RDS permanent ban

[masser]

Does anyone know if RDS wants to return?

Have there been any apologies for past behavior?

[ET_]

I have "seen" him (or at least his avatar) a few hours ago around here.

I don't know if he even cares to return, but I guess his mathematical curiosity would push him to get back here, though I *suppose* no excuses will arrive from his side.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Other occurrences may be found here, here, here, and any number of similar sites...

Holy Toledo! That first list is impressive.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by masser

Does anyone know if RDS wants to return?

Have there been any apologies for past behavior?

See post #77 in this thread.

[storm5510]

He lashed out at me several times, along with a couple of others. As a result, I stayed away a very long time. Years actually. It just was not worth the effort of trying to contribute or ask questions only to get bashed. I still fear replying or starting a new topic. I do not understand why it has to be this way.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by storm5510

I do not understand why it has to be this way.

A mentor of mine (Richard) was a senior civilian researcher in the Canadian military (he was involved with some very interesting stuff, including side-scan sonar). He told me of several times he left meetings shaking for days. He then became an "angle investor" in some companies I was involved with. And trust me, I left some of our engagements shaking.

IMO, many people need to learn to take negative criticism to heart. It's not an attack upon you personally; it's feedback that possibly you can do better than you have done.

It's a bit like the sport of rugby, where you try to kill your opponent on the field, and then you go out for a few beers afterwards and laugh together.... FWTIW.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

IMO, many people need to learn to take negative criticism to heart. It's not an attack upon you personally; it's feedback that possibly you can do better than you have done.

I entirely agree.

Whether or not it is the desired response, some times you just have to develop a thicker skin.

I find that it helps to keep in mind the old adage about sticks and stonce.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by storm5510

He lashed out at me several times, along with a couple of others. As a result, I stayed away a very long time. Years actually. It just was not worth the effort of trying to contribute or ask questions only to get bashed. I still fear replying or starting a new topic. I do not understand why it has to be this way.

It doesn't have to be that way but it often does. Get over it, say "to hell with it, I refuse to let it me intimidate and inhibit me", and do your own thing, not necessarily what others would have you do. That said, it's always worth analyzing criticism, however harsh and uncouth because you may well be able to learn something useful from it. At the very least, it gives you an example of how not to treat others.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by xilman

Get over it, say "to hell with it, I refuse to let it me intimidate and inhibit me", and do your own thing, not necessarily what others would have you do.

Yeah.

I prefer to not to refer to films, but the "Man on the Moon" film about Andy Kaufman is a wonderful exception.

This was a dude who loved to push the envelope. He confused and challenged everyone around him. And he giggled the whole way through....

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

IMO, many people need to learn to take negative criticism to heart. It's not an attack upon you personally; it's feedback that possibly you can do better than you have done.

It's a bit like the sport of rugby, where you try to kill your opponent on the field, and then you go out for a few beers afterwards and laugh together.... FWTIW.

Originally Posted by xilman

Whether or not it is the desired response, some times you just have to develop a thicker skin.

Originally Posted by xilman

It doesn't have to be that way but it often does. Get over it, say "to hell with it, I refuse to let it me intimidate and inhibit me", and do your own thing, not necessarily what others would have you do.

A major problem with this is that it's often so hard for people to separate "is this a critical, objective analysis of some things I did? is it valuable feedback that I can incorporate into myself? [independently of whether it *should* be]" (call this situation a) from "this guy doesn't like me and is attacking me with the purpose of causing harm to me, and has no intention to help me improve" (b). The latter is a serious problem, and can cause serious damage (physically of course, as in assault/battery, but equally so emotional and psychological harm), and a lot of people don't realize that when they intend it the first way it comes across the second way.

We have hundreds of thousands of years of hominid evolution under our belt to be wary of people outside our family/clan, because no matter what words or friendliness or peace they express, they often may have ultimately your own downfall in the heart. So, if you are clear headed enough to tamp down the (powerful) emotional response to separate the two scenarios, then all the more power to you. But if someone either "succumbs" to that emotional response, or even "merely" discerns that the opposing person did in fact mean damage to themselves, with no intent to aid improvement, then we can't fault those people for avoiding the ones who (seem to) desire to damage them.

Brushing it off as "you need thicker skin" seems callous and utterly non-helpful in most of the above hypothetical scenarios. Maybe with RDS "thick skin" is indeed the correct response, but the reason he's been banned in the first place is because he so often strayed from situation "a" to situation "b" in the judgement of the long-standing members and moderators of this forum, even when RDS swore up and down he was only doing "a". If everyone else had agreed that he was only doing "a", then we would probably have tolerated it, which is to say donned our new thick skin, but we determined collectively that he was beyond the point of thickskinning. Hence the ban.

(Tangentially to all that, it is of course possible to learn and improvement from situations "b", but that is a self-guided learning experience with no teacher, and that's if the person is able to handle whatever harm was inflicted upon them in the first place, which of course depends both on the person and the exact nature and "quantity" of harm done.)

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

A major problem with this is that it's often so hard for people to separate "is this a critical, objective analysis of some things I did? is it valuable feedback that I can incorporate into myself? [independently of whether it *should* be]" (call this situation a) from "this guy doesn't like me and is attacking me with the purpose of causing harm to me, and has no intention to help me improve" (b). The latter is a serious problem, and can cause serious damage (physically of course, as in assault/battery, but equally so emotional and psychological harm), and a lot of people don't realize that when they intend it the first way it comes across the second way.

We have hundreds of thousands of years of hominid evolution under our belt to be wary of people outside our family/clan, because no matter what words or friendliness or peace they express, they often may have ultimately your own downfall in the heart. So, if you are clear headed enough to tamp down the (powerful) emotional response to separate the two scenarios, then all the more power to you. But if someone either "succumbs" to that emotional response, or even "merely" discerns that the opposing person did in fact mean damage to themselves, with no intent to aid improvement, then we can't fault those people for avoiding the ones who (seem to) desire to damage them.

Brushing it off as "you need thicker skin" seems callous and utterly non-helpful in most of the above hypothetical scenarios. Maybe with RDS "thick skin" is indeed the correct response, but the reason he's been banned in the first place is because he so often strayed from situation "a" to situation "b" in the judgement of the long-standing members and moderators of this forum, even when RDS swore up and down he was only doing "a". If everyone else had agreed that he was only doing "a", then we would probably have tolerated it, which is to say donned our new thick skin, but we determined collectively that he was beyond the point of thickskinning. Hence the ban.

(Tangentially to all that, it is of course possible to learn and improvement from situations "b", but that is a self-guided learning experience with no teacher, and that's if the person is able to handle whatever harm was inflicted upon them in the first place, which of course depends both on the person and the exact nature and "quantity" of harm done.)

We have to agree to disagree in parts. I personally find that brushing off your case "b" attack is by far the best approach and indubitably helpful. The intention may be to hurt the target but if the target refuses to be hurt the attack has failed utterly. Not only that but the response rebounds on the attacker who in turn is hurt by his/her ineffectiveness. Here and elsewhere I've seen would-be attackers of me become ever more incandescent while I sit here smiling (a less charitable description would be gloating) at the outcome. In this way I put into action the old advice: Don't get mad, get even.

The helpfulness of this approach: if the attacker never wins s/he will eventually give up that approach, either by retreating to another forum or by moderating his/her behaviour. If the attacked does not accept victimhood, he/she helps him/herself avoid unpleasant stress responses, gains satisfaction that the would-be attacker may render him/herself less unpleasant in future and, if of a vindictive nature as I am, the satisfaction of rebounding the stress-intended attack back on the attacker.

Ok, I'm callous. I can live with that attack