<br>On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Alf P. Steinbach <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alfps@start.no">alfps@start.no</a>></span> wrote:<div>[abundant snips which do not accurately represent who said what where due to my own laziness]</div>
<div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Not sure, but perhaps it's possible to mail directly to gmane?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Is there *any* problem you don't have a fatuous answer for?<br>
</blockquote>
I thought the answer could help.<br>
<br>
You thought you cold do a bit of ad hominem attack.<br>
<br>
That's the difference between us.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div class="im">
Well, the way I see it, you assumed you knew better than Stephen, and<br>
insisted on proposing a solution to a problem that he clearly stated he<br>
had no interest in.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
You're going into motivations, that it seems to me that you're projecting, saying that any helpful suggestion mean that one thinks one knows better and implies a desire to demonstrate imagined superiority.<br>
<br>
You're trying to portray a helping hand as a negative personal characteristic of the helper.<br>
<br>
"the only reason that guy tries to help you is because he wishes to show how superior he (thinks he) is".<br>
<br>
That's your style in a fair number of postings, and now here:<br>
<br>
* ad hominem attack,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am, frankly, tired of this.</div><div><br></div><div>Please stop this overly obsessive sensitivity towards what you think are "ad hominem" attacks. Just drop it. Its worthless. It degrades you. Your arguments are frequently nothing more then, "I define the world this way and you do not disagree so I declare your argument invalid". You've dismissed at least one of my arguments with a simple hand-waving of, "That's invalid, cuz." The thing is, there was no basis for 'cuz' beyond "In my own head this is what I think, this is how I'm defining words"</div>
<div><br></div><div>The response of others to such arguments has been, "Do you /really/ need to be so absolutely right in everything?!" which is said in frustration, irritation and with deep sighing. </div><div>
<br></div><div>And then begins the loud declarations of ad hominem attacks. </div><div><br></div><div>Its not productive. It doesn't help your case or arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>Its tired.</div><div><br></div>
<div>It doesn't make your case. It doesn't make anyone but you look bad. Every time you go on about, "YOU ARE AD HOMINEM'N ME!", you just make yourself look worse.</div><div><br></div><div>Yeah. People can be snarky in a community. Maybe... MAYBE... Steve Holden is periodically a little snarky at you. It is not without reason. And your declarations of his ad hominem attacks against you comes off as nothing but base /whining/.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just drop it. </div><div><br></div><div>Its boring.</div><div><br></div><div>Also...</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm not quite sure, given that, what the point of the advice was.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
There are many people who read just the Usenet group, e.g. via Google groups.<br>
<br>
When you say you don't understand the point of the advice, you're saying that<br>
<br>
* those people don't matter, and that<br>
<br>
* it doesn't matter whether they can read Stephen Hansen's articles.<br>
<br>
That's<br>
<br>
* slighting Stephen Hansen, and<br>
<br>
* showing off an extreme ego-centric view of the world,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please do NOT presume to take up my defense on ANY level.</div><div><br></div><div>I can handle myself, thank you. </div><div>
<br></div><div>I have said as much on two occasions that I don't know why some people seem unable to see my postings on usenet, and that despite this, I don't really care. It is not worth it to me to make my voice known to every possible listener in the world. I don't have sufficient vanity to assume that I need to be heard.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I speak when it interests me to speak; and if heard, perhaps I'm listened to. Perhaps they will be helped. Perhaps they will not. Perhaps someone will argue with me. Perhaps we will both benefit from this debate and the exchange of ideas. That's the ideal situation, of course. Discourse and debate leading to new understanding. But I don't need anyone to defend my place in such discourse.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I do not want, and utterly reject, anyone else standing up and taking any sort of stand on my behalf related to if someone else has slighted me.</div><div><br></div><div>If and when I feel that I have been slighted, I will react accordingly. If Steve Holden slighted me in any way (he has not), I am more then capable of saying so on my own. I'd tell the BDFL he was an ass if he were an ass (he is not!) if I thought it was warranted. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Thank you, but the value of my contribution to the community is a determination that I will make based on my own interest to share; and a determination those who do read me will make based on their interest to respond. If I needed everyone to hear me, I'd start up a blog and post rants all the time. If I felt that my contribution were not being heard fairly according to its worth, I'd try to take steps to make sure I was.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div name="mailplane_signature">--S</div></div>