|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re: A New Respectby Intrepid (Deacon)
|on Mar 15, 2006 at 13:20 UTC||Need Help??|
ReGreetings, Monklies and Perlverts.
It's been a few days now since my posting (the top node of this threaded discussion). I've got a followup now for a couple different perceived audiences among my readers. If you want the tone to be conciliatory or repentive and want to spend no more than 18.4 seconds reading, give up now.
First for some: my wee heart isn't lying broken and bleeding on the floor, never fear. The thing about being hurt by the words of others, for me: only what comes across to me with sincerity will I take to heart. And some of the hurtful things I've heard in my life from people who had some sincerity towards me, have been among the most helpful to my eventual growth and progress. The stuff that's been said to me (purportedly) or about me, above, mostly doesn't consititute having come from sincerity, so it doesn't mean much.
For some others: snap judgements are as cheap as the electrons they float on. Anybody can make a snap judgement. It not only lacks the sincerity I spoke of above, which is something that is expensive for humans to produce from their insides, but it also takes no great gift of intelligence to emit. Kudos to those who just downvoted in order to see how low the node was rated ("gasp! who would do that?" ;-) without having to give in to the compulsion to slap a snap judgement on the pile too.
For readers in general:
Truthtellers in the Monastery will remember that I have been holding a viewpoint about the value of the XP and node reputation system here for years, that is different from the majority opinion.
There are those who will rant that discounting the node rep votes on something I post is tantamount to being a "troll". As with much else, that's a radical oversimplification. You can only reduce the words used to describe the truth so far, before the truth gets damaged and then vanishes. To dumb-down the definition of what a "troll" is so far that it turns out as "anyone who posts to Perlmonks but doesn't care what people think of his posting (as manifested by node rep)" is so violently stupid-minded that it comprises sort of a litmus test for me: If you are so dumb that you will buy this ersatz version of the truth, I don't want to have any sort of meta-relationship with you anyway. Call it personal Darwinism if you like - thinning the herd. People who have a disability like mongoloidism, for example, or autism; and have good open hearts, bravery and compassion for others; I want to know -- I'd feel priviliged to know. Self-described "kewl outcast hax0rs" or "BOFHs" with all their shallow, fragile self-respect riding on their computer cleverness who then cannot be bothered to do the work of honestly trying to read with comprehension fairly short articles by others, I don't need to know.
If you are one of the people listed in the top node (or the document cited in that node), or part of their gang, and you think you came off to the readership in a reply as if you had "really tried to give that stubborn, *#*%$!# Intrepid some good advice for his own sake", then please realize that if you were cited as having lost my respect awhile ago (as by having been noted on the list on my home node), nobody with the first clue about human beings is going to believe that your 'searing (but well-intentioned!) reply' constituted an attempt to be productive or helpful. The verbal sparring that continues in the cb and on this node doesn't constitute a good-faith effort to resolve the issues I've decided to raise above. Neither obvious self-defense moves nor spinning accusations around on the 'blamer' constitute a good-faith effort to turn these lemons into orangeade.
Soren Andersen -Intrepid-