in reply to Re^24: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

No, I'm not! If I was really telling you what you can or cannot do then I would need to have some power over you -- e.g. the ability to revoke your account, abusing authority, etc. However, I have no power or authority over you. Well, maybe I should say that the only power I have over you is that which you give to me. An obvious example of this is when we let a troll get the best of us.

I can only offer advice. Any time it looks like I am telling you what you can or cannot do is as I indicated before: in the context of "if you want to achieve goal Z then you will need to do X and Y" (where "will" is obviously based on my evaluation of the situation).

Please express your design for my "betterment" in terms that mean I do not have to refer everything I write to you for approval before posting.
I think herveus summed things up really well, so lets revisit his post:
My sense, from a number of years of experience, is that you are prone to being needlessly contentious. You elect confrontational language on slight provocation. You do normally include substantive technical content, but it's effectiveness is lessened by the static around it.
So, some things to look for:

The other thing you can do is brush up on the Netiquette Guidelines. Additionally, the second link I listed is for the online version of Virginia Shea's highly regarded book on Netiquette. Maybe try giving that a once over (or at least hit the summary).

At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you are willing to admit that you do get too emotionally involved in many of these heated debates/discussions and that you want to do something about that. It's certainly not easy -- and you can see that in some of my posts, where I have fought some of the same demons. Letting go can be really, really hard. And admitting it's a problem can be equally hard. One thing that helped me was starting the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread. It's a great reminder of the importance of letting things go and that I do not have to get the last word in! I just wish I could say that I planned it that way!! :-)

As I indicated above, I think there is one technical measure for success that you have at your disposal -- how deep do these heated debate threads go? Try toning things down and just letting things go when you get too emotionally involved and then compare how many levels deep your threads go to the threads that predate any changes. I expect there will be a noticeable difference.

Good luck and best wishes!

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^26: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 13, 2010 at 07:53 UTC
    No, I'm not! If I was really telling you what you can or cannot do then I would need to have some power over you -- e.g. the ability to revoke your account, abusing authority, etc. However, I have no power or authority over you. Well, maybe I should say that the only power I have over you is that which you give to me. An obvious example of this is when we let a troll get the best of us.

    That is classic troll manouver, trying to refute some behaviour while in the same breath exibiting precisely that behaviour. Take your own advice.

[reply]
Re^26: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 13, 2010 at 07:46 UTC

    You'll have to forgive me, or not, for this second post, but I'd really like an answer to this. By /msg if you feel unable to do on the record.

    How many levels deep has the thread gone (deeper is usually bad)?

    At exactly what point in this 23/24/25 level deep thread should I have stopped responding? 10? 15? 20?

    Whichever number you pick, why didn't you apply that rule to yourself?

    And while you're at it, at what arbitrary point should I have cut off the OP in this thread that finishes up 27 levels deep with the OP thanking me profusely?

    And that's the trouble with arbitrary rules. They are nonsensical, ludicrous & inane.

    You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.

    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.
[reply]
      If I thought you were really a troll then I should have bailed out at Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument? (specifically, Re: What is "aggressive" argument? should have been my last post in that thread).

      If you sort all of your nodes using "Lowest Reputation First" you should see that there is a loose correlation between depth and node rep.

      You seem to be a very left-brained individual, which I think explains the communication disconnect that often seems to occur. I gave you some guidelines that I felt would help you identify when you are becoming too emotionally involved in a heated discussion -- when e.g. you should just let things go. This is something you will have to determine for yourself, on a case by case basis. People are not computers and each thread is unique, so there are no set answers to give. At best we could probably come up with some guidelines based on the data in the PM database (made up example: a node 35 deep is 90% likely to have a negative node rep). I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]
        I gave you some guidelines that I felt would help you identify when you are becoming too emotionally involved in a heated discussion -- when e.g. you should just let things go.

        And there it is again. You, through some undefined and indefinable mechanism--like water divining--are judging my written words as "too emotional". Despite the fact that I've consistently refuted that judgement with purely logical reasoning. You are, whether you like the characterisation or not, still trying to impose your censorship on my writings.

        I have, through that process of unemotional, logical reasoning, reached and expressed my conclusion, that those attempts are wrong. And still you persist in trying to censure me. It appears important to you. And in the process, you are breaking the very rules that you would impose upon me.

        I'm sure that by now 80% of the monastery have long since stopped reading. And of the rest, more than half would, had they an anonymous button they could press to make this thread vanish, push it. If one of them replied to one of your nodes in this thread and told you: "I'm bored with your writing, just stop!". Would you?

        It all comes down to you wanting me to submit to "your better judgement". You want me to "admit" that you are right, and I am wrong. Despite that this is a subject where no such 'rightness or wrongness' can be attributed outside of majority vote.

        Most (not all, but most) of my long, deep, by your judgement: "too emotional" threads. are very clearly underlain by a striaght-forward technical issue. One that can--in the presence of clear demonstration; ie.code--be irrefutably decided one way or the other. And the vast majority of the friction that arises, does so because people--a particular few--refuse to back up their assertions with proof in the form of code. Preferring instead to dissemble and deflect, by attackng the form of the message or the messenger, rather than the content of the message.

        So, once again, I refute your right, mandate nor even consensus, to unilateral decide what of my writings are "too emotional" or "too aggressive" or just "too loud". I refute that your judgements on these issues have any basis in definable, measurable fact. And even if they did, I refute your right to make them.

        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.
[reply]
      You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.
      Circumstances and conditions vary, in the same way which affects safe driving speeds.
[reply]
        what a stupid thing to say since safe driving speeds obey a logical set rules, and are not subject to flights of fancy
[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations