robinrohan writes:
Percy closed the thread, saying that I should expect to be treated with contempt if I have the nerve to talk about something I know little about. So I wanted to know what it was I knew little about.
One of the modes of behavior that can get one classified as clueless by the moderator team is to fail to get a point no matter how many times it is explained. I feel like I've already explained my point three times, and I don't feel like explaining it again, not because I don't think it's worth explaining, and not because I don't think you're a valuable member of our community, but because the evidence is that you will once again fail to get the point and that it would be a senseless exercise for me to try once again.
The sense that I'm getting is that a lot of people feel this way about you, that they explain and explain and explain but that there's little to no indication from you that any of it is understood. This is something that is
*your* responsibility to correct, not everyone else's. If you care about being understood then start caring about making sure you understand others.
For the record, I did not say you should
"expect to be treated with contempt if I have the nerve to talk about something I know little about." For the third time, I said:
Admin writes:
I've spent just a very few minutes poking around at a few of your messages and I couldn't find anything that was a example of the problem. But just above, Cavediver makes some indirect references to comments about his area of expertise, maybe they were yours, I'm not sure, and they seem the equivalent of me in a religious discussion arguing that Easter was the day Jesus saw his shadow - in other words, pretty dumb.
Those who have the courage to argue about things they know little about must accept that uninformed ideas will be given short shrift. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but all opinions are not entitled to respect.
That's pretty circumspect. I was very careful to indicate that I hadn't read enough messages from you to reach any conclusions, and so I didn't refer to you, I spoke generally. What I was asking you to do (and here I go doing what I said I wasn't going to do, which is explain this for a fourth time) was to examine the possibility that your problems stem from jumping into discussions with ideas that are ill-informed and ill-considered while making little effort to understand the replies.
By the way, I really enjoyed this, very funny:
robinrohan writes:
Robin: One cannot be both an evolutionist and a
Christian.
Jar: What did you say? I am both an evolutionist and a Christian. I have a list of 4000 Bishops who say they believe in evolution. You are hereby refuted.
Robin: What I meant was that it was logically inconsistent to--
Chiroptera: You don't understand logic!
Jazzn: He shouldn't even use the word "logic." Only I and those of my superior ilk should be able to use that word.
Chiroptera: Have you studied Peano arithmetic?
Catholic scientist: Do you have a world class education? I do. You are despicable.
Jar.: QED. You lose, Charley.
Percy: What are your credentials? You have none.
Robin: My credentials?
Moose: Whiner! Suspended for a week!
But someone with sufficient interest and talent could compose an equally funny opposing parody.
This thread is for discussion of moderator issues and procedures. It is a primary goal of EvC Forum to keep discussions moving forward. If you have some requests or ideas for how better to accomplish this then please go ahead. Just keep in mind that members who make this goal difficult to achieve often run afoul of the moderators.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2