Your tone and stride are consonant, well crafted, professionally oriented,
and, most important
_open_ to response.
At least, on the surface, because, as you make carefully plain: you have
already concluded an opinion and taken sides.
But not quite fully noted that you did so, and not that you noted that you
id not _ask_
___before__ concluding.
I also note the absense of response to my explanation.
One that I find does tend to occur when
political correctness
arguments are used in fact of actual adherence to ethical constraints
Such as acting under the _color_ of ethics or rules or law,
rather than within the actual rule of them.
Not that a single interaction is sufficient
... a least for me ...
to come to such a decision: I usually request an _interacion_ to clarify
intent.
I note the total bypass of all commentary about specific guidelines or
established netiquette being
applied ongoing fro the _beginning_ of such a disruption; and also note
that herd voting is usually used in _place_ of application of such rules
when there is a stridency on _any_ party's part in a thread, or
conversation.
Merely structuring a note that falls within politeness concerns still does
not
make it actually adherent to professional ethics and interactions.
I note, once again, that commentary
(this time, thankfully, actually clearly directed _at_ a specific issue
or person)
still does not necessarily actually address what _did_ occur within such a
thread.
merely one non-participant's _opinion_ of it, without discussion, after the
fact.
And, once again, violating the netiquette rule: to take it off line.
As I noted I would do.
With the additional comments directed at me warranting a response, and put
in a public forum,
where I am explicitly disinvited to comment, demur, or interact, and
the netiquette rules being violated with continued discussion about a
topic OFF topic
for this list thread (per Oleg, plese note,and others, not by me).
which, if proper netiquette were being followed
AFTER THE EXPLICIT withdrawal VOLUNTARILY BY THE PARTY
already judged without interaction as guilty
where you did NOT take the issue off line:
Is it proper of me to respond in _private_ (since I did not receive an
explicit invite to comment by being Emailed direct
to me in private sideline).
Or is it proper of me to respond to THIS comment _addressed_ to me in public
(the first one,I might note)
but which specifically DIS invites me to respond by the nature of the
preclusive prejudgement already
formed.
Or is it a clever disenfranchisement, an intentional ostracization,
cleverly worded under the "color" of professionalism intended
to win herd votes in favor of the opine that would be
favorably received:
an intentional political favoritism "spin"?
I note in Mr. Lam's commentary he brought up the topic of Bayesian
filtering,
and somehow, with his advanced knowledge of such techniques,
as well as his memory of previous commentary on the Forum about
typo viruses from em (look to the archives and seeif y memory is accurate; I
have not):
with my name always in clear, explicit form never changing:
Why would a professional, intelligent human being
proficient in IS.IT and Math (as shown by his _knoweledge_ of Bayesian
filtering)
bring up the topic exactly where:
it would never be needed to effctively, completely block a
correspondent?
Since: my name would always 100% block any message I send from being red
and never block anyone else's
Unless, of course, someone wanted to kvtech, pewl, whine, carp, and
backbite about someone, but not allow them to participate?
It being ever so much more so difficult to do so if a filter is applied
which blocks just such messages as refer to my name?
In short, the discussion, to continue, would actually have to continue to
talk about the person you do not want to name
or, ostensibly, discuss.
But: that you would still want to carp, backbite, cavil, grump, frump, and
spin doctor on?
But only if that person is not allowed to respond, participate, or even see
it?
Or can you come up with a technically valid reason to refer to typos and a
Bayesian filter with a CONSTANT NAME TAG
available to completely reliably and only block just that person's posts?
I did not raise it yesterday because I was being a peace maker.
But I do not really miss the various forms of peer group exclusion that come
up:
the simplest of which is just to ignore the post you do not like, as
just pointed out;
it works perfetly well, but does not give opprtunity to whine quite
so effectiely in the open;
and I do not miss when an advanced technique is mentioned out of context
(Bayeisan filters) where redundant and failure prone.
Nor do I miss severe emotionalism used as a baiting mechanism.
I also note where to allow for mistakes and cultural differences as they
occur:
even when under attack.
I note that no one has responded to me as yet (that I can see: I also am
aware of mail delivery failures as a possible occurrence)
as to whether any one else saw the "thorn" letter in Oleg's post;
and that no one has yet to comment on his failures to defuse and take OFF
line the response to it.
Which unfortunately appears to be becoming the standard accepted response IN
PLACE OF professionalism.
I usually compare the responses of people I respect: one such being the
gentleness of Dr. KEI in his
interactions. A gentleness I greatly respect.
Also a skill garnerde over a long career of dealing with people.
One that the Canadian nation has an advantage over much of the rest of
the English speaking world:
Over arrogant Americans and droll blue blooded British.
One I attribute to their _intent_: they _want_ to get the message
across and they are not so
up their own horses as to presume they got it straight the first time a
communication broke down.
And one where their cultural norm uses a form of courtesy that brings the
conversation back into line.
All of which is codified partially in the net.* FAQs on netiquette.
(Partially, because the Canadian form of it I have seen used by Dr.
KEI AND OTHERS is superior to those rules)
I wish I had more experience and expertise and success with it.
I wish others in this group or list did as well: you are aware of which
of you are not in line with the netiquette FAQ.
I suggest AGAIN to take this off the list and into private sideline,
because:
this also does not (according to _your_ side) deal with J.
It deals with one person's opinion of the relevance of ANOTHER post asserted
as off topic and out of bounds.
Sadly the gentleness of that type of interaction seems to have gone down in
popularity with Dr. KEI's passing.
Sadly, it seems that the _absence_ of it has gone up (not necessarily
implied by the first statement above
which if you revert to _Mathematics_, is the exact point of the reason
that Rusell's Paradox Resolved
is _relevant_ to J programming:
proper categorical _analysis_ before _implementing_ a program in ANY
language.
I hope that the _inverse_ f that gentleness does not come to be the norm in
professional interactions
under the _color_ of being professional, especially; as that type of poison
is already universal
in Washington, DC style spin doctoring, as well as Western European/American
business style interactions.
Much to the detriment of society. Unless you happen to think that
Worldcom, Enron, Parmalat, Katrina, Al Ghraib & Haditha, and terrorism
are
_independent_
of such things.
If you do, look up bioneurolinguistics and semiotic conditioning.
They aren't.
And running a _vote_ IN PLACE OF professional conduct does not make it so.
(None of this is directed as a conclusion on my part that Rob is _doing_
this: but I do note that it has that aspect as a possibility:
BECAUSE of the predisposed opinion without obeying netiquette and
permitting a response BEFORE hand.
OFF line.
As seems to be the norm in herd reactions based on emotion and personal
kvetching in place of reason and professionalism.
Much less the humanitarianly oriented responses as seen from Dr. KEI.
Again, I suggest that this be taken off line.
On 6/21/06, Rob Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I joined the J forum(s) to learn more about J and how to write more
efficient J code, not to become bogged down in verbose emails which raise
more questions than they answer. I fear such diatribe could turn away
people inquiring about J and reduce the potential user base.
I support Oleg's comments, as I highly value Oleg's replies to be
relevant,
insightful, constructive and direct to the point - as are the vast
majority
of helpful J forum replies. This is a great point of collaboration.
Filters work, but they should not be necessary - Mr Crabtree may have some
wonderful advice to offer at some stage and I would prefer to see shorter,
relevant messages so I don't miss the gem when/if it is offered.
I do agree with Oleg that a forum moderator could keep the forum
efficient.
It need only be constructive guidance without bearing offence - perhaps
with
a violation/suspense count.
I hope this is taken as positive feedback by Mr Crabtree to also better
consider other forum members' views of such essays and to be brief.
We all use J for its brevity, succinctness and elegance - it seems
incongruous to do otherwise in our emails.
Regards, Rob Hodgkinson
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Oleg Kobchenko
Sent: Wednesday, 21 June 2006 12:43 PM
To: General forum
Subject: [Jgeneral] Irrelevant disruptive postings
I find most of the posting here from this gentleman
Roy A. Crabtree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
meaningless, disruptive and abusive:
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
--
Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#11086
Room 207 Studio Plus
123 East McCullough Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262-3306
336-340-1304 (office/home/cell/vmail)
704-510-0108x7404 (voicemail residence)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
Public Reuse Only
Profits Always Safe Traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
