|
Unfortunately some people with a lot of knowledge and a lot of time on their hands, are also complete wankers.
You just met one.
Unfortunately, on occasion, they can actually answer a question with a useful answer.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
That's a 1 from me.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. One that, in this case, I have agreed with on more than one occasion about said individual. However, to engage in conduct that includes name-calling fits my understanding of abusive. I've no hard feelings towards you, but have an intense dislike of a down-vote that comes without an explanation. You may consider this reply as being that explanation.
I welcome any discussion on my short-sightedness in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeeze, what a wanker.
Is that abuse, or satire?
Unfortunately, you don't get to decide. What I'm thinking, how I'm thinking, or what my intentions are are my business, not yours. You have no right to -- and are not qualified to -- make decisions on that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a one-liner that has no context.
No, I don't get to decide what was your intention. But I do have the right to an opinion, a right that is no smaller or larger than anyone else's.
"Elephant-off idiot" is another prime example of something that could be said, where context is vitally important. To some relationships, its entirely appropriate and may actually be used as a greeting. In other contexts, it's a vile and hurtful one-liner. Context is king.
As you've so aptly put it - I'm not qualified to define the intentions of your words. Why don't you tell me, was "Jeeze, what a wanker" satire or abuse?
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: But I do have the right to an opinion, a right that is no smaller or larger than anyone else's.
Indeed, and if one's opinion of someone is derogatory and he airs that opinion, he is taking part in a discussion.
If however, one's opinion of someone is derogatory and he takes official action against that person, e.g. by reporting the other's opinion as being abusive, he is not taking part in a discussion, he is acting like a wanker.
To disagree with someone's opinion, all that is necessary is to state "I disagree", particularly in a discussion that is taking place in a forum that exists for discussion.
That someone's opinions/way of talking/thoughts/religion/skin colour/whatever do not conform to your ideals does not give you the right to take formal action against that person.
The CP Lounge would hardly profit from being populated either with people with identical beliefs, tastes, etc, or with people who are afraid to express themselves freely for fear of being reported by the thought police.
The number on the Lounge's door is not 101.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your response Mark.
You've made a number of interesting points. Some I concur with, some I don't.
I particularly note that you've used very different languague in your second sentence, than that which was used originally. You're likely more conversant with the concept of similes and metaphors than I. Similar, but not the same. I note that you've said that if somebody acts in a particular way, that they're acting like a wanker. This is rather different than saying that somebody _is_ a wanker. It was in fact, precisely this lack of distinction that garnered my initial response in the first place.
Clearly, you read my initial post. A post in which I said that I shared the same opinion on more than one occasion. I also pointed out that I was of the opinion that explicit name-calling fitted the definition of abusive. I did nothing other than play-the-ball, I certainly never played-the-man... (I addressed the behaviour, but said nothing negative of the individual (_Maxxx_) displaying it.) I quite clearly stated in fact, that there were no hard feelings. It was the post I objected to, not the poster.
Indeed, I invited discussion regarding my opinion and subsequent action. We've been doing just that. Each of us did more than simply say "I disagree". I took a further action, as I am entitled to. As you yourself have said, you're entitled to disagree with my opinion and subsequent flagging of the post in question.
I don't recall reading any document on code-project that says I'm not permitted to flag a comment I believe to be abusive as being abusive. Though I understand that your comment regarding formal action could be directed at either SA or myself. If the case is that it was directed at SA, disregard this paragraph if you're inclined. I've watched SA flag comments in a manner that would fit your assertion of conduct that one has no right to several times.
Got that in one! It's precisely the diversity in beliefs, values, behaviour and culture that helps make both the lounge and the world in general, interesting to inhabit.
If I was afraid of people expressing their opinions of my behaviour, I certainly wouldn't have taken a public stand. It was in fact out of respect for _Maxxx_, that I did this - it was not, I repeat NOT in the hope of having an extended discussion on the matter. However, having invited discussion, I felt obliged to respond to any/all posts in return.
I'm not advocating for a second that we hold identical inner-states. Nor do most, if not all countries. There is however, an expectation in society that each of us will conform to the same set of rules, regulations and laws. F1 drivers aren't allowed to drive any faster than the speed limit on public roads, in spite of the obvious and demonstrated ability to drive very fast safely - they're bound to the same constraints as the remainder of us. It was my understanding of a transgression against the rules of CP that got my response.
Not sure what the 101 comment is intended to say.
--
You know, you never did bother to answer my question regarding how you would define the phrase "Jeez, what a wanker". I think that's unfortunate, a missed opportunity for each of us - but I don't think that action implies anything about you. Notice the difference in addressing the behaviour, rather than the individual? 
Again, saying someone 'acts like a wanker' is a rather different proposition to saying someone 'is a wanker'. The second constitutes name-calling, an accepted form of verbal abuse. Being written, rather than vocalized doesn't make a difference to me in this context. The menu says "Abusive" and that's what I hit.
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and for the discussion. 
Good day.
modified 13-Nov-13 6:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Unfortunately, you don't get to decide. What I'm thinking, how I'm thinking, or what my intentions are are my business, not yours. You have no right to -- and are not qualified to -- make decisions on that.
Based on that no post can be declared abusive.
There is no social interaction with other humans where you know what the person really meant. All you can do is evaluate it based upon your own experience and what you observed. And in this forum that based almost exclusively on what people post.
A real argument might be made as to whether this is "abuse". I have seen posts at other sites which consisted of nothing but curse words. I would probably mark that as abusive. I have never seen one of those here as such I have never used the abuse button that I recall.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that the meanness level has gone up on many developer forums, including here (Stackoverflow and even the Qt forums being two others in particular.) Your experience seems typical--why not just answer the damn question? Or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people in the QQ section aren't really nice and sometimes I wonder why they try to answer or comment at all.
Don't take it personal, I think most of us had a similar problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Your question seemed okay to me and while I can't answer it I found it concise enough to understand. Some folk stroll around like bears with sore heads. Perhaps he was such a bear that day.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it was a unnecessary debate. But why even start it, you could have either answered the questions or just ignored them.
SA posts a lot in QA section, and most of the questions / members are bit off. So he might be already annoyed by something/someone.
And in general people (even on SO) who answers questions gets annoyed when the person asking question tries to defend themselves or argue about the answer.
So just take it easy, I am sure someone who understand will answer your question soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't listen to Sergey - He tends to be a little sunshine when he doesn't manages to get the point of the question. In the end he ends up pissing of the OP in most of the cases.
At least he was able to get some points for commenting on your question.
|
|
|
|
|
Your question makes perfect sense to me, and I would also like to know the answer!
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] could solve that. If you don't get up, it costs you more than time...
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah I'd rather turn the ringer on my deaf alarm clock back on and wake the neighbours. It has an 80+db volume 
Plus I don't have enough cash to even think about donating
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Simon_Whale wrote: Plus I don't have enough cash to even think about donating
I think that's kind of the idea - it encourages you to get out of bed!
Mind you, a cat works as well as an alarm most of the time... They aren't good at Summer Time changes though. 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Mind you, a cat works as well as an alarm most of the time...
Yup, we have three alarm clocks matching that description. We have one that has this ability to jump on the bed and once in a while it scores a bullseye when it lands on my knackers. Believe me, you can't sleep after that.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I believe you, trust me.
We had one who worked out that if I was awake, the Cat Food Provider would also rise from her pit and feed him. So every morning without fail 8.5Kg of cat would jump on the bead and stand on my bladder...
Then there was Bill. When he wanted me awake, he headbutted my nose. Not in a "push, push, rub" sort of way - more a "Gorbals Greetin'" full-on fight starter!
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd shoot that thing the first time it went off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If you don't get up, it costs you more than time...
Good. Emotional blackmail to help people push their limits
..hits snooze again 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have a problem getting up but then I got a black lab puppy.
Now if I'm not up by six am I have a mess to clean up.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool. That and other[^] alarm clocks seem to also be effective.
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Damn you have the perfect signature - CBadger
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, you will find it's an April Fool's joke...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
