I have no idea why you replied to a (already painful) thread that has been dead and gone for 5 months...
···
On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:08 , Paris S. wrote:
Because it is not nice to try to exclude people.
Google "Geek Social Fallacies".
Nikolai Weibull wrote in post #1006560:
>> Five posts in on this thread, and four of them are the self appointed list
>> police saying don't post in this thread. Ilias vs Lord of the Flies.
>
> I agree. I’d much rather read another one of Ilias tirades than
> another “please don’t feed the troll” post.I just wanted to agree with this.
Are you aware that you resurrected a discussion from almost half a year
ago to say that? Let sleeping dogs lie if you really want it to stop.
However, insisting that they not post to a mailing list is bullying
behavior.Complaining when others talk to them is to seek to control something
that is darn well none of your business, and is bullying and even a step
beyond.
I don't think it was intended as bullying. I think it was intended as
advice.
And calling them out for public ridicule is disgusting, and it is
definitely Lord of the Flies. The idea some had that simply pointing
that out makes you also like Lord of the Flies is bizarre! It is the
meanness and trying to join together like a wild gang to force somebody
out even when it is not your decision, with no concept of social norms,
that is what Lord of the Flies implies.
I think you missed the point of Lord of the Flies. It was about the
innate potential for savagery in people, lurking just beneath the surface
of our civilization, and how this can lead to the development of harmful
social norms. It is not, as you imply, about the violation of social
norms.
It seems like it should go without saying that any post claiming to be
well intentioned should be accepted, unless it is clearly abusive. Not
liking the author should never be grounds to exclude a post, or even to
attempt to exclude a post.Because it is not nice to try to exclude people.
How would you suggest dealing with people who go out of their way to be a
destructive influence on an otherwise relatively harmonious group?
···
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:08:29AM +0900, Paris S. wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:08, Sam Duncan <sduncan@wetafx.co.nz> wrote:
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
I appreciate what you're driving at, but a request to not feed the
troll is not making your decision for you, it's basically a
suggestion. Obviously nobody has control over what you do. Second, I
would think the people who have engaged him certainly have an idea of
where the thread might lead!
I shall stop adding to posts in this thread, as people have suggested.
Feel free to join me!
···
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
My point is that it’s not up to others to decide what I, or anyone
else, deem worthy of discussion. It seems that most posters on this
list have managed to stay clear of most of what Ilias has been posting
about. Some have, as the list showed, engaged him and it’s mildly
annoying when some of those posters then tell everyone else to steer
clear of him.
>> Here are the statistics of the require_relative thread (name, number
>> of messages):
>>
>> [list]
>>
>> The top two posters, skipping you and Ilias himself, are the two that
>> posted warnings in this thread. The poster who re-quoted one of the
>> warnings is in the top ten.
I suppose I'm one of the top two, so I suppose you're talking (at least
partly) about me when you say this:
My point is that it’s not up to others to decide what I, or anyone
else, deem worthy of discussion.
When have I ever said anything of the sort?
Some have, as the list showed, engaged him and it’s mildly
annoying when some of those posters then tell everyone else to steer
clear of him.
I don't think I said this, either. Here's what I actually said:
Anyone who believes Ilias should be given the benefit of the doubt, and
that the "list police" (just concerned users, really) shouldn't be warning
people not to feed the troll, watch what Ilias does here.
I haven't actually told anyone to stay away, I'm only pointing out, by way of
illustration, that those who have said to stay away are doing so out of
experience, and not as some sort of arbitrary censorship or attempt to
"police" anyone. In fact, I think that sort of argument would have _more_
credibility coming from those who've actually engaged him.
That is: I'm not deciding for you that it's not worth discussing. I'm not even
saying the topic isn't worth discussing, though I do think the
"require_relative" thread got to that point -- but sometimes, Ilias does spark
interesting discussions, though they seem to happen in spite of his best
efforts to kill the more interesting discussion by declaring it off-topic.
I'm not even saying not to feed him. I'm just saying, this is what happens
when you do. If you still think it's likely to be worth your time, I'm doing
absolutely nothing to stop you.
I have the time to waste, and I find it entertaining sometimes, but that
doesn't mean it's been a productive use of my time. And you're right:
···
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 09:00:43 AM Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 14:51, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
On Monday, June 20, 2011 04:52:34 PM David Masover wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 05:06:41 AM Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Perhaps they should heed their own and each other’s warnings instead
of repeatedly telling everyone else what to do?
I haven't told anyone what to do, but I absolutely should heed those warnings.
At least I've got my priorities straight now -- I think I've spent much more
time responding to you than I did in my last post to him.
I’m in! 
···
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 16:07, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
My point is that it’s not up to others to decide what I, or anyone
else, deem worthy of discussion. It seems that most posters on this
list have managed to stay clear of most of what Ilias has been posting
about. Some have, as the list showed, engaged him and it’s mildly
annoying when some of those posters then tell everyone else to steer
clear of him.
I appreciate what you're driving at, but a request to not feed the
troll is not making your decision for you, it's basically a
suggestion. Obviously nobody has control over what you do. Second, I
would think the people who have engaged him certainly have an idea of
where the thread might lead!
I shall stop adding to posts in this thread, as people have suggested.
Feel free to join me!
No, you were the one I skipped, precisely because you haven’t said
anything of the sort. I got you and Adam Prescott confused when I
responded. I’m sorry about the mix-up.
···
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 16:46, David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 09:00:43 AM Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 14:51, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
>> Here are the statistics of the require_relative thread (name, number
>> of messages):
>>
>> [list]
>>
>> The top two posters, skipping you and Ilias himself, are the two that
>> posted warnings in this thread. The poster who re-quoted one of the
>> warnings is in the top ten.
I suppose I'm one of the top two, so I suppose you're talking (at least
partly) about me when you say this: