Official "Lasciate ogne speranza" whinge-thread - Page 3

wblipp · 2013-06-24, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Ernst has never given a rational explanation for that action, and never apologized.

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!

chalsall · 2013-06-25, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Yes. Can you possibly bring yourself to utter simple declarative sentences without resort to metaphors, wise sayings, allusions, or phrases from The Art of War that only disguise your meaning?

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

As an example, CH₄ 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 The Prince, and read The Art of War. I once again say that doing so would probably be well worth your time.

Sincere regards.

cheesehead · 2013-06-25, 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

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

... but only when there are well-defined definitions for such nomenclature and shorthand references agreed-upon in the group.

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.

cheesehead · 2013-06-25, 00:49

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.

chalsall · 2013-06-25, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... but only when there are well-defined definitions for such nomenclature and shorthand references agreed-upon in the group.

Very Machiavellian 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....

cheesehead · 2013-06-25, 01:17

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:

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...6&postcount=15

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=121

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...0&postcount=10

- - -

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

otherwise it's like communicating with a child and not worth the time....

(* 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 Games People Play 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.

chalsall · 2013-06-25, 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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

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

cheesehead · 2013-06-25, 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

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

... because you can't imagine any interpretation of your words other than the one you have in mind, apparently.

chalsall · 2013-06-25, 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... because you can't imagine any interpretation of your words other than the one you have in mind, apparently.

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....

davieddy · 2013-06-25, 04:26

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.

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

David
x

cheesehead · 2013-06-25, 05:17

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.

2013-06-25, 00:49	#26
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 2²·3·641 Posts	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. Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2013-06-25 at 00:54

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Official "new lows in Olympics TV coverage" thread	ewmayer	Soap Box	15	2016-08-13 11:01
Official "Faits erronés dans de belles-lettres" thread	ewmayer	Lounge	39	2015-05-19 01:08
Official "all-Greek-to-me Fiction Literature and Cinema" Thread	ewmayer	Science & Technology	41	2014-04-16 11:54
Official "Ernst is a deceiving bully and George is a meanie" thread	cheesehead	Soap Box	61	2013-06-11 04:30
Official "String copy Statement Considered Harmful" thread	Dubslow	Programming	19	2012-05-31 17:49

2013-06-25, 04:26	#32
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2×3×13×83 Posts	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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BmEGm-mraE David x

2013-06-25, 05:17	#33
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 2²·3·641 Posts	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.