Official "Lasciate ogne speranza" whinge-thread

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by wblipp

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!

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.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Note the byte-count may overstate things
< snip >

a proxy for emotional excitedness.

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.

Thanks, George, but I suspect your metaphorical breath will be wasted

... again, the discrediting slur on me ... (without evidence, as usual)

- if we operated in similar fashion as RW, I'd still be crying endlessly here about "cheesehead slandering me unconscionably",

... 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.

and you'd be filling multipage threads < snip > merely is the hapless victim of "missteps".)

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?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Prime95

I believe I explained this to you in a PM.

< snip >

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.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

As an example, CH₄ is shorter than Methane

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...

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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.

I firmly believe that the "quirky and arbitrary" epithet was intended to apply to the actions of the supermods and not to your posts.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by xilman

I firmly believe that the "quirky and arbitrary" epithet was intended to apply to the actions of the supermods and not to your posts.

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.

[xilman]

Nanoquoting to make cheesehead feel at home ...

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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."?

Yes, exactly.

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

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.

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 "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.

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 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.

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.

Well, I tried to explain.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chalsall

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....

Off-topic: Thanks for this, I've never really thought about it that way.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by xilman

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.

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 -- 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 interpreted "expect" literally and "DEMAND" as hyperbole

... 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.

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.

So, we agree -- the second part of my "or" construction being the relevant one.

Well, I tried to explain.

You did. Thanks.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by wblipp

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

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.

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.

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

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... 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.

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.