiquette Guidelines. Additionally, the second link I listed is for the online version of Virginia Shea's highly regarded book on Netiquette. Maybe try giving that a once over (or at least hit the summary).

    At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you are willing to admit that you do get too emotionally involved in many of these heated debates/discussions and that you want to do something about that. It's certainly not easy -- and you can see that in some of my posts, where I have fought some of the same demons. Letting go can be really, really hard. And admitting it's a problem can be equally hard. One thing that helped me was starting the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread. It's a great reminder of the importance of letting things go and that I do not have to get the last word in! I just wish I could say that I planned it that way!! :-)

    As I indicated above, I think there is one technical measure for success that you have at your disposal -- how deep do these heated debate threads go? Try toning things down and just letting things go when you get too emotionally involved and then compare how many levels deep your threads go to the threads that predate any changes. I expect there will be a noticeable difference.

    Good luck and best wishes!

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      I can only offer advice.

      And I have repeatedly, and at length, rejected that advice. I've also stated my reason for doing so, repeatedly, consistently, and at length.

      I will do so again, in short, one last time.

      I did not ask for your advice unilateral, capricious judgements. I do not want your advice unilateral, capricious judgements.

      You, (and tirwhan; & Tye; & ysth; & herveus), have, unbidden, with neither mandate nor precedent, thrown your disparate, advice unilateral, capricious judgements at me.

      The fact that I have had to reject that advice unilateral, capricious, judgement, over and over, means that you do not accept my right to reject it. And that, is (attempted) imposition! And I do not recognise your right to make such impositions.

      Until such times as your collective advice unilateral, capricious, judgements become unified and codified, and ratified into some sort of consensus, to be applied fairly and universally, they are nothing more nor less than your collective attempts to impose your, (transient, dependent upon who, is saying what, to whom; and your moods), whimsical moral standards upon me. And anyone else you feel the prerogative to do likewise to.

      And that is at best discriminatory censorship.

      Until such time, I will treat others according to my personal ethics. And that, simply stated, is I will treat others in the same way that they treat me.

      Which means for instance, that we have continued a long, detailed, at times frustrating (no doubt for both of us), conversation. You have remained calm, lucid and free of sarcasm or other forms of one-upmanship. I hope you'll agree, so have I. You showed me respect, and I have returned it.

      And so it is with all those with whom I interact. Whilst the discussion remains on-topic and devoid of attempted one-upmanship, so do I. But throw stones at me, and as sure as eggs are eggs, I'll throw them right back.

      We are beginning to more than just repeat ourselves now, so the last words are yours. If this were a debate, it would be time to vote.


      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.

      You'll have to forgive me, or not, for this second post, but I'd really like an answer to this. By /msg if you feel unable to do on the record.

      How many levels deep has the thread gone (deeper is usually bad)?

      At exactly what point in this 23/24/25 level deep thread should I have stopped responding? 10? 15? 20?

      Whichever number you pick, why didn't you apply that rule to yourself?

      And while you're at it, at what arbitrary point should I have cut off the OP in this thread that finishes up 27 levels deep with the OP thanking me profusely?

      And that's the trouble with arbitrary rules. They are nonsensical, ludicrous & inane.

      You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.


      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.
        If I thought you were really a troll then I should have bailed out at Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument? (specifically, Re: What is "aggressive" argument? should have been my last post in that thread).

        If you sort all of your nodes using "Lowest Reputation First" you should see that there is a loose correlation between depth and node rep.

        You seem to be a very left-brained individual, which I think explains the communication disconnect that often seems to occur. I gave you some guidelines that I felt would help you identify when you are becoming too emotionally involved in a heated discussion -- when e.g. you should just let things go. This is something you will have to determine for yourself, on a case by case basis. People are not computers and each thread is unique, so there are no set answers to give. At best we could probably come up with some guidelines based on the data in the PM database (made up example: a node 35 deep is 90% likely to have a negative node rep). I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do.

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.
        Circumstances and conditions vary, in the same way which affects safe driving speeds.
      No, I'm not! If I was really telling you what you can or cannot do then I would need to have some power over you -- e.g. the ability to revoke your account, abusing authority, etc. However, I have no power or authority over you. Well, maybe I should say that the only power I have over you is that which you give to me. An obvious example of this is when we let a troll get the best of us.

      That is classic troll manouver, trying to refute some behaviour while in the same breath exibiting precisely that behaviour. Take your own advice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://871179]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-07-25 10:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (170 votes), past polls