I don't post a lot, often read. I have the uttermost respect for the scientific approach taken here. And I understand that most of the criticism leveled at the article is sound.
Having read the whole conversation, though, I have to say that the author came here in good spirit and that many posters were overly aggressive towards him. Then everything broke down, as it too often happens on the web.
Having read the whole conversation, though, I have to say that the author came here in good spirit and that many posters were overly aggressive towards him. Then everything broke down, as it too often happens on the web.
I completely and totally agree. Ignoring the content, the way some of the points were made, especially by greynol, I could not have kept the composure TrustScience has. There are other ways you can get your point across. Trying to "tell the other person how stupid they are" will not get them to listen to you.
That just had to be said, sorry for not adding more constructive content to the discussion.
Having read the whole conversation, though, I have to say that the author came here in good spirit and that many posters were overly aggressive towards him. Then everything broke down, as it too often happens on the web.
I completely and totally agree. Ignoring the content, the way some of the points were made, especially by greynol, I could not have kept the composure TrustScience has. There are other ways you can get your point across. Trying to "tell the other person how stupid they are" will not get them to listen to you.
That just had to be said, sorry for not adding more constructive content to the discussion.
Im sorry, but what? "Aggressive" ? ..."the way some of the points were made" ...? I see nothing offensive, apart from a few posters pointing out factual errors (which certainly and clearly is offensive to some). If by "offensive" and "the way some of the points were made" you mean "frank", then I could agree -- I dont see how that is a bad thing, however. Personally I think TrustScience is the one with "flawed" argumentation, but why care about such details? Leave "sugar coating" to politicians and salesmen.
I am very sorry for the offtopic, but I just cant leave statements without commenting.
I see nothing offensive, apart from a few posters pointing out factual errors
Several posts were edited. It was my sentiment upon first lecture as well that they were addressing him like he was an incompetent idiot, with no diplomacy or patience.
Leave "sugar coating" to politicians and salesmen.
There's a reason politicians sugercoat things. As has been said before, you won't convince anyone by making them feel like idiots. People don't listen to jerks.
If HA doesn't understand that, it will be everyone's loss.
It's possible that calling famous mastering engineers 'monkeys' in the subject might be considered aggressive.
It's certainly not ideal, but in this particular context, I believe it was mere venting (as opposed to calling them monkeys to their faces). Given the sheer amount of crap that comes out on the market these days, I understand his reaction. First you vent, you blow off some steam, then you calm down and start a dialog.
Several posts were edited. It was my sentiment upon first lecture as well that they were addressing him like he was an incompetent idiot, with no diplomacy or patience.
I often edit posts just to fix an apostrophe. Perhaps you can report on something more specific so that this doesn't look like a big conspiracy?
EDIT: Added the word "this". I did not call skamp a monkey.
Perhaps you can report on something more specific so that this doesn't look like a big conspiracy?
I should have quoted posts for truth, eh? I trust my first impression, because that's how Justin took it as well. This made me mad when I was already pissed of:
Oh for goodness sake - you haven't a clue what you're talking about with this one!
(there's no nicer way of putting it - sorry!).
Ya there is. How about: "I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect" instead of "you're so grossly incompetent, it's actually funny" (that's how I read it).
Anyway… can we play nice now?
I guess that depends on whether we want to continue to reply on that aspect of the discussion. Since I've been mentioned explicitly by name in the criticism, I'm in not in a position to remove posts and have it look impartial.
This will inevitably lead to someone wanting to tell me that if I remained impartial then this wouldn't have happened. To which I can only say that I didn't do myself or this forum any favors by losing sight of the fact that I'm not just a regular member.
This made me mad when I was already pissed of:
Oh for goodness sake - you haven't a clue what you're talking about with this one!
(there's no nicer way of putting it - sorry!).
Ya there is. How about: "I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect" instead of "you're so grossly incompetent, it's actually funny" (that's how I read it).
That’s your problem, not 2BDecided’s. He didn’t say anything of the sort, and your interpretation is irrelevant.
It’s already counterproductive enough when people spend ages quibbling over how, not
what someone says; it’s worse when you conjure imaginary intentions for statements and then claim that they may be true because
you, for whatever reason, take them that way.
Concern trolling is often more derailing and pointless than people just being overly blunt and "insulting".
Concern trolling is often more derailing and pointless than people just being overly blunt and "insulting".
Raising concerns and concern
trolling are not the same thing. The latter implies malicious intent. I don't know what permits you to pretty much accuse me of malice. It's sooo easy to call someone a troll these days. It's a cheap shot really.
You're pretty well serving only to prove his point.
WTF is "concern trolling"?
Maybe one could give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the interpretation of his post.
What if what he meant to say was, "Concern over trolling..." or "Concern about trolling..."?!?
WTF is "concern trolling"?
Concern troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll):
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.
I have no such goals. My concerns are legitimate and shared by others on both sides of the fence.
Maybe one could give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the interpretation of his post.
I don't think there's anything to interpret, he was pretty litteral.
I'm done posting my opinions on this board. When people agree with me, I'm preaching to the choir. When they disagree, I'm talking to a wall. No point.
I won't dignify any further accusations with an answer, either.
Nice display of diplomacy and patience.
just one thing, some posts got deleted but I want to clarify something. Skamp responded to my post:
I don't know what permits you to pretty much accuse me of malice.
I wasn't accusing anyone of malice, and by concern troll I didn't mean you.