Herbert Graf wrote: >>> Wah, wah, wah, if you don't like it, leave. >> >> This is exactly the kind of dictatorial refusing to even discuss >> things attitude I'm talking about. > > Again, wah. > >> That's bad enough, but your childish taunting >> is out of line and unbcoming of a admin. If I had said something >> like that you would have put me on moderation. > > I disagree. I didn't belittle you, I didn't deride you, I simply > pointed out that you are whining. In a taunting way. It's also not clear how to discuss or request something without it being labeled "whining" by you. But OK, I'll take your word for it that if I had done something similar you would not have put me on moderation. Calling something "whining" is just another way to dismiss the other's arguments without having to actually respond to them. That may work when someone is just ranting on because that means they've let emotions get in the way already, and the "whining" accusation is likely to push them into a even bigger emotional outburst such that they hang themselves. Hey, I've used that tactic too. There are actually quite a number of ways to stay on rational ground yourself while goading the other into a emotional outburst to hang themselves. That is what Russell gets so upset about. The trick is to judge carefully if the other person will likely overract emotionally. If they don't, then you are the one left looking like they failed. Herbert, you likely won't believe this, but I really am sorry about having to expose your failed debating tactics. My intent is truly not to make you look stupid, but only to not let you get away with dismissing the points raised by using a smokescreen. There are a lot of people on this list with different backgrounds and fluency with english. I was afraid some might not be able to detect the smokescreens for what they are. > Everyone here knows that there are times when you're just to busy to > do something. This is the real world Olin, and your "complaint" isn't > anywhere near my top priority. Fair enough, although it wasn't a complaint but a request. But now that you obviously have time, you decided to get argumentative instead of responding to the points made. It is becoming ever clearer this is to deflect the fact that the points raised actually have some merit. "I can't respond on the merits, so I'll make a lot of fuss about something else and maybe nobody will notice." >> You brought up what I thought were legitimate logistical concerns. >> Both Vitaliy and I tried to address them. You didn't come back with >> "No, because ..." or "OK, I agree...". You just evaporated. Nobody >> was yelling and screaming or name calling. These were polite >> technical posts. > > Olin, WHY are you making me repeat myself? I didn't have time to > respond, deal with it. There goes the argumentative tone again, and the glaring lack of actually addressing what was said. > Frankly I don't even remember reading the post, because of earlier > agreements I don't read every post dealing with you. They were in direct response to the questions you raised. > There is no protocol, there is no drive on our side. You haven't > opened anything new, therefore you can consider the old gospel still > relevant, "Pretend we've already responded so we hopefully never have to" > which Bob stated quite clearly: > > Until you are willing to admit that some change is necessary from your > side, the status quo remains. If you don't like it, leave. If you > pledge > to change your behaviour, i.e. to ensure that your responses to those > you consider "morons" doesn't inflame, we'll THEN have a discussion. Actually Bob didn't say that, only a bystander with no official authority said anything like that. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist