RDS permanent ban

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

I think the British and US ideas of verbal abuse are quite different. I expect RDS was considered quite adept at it within his own circles from what I have experienced within the US.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Quite possibly.

I admire well-targeted offensiveness. My style is that of the stiletto or the garrotte. Bob's is that of the blunderbuss or the clusterbomb. Unsubtle, showy and liable to result in widespread collateral damage.

Believe me, if I wanted to offend you, you would know about it. I've already demonstrate my approach here in the forum. The targets most obvious to a casual observer were _ttN and Raman.

You quote is, of course parody. A real example of the art comes courtesy of Winston Churchill, preserved in the following dialogue:

Mrs Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk."
Churchill: "My dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly."

[jasonp]

Originally Posted by Stargate38

Please don't leave him banned indefinitely! I want him to come back eventually, even if it means having the moderators verify every single individual post he makes before making them visible to other members. Reduce the ban to 1-2 years. That way, he can comment on the next Mersenne Prime (if we find one in that period).

We already tried the pre-moderation approach years ago. It was lifted when he announced his illness; you know how that has turned out since.

Pre-moderation is frankly demeaning, and a constant source of work for everyone. The rest of the membership here never see how much those sentenced to pre-moderation chafe at it. Per your request: I want to not be volunteered to manage that.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by jasonp

Pre-moderation is frankly demeaning, and a constant source of work for everyone. The rest of the membership here never see how much those sentenced to pre-moderation chafe at it. Per your request: I want to not be volunteered to manage that.

This was my thought, why put undue burden on the mods?

I suppose it may be possible to limit him to certain threads? For example his instructional thread on Number Theory might have been easier to mod. Though he seemed to have a coarse understanding of the idea of Elementary.

I suppose his blunderbuss approach never bothered me much because he is so abysmally bad at insults. I've said before that my workplace hardened my skin against such 'weak cheese' as we would have said. And my neighborhood her in the city of Saint Louis is populated by working class drunks who would have laughed at him and tried to buy him another Busch Light, assuming he was addled and in need of a little more beer.

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by xilman

I'm not such a delicate flower. I was never inhibited by posting for fear of a "verbal assault". My view is well characterized by the dictum about sticks and stones.

Well, I'm not such a delicate flower, either, really. Like Chappy, I could cite plenty of adversarial behavior that I endure, or have endured; it's often just part of making a living in a competitive industry. But that doesn't mean I should feel obligated to waste my free time (away from the work rants) putting up with adversarial rants like RDS's. If the rants were humorous, like Winston Churchill's, it would be worthwhile as entertainment. His rants were not humorous, insightful, or helpful. So my preference not to invite a totally useless rant is not so much delicacy as just not wanting to waste my time. As I said earlier, the permanent banning is sad, particularly if there are medical conditions involved, but I still think it was the correct action to take.

My favorite Churchill-ism (at least I was told it was Churchill) came during a confrontation, and the woman involved said:
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your tea!"
Churchill replied, "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink the tea!"

(Or was that Groucho Marx?)

Norm

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

If I was Ernst, I don't think I could forgive that outburst.

I'm actually much more bothered by the continual bullying of n00bs and those-with-less-expertise-than-himself, i.e. the 'how many potential and actual contributors have we sacrificed by indulging such behavior?' effect. Not just n00bs, either - as was discussed at length in the mod forum, there are several known world experts in the field who don't post here specifically because of Bob having made it his personal make-myself-feel-better-by-belittling-others venue. In other words, while both the + and - contributions are clear, what the "please un-ban" crowd needs to consider is "to what extent are we preventing positive contributions by others - both expert and not - by permitting such behavior?"

The latest bout of truly spectacular emotional incontinence was simply the final straw - and it wasn't the first 'final straw' w.r.to RDS, mind you. Were the mods to relent on the latest ban, the ensuing pattern of behavior leading up to yet another 'crisis' is 100% assured.

Again, this was all discussed at length last month in the mod forum, and while it's good to make clear to the regular members what the main arguments pro and con were, I've seen nothing brought up here in the public discussion which wasn't considered and debated at length by the mods; rather one of the key arguments for the ban has been omitted here, by way of its being harder to quantify, especially without personal contacts in the number theory community, which is something most of the mods have.

[kladner]

I'm actually much more bothered by the continual bullying of n00bs and those-with-less-expertise-than-himself, i.e. the 'how many potential and actual contributors have we sacrificed by indulging such behavior?' effect. Not just n00bs, either - as was discussed at length in the mod forum, there are several known world experts in the field who don't post here specifically because of Bob having made it his personal make-myself-feel-better-by-belittling-others venue.

Those are very telling arguments. To be clear, I said I would miss him for non-math reasons. However, it is hard to imagine any real and lasting reform at this point.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Not just n00bs, either - as was discussed at length in the mod forum, there are several known world experts in the field who don't post here specifically because of Bob having made it his personal make-myself-feel-better-by-belittling-others venue.

Ah, I didn't know that. Is it possible for you to name a couple names?

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Again, this was all discussed at length last month in the mod forum, and while it's good to make clear to the regular members what the main arguments pro and con were, I've seen nothing brought up here in the public discussion which wasn't considered and debated at length by the mods; rather one of the key arguments for the ban has been omitted here, by way of its being harder to quantify, especially without personal contacts in the number theory community, which is something most of the mods have.

I see now about the depth of the mods discussion. It's not so great to keep things private, even though I understand why I suppose that with this new information I shall let the issue lie (and hope that said world experts come around now).

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Ah, I didn't know that. Is it possible for you to name a couple names?
........
(and hope that said world experts come around now).

Let's wait and see. :)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Is it possible for you to name a couple names?

Yes, just as it is possible for me to PM you my credit card data and online account passwords.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Yes, just as it is possible for me to PM you my credit card data and online account passwords.

"So you're telling me there's a chance... Yeah!"

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Ah, I didn't know that. Is it possible for you to name a couple names?

.....

BCP19 aka Pete moved to another project from GIMPS. A nasty post from Bob helped set things up. I remember that Pete had asked a question about ECM, and Bob came at him with a standard sort of "that is a stupid question and asking it shows that you have not read my paper" response.
DE may have provided the coup de grace.
But Pete's response to Bob is #16 on this page.