Official "Lasciate ogne speranza" whinge-thread
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;343955]Cheesehead... With the greatest of serenity, it would do you good to try to take everything a little less seriously.

Most of us here are very serious; but somehow we still enjoy humor.[/QUOTE]Explain to me the humor involved in not only banishing [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=300439&postcount=1"]this sincere on-topic post[/URL] (minus the sarcastic title) from the thread in which I posted it, but also falsely accusing me of "hyperpartisanship" and having posted "the most contorted and blatant spin job I've seen in quite a while", plus falsely attributing to me numerous ideas (e.g., "you credit Obama with the reduced spending", "your 'Obama the frugal' label") that I never expressed ... all without anyone's having posted evidence that there was any factual error in the article I linked and quoted.

[QUOTE=garo;342681]Though I am sure a certain individual would be here defending this latest outrage.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;343770]Please tell us who that certain individual is.[/QUOTE]
I'm about 80% sure he meant you, cheesehead. The subsequent humour involving Dick Cheney made me smile a bit, but the general misrepresentation of your views is not in the least bit funny. I find that ugly and distasteful despite the fact that I am not personally affected by it. You [I]are[/I] affected by it, and I find your obvious annoyance understandable.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;344030]I'm about 80% sure he meant you, cheesehead. The subsequent humour involving Dick Cheney made me smile a bit, but the general misrepresentation of your views is not in the least bit funny. I find that ugly and distasteful despite the fact that I am not personally affected by it. You [I]are[/I] affected by it, and I find your obvious annoyance understandable.[/QUOTE]I'm about to start a new thread for discussion of such matters.

[OT]
 

[OT]

Administrators:

I don't mind, and indeed expect, that my post #77 will and should be moved to a separate thread, on grounds of off-topicness for this one ... [U]as long as other, relatedly-off-topic preceding posts, and relatedly-off-topic comments within some otherwise on-topic posts, are also moved along with it.[/U]

By "relatedly-off-topic" I mean comments and posts directed in a non-friendly[sup]*[/sup] manner toward individual forum posters rather than toward third parties outside this forum.

Example: though this thread's title and OP's main statements of topic refer to Obama administration actions, the OP included one off-topic sentence ("Though I am sure a certain individual would be here defending this latest outrage.") apparently directed at me, [U]falsely insinuating, without any supporting evidence, that _I_ would defend the just-revealed "latest outrage".[/U]

That is as off-topic as my post #77, and I expect it to be given the same banishing-to-a-separate-thread treatment as given to my post #77, because the same principle applies: [I]it's about another forum participant (in a non-friendly manner) rather than about the topic of Obama administration misdeeds.[/I]

For administrators' assistance, here's a partial list (I may have overlooked some) of other relatedly-off-topic posts in this thread, which I expect to be given the same treatment as my post #77:

posts #10 (Note that garo did not apply his "zero-tolerance on off-topic crap" to his own sentence in post #1), #15, #63-64, #67, #69-70, #72-73, #75 and #78-79 ... and this one, of course.

I'm only asking for fair treatment here.

- - -

[sup]*[/sup] For instance, posts #55-61 are friendly.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344050]though this thread's title and OP's main statements of topic refer to Obama administration actions, the OP included one off-topic sentence ("Though I am sure a certain individual would be here defending this latest outrage.") apparently directed at me, [U]falsely insinuating, without any supporting evidence, that _I_ would defend the just-revealed "latest outrage".[/U][/QUOTE]

It's called "sarcasm" - learning to recognize and deal with appropriately is as much a part of the normal life and becoming-an-adult experience as recognition/appreciation of humor, which you also appear to be utterly incapable of. Now, these things may genuinely be symptoms of some genuine medical condition which is beyond your control, but as your cognitive functioning appears to be unimpaired, surely you must recognize by now that your repeated infliction of whiny, self-centered, discussion-minutiae-obsessed ramblings on every thread whose tenor is not to your liking is not welcome. And couching it in I-was-wronged/woe-is-me silliness like "I expect these incredibly valuable posts of mine to be moved by the evildoers running the show here" doesn't mitigate it.

If you have nothing positive/informative (the latter in the sense that it's not all about you and your accumulated mountain of perceived slights) to contribute, you have the option of just reading and even of doing other things with your oh-so-valuable time.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344053]It's called "sarcasm"[/QUOTE]Yes, but it's as off-topic as the other posts I listed.

Sarcasm is a poor way to usefully communicate justifiable grievances. I would have appreciated your (and garo's, where applicable) honest, straightforward explanations of your actual objections to some of my posts ... IF you had ever offered such a thing. But your (uncontrollable??) resort to sarcasm does nothing to actually solve the problem. Instead, [I]I've learned important aspects of your real objections only through conversations with another moderator who spoke honestly to me[/I].

I can tell when a comment is sarcastic -- what I can't necessarily figure out right away is [I]the real motive[/I] for directing sarcasm to me.

[I]If you'd adopt a habit of posting honest, non-evasive, non-sarcastic objections to posts you don't like [/I](at least, before or in addition to the evasion and sarcasm, but be careful about intermixing)[I], it'd be much easier and faster for the poster to figure out how not to raise your ire in the future[/I] -- that is, _if_ your real motive is to persuade the poster to stop doing what irritates you.

[quote]which you also appear to be utterly incapable of.[/quote]... for which accusation you offer no supporting evidence, as usual.

[quote]Now, these things may genuinely be symptoms of some genuine medical condition which is beyond your control, but as your cognitive functioning appears to be unimpaired, surely you must recognize by now that your repeated infliction of whiny, self-centered, discussion-minutiae-obsessed ramblings on every thread whose tenor is not to your liking is not welcome.[/quote]You've often conflated separate issues that merit different types of response:

1) that my criterion for forum posting differs from yours, but does not violate any posted requirements visible to participants, and indeed is more consonant with Xyzzy's expressed desire for diversity than your desire for conformity,

2) that after I point out your logic flaws or lack of evidence you tend to respond by turning up your sarcasm about me instead of honestly explaining your irritation, pointing out anything I wrote that's actually incorrect, or admitting/correcting your mistake in that instance, and

3) that I sometimes (often when, yes, some genuine medical condition -- over which I may have exercised less control than I ought to have exercised -- occurs to impair my overall awareness of focus) do get into a tunnel-vision, "minutiae-obsessed" mood. I have publicly asked other participants to help me in this regard by alerting me to possible instances where this may be occurring, and now I'm repeating that request.

You need to learn to tolerate #1, without hurling stuff like "extreme political bias".

If your real motive is to persuade me to change my behavior, you need to replace your habit #2 with straightforwardness.

You need to stop using #3 as an excuse to hide your real objections to #1 and #2.

[quote]And couching it in I-was-wronged/woe-is-me silliness[/quote]By continuing to conflate those separate issues, you mistakenly and wrongly attribute my complaints to an incorrect motive (#3, or some other irrelevancy), and thus deflect readers' attention to issues #1 and #2 above. Are you doing that consciously?

[quote]like "I expect these incredibly valuable posts of mine to be moved by the evildoers running the show here"[/quote]You did it in May of last year, and again more recently. Why not now? (This isn't going to be a regular chore, now that I've finally figured out what's going on here and will adjust my posting habits accordingly.)

In accordance with my announcement of starting a new separate thread for discussion of issues related to personal criticism of me, I hereby also declare that:

From now on, I will strive to avoid littering your (and garo's, and others') threads with the sort of off-topic responses to off-topic unfriendly personal remarks that so irk you (and others).

The main reason I haven't done this earlier is that I had not yet sufficiently analyzed your conflations to determine your [U]real[/U] motives. Your conflations, evasions and refusals to honestly say what you've meant haven't helped me do that.

[quote]If you have nothing positive/informative (the latter in the sense that it's not all about you and your accumulated mountain of perceived slights) to contribute, you have the option of just reading and even of doing other things with your oh-so-valuable time.[/quote]If you:

continue to mislead your readers about the actual separate issues #1 and #2 above, and/or

disguise your objections to them by couching them as though they referred to issue #3 or some other irrelevancy, and/or

use phrases such as "Beats trying to have any kind of rational discussion with Herr Käsekopf, don't it?" without having first tried to have such rational discussion without dishonesty, evasion and sarcasm,

then I will continue pointing out your deceptions and evasions in whatever part of the forum is available to me, but without inserting such remarks into threads where they'd be off-topic. (This is my goal. I may occasionally forget and make such an off-topic post, but I will appreciate having that mistake promptly pointed out to me.)

- - -

Ernst,

I've long admired and respected your mountain of positive contribution to this forum, especially about economics, and still do. Your excursions into improper criticism of me tarnish that record, but are correctable.

Ernst,

Another way of looking at this is: What are your honest motives?

Have you actually wanted me to stop certain posting habits that irritated you, such as repeatedly posting about politics in your "Mystery Economic Theater" threads? I've been told that is something that irritates you, but IIRC you've never straightforwardly expressed that to me. I had to learn it from someone else. If you had honestly explained that to me when it first started irritating you, I could have stopped doing that years ago, and found a different way of linking my political posts to economics.

Or have you really wanted me to continue the irritating habit, so that you could derive some kind of pleasure from endless noninformative, nonproductive bitching and bitching? Let me point out that this alternative -- [I]like any other dishonest alternative[/I] -- has the drawback of misleading or confusing your readers. Do you _want_ or _intend_ to mislead or confuse your readers?

- -

As to the so-called "nanoquoting": if you'd plainly explained what you or George meant by that, I could have tried some alternatives that irritated you less. (Again, I had to find out from someone else what you meant.)

Did you get so much self-pleasure from using that term without defining it that you couldn't bring yourself to be more straightforward to me? Was that self-pleasure worth whatever confusion and misdirection it might have caused your readers?

Do you get a kick out of perpetuating a "Nyah, nyah, I know what I mean by that term, but you don't" situation so that you can feel superior?

- -

About our differences in criteria for posting --

I never knew until just a few days ago that:

a) you've always intended to specifically and consistently criticize the current administration regardless of which party was in power,

b) you consider that alternation to be "bipartisan" (I'd call it "alternatingly anti-partisan" or something else along that line -- it's certainly not consistent with the common usage of "bipartisan" such as in "Today, Senators reached bipartisan agreement on Bill 9999."), and

c) you think so very, very highly of the particular criterion you've chosen for deciding what to post that you feel justified in endlessly needling someone else just because their criterion for deciding what to post is not the same as yours (but without your ever honestly revealing that motive). How conceited.

Have you ever stopped to consider that diversity in this forum, stated to be a chief goal by Xyzzy, is not furthered by harassing someone else until they use the same posting-choice criteria that you use?

Is not my own criterion of specializing in posting certain topics that were not being addressed by anyone else, and avoiding "me, too"s, consistent with a forum goal of diversity?

Moderator note:
The foregoing posts have been moved from the thread "Obama administration snooping on citizens (just in case)".

Cheesehead: my apologies for not doing the same with other off topic posts in that thread as you suggested. My main motivation is to keep the original thread from being diverted and to allow people to continue with the original topic there, so I am biased when it comes to lengthy diversions. My action may be over-ruled or altered by supermods who see it differently from me.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;344106]Cheesehead: my apologies for not doing the same with other off topic posts in that thread as you suggested. My main motivation is to keep the original thread from being diverted and to allow people to continue with the original topic there, so I am biased when it comes to lengthy diversions.[/QUOTE]Why only the "lengthy" diversions?

[I]chalsall's posts #15, #69 and #75 are completely off-topic. Why are they allowed to stay?

My post #72 and xilman's #73 are off-topic. Why are they allowed to stay?

[/I]Each of those five posts also diverts the thread from its original topic!

None of those five posts contributes a relevant idea to the on-topic discussion!

Removal of those five posts would not deprive the on-topic discussion of a single relevant idea.

How does your expressed motivation, [I]"to keep the original thread from being diverted and to allow people to continue with the original topic there"[/I] [U]fail to apply to #15, 69, 72, 73 and 75 also?[/U] (Why would length or word count have anything to do with that? Diversion is diversion.)

In particular, by leaving #15, #69 and #75 you leave in off-topic digs at me without allowing all my responses to be in the same thread so readers can get a fair picture of what went on. My response #72 is no more on-topic than the post #69 to which it replied, nor was xilman's #73. Putting them all in this thread would bring together these related posts, for less confusion of future readers.

I'm not insisting that every itty-bitty off-topic post be removed from all forum threads. I'm just concerned with the incomplete and unfair treatment in this particular thread. The five posts I list here are all connected to the same reason for off-topicness as the posts you _did_ move, so should be treated the same!

Cheesehead... Your slip is showing....

[QUOTE=chalsall;344170]Cheesehead... Your slip is showing....[/QUOTE]
Why do you post with such low S/N ratios?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344172]Why do you post with such low S/N ratios?[/QUOTE]
.
[QUOTE]Irony of ironies, saith the Preacher, irony of ironies; all [I]is[/I] irony.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344166]I'm not insisting that every itty-bitty off-topic post be removed from all forum threads. I'm just concerned with the incomplete and unfair treatment in this particular thread. The five posts I list here are all connected to the same reason for off-topicness as the posts you _did_ move, so should be treated the same![/QUOTE]
I agree that what I did was unfair and repeat my apology to you. It was my best effort to bring the earlier thread back on track. I am normally extremely reticent to take any such action at all, but I felt that the particular sequence of posts which I moved had derailed an interesting thread. Again, some of all of the supermods will disagree with me and may move the other off-topic posts elsewhere if they choose.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344059]

If you:

continue to mislead your readers about the actual separate issues #1 and #2 above, and/or

disguise your objections to them by couching them as though they referred to issue #3 or some other irrelevancy, and/or

use phrases such as "Beats trying to have any kind of rational discussion with Herr Käsekopf, don't it?" without having first tried to have such rational discussion without dishonesty, evasion and sarcasm,

then I will continue pointing out your deceptions and evasions in whatever part of the forum is available to me, but without inserting such remarks into threads where they'd be off-topic. (This is my goal. I may occasionally forget and make such an off-topic post, but I will appreciate having that mistake promptly pointed out to me.)

[/QUOTE]Folks,

I apologize for that silly part. It was the fatigue talking there.

The more sensible alternative, of course, is that (if Ernst continues his disguises, deceptions, evasions etc.) I'd simply set up a list of rules to use in interpreting Ernst's (mis)behavior, together with a number of illustrative examples, and let that stand as a guide for anyone else to see Ernst's patterns for themselves.

- - -

Speaking of patterns:

Ernst,

Your pattern of using "extreme political bias", after you had introduced it, gave you away. I noticed that you introduced it not long after I'd pointed out problems with your logic and evidence a while back, but later dropped it. Then you resumed its frequent use again only right after I'd again pointed out flaws in your argument. That's a pattern. (Cf. a recent Supreme Court decision.)

Another pattern was what someone said about your always being jolly and joking. That's a pattern used by folks who disguise their expressions of anger in supposedly-"humorous" sarcasm. As I said, I have no trouble recognizing sarcasm -- the difficult part is figuring out the real motive.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344215]As I said, I have no trouble recognizing sarcasm -- the difficult part is figuring out the real motive.[/QUOTE]A good rule of thumb is never to ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[QUOTE=xilman;344218]A good rule of thumb is never to ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.[/QUOTE]That's what I did with Ernst's sarcasm -- for a long time (years). But his banishing my on-topic post in May of last year, together with the ridiculously-false verbal abuse hurled by him and others, changed things -- the "humor" was gone. Then his recent actions confirmed that and further enlightened me.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344219]That's what I did with Ernst's sarcasm -- for a long time (years)..[/QUOTE]

Richard... I learnt a long time ago that there is little upside in whining about how one perceives oneself has been wronged.

Play the hand dealt.

(Was that also too low S/N for you?)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344219]That's what I did with Ernst's sarcasm -- for a long time (years).[/QUOTE]

And here I thought I was being sardonic.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344219]Reason: corrected "last May" to "May of last year" [/QUOTE]

Thanks - that confusion had me up nights much of the past week. :irony:

Cheesehead, in all seriousness, did your doctor ever diagnose your recent exhaustion? Because I suspect a chart of your weekly post volume over the past several months would prove highly illuminating in that regard.

Folks,

I've participated in several online forums over the past eighteen years.

In no other forum than this one have I encountered the level of hostility expressed toward me that I've experienced here since May 2012.

You may think I'm doing something "wrong" (aside from the specifics of Ernst's enmity), but if that were actually, really true, [I]why has no one at any other forum[/I] sensed that "wrongness"?

May 2012 was when Ernst, for the first time, actually banished a perfectly on-topic post of mine to a separate thread, removing it from the thread in which I had sincerely posted it without any goal of disruption -- [I]without even [U]trying[/U] to present any evidence justifying that action[/I] other than some baseless, absurdly false political "accusations". (I was astonished by the rapidity with which some others joined in that evidence-free bashing. But Ernst is a very persuasive writer even when, or especially when, he's not being honest.)

Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized. I've managed to figure out some of his motive with the assistance of the few folks here who are willing to make straightforward honest statements to me about this matter. I thank those folks.

To the rest of you:
Are you so mesmerized and persuaded by Ernst's campaign to discredit me (as a respectable critic of his flaws) that you've adopted his distaste for me, too, without having any evidence to justify it? He _is_ very persuasive -- except for the not-showing-any-evidence-to-support-his-accusations business.

I do need to apologize for certain irritating posts that I deliberately made over the past year for the purpose of getting more information about motives of the folks (principally Ernst, but also some others) who made false statements about me. I won't be irritating you by continuing those any more.

And once again, I wish to say that I admire and have learned from, the mountain of legitimate contributions Ernst has made to this forum, especially about economics. His recent behavior toward me has tarnished that record, but is correctable if he'll admit what he did.

- - -

[QUOTE=chalsall;344238]

(Was that also too low S/N for you?)[/QUOTE]Yes. Can you possibly bring yourself to utter simple declarative sentences without resort to metaphors, wise sayings, allusions, or phrases from [I]The Art of War[/I] that only disguise your meaning?

- - -

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344249]And here I thought I was being sardonic.[/QUOTE]Not the humorous kind of sardonic. Not an informative or friendly kind, either.

[quote]Cheesehead, in all seriousness, did your doctor ever diagnose your recent exhaustion?[/quote]I have an appointment tomorrow to continue the diagnostic process.

[quote]Because I suspect a chart of your weekly post volume over the past several months would prove highly illuminating in that regard.[/quote]Yes, you'd like to blame my recent exhaustion for my critique of your dishonesty instead of acknowledging your actual motives and dishonesty, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately for you, my exhaustion started much too recently for that to be correlated over "the past several months". Also unfortunate for that ploy is that I can document your forum posts in which you displayed the behavior to which I refer.

Another obstacle in the way of blaming it all on the medical condition is that no one in the other forums where I've participated (before and) since May 2012 has made any comment that they've noticed any change in me (as reflected by my posts in their forum).

Only in this forum, and only from you plus a few others who seem susceptible to your persuasive discrediting campaign, have I received any noticeable change in the way folks have treated me in the past year.

Care to admit that you dislike my criterion for deciding what to post, even though it's quite in accord with this forum's stated goal and rules?

Care to admit that you stepped up your sarcasm and false accusations of extremism toward me after I inconveniently pointed out flaws in your political arguments, or again and again pointed out your failure to present evidence to support your arguments?

Hmmm... ?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344277]Unfortunately for you, my exhaustion started much too recently for that to be correlated over "the past several months". Also unfortunate for that ploy is that I can document your forum posts in which you displayed the behavior to which I refer.[/QUOTE]

Around late May to early June, perhaps?

This is somewhat crude in that it lumps quoted text into the byte count ... OTOH it omits the text originally typed in later-retracted posts, and textual changes that occurred in fiddled-with posts. I expect the averaged-by-week trends are quite significant despite these shortcomings:
[code]
4/14-4/20: 10 posts 6.4 kB
4/21-4/27: 11 posts 4.3 kB
4/28-5/04: 10 posts 6.9 kB
5/05-5/11: 9 posts 3.7 kB
5/12-5/18: 12 posts 10.1 kB
5/19-5/25: 27 posts 29.8 kB
5/26-6/01: 33 posts 34.3 kB
6/02-6/08: 33 posts 51.5 kB
6/09-6/15: 15 posts 1.4 kB <*** 6/09: Richard notes needing to take a break due to exhaustion
6/16-6/22: 17 posts 2.6 kB[/code]
30\-50 kB is roughly equivalent to a 5000+ word essay. I daresay that would leave most people feeling exhausted.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344277]May 2012 was when Ernst, for the first time, actually banished a perfectly on-topic post of mine to a separate thread, removing it from the thread in which I had sincerely posted it without any goal of disruption -- [I]without even [U]trying[/U] to present any evidence justifying that action[/I] other than some baseless, absurdly false political "accusations".

Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized. I've managed to figure out some of his motive with the assistance of the few folks here who are willing to make straightforward honest statements to me about this matter. [/QUOTE]

I believe I explained this to you in a PM. You *volunteered* to have your on-topic post banished to another thread!! See [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=300443&postcount=18"]this post[/URL] where Ernst calls for a moratorium on the Obama budgeting digression your original post started.

[quote=ewmayer]I'm going to impose a mandatory cease-posting on the what has degenerated to pointless bickering at the point.[/quote]

Four hours later you posted a 14 paragraph continuation of the digression. You were told what would happen and your actions made it happen.

It is not uncommon for moderators to split a thread that has digressed from the original thread. That is how this thread started. No malice is intended, it is done for the convenience of forum readers.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344320]This is somewhat crude in that it lumps quoted text into the byte count ... OTOH it omits the text originally typed in later-retracted posts, and textual changes that occurred in fiddled-with posts. I expect the averaged-by-week trends are quite significant despite these shortcomings[/QUOTE]

Note the byte-count may overstate things due to lumping-in of quoted text - but OTOH things are probably understated due to necessary omission of "whingings via PM, e-mail and other media".

And of course the above snapshot is only for *this* forum - Richard has mentioned participating in others. [I only find myself willing/able to spare time for this one - more than I should, but hey, that's why I gave up viewing internet p0rn - something had to go.] So basically a 5000-word essay per week for 3 weeks running [u]in addition[/u] to whatever else life offers/requires.

I wish now I'd counted "total number of quoteboxes within posts" as a proxy for emotional excitedness. Ah well - but anyone wanting to waste several hours of their life is welcome to do so.


[QUOTE=Prime95;344321]I believe I explained this to you in a PM.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, George, but I suspect your metaphorical breath will be wasted - if we operated in similar fashion as RW, I'd still be crying endlessly here about "cheesehead slandering me unconscionably", and you'd be filling multipage threads about [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=341600&highlight=prime95+lie#post341600]cheesehead having called you a liar in public[/url].

(Re george's offending post in question, at worst it's a "misreading" or a "tendentious characterization", which is rather lesser offense than a falsehood. Just like he-who-must-not-be-criticized-by-name-by-the-godless-forum-infidels Obama never lies or screws up, merely is the hapless victim of "missteps".)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344277]Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized.[/QUOTE]

THANK GOD (FSM, if you must know which one). This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods.

I seldom read this far into one of you posts - and I quit here this time - but I'm pleased to see that the standards of quirky and arbitrary behavior are being upheld. I was tempted to move this particular post to an off topic location, but my attention span flagged before I got around to doing it. Party On!

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344277]Yes. Can you possibly bring yourself to utter simple declarative sentences without resort to metaphors, wise sayings, allusions, or phrases from [I]The Art of War[/I] that only disguise your meaning?[/QUOTE]

Richard... The whole point of such references is to increase the S/N ratio.

As an example, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is shorter than Methane, which is in turn shorter than having to explain organic chemistry. Or, god forbid, both fundamental physics and English in every message.

In companies and other groups, agreed upon nomenclature and short-hand references to group knowledge is a common way of increasing bandwidth in communications.

As an aside, you said in a PM that you would consider rereading [i]The Prince[/i], and read [I]The Art of War[/I]. I once again say that doing so would probably be well worth your time.

Sincere regards.

[QUOTE=chalsall;344337]In companies and other groups, agreed upon nomenclature and short-hand references to group knowledge is a common way of increasing bandwidth in communications.[/QUOTE]... but only [I]when there are well-defined definitions for such nomenclature and shorthand references agreed-upon in the group[/I].

Your tersities contain no such well-defined terms on which you and I have established common agreement. There are multiple potential interpretations of your pithy sayings, so they do not serve the same purpose as well-defined nomenclature.

Folks,

If you tolerate Ernst's manipulations, you deserve what you get.

Note that he says not a word about the different criteria we use for deciding what to post.

Note that he says nothing about the way he ramps up his sarcasm after I point out flaws in his arguments and/or lack of evidence to support his accusations.

He's just doubling down on trying to use #3 and anything else he can throw in here as an excuse not to admit #1 and #2, and, according to his past history, he will continue to do that sort of deception as long as others let him get away with it, especially in service of discrediting one who dares to point out the flaws and evidence-lack of (some of) his arguments. He's one of the best manipulators I've encountered on the Web.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344338]... but only [I]when there are well-defined definitions for such nomenclature and shorthand references agreed-upon in the group[/I].[/QUOTE]

Very [URL="http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Machiavellian"]Machiavellian[/URL] of you...

Those who communicate are expected to have a certain level of background knowledge; otherwise it's like communicating with a child and not worth the time....

No, you just sometimes try not to spell out what you mean.

Show us the well-defined, unique and agreed-upon definitions of terms in these terse postings you've made:

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=342936&postcount=15[/URL]

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=342856&postcount=121[/URL]

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=344170&postcount=10[/URL]

- - -

[QUOTE=chalsall;344340]otherwise it's like communicating with a child and not worth the time....[/QUOTE](* snort *)

I tried that same I'm-the-parent-and-you're-the-child pretense when I was younger. It was in Eric Berne's book [I]Games People Play[/I] a half-century ago. Ernst uses it over and over in "his" threads when he can't present a winning argument using logic and facts.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344341]No, you just sometimes try not to spell out what you mean.[/QUOTE]

Sigh... It's assumed not to be needed....

[QUOTE=chalsall;344342]Sigh... It's assumed not to be needed....[/QUOTE]... because you can't imagine any interpretation of your words other than the one you have in mind, apparently.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344343]... because you can't imagine any interpretation of your words other than the one you have in mind, apparently.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect.

In communications theory it is well known that receiving a message is harder than sending one.

Thus, it is assumed the receiver will work harder....

This becoming a most unseemly free-for-all and not a good example to some promising newcomers to the project/forum.

Let's just blame it on the perigee full moon coinciding with the summer soltice.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BmEGm-mraE[/URL]

David
x

A principal drawback of the particular forum software in use here at mersenneforum.org is that there's no handy way to show how discussions naturally branch off into subtopics.

Compare the way that such branching is shown in discussions in hsx.com fora or (perhaps more familiar to most of you) at slashdot.org They use different visual ways of displaying/portraying branch-offs, but after a bit of use, most users (I guess) can readily see how to follow particular subtopics that arise in the course of a discussion that starts with a single original topic. A reader there doesn't have to work hard to distinguish between subtopic discussions that branch off from the main one.

Complaints about "topic drift" occur more often in forums, such as this one, where all discussions are shown as single chronologically-linear threads regardless of how many subtopic branch-offs arise. In these, quotes from earlier posts are about the only way to indicate which subtopic is being pursued by a particular post. Sometimes, chronological sequence works when there's no switching and several time-sequential posts remain on the same subtopic. But if participants are enthusiastically pursuing multiple subtopics simultaneously, the reader has to work harder to follow which post is in which subtopic.

Posting styles also differ in their compatibility with the forum's subtopic indicators. Someone like me, who naturally intersperses responses with portions of preceding posts to which they apply (AKA "nanoquoting") confuses other readers less when subtopics are easily denoted than when they aren't. Many other participants here at mersenneforum.org prefer a block-posting style in which there's usually no interleaving (feel free to suggest a more suitable term than "block-posting" for this). The latter is far more compatible with this forum's no-subtopic-indication than mine is. The fault is not in anyone's style, but in the inability of the forum software to properly reflect the discussion's structure when multiple styles are used.

In this particular case, we have (at least) one subtopic about the conflict between Ernst and me, and another about my attempts to persuade chalsall to adopt a means of better (from the reader viewpoint) specifying his intent. Ernst might love to discredit me by attributing this natural subtopic split to my failure to focus -- and will eagerly do so when so inclined -- but it's really due to a lack of capability of this forum software.

If the subtopic split here had been a matter of, oh, introducing an alternate interpretation of Obama fiscal policies to a previously existing main topic of administration-bashing, Ernst would delight in using that as an opportunity to (falsely) portray the topic-splitter as having "extreme political bias".

Ernst wouldn't be much inclined to help the reader keep subtopics separate when he had the chance instead to manipulate by turning the situation into an opportunity to (seemingly) discredit someone who kept pointing out the flaws in his political arguments.

[QUOTE=wblipp;344333]THANK GOD (FSM, if you must know which one). This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods.

I seldom read this far into one of you posts - and I quit here this time - but I'm pleased to see that the standards of quirky and arbitrary behavior are being upheld. I was tempted to move this particular post to an off topic location, but my attention span flagged before I got around to doing it. Party On![/QUOTE]Note that wblipp implies that my posts exhibit "quirky and arbitrary behavior" instead of attributing what he sees as merely carrying on multiple subtopic discussions. Probably his natural style is more compatible with the non-subtopic-indicating software used in this forum than mine is. Unfortunately, he allows himself to (perhaps, be led to) mis-attribute a software deficiency to a personal failure of mine. And Ernst is happy to help that along any way he can, if I've recently been pointing out flaws in Ernst's political arguments.

Thus wblipp may be susceptible to Ernst's biasing the discussion against me.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344325]Note the byte-count may overstate things
< snip >

a proxy for emotional excitedness.[/QUOTE]Folks,

Ernst is, again 100% predictably, delighted to seize any opportunity to get the reader to forget that he hasn't replied to my explanations of how he disguises his reluctance to discuss #1 (difference in post criteria) and #2 (ramping up personal attacks on me after I point out flaws in his arguments and/or lack of supporting evidence) by using references to #3 (whatever disparaging remarks he can think of to falsely suggest mental incompetence on my part) as distraction and camouflage.

[quote]Thanks, George, but I suspect your metaphorical breath will be wasted[/quote]... again, the discrediting slur on me ... (without evidence, as usual)

[quote]- if we operated in similar fashion as RW, I'd still be crying endlessly here about "cheesehead slandering me unconscionably",[/quote]... again, the delight in distorting what's really going on into false portrayal of me as extreme and silly.

Folks, always remember that Ernst has no interest in accurately portraying what I've actually posted, and will turn that into a slam whenever he can.

[quote]and you'd be filling multipage threads < snip > merely is the hapless victim of "missteps".)[/quote]Ernst will drag in any old bedraggled cat or lie to distract readers from my accurate portrayal of his manipulations.

Note, by the way, that I'm careful to separate Ernst's misbehavior toward me from his behavior in usefully contributing a mountain of economic commentary. Do you see Ernst taking such care about me?

[QUOTE=Prime95;344321]I believe I explained this to you in a PM.

< snip > [/QUOTE]

What needs explanation is (a) the justification for characterizing my post as being off-topic, and (b) the vicious language Ernst and you used to personally attack me.

Squatter and the Ant
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;344337]
As an example, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is shorter than Methane[/QUOTE]
I was trying to find Paul's latest reference to Peter Cook, but this will do quite well instead.

Derek: You know the trouble with Squatter don't you?
Clive: Er... no...tell me.
Derek: One of these days he's going to let fly with the most enormous fart...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344356]Note that wblipp implies that my posts exhibit "quirky and arbitrary behavior" instead of attributing what he sees as merely carrying on multiple subtopic discussions.[/QUOTE]I firmly believe that the "quirky and arbitrary" epithet was intended to apply to the actions of the supermods and not to your posts.

[QUOTE=xilman;344361]I firmly believe that the "quirky and arbitrary" epithet was intended to apply to the actions of the supermods and not to your posts.[/QUOTE]So, are you implying that I misinterpreted wblipp's "THANK GOD" response to the sentence of mine he quoted: "Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized."?

I interpreted that as approving of Ernst's not having explained/apologized.

Was "This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods" sarcasm that I did miss? If so, I'd be pleased to apologize to wblipp for my hasty misinterpretation. But I'll need some explanation of it.

I interpreted, "I seldom read this far into one of you[r] posts" as an indication that he usually disliked, or was uninterested in, the content of my posts. Was I not the referent of the pronoun?

I'd be happy to learn that I was mistaken in one of more of those interpretations, but I'm going to need some explanation to see how I erred.

Nanoquoting to make cheesehead feel at home ...
[QUOTE=cheesehead;344363]So, are you implying that I misinterpreted wblipp's "THANK GOD" response to the sentence of mine he quoted: "Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized."?[/quote]Yes, exactly.
[quote]
I interpreted that as approving of Ernst's not having explained/apologized.
[/quote] As did I. Approval that Ernst is maintaining the standards which many of us have come to expect in large areas of the forum, whether or not you participate in some of those areas.
[quote]Was "This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods" sarcasm that I did miss? If so, I'd be pleased to apologize to wblipp for my hasty misinterpretation. But I'll need some explanation of it.
[/quote]I interpreted "expect" literally and "DEMAND" as hyperbole (rhetorical over-emphasis for those readers lacking in a classical education). The uppercase is A BIG CLUE that hyperbole was intended. Whether that explanation convinces you sufficiently only you can decide.
[quote]
I interpreted, "I seldom read this far into one of you[r] posts" as an indication that he usually disliked, or was uninterested in, the content of my posts. Was I not the referent of the pronoun?[/quote]I interpreted it as referring to you. I did not interpret as an expression of dislike; I did interpret it as expressing lack of interest for much of the time. I did not interpret it as pejorative. For the record, there are threads, posts and posters which / whom I seldom read deeply, or at all. I'm not interested in everything and life is too short. I read more than I otherwise would because I feel that supermod power carries with it a modicum of duty and responsibility.
[quote]
I'd be happy to learn that I was mistaken in one of more of those interpretations, but I'm going to need some explanation to see how I erred.[/QUOTE]Well, I tried to explain.

[QUOTE=chalsall;344347]Incorrect.

In communications theory it is well known that receiving a message is harder than sending one.

Thus, it is assumed the receiver will work harder....[/QUOTE]
Off-topic: Thanks for this, I've never really thought about it that way.

[QUOTE=xilman;344364]As did I. Approval that Ernst is maintaining the standards which many of us have come to expect in large areas of the forum, whether or not you participate in some of those areas.[/quote]We seem to be concerned with different aspects of Ernst's maintenance. I have no quarrel with his ordinary maintenance.

Had Ernst _only_ moved my post, etc. to a separate thread on grounds that I'd overstepped with my extra post, that could've been okay with me if that had been the only issue. That would've been within the bounds of ordinary maintenance.

I hadn't seen his request for cessation when I was composing that extra post, but I could have deleted my post once I read his request, and perhaps avoided the rest of the kerfluffle ...

But that _wasn't_ the only thing Ernst did -- [i]he went way out of any ordinary maintenance role when he participated in the vicious response of unfounded personal attacks on me right after my article post.[/i]

[quote]I interpreted "expect" literally and "DEMAND" as hyperbole [/quote]... as did I. Had I suspected that "DEMAND" might be a big deal to some, I'd have quoted the sentence as "This is the kind of behavior we expect ... of our supermods" to show that I didn't care, and wasn't asking, about that part.

[quote]I interpreted it as referring to you. I did not interpret as an expression of dislike; I did interpret it as expressing lack of interest for much of the time.[/quote]So, we agree -- the second part of my "or" construction being the relevant one.

[quote]Well, I tried to explain.[/QUOTE]You did. Thanks.

[QUOTE=wblipp;344333]THANK GOD (FSM, if you must know which one). This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods.[/QUOTE]I see now from xilman's explanation that the "behavior" to which you referred there wasn't the part of Ernst's behavior to which I objected.

I apologize for not having asked you for clarification of your reference, and for posting conclusions based on my misunderstanding of what you meant.

[quote]I seldom read this far into one of you posts - and I quit here this time - but I'm pleased to see that the standards of quirky and arbitrary behavior are being upheld.[/quote]In hindsight, it's clear that I should have sought clarification of your intent for this sentence before commenting on it.

I apologize for not devoting as much mulling-over time to your post #23 before commenting on it as I should have devoted.

I regret having posted the hasty conclusions I drew about your post #23.

I'll try to remember to give your future posts enough consideration to realize where I need to ask for clarification, before posting a response.

Sincerely,
Richard "cheesehead" Woods

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344338]... but only [I]when there are well-defined definitions for such nomenclature and shorthand references agreed-upon in the group[/I].

Your tersities contain no such well-defined terms on which you and I have established common agreement. There are multiple potential interpretations of your pithy sayings, so they do not serve the same purpose as well-defined nomenclature.[/QUOTE]Speaking for myself, terse expression with multiple potential interpretations is a valued form of expression. Many times it is meant to soften the seriousness of what I am saying; occasionally I am whimsical and sometimes I want multiple interpretations to be considered. The meanings that are considered and rejected encompass everything from light banter to commentary on topical or extraneous events.

When speaking elliptically, parenthetically it is understood that there is no assurance that what I mean will be clearly conveyed. This also allows the recipient to reject or ignore what they do not agree with. Obviously not all communication will be a meeting of minds. This also allows opinions to be submitted without support or desire to sway others.

.

[QUOTE=wblipp;344333]THANK GOD (FSM, if you must know which one). This is the kind of behavior we expect - no DEMAND - of our supermods.

I seldom read this far into one of you posts - and I quit here this time - but I'm pleased to see that the standards of quirky and arbitrary behavior are being upheld. I was tempted to move this particular post to an off topic location, but my attention span flagged before I got around to doing it. Party On![/QUOTE]
Although I can empathize with the "wading through garbage" aspect, I have a suspicion that David Hasslehoff has gone to your head.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMME87Iv1Go]Mr Big Stuff[/url]

x

[QUOTE=only_human;344427]Speaking for myself, terse expression with multiple potential interpretations is a valued form of expression.[/QUOTE]Fine.

[quote]Many times it is meant to soften the seriousness of what I am saying; occasionally I am whimsical and sometimes I want multiple interpretations to be considered. The meanings that are considered and rejected encompass everything from light banter to commentary on topical or extraneous events.

When speaking elliptically, parenthetically it is understood that there is no assurance that what I mean will be clearly conveyed. This also allows the recipient to reject or ignore what they do not agree with. Obviously not all communication will be a meeting of minds. This also allows opinions to be submitted without support or desire to sway others.[/quote]So, chalsall has no intention of clearly conveying anything -- is that it?

Folks,

As you can see, Ernst will resort to a wide variety of measures to try to discredit me as a competent critic of his logic errors and lack of supporting evidence, and exposer of his manipulations.

Ask yourself why Ernst is obsessed with trying to discredit me.

If what I write about him is incorrect, why doesn't he simply show you evidence to prove that?

If what I write about him _is_ correct (so, he can't show you any evidence to the contrary), and he's ultra-sensitive to the aspects I've plainly stated, and it's important to him to discourage both me and anyone else from being so straightforward about his flaws .... well, that could explain it, couldn't it?.

Ernst's flaws don't seem all that important to me on their own. So, he occasionally makes mistakes, and in the past I've sometimes pointed them out. And he too often responds with counterattack rather than admission of pointed-out flaws. Not big deals, if that were all there were to it.

But ... he's very reluctant to admit the logic and evidence mistakes I've pointed out, even when they're relatively minor. He'll use ostensible "humor" (disguising anger) in his responses to try to minimize the importance of his goof, instead of simply saying in a sincere manner that he was wrong.

When the mistakes I point out aren't so minor, such as when there's a logic error or evidence lack in some big slam he makes against the administration, he brings out the sarcasm and belittling remarks directed against me personally. Of course, he always disguises this as "humor" (disguising anger) in any way he can.

Lately, Ernst has mounted an intensive discrediting campaign, trying anything he can to make it seem that my commentary is not coming from a person of sound judgment. This is really weird, and all out of proportion to the magnitude of flaws I've pointed out.

If Ernst hadn't mounted such an intensive campaign against me, I might not have looked closely enough at his history to notice certain themes running through it, or at least not posted much about them. It wouldn't have occurred to me that there was much importance to his being a manipulator -- except that he's been waging such intense manipulation against me. He's pulling out quite a few of the figurative stops in response to exposure of some seemingly minor matters, which I explained as #1 and #2 above.

Why doesn't he just say,

"Yes, I _do_ think my alternating anti-administration criterion is superior to your narrow what-other-people-aren't-covering-that-I-can-comment-knowledgably-on selection criterion.

And by the way, I apologize for not having made it clearer in the past that my 'Mystery Economic Theater' threads were actually 'Bash-the-Current-Administration Economic Theater' threads"

?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344442]Fine.

So, chalsall has no intention of clearly conveying anything -- is that it?[/QUOTE]
Disagree. I believe that most communication is intended to convey meaning and be rewarding for the parties engaged in it.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics"]Pragmatics[/URL]
[QUOTE]Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.

The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.[/QUOTE]

Richard, I think you are a intelligent, decent, caring person. I respect your feelings. I do not dismiss that you feel beleaguered.

Stay well, get plenty of rest and enjoy the good in life.

[QUOTE=only_human;344450]Richard, I think you are a intelligent, decent, caring person. I respect your feelings. I do not dismiss that you feel beleaguered.

Stay well, get plenty of rest and enjoy the good in life.[/QUOTE]

Sincerely... second that.

-Chris

[QUOTE=chalsall;344347]Incorrect.

In communications theory it is well known that receiving a message is harder than sending one.

Thus, it is assumed the receiver will work harder....[/QUOTE]Chris:

Let me explain my position in greater detail.

When I read a terse phrase with no explanation or extension of the idea, I usually can imagine multiple interpretations. Sometimes context could help me figure out which one you meant, but too often you don't provide enough context for that. In such cases, all the "hard work" in the world can't assure me that I understand your intent.

If I were to interpret your short phrase using the context provided by posts by other people in a situation where the discussion is non-contentious and everyone's noticeably contributing compatible ideas, then I might well be correct in assuming that your phrase fit into that context.

However, in a discussion such as this one where some posts are hostile, interpreting your phrase without getting clarification directly from you runs great risk of being very wrong. Illustrative example: my misinterpretation of wblipp's post earlier in this thread. I don't like making such mistakes or giving such offense, so I ask you to help me choose which of multiple possible interpretations I should apply. You can do this by providing further details of what you intend.

So, when I've asked you for an explanation of a terse phrase, you could've helped me make the correct interpretation by providing more detail.

In a case where you're deliberately being vague (which isn't a sin), your reader can't tell whether you're using shorthand for some more detailed idea (which you so often do), or deliberately being vague in that particular case.

For the purpose of my avoidance of mistakenly giving offense (as above with wblipp), and also of wasting my time in cases of deliberate vagueness, if you continue addressing short ambiguous phrases to me, I intend to just dismiss them as your deliberate vagueness with no intent of communicating any message. (This means I won't be asking you for further explanations, which would be futile in the cases of deliberate vagueness.)

The change in title of this thread from the original "Motivation" (or "Motivations") seems to be another continuation of the campaign to discredit me as a competent commenter on Ernst and his mistakes.

Wouldn't it be simpler for other participants of this forum if Ernst (who may not have been the title-changer) would honestly and straightforwardly say what he meant instead of using disguise, deception and personal attack to dissuade his critics and potential future critics?

[QUOTE=chalsall;344238]Richard... I learnt a long time ago that there is little upside in whining about how one perceives oneself has been wronged.

Play the hand dealt.[/QUOTE]Chris,

You've misinterpreted my posts.

Playing the hand dealt is _exactly_ what I'm doing.

My main goal here is to enable future readers of Ernst's comments to understand his dishonesty and manipulation in order to:

1) more effectively handle cases where he turns those against them, and

2) accurately interpret my criticism of Ernst.

(Parallel: I don't "whine" about AGW-deniers, either. I explain the science. I explain what I've observed and concluded about their honest and dishonest mistakes and motives, so that others might not be deceived by them.)

- -

As for your earlier misinterpretation, "Help, help":

I'm not asking for any kind of help.

I'm not asking anyone for help.

I'm quite capable of explaining Ernst's dishonesty and manipulation all on my own.

I'm not asking for any change in forum rules or policy. Ernst's dishonesty and manipulation can be handled within the existing framework. Whether the other moderators choose to do anything is their business, not something I'm advocating or asking for.

I'm not even asking anyone else to care about this.

What I am doing is countering Ernst's dishonest and manipulative conduct by explaining it so other folks can more readily recognize it on their own, if they so choose.

[I]There's no guarantee that Ernst won't aim his character assassination at anyone else who chooses to vigorously point out Ernst's logic flaws and lack of supporting evidence for accusations.[/I] But by posting what I've perceived and learned about Ernst, I might help mitigate such possibilities.

- - -

I regret that my posting history includes so many (what turned out to be) rough drafts. It might be a good idea for me to prepare a clean version that includes my Ernst-observations and -conclusions in more polished, compact form.

[QUOTE=jasong;344416]Off-topic: Thanks for this, I've never really thought about it that way.[/QUOTE]
Neither has he.

[QUOTE=only_human;344450]
Stay well, and get plenty of rest[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBi22_A9kV4]Dylan/Band/Byrds[/url]

Nothing was delivered.

D

[QUOTE=chalsall;344170]Cheesehead... Your slip is showing....[/QUOTE]
Face it Chris. You're just jealous.
I bet you've never seen stockings and suspenders for real in your entire sheltered life.

x