Let's stick to what I asked (note that my sentence wasn't even a statement). If one can't even imagine some reason why some one other person might dislike a node one wrote, then conceit certainly is something to consider, IMHO.

I never said nor even implied that wanting to know "why" required conceit. I mostly didn't directly discuss "wanting to know why" nor "asking why", as those topics are a bit complex and even more subtle and have been covered ad nauseum elsewhere and rehashing them as part of this thread is something I think worth mostly avoiding (and rehashing them without first reviewing prior art even better to avoid). So I will continue to mostly avoid it.

Had I seen eric256's comment, I probably would have skipped my reply. But I didn't like the treatment that I did see Argel receiving.

I never said ...

And I never said that you said ...

The trouble is, when monks in authority, particularly you, appear, or can be misinterpreted to appear to give succour to such notions, you may be misinterpreted to be condoning them.

Those who witness a wrong doing silently, implicitly encourage those that perform it.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

And I never said that you said ...

And I never said that you said that I said... But, I certainly hope that you implied that I implied it or at least that you implied that you thought I might believe it. Otherwise the only sentence you composed in the body of your node was rather a waste.

...when monks in authority...or can be misinterpreted to appear to give succour to such notions, you may be misinterpreted to be condoning them.

Was my reply unclear such that you still wonder whether I think conceit is a requirement for having a desire to know "why" someone down-voted one's node? Or perhaps you are just worried that some third party might misinterpret me to be appearing to support such a notion? Do I belong to some privileged group that makes my personal opinion on "conceit" or on asking questions about down-votes of some paramount importance such that people should make guesses as to my thinking on the matter and then base their actions on what guesses they produce? You worry that I'm condoning the idea that conceit is a requirement of etc.? And the fact that I have some influence over site policy and some power to enforce site policy has anything at all to do with how people think about conceit and down-voting or asking about it?

There is no site policy on conceit nor on asking about down-voting. And the only site policy on down-voting is that you mustn't write software to cast the down-votes for you.

Read more... (4 kB)

- tye