Insult Justification Discussion

Insult Justification Discussion

(Continued from LimitsOfHtmlStack)

There are several problems here:

1. You assume that sin A by the other party justifies committing sin B. 2. You do plenty of things that in my opinion justify name-calling, such as your convoluted writing style and slipping in and out of precision-lawyer-mode as it suits your argument-of-the-day. But I usually refrain. 3. I am not "intentionally disingenuous". I deny any purposeful agenda in that regard. I honestly think you are full of shit, or at the least a very poor communicator due to some mental defect. I assure you I'm not faking that belief. If you claim whatever the hell I am allegedly doing is intentional, then PROVE intention (conscience plan) first, and THEN insult. A mistake by itself does not prove malice. 4. Unfortunately, most WikiZens don't want to get involved (VolunteerWikiModerators). We may get one part-timer if lucky, but 3 is too unlikely. 5. It is usually acceptable to clean the general outline statements of "bicker words". Signed content in the discussion portion, however, is usually not fair game for such correction. But since you refuse to use a handle, one cannot tell. If it starts out worded as part of the formal out-line, then in my opinion it's fair game to remove the bicker words. Perhaps I should have moved the bicker portion below with an Anonymous Donor tag. Would that be acceptable? --top


I was enthusiastic about c2 years ago. I stopped posting any of my opinions about software development years ago. I just cannot stand the idiotic flaming.

I still read c2, usually through RecentChanges. Sometimes I use it for reference, for which purpose it is usually good.

But there is no way I would bother with any of my approaches to software development. It just aint worth it.

In regard to the present discussion, I know Top has some very good ideas. I also know that the RKs of the world also have some very good ideas. The constant to-and-froing of people like these reminds me of the early days, when there was always a healthy argument between the fortranners and the cobolers. Never the twain shall meet.

Show some respect for opinions you do not embrace. You just may learn something. --PeterLynch

Yeah! We should stop deleting SchizoidGibberishWikiAuthor's contributions, too!

I agree that we shouldn't dismiss an opinion merely because we do not wish to embrace it. That's quite different from dismissing an opinion on the basis that there is no sound or valid justification for it. Sometimes TopMind has good ideas, and I don't hesitate to acknowledge those. RK was full of interesting ideas, though he was also an emotional powder-keg with a vicious streak who left about six months before I arrived (I chatted him up, later). But TopMind also likes to weigh in on subjects in which 'UnconsciousIncompetence' is a relatively positive description of his expertise (DeliberateIncompetence would often be more accurate). And if he has trouble following a counter-argument due to his incompetence, he shifts blame to everyone else - blame the 'academics' and 'ivy leagers', blame the anti-toppie conspiracy, blame anything but himself. Sometimes he even claims to be speaking for 'the masses' and 'the practitioners' arrogantly voting himself representative. (You won't see me speaking 'for' academics.)

Despite the fact that I acknowledge and respect some of TopMind's ideas (I refuse to dismiss ideas merely because they come from fools, babes, or TopMind), I cannot respect TopMind as a member of this society. I truly, honestly, believe he's of net negative impact and believe he should have been banned years before I joined WikiWiki, and I suspect the only reason he wasn't banned is that he was somehow 'grandfathered' in by people unwilling to ban members of the 'old guard'.

Anyhow, this present discussion isn't about whether Top has good ideas now and again. Nope. This isn't about insulting ideas. This is about behavior, and habit.

Continued at ShouldTopBeBanned.


QED

Nice to see u can reply without any flaming.

I give in.

EditText of this page (last edited June 29, 2010) or FindPage with title or text search