I agree with DaveR.
Andrew and Duncan had only been actively contributing (and yes, mostly useful) for a week or two and the insults and snide remarks had already started... not one, but several. That is not disputable. BOTH parties could be right, and the difference is in a misunderstanding of what the other party was proposing. Dave based his position on what he knows to be sound engineering principles and built a Spice model which verifies his understanding. He asked them to do the same. They leveled more insults and did not produce a model to support their position. Both are EEs and should have been able to build a Spice model in minutes. I still think that one was talking apples and the other oranges, and the comparison of models would have revealed the differences and settled the matter. They chose to be arrogant and disrespectful; Dave maintained a respectful tone the entire time. easy, and correct decision by Bill. I too would welcome them back provided they build the spice model, then they exchange models and report back as to either an error in the model, or that there are differences in the models which would explain why the disagreement. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed Jed, I vote to keep him off for a while. Perhaps you missed his insults toward me and others on the list. What I find particularly funny is that he did not even realize that what I stated was true! If he eventually makes that spice model that I begged him and his friend Duncan to do, he might want to apologize. I built a model in less than 15 minutes that showed my position was completely valid. A cooling off period might change his attitude. How about a condition attached to his return:Build and test that spice model. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed William Beaty <[email protected]> wrote: multiple violations of rule 2. (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.) Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me. Rule 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Debunking or "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. . . . http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him. They might not swallow their pride and return. Maybe you should say "I acted too hastily, I apologize." Say this whether you mean it or not. That's how they do things in Japan. - Jed
