Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings 
and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any good?

Been there, done that.

Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:34:58 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>>
>> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible
>> advantage could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts?
>> I just don't get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your
>> ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you
>> stop seeing *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.
> 
> Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings
> and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any
> good?

Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
and unwilling to listen to reason.

> Been there, done that.
> 
> Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

I usually don't either, but in Warp's case I make an exception.  By not 
replying, I'm not saying I agree with him.  I'm saying the argument is 
stupid, and if he wants to Godwin the discussion, I don't really care.

But yeah, usually I just walk away from it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2013 10:52, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you 
are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something 
relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood 
pressure. (I am entertaining the option that you may have a financial 
interest in a pharmaceutical that sells blood pressure and anti-stress 
pills. In which case your behaviour would not be stupid and childish but 
merely motivated by money, always the better option).

Anyway I wish you all a good 2014 with reasonable blood pre4ssure levels.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 01:55:23 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you
> are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something
> relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood
> pressure.

Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

And yes, technically, I don't set my reader up to not see the posts, but 
I score as ignored (but I read with ignored posts visible).  Usually, 
though, anything scored "ignore" is something I actually will just skip 
past without reading anything.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/29/2013 12:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a
> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's
> hyperbole at the best.
>

Err. No.. I think the former is a much saner claim than the later, given 
that, as it sits, the "Affordable Health Care" bill that passed based on 
"Letting a lot of corporations sell insurance in places they couldn't 
before, such as across state lines, in competition with each other, 
often by, first, pulling the rug out from under their own customers, by 
cancelling their existing policies."

Calling the US a socialist state based on that idiocy is a bit like 
suggesting that Purple is a shade of Yellow, or that there is a 
functional difference between water and dyhydrogen monoxide. That there 
are actually some idiots in congress, on Faux News, and especially in 
the so called "Tea Party", actually claiming this, isn't all that relevant.

That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as 
much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of 
other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its 
both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to 
plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

I think that should have been a :(


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.01.2014 07:40, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

I do agree that the relationship between citizens and "officers" - be 
they law enforcement, TSA or whatever - in the US seems to be 
fundamentally different from that in Europe, or at least in Germany. 
(Nowadays, that is. It must have been more US-like over here some 
decades ago, probably until around 1970.)

Over here, it is commonly accepted by both citizens and "officers" that 
(1) orders from the latter may be questioned by the former, and (2) the 
former may address the latter like they would any other human being. It 
doesn't seem to be like that in the US.

One thing that would be impossible over here, for instance, would be the 
following dialogue I witnessed myself at an international airport 
between a TSA officer and an old man - the latter isn't quoted verbatim, 
but the former is, word for word:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I tell you it's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"Really, it's all plastic. No metal at all."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"The belt has to go off."
"But it's always been ok to keep it on each time I've flown before."
"The belt has to go off."

In the US, it felt natural for the officer to just assert her authority 
over the matter and expect the traveler to comply.

In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight 
but important turn:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"It doesn't matter what it's made of. The belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have relied not only on authority, but also on 
a pinch of reason: The order isn't given "just because" - it is given 
because the material of the belt doesn't matter. It also serves to let 
the traveler know that his objections have been heard.

Of course the traveler would probably have continued the dialogue:

"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"I'm sorry, but the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have acknowledged the procedure to be 
inconvenient to the traveler.

"But it's always been ok to keep it on all the time I've flown before."
"You've probably always gone through old-fashioned metal detectors. 
We're using different technology here, and for that the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would again rely on reason.

For the officer to just repeat her order over and over would be 
absolutely unthinkable in Germany. Here, people expect officers to 
acknowledge objections at /some/ level - if only in a "I've heard what 
you said" kind of way.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 12:54 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight
> but important turn:

I have been doing a lot of flying between London and Brussels, recently.
The dialogue would go like this:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"Well, if you want to risk it setting off the alarm. On you go."

The security in Brussels airport are particularly "human" and treat you 
like a person. The ones in Heathrow are polite but snowed under with the 
number of travellers and tend to be more peremptory.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:27:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)
> 
> I think that should have been a :(

Perhaps, though it does make me feel a little better about it knowing I'm 
not the only one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
> writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
> arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
> times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
> pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

> Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
> anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
> angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
> and unwilling to listen to reason.

You talk like this would be a common thing, yet I can't even remember
the last time you, or anybody else, had such a tantrum.

Then, when someone asks about it, you engage in personal attacks and
belittling comments, and you make it clear that you won't be reading
any possible responses.

Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
attacked or insulted you personally.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message