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

Re^3: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)

by Anneq (Vicar)
on Sep 07, 2013 at 23:36 UTC ( #1052849=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
in thread Plea for upvotes.

Tye,

You don't really need to reply to these messages. People who have been here for many years have seen posts from both of you and know what's what.

While buk has been very helpful in the past, more and more lately his posts have been insulting, pompous, ranting, gotta have the last word, right-fighting and downright loco paranoid. Did I miss anything? His posts have shifted from being helpful to harmful. In fact, his recent posts are so radically different than his past ones that this stinks of a masquerade attack.

From you I only remember logical/helpful posts. I didn't do any research, but I'm been here for many many years. I just thought I'd add my opinion for the sake of newcomers.

I wanted to upvote his post to help him vote again, until I read his last paragraph. No upvotes for silly nasty rubbish. And I find it hard to believe that its the good old buk. I wish we had the good old buk back. Its like the wheel is turning but the hamster's dead.

Anne


Comment on Re^3: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
Re^4: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
by Your Mother (Canon) on Sep 08, 2013 at 01:01 UTC

    Boo--. Let sleeping threads lie.

      Your Mother,

      Sorry, but I laughed when I read your post. Why did you not let sleeping dogs lie? But seriously, I thought newcomers should know what's what. Some might think Tye is a tye-rant and not a lot of people are disabusing them of that notion. I don't think that's right. I shut up now.

      Anne

Re^4: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 09, 2013 at 03:33 UTC
    # I wanted to upvote his post to help him vote again, until I read his last paragraph. No upvotes for silly nasty rubbish.... I wish we had the good old buk back.

    Click! From now on, you cannot use this site. No reason, no warning, no appeal.

    You are simply denied the ability to do anything on this site -- challenge, argue, justify, apologise -- by some unknown (and unknowable) individual, with some level of privilege that allows them to exercise unconstrained, incontestable, utterly capricious, and totally without mandate, control over your ability to exist; as far as this site is concerned.

    Could you, given those circumstances, retain your composure?

    "good old buk" has never left this site -- for even one day -- since he first arrived here.

    But, the frustrations of both watching, and suffering at the hands of, those unaccountable few, that exercise total, capricious and invisible control over your interactions here -- a place where I have contributed an average of 5 posts a day, everyday, for 11 years -- tends to peak, when all say is stolen from you.

    If you truly want the "old buk" back. Stand up and be counted. Contest the status quo. Read between the lines and DO SOMETHING about the circumstances that frustrate the "old buk" to the point where reason and politeness become secondary ...


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    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.

      GOB,

      If you really ARE the good old buk (GOB), I have indeed seen your contributions every day, for years. I've bookmarked and reviewed and re-reviewed many of them. Thank you. A lot.

      I just don't think Tye messed with your account. From his past behaviour, I can't see him doing it.

      As well, I would consider jumping to help you out if your approach was not so over-the-top. I don't want to stand up and be counted in support of that behaviour. Sorry. You lost credibility when your posts turned to nonsense and hostility instead of logic.

      And lastly, there are a lot of people here at the monastery. Is there anyone else experiencing similar abuse? Maybe I've missed some posts, but I don't see a trend of others having similar complaints. If its just you, then you might consider stepping back and thinking about other possibilities for you account problem? I can imagine your frustration, though, losing privilege after all these years.

      Anne

        I just don't think Tye messed with your account. From his past behaviour, I can't see him doing it.

        You're right; but for the wrong reasons. Tye has abused his position on several occasions. Of course it is very hard for a non-privileged monk to prove that; but when you are here every day and have logic and analysis at your disposal, it is clear if not proven.

        So, my assumption was based upon experience and history; but in the end, factually incorrect. But I only 'know' that because of hearsay.

        But the fact that any single person can wield that level of caprice without check or balance reinforces the premise of my first thread, against which that unconscionable action was exacted, and for which this thread was my *only recourse*.

        Regardless of whether you consider that first thread warranted some extraordinary response -- I don't. I only asked a perfectly valid question in a perfectly valid, and even polite way (which is unarguable if you read that question, rather than the reaction to it) -- you have to concur that unilaterally disabling an account on the basis of nothing more than a personal distaste for the owner of that account, and his temerity to question the status quo, is exactly why the question needed to be asked; and why it should be responded to.

        The site norm is that it takes four different monks to concur that an obvious spam-post is indeed spam -- and (if I understand it correctly) zero contrary votes, and multiple, disparate, deliberate, actions by each of those 4 monks, in order for that post to be reaped.

        But, one, privileged (supposedly trusted and trustworthy) monk can, on a whim, ban another monk whom he dislikes. Is that right? Even if the banned monk, is a arrogant, egocentric, know-it-all (Ie. me)?

        If its right, move on. If it's not right, then re-read the OP of the first thread. Read it carefully. Is there anything in there that says Tye is bad. That Tye shouldn't be a God. Anything that denigrates Tye.

        Those are rhetorical questions, because there isn't. It simply asks if, given that the vast majority of the God's -- the only ones whom have any possibility of providing check & balance to the actions of the other Gods -- are totally inactive; is this place best served by those that remain given their obvious and self-described, lack of time to give to this place?

        Maybe the fact that I'm the only one who's sees a problem means I spend too much time here. Or maybe, it means that all those other experienced, talented, creative monks that have been and gone; and no longer bother with this place; means that they reached their point of frustration with this place long ago and simply walked away.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        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.
Re^4: Plea for upvotes.
by LanX (Canon) on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:40 UTC
    Anneq,

    Its hard to believe that your post is listed in worst nodes of the week !

    :(

    This place becomes more and more a playground for polemic personal attacs and childish vendettas!

    But sadly more and more "monks" seem to support this stile ...

    Maybe its time to to think "don't feed" to the end and to leave and let these guys alone...

    Cheers Rolf

    ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

      Thanks Rolf! I appreciate it.

      I'm not fussed about making worst node. It was worth standing up for Tye.

      Thanks for speaking up for me.

      Anne

        It was worth standing up for Tye.

        You really protecteded and defended zeus almighty... you saved him some ... something for sure :p

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1052849]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-12-21 20:30 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (107 votes), past polls