What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

But I can't think of a single poster here that I haven't seen guilty of making a questionable post at one time or another, over-reacting at one time or another, denying intent, assuming, misunderstanding, accusing or placing a thinly veiled insult. We are all guilty.

I would say that we might all be a bit more willing to apologize rather than jumping on the defensive so quickly. There is no stigma associated with an apology and it does indicate that the poster is at least willing attempt to see how they might affect others...

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Thanks to Moose and Lurker for highlighting an unfortunate consequence (at least to some) of the way the OP is worded.

To oversimplify, two choices: a vague, general statement, abstracted from the immediate reality of any post, or posts; or a concrete, specific example, followed by the general/abstract/up one level/etc point of the thread.

In the latter case, the danger is that, no matter what is written (including the use of quote marks around one word) concerning the intention, some readers will misunderstand, and misinterpret. It may be that such, or similar, misunderstandings (etc) would happen anyway.

In the former case, one danger is that, no matter what is written, the abstraction is so devoid of specific referents as to be nearly meaningless (to most readers), or some readers will make their own conclusions re which BAUT member(s) posts are being referred to anyway.

If I may ask, out of curiosity, how would you suggest the point of this thread should have been introduced, so as to ensure essentially no BAUT member misunderstands its intent?

This is what I like the least here... Some of us point out how your posts looked and you jump on the defensive and finally fall back on: how can this be solved algorithmically so that no such mistakes happend again. Well this is human interaction and there is no such solution... there is no way this can be done. However, if you had simply posted a response that said that this was not your intent followed by "I apologize if the intent was unclear. Jerry, I am sorry if you felt singled out", the matter would have been dropped. There is too little of this in this forum. Sometimes it feels more like a football game with everyone piling-on once a poster is down...

At this point I agree with Paracelsus, I don't think Nereid meant to single Jerry out. I just find it unfortunate that it took so much to set such a small point straight...

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

But I can't think of a single poster here that I haven't seen guilty of making a questionable post at one time or another, over-reacting at one time or another, denying intent, assuming, misunderstanding, accusing or placing a thinly veiled insult. We are all guilty.

Let those who are without guilt make the first post.

Result: no posts.

Sure, I agree, I've had to go back and quickly delete my own posts after realizing they were much too harsh.

On the other hand, there are posters who are endlessly pushing an idea that is probably wrong. Let them work through the idea once in an ATM thread, and if doesn't fly, then it's covered by the rules already. If you keep inserting the idea into everything, without anything new to add, then you're up for banning. Levity and satire might be an exception; I plan on spray painting my backyard to find the invisible dwarf.

Open-minded includes recognizing that your idea might be wrong, and shutting up about it when everybody goes "Oh, give it a rest!"

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I agree. When stating the mainstream position and debating the ATM one, the mainstream person should know WHY the mainstream position is accepted as mainstream and the evidence supporting it and the caveats in that evidence. 'Mainstream' science should not be defended as if it were religious dogma.

Very well said Paracelsus. When you are pleased , there is no reason not to say it also.

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I think it would have been better if he hadn't made the accusation in the first place. To be sure, this thread probably isn't the place to discuss it, but my reaction to his comment was honest puzzlement.

Sorry people , if I am late answering your posts. I was busy coming back from Ireland , writing a report , preparing next mission and so on. . .

And its a good thing , as i had time to cool down.

So I will not send the answer i prepared after browsing 2 UFO threads. As i would not give new names i searched exclusively posts from Van Rijn and RAF and i can say most of their posts were decent enough.

Well enough said on this petty debate.

To go back to the OP , my opinion about Jerry posts and similar is : Live and let live.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by galacsi

Very well said Paracelsus. When you are pleased , there is no reason not to say it also.

Somewhat related, I think, to this.

A long-time, high post count, BAUT member has oft said "Get thee to a library!" (or something similar) in reference to a bald assertion that is, in that person's view, dreadfully ignorant of the basics of the relevant physics (it's usually physics).

If such a 'not even wrong' bald assertion is made in an ATM thread, it's easy to ask that it be supported.

But what if it's not? What if it's in the Astronomy section (and the bald assertion concerns astronomy)?

There are, of course, dozens of different ways to respond - a simple (bald) statement that {insert concise summary of mainstream here}, a polite question ('I'm not familiar with {insert misunderstanding here}; in which textbook or paper did you come across it?'), a suggestion that there is a misunderstanding and that a new thread in the Q&A section would be a good idea, attempt to squeeze 500 hours of physics lectures into 500 words and show the bald assertion is off-base, and so on - but what if the bald assertion keeps getting made, in slightly different guises?

You see the difference? On the one hand, we have a Q&A section, with lots of BAUT members only too pleased to offer their time and inputs to provide as full an answer as possible*. On the other, there are bald, confident assertions which seem - to those who know the topic - to reflect profound ignorance.

Maybe you could help, galacsi? Maybe, when you see a response to a {insert suitable identifier here} post that seems to reflect the deep frustration of a professional astronomer, you could start a new thread in the Q&A section, with a pointer to that new thread when you quote the frustrated astronomer? That way you'd get to learn some astronomy (assuming you didn't already know it), and you'd helping all readers.^

*Of course, sometimes there is misunderstanding, sometimes there is friction, etc ...
^An example: here is a (set of) bald assertion(s); here is a response, here is another; here is a Q&A thread intended to address at least part of the apparent ignorance or misunderstanding.

[Paracelsus]

Although I'd never expect all of the professional physicists and astronomers to try to cover the vast amount of knowledge contained in either subject area, I certainly appreciate it when one them starts a thread like the one Nereid started and cited above or the 'Common Relativity misperceptions' thread Ken G started and wish there was an index to such threads that could either be called up by a BAUTer who wanted to learn something or may be referenced by a mainstreamer in case of need during a discussion in ATM-land. That said, I am trying to do my own homework as much as possible, 'getting me to the library' as time and life allows.

BAUT is certainly educational but should not be expected to provide one's entire education on space science/physics/astronomy/whatever.

[Lurker]

I agree with Paracelsus... This is a place for answers, but not the place for classes and a complete education. I think some of the threads that tend to act as faq's along with threads containing links are helpful. This type of forum only works if there is commitment on the part of both those who are experts, those who have questions, and those who wish to have alternative ideas heard. I think that both the experts and those with alternative ideas need to renew a commitment to more gentle tones and less aggressive styles. I think that both sides should back off a bit.

I was a bit hard on Nereid in an earlier post but I can also see how Jerry brings the wrath of the moderator down on his posts. I hope the cycle can be reversed.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Although I'd never expect all of the professional physicists and astronomers to try to cover the vast amount of knowledge contained in either subject area, I certainly appreciate it when one them starts a thread like the one Nereid started and cited above or the 'Common Relativity misperceptions' thread Ken G started and wish there was an index to such threads that could either be called up by a BAUTer who wanted to learn something or may be referenced by a mainstreamer in case of need during a discussion in ATM-land. That said, I am trying to do my own homework as much as possible, 'getting me to the library' as time and life allows.

BAUT is certainly educational but should not be expected to provide one's entire education on space science/physics/astronomy/whatever.

That's why we want to make sure that if you ask a question or read a thread in a general forum, you're getting the peer-reviewed, tested and accepted as correct information This is the crux of the whole argument in a nutshell.

[Whirlpool]

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

Let those who are without guilt make the first post.
Result: no posts.

Sure, I agree, I've had to go back and quickly delete my own posts after realizing they were much too harsh.

On the other hand, there are posters who are endlessly pushing an idea that is probably wrong. Let them work through the idea once in an ATM thread, and if doesn't fly, then it's covered by the rules already. If you keep inserting the idea into everything, without anything new to add, then you're up for banning. Levity and satire might be an exception; I plan on spray painting my backyard to find the invisible dwarf.

Open-minded includes recognizing that your idea might be wrong, and shutting up about it when everybody goes "Oh, give it a rest!"

I agree to that .

And not just commenting like this when some member who wants to express his opinion on this thread and received such reply after posting.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

time to close this one maybe?

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I'd say that's an affirmative.

[C18H27NO3]

For a 'wiki' style' place to collect oft repeated information - and to prevent more oft repeating - I recommend Wikispaces. I have been working on a Moon Wiki and it is a good way to have many contributors add information.

There is so much useful information on this forum that it would be great to capture it in a more accessable, organized manner.

- Mark

[folkhemmet]

Ari said: “I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't know what Jerry's motives are (unless Jerry has told you about them). There's no reason to assume that Jerry is talking about these things for other reasons than out of interest. Even if you assume that someone has sinister (or something like that) motives, there's no reason to go public with them. Well, ok, I guess wanting to insult the person in question is a reason.”


It is simply not accurate to say that the only access we have to a person’s motives comes from that person explicitly admitting loud and clear that X is my motive. When one looks at Picasso’s Guernica, for example, it is pretty clear that the artist’s motive was to capture the horror of war after the Nasi bombing of a Spanish town during WWII. A few weeks ago I had the chance to talk to an artist who did an award-winning painting of the Matthew Shepherd tragedy; as I suspected, based on my observation of the painting, he also was trying to depict the cruelty of the crime committed against this young man and the suffering he had to endure at the hands of his murderers. So, to make a long story short, I wholeheartedly disagree, as would most reasonable people, that the only way for one to know what a writer or artist’s motives for a given piece is to have them come out and say, “Hey, everybody, this is my motive. Did you get it? Duh, don’t you see?” Such a blatant admission would be pretty anti-climactic. So, when Jerry time and again makes posts in which he brings up ATM ideas in the astronomy section of the forum, then yes, it is safe to infer that his underlying motive for doing so may, at least in part, be that he is trying to promote his own agenda. For example, the following thread, started by Jerry in the ASTRONOMY section of the forum was essentially the promotion of an ATM idea (it admits as much in the title…for his motive look no further than actual title, Ari) and it was subsequently moved to the ATM section by a moderator as it should have been. This is an answer to the question of what should be done about “Jerry posts.” Why the CMB isn't at cosmological distances (Jerry's ideas)

By the way, calling people who criticize what Jerry “Jerry haters” is an ad hominem attack itself. I have made it a point to question and criticize Jerry’s methodology and logic e.g. I think the gist of a lot of my J-related posts has been to demonstrate that in a lot of instances Jerry has set himself up for a charge of self-refutation.

[Nereid]

Experiment - particularly helpful astronomy threads - a new thread, in the Astronomy section, to test the level of interest, and also ways to address some of the operational aspects.

Please contribute.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I actually look forward to such threads, as I believe they'd be very educational.

As far as to OP goes, I hesitate many times to post things in the 'Astronomy' forum, as I am afraid of bringing up a point that has been brought up before (which I accidentally did yesterday), or of cluttering that forum with trivial threads. Also, if something interesting comes along, somebody usually beats me to the punch and posts it before I do. I think the 'post in the Q&A section instead' idea is a good one which I, for one, will try to follow in future.

As for beating up on Jerry, I don't think that was the OP's intention.

Astronomy as a science - how do ideas get communicated? in the Q&A section, is the first of these.

[Jerry]

This is a public forum - there will be abusive comments and curt retorts. The owners of the board inforce fairly strict rules of decorum. Within those guidelines, let the fur fly! Call people on bad facts, poor logic, weak and poorly documented arguments, unsupportable opinions and needless repetition (there has been too much of that on this thread!)

I interpret Nereids question as a plea to be less obnoxious. I can do that - we all can.

Most importantly think, evaluate, be skeptical, don't be afraid to question and learn; and try to understand the opinions and positions of others.


Oh, and have fun. (This is the fun part of science)...and close this thread!

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Jerry

This is a public forum - there will be abusive comments and curt retorts. The owners of the board inforce fairly strict rules of decorum. Within those guidelines, let the fur fly! Call people on bad facts, poor logic, weak and poorly documented arguments, unsupportable opinions and needless repetition (there has been too much of that on this thread!)

I think this sort of interaction can be done with out having to "let the fur fly". It seems to me that the issues involved are either true or not and that "cat fights" do not reinforce the logic of an argument.

Originally Posted by Jerry

I interpret Nereids question as a plea to be less obnoxious. I can do that - we all can.

This would be helpful...

Originally Posted by Jerry

Most importantly think, evaluate, be skeptical, don't be afraid to question and learn; and try to understand the opinions and positions of others.

I agree with this... but Jerry, sometimes you are your own worst enemy. Your inability to ever admit that you might have been wrong about anything makes it difficult to support you. I think it would result in harmful precedents here if the mods banned you but I can't say that I would miss your tactics here...

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Lurker

[snip]

I agree with this... but Jerry, sometimes you are your own worst enemy. Your inability to ever admit that you might have been wrong about anything makes it difficult to support you. I think it would result in harmful precedents here if the mods banned you but I can't say that I would miss your tactics here...

To be fair to Jerry, he has stated he was wrong, several times. Here is an example:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jerry: I want the corrections for relativistic effects removed from the SDSS and the data base stuck out there so we can look for trends that might be hidden by bad pipeline correction factors.

Nereid: (my bold) What "relativistic effects" are currently in the SDSS DR5 Jerry?

Jerry: The raw data does not correct for redshift, it contains a redshift estimate and a redshift confidence assessment for each object. (if I said otherwise, I was wrong.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps you may be pointing to a different aspect, Lurker? An apparent lack of any 'back up the chain' corrections that one might expect would - logically - follow from "I was wrong"?

BTW, that same thread contains the confrontation between claim and experimental result wrt Pioneer 6.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Nereid

To be fair to Jerry, he has stated he was wrong, several times. Here is an example:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jerry: I want the corrections for relativistic effects removed from the SDSS and the data base stuck out there so we can look for trends that might be hidden by bad pipeline correction factors.

Nereid: (my bold) What "relativistic effects" are currently in the SDSS DR5 Jerry?

Jerry: The raw data does not correct for redshift, it contains a redshift estimate and a redshift confidence assessment for each object. (if I said otherwise, I was wrong.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps you may be pointing to a different aspect, Lurker? An apparent lack of any 'back up the chain' corrections that one might expect would - logically - follow from "I was wrong"?

BTW, that same thread contains the confrontation between claim and experimental result wrt Pioneer 6.

I had missed that post... If that is the extent of his admission of mistake, it is pretty thin compared to the times he has been proven incorrect...

But yes... I have never seen Jerry modify or correct a position he has taken based on the mistakes he has made. I agree with him that skepticism is a good thing, but it applies to his ideas as well as mainstream ideas.

He has also, in my opinion, on occasion engaged in the same baiting tactics that he accuses others of engaging in. When he ceases this activity I will have more sympathy when he finds it used against him.

[Neverfly]

One of the first things I noticed when I joined BAUT was just how much a person can learn about themselves here...

What I had been taking for granted about myself I suddenly had to question.

If BAUT has taught me anything, it is that I often need to step back and reevaluate myself first and then I can reevaluate my argument.

Still have much to learn, however...

[CodeSlinger]

Lurker, post 31:

Originally Posted by Lurker

This forum has a large variety of posters, posting styles, and personal habits. If the community begins to discuss the behavior or posting style of any individual poster it sets a precedent for the discussion of the posting style or attitude of any individual poster that someone dislikes. I don't see how this would be a good idea for the health of these forums...

Then, in post 64, directed to 01101001:

Originally Posted by Lurker

You said , "Did you skip science class the day..." and I think this does suggest that if the poster had gone to class as they were suppose to they would have been able to answer the question for themselves. It added nothing to the context of the discussion and it suggests that the poster should have seen such a demonstration. I did not see this demonstration until I was a freshman in college. If the poster was a bright young 5th, they may well have never seen the demonstration in my school system. I am not suggesting it is a large issue, but it shows, in my opinion the disregard posters in this forum sometimes show for those who are looking to become informed.

And now to Jerry:

Originally Posted by Lurker

I agree with this... but Jerry, sometimes you are your own worst enemy. Your inability to ever admit that you might have been wrong about anything makes it difficult to support you. I think it would result in harmful precedents here if the mods banned you but I can't say that I would miss your tactics here...

More about Jerry:

Originally Posted by Lurker

If that is the extent of his admission of mistake, it is pretty thin compared to the times he has been proven incorrect...

But yes... I have never seen Jerry modify or correct a position he has taken based on the mistakes he has made. I agree with him that skepticism is a good thing, but it applies to his ideas as well as mainstream ideas.

He has also, in my opinion, on occasion engaged in the same baiting tactics that he accuses others of engaging in. When he ceases this activity I will have more sympathy when he finds it used against him.

Oh the irony! And the confusion. Lurker, should we discuss the behavior/posting style of individual posters, or shouldn't we?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

So, when Jerry time and again makes posts in which he brings up ATM ideas in the astronomy section of the forum, then yes, it is safe to infer that his underlying motive for doing so may, at least in part, be that he is trying to promote his own agenda.

And yet I infer entirely different motive. But I freely admit that I don't have any clue about Jerry's motives, and I think it's rude to speculate on other people's motives. The fact that you have once suggesfully guessed one painter's motive doesn't make you a person who knows motives of other people.

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

For example, the following thread, started by Jerry in the ASTRONOMY section of the forum was essentially the promotion of an ATM idea (it admits as much in the title…for his motive look no further than actual title, Ari) and it was subsequently moved to the ATM section by a moderator as it should have been.

Perhaps you should read the moderator note in the beginning, the thread wasn't started by Jerry nor was the title created by him. And this still wouldn't show Jerry's motives of making those posts.

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

By the way, calling people who criticize what Jerry “Jerry haters” is an ad hominem attack itself.

I admit that it might be seen as rude, and I regret that I were stupid enough to use that word. However, I didn't use it as ad hominem (i.e. I didn't use it to discredit anyone's arguments).

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

I have made it a point to question and criticize Jerry’s methodology and logic e.g. I think the gist of a lot of my J-related posts has been to demonstrate that in a lot of instances Jerry has set himself up for a charge of self-refutation.

Let's take one quote from you (from here):

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

Jerry's behavior is textbook example of what psychologists refer to as confirmation bias or belief fixation.

Suggesting that Jerry has psychological condition is hardly a proper way to "criticize Jerry’s methodology and logic".

To me it seems that you have made it a point to post rude things about Jerry, but I don't know that for sure because I don't know how to flawlessly infer people's motives.

[Neverfly]

Ari Jokimaki, it is perfectly reasonable to infer a persons motives. Although we cannot read minds or perfectly infer them, we can make a pretty accurate educated guess.

folkhemmet did not suggest that Jerry was a mental case or suffered a psychological condition, only that Jerry seems to be "fixated."
That isn't unreasonable to say and I often point out fixation to people in order to help them overcome what it is that they are fixated with.

folkhemmet, people like Jerry in discussions of physics are necessary as well. I've enjoyed some of his posts, whether I was in agreement or against.
We need to question everything and also accept that even a well established theory- remains just a theory.

Codeslinger, Lurker seems to have contradicted himself a bit. But both points have validity. Questioning a persons post is reasonable. However, browbeating a person is not.
A fine line gets drawn between discussing and arguing.
And sometimes a person developes a personal dislike against another that comes out in their posts- sometimes they didn't but it sure looks like they did.

Each of what Lurker said seems quite valid to me.

And every person posts at different times with a greater chance of thinking a bit differently by the time they post again. Perhaps they think something through better or realize they need to change their mind or attitude. Or sometimes emotional response overrides the logical.
We ALL contradict ourselves at one point or another. I'm sure I can dig up old posts of mine where I did. I'm sure I could find some where you have as well.
That is the learning process.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Suggesting that Jerry has psychological condition is hardly a proper way to "criticize Jerry’s methodology and logic".

Hold on. Don't mis-characterize what folkhemmet said. Confirmation bias is most expressly not a psychological "condition". Belief fixation is not a psychological "condition" any more than "Buck fever" (same thing) is.

When it comes to scientific study, we are our own worst enemies. Our minds are those of overdeveloped pattern-matchers. Which was useful when we had to worry about predators. (Dr.) Pamela Gay put it best in an interview with Phil: "Better to see the leopard in the bushes that isn't there than miss the one that eats you for dinner". The price of that is that we frequently see things that simply aren't there.

The whole point of the scientific method is to filter the humanity from our research. The humanity; and all the biases and inherent errors that come with it.

Jerry is subject to confirmation bias. So are you. So am I. So is the BA, Fraser, Sigmund Freud and every other man, woman and child who has ever walked on this pretty mudball.

The difference is that Jerry isn't always careful enough about sticking to the methods that nerf confirmation bias. It makes it particularly hard for him to let go of fatally flawed ideas.

The thing is, I could remove Jerry's name entirely from this post, and it would apply equally well to dozens, possibly hundreds of other posters, both regular and casual.

[folkhemmet]

I should have been more specific. Actually, Ari, the thread I was referring to was created by a moderator in response to Jerry inserting his ATM agenda, yet again, into the astronomy section of the forum; the moderator had to take his or her time to start a new thread which he or she then placed in the ATM section of the forum. After the thread was moved to the ATM section the discussion continued in its appropriate place.

It seems pretty clear that when one inserts their ATM agenda into non-ATM threads (which in the case mentioned then have to be moved by BAUT moderators), then their motive is to promote their ATM agenda. Why is this so hard for you to accept, Ari? It really does not seem all that hard to understand. Let’s face it, there are many times in life when people make their motives for doing things pretty obvious—that’s just a fact. Most of the ATM section is full of threads started by people whose motive is undeniably to throw their idea out there for others to scrutinize, or buy into, and that’s just fine—that’s why there is an ATM section. The problem with Jerry is that he time and again posts his ATM ideas in the astronomy section, and other sections, of the forum.

Confirmation bias and belief fixation are terms used by psychologists to describe individuals who persistently take a position in which they refuse to accept any evidence that flies in the face of what they believe. Confirmation bias occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon evidence which tends to support the things we already believe or want to be true while ignoring that evidence which would serve to disconfirm those beliefs or ideas. I mentioned his belief fixation as being part, actually a central element, of his convoluted style of reasoning.

A disturbing pattern which Jerry continues to exhibit is this: if a finding is released which casts doubt on the Big Bang theory, supernovae data, or CMB physics comes out, then it is automatically correct (“See, I told you so”); if a finding comes out which seems to confirm the Big Bang, then it is automatically incorrect (“I am so sure their methodology has to be flawed”). This pattern can be seen just by perusing the baut Story Comments section and looking at most of Jerry's posts. Jerry's behavior is textbook example of what psychologists refer to as confirmation bias or belief fixation. Ironically, this type of bias is the same one which Jerry accuses the cosmology community of when in actuality cosmologists have changed their views over the years. He accuses the cosmology community of closed-off narrow-minded thinking and assumptions, but perhaps those living in glass houses should not throw so many stones.

Another red-flag pattern, which Jerry continues to exhibit, is a further reflection of his aforementioned confirmation bias. Jerry often complains about the ugly complexity of the cosmological model with its “multiplying” parameters and epicyclical nature. So, on the one hand you have the "reluctant cosmologist" complaining that there are too many parameters in mainstream cosmology. On other hand, the reluctant cosmologist often proclaims that the Universe is much more complex than we can imagine. This is pretty convoluted reasoning; obviously it reveals more about those making it than it does about the state of modern cosmology. When an observation comes out implying that we understand something about the Universe, the reluctant cosmologist plays the Universe is more complex card. When an observation comes out implying that the Universe is more complex, the reluctant cosmologist plays the Universe is simpler card. This type of thinking should raise many a red flag!

[Ari Jokimaki]

(Sigh) There you go again...

I'll just briefly clarify my position and then I'm done here. If there is a need to post negative things about some person's motives, in my opinion then one should be certain about those motives, it is not enough if they are safely inferred, or educationally guessed. And, it is hard for me to imagine why there really would be such need to say those negative things, especially if one makes a point of repeating them time and time again about same person. That is just plain rude in my book.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

(Sigh) There you go again...

I'll just briefly clarify my position and then I'm done here. If there is a need to post negative things about some person's motives, in my opinion then one should be certain about those motives, it is not enough if they are safely inferred, or educationally guessed. And, it is hard for me to imagine why there really would be such need to say those negative things, especially if one makes a point of repeating them time and time again about same person. That is just plain rude in my book.

Jerry has been folowing the thread ( I would too if someone named a thread after me talking about doing things like I do)

There's nothing wrong with saying, I think So and So had or has "this" motivation.
Jerry is here to either refute that or admit to it.

So far Jerry has posted in this thread pretty calmly and matter of fact.

In spite of us talkin about him so much

Is this how fame feels Jerry?

Very repetitive or negative posting about a person or their motives, or posting behind their back would seem to me to be rude, yes.

[CodeSlinger]

Neverfly, your rebuttal to me was well-put, and probably more polite than I deserved. But to me, Lurker's words in this thread goes beyond mere self-contradiction. Lurker starts by pointing out to others that we should not discuss the posting style/attitude of posters. But when 01101001 owned up to an example Lurker used to exemplify a posting style/attitude Lurker dislikes, Lurker felt free to criticize 01101001. And when Jerry stepped into the thread, Lurker then critizes his posting style/attitude pointedly. From where I sit, this isn't just self-contradiction, it's a 180 turn-about that approaches hypocrisy. I will admit, I got carried away in the way I pointed this out. However, my question to Lurker (which was a sincere one) still stands: should we, or should we not, publically discuss the posting style/attitude of posters?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

...should we, or should we not, publically discuss the posting style/attitude of posters?

From the number of warnings I have personally received, I would have to say the answer is no, we can not discuss the "style/attitude" of other posters.

Of course that's a difficult rule to follow when the "other poster" is all style/attitude and no substance.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Neverfly, your rebuttal to me was well-put, and probably more polite than I deserved.
But to me, Lurker's words in this thread goes beyond mere self-contradiction. Lurker starts by pointing out to others that we should not discuss the posting style/attitude of posters.

And I agree with that. I have said so myself many many times. More about the style than attitude...
And it DID go beyond- You were right to point it out. I need it pointed out when I do it and there's no guarantee I will accept it with Dignity and Grace
(albeit I am trying to learn...)

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

But when 01101001 owned up to an example Lurker used to exemplify a posting style/attitude Lurker dislikes, Lurker felt free to criticize 01101001.

My own interpretation of events:
01101001 did NOT own up to it. In fact he got defensive- ( I probably would too...) However, I read the "Did you skip school that day" as kinda...
Well... It's not that bad really but could easily imply that the guy was a lazy student. It sounds like you are calling a person ignorant.
The best thing to do at that moment would be to say, "I shouldn't have said it like that"
01101001 denied that it had that meaning and I'm sorry... Like Nereid saying that calling them Jerry Posts and linking to Jerry's post was NOT directed at anyone in particular...
It didn't jive with my common Sense. It kinda insults my intelligence if it's said to me- "That purple cow is green"

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

And when Jerry stepped into the thread, Lurker then critizes his posting style/attitude pointedly. From where I sit, this isn't just self-contradiction, it's a 180 turn-about that approaches hypocrisy. I will admit, I got carried away in the way I pointed this out. However, my question to Lurker (which was a sincere one) still stands: should we, or should we not, publically discuss the posting style/attitude of posters?

<chuckle> yep! I had to scroll back and I see where you are comming from- it is pretty blatant.
Your question to Lurker is valid and I stand corrected.

The piece I pointed out is something that I think a lot of posters here need to consider...Where to draw the line when questioning a person?
It's easy to get emotional.

You say here you got carried away. I do it a lot too. Ask 01101001, ask Gillianren or Serenitude.
Sometimes I don't allow myself enough "think-time" before "Speak-time."
Knowing this about myself, I can recognize when others follow the pattern.
That's really the ONLY reason I directed a post at you was those two things.

You say I was polite?!?!

SEE!!
I AM LEARNING

[CodeSlinger]

Thanks for that, Neverfly. You were indeed polite to me. My hope is that some day, I too will learn how to do that

Edit: Wow, had quite a bit of trouble trying to post just this little comment... hopefully this one goes through.