Rules

[ban-all-sheds]

"Why?"

Oh I know why. It's because some members here are {stupid|juvenile|pathetic|vindictive}.

(even if it it were not "reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour", there has to be a reason why it only happened to you)

If it were not "reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour" then clearly it was happening because the people concerned were being unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. That's what being not reasonable, being not logical and being not intelligent means.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it was reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour for people to vote down posts which had nothing wrong in them, to create multiple accounts so that they could cast more votes, to go back and vote down old posts, to vote down posts they hadn't even read just for their own amusement, etc, or it was not.

If it was, then I would repeat my request for you to explain why it was, and why doing those things was correct.

If it was not then you need to ask the people concerned why they behaved unreasonably, illogically and unintelligently, not I.

It probably wasn't

To the best of my knowledge, if you say it probably wasn't you could just as well say it possibly was.

Pr[reasonable etc] + Pr[unreasonable etc] = 1.

I would be interested to learn why you think it might have been reasonable, logical and intelligent for people to vote down posts which had nothing wrong in them, to create multiple accounts so that they could cast more votes, to go back and vote down old posts, to vote down posts they hadn't even read just for their own amusement, etc.

 

[skotl]

OK, skotl, Johnmelad, JohnW2.

Please explain exactly how it was reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour for people to vote down posts like the one I quoted above.

Please explain exactly how it was reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour for people to vote down posts which they hadn't even read because they thought it was a funny thing to do.

Please explain exactly how it was reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour for people to create multiple IDs so that they could increase the number of thumbs-down they could give, and to start going over old posts to do the same?

You say that I bring that sort of behaviour on myself - I want you to put forward a reasoned and logical explanation which shows why that sort of behaviour is justified, and is the proper thing to do.

Nope. Not going to happen, simply because *you* are the problem and if you can't even begin to recognise that then I'm not going to waste time attempting to explain it to you (as I and others have attempted, many times in the past).

I understand Bernard's sympathy with your position, but John is right - how come it only seems to be you who "suffers" as a result of other people's behaviour. Some self-awareness would help, b-a-s.

 

[JohnW2]

"Why?"

Oh I know why. It's because some members here are {stupid|juvenile|pathetic|vindictive}.

Possibly - but, again, why do you think that's what they are only in relation to you?

(even if it it were not "reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour", there has to be a reason why it only happened to you)

If it were not "reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour" then clearly it was happening because the people concerned were being unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. That's what being not reasonable, being not logical and being not intelligent means.

Indeed - but, again, why do you think that they would be unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent only in relation to you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

IMO, not really.

Scared to admit that you cannot find any way to justify that behaviour?

It's not a question of whether it was "reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour" on the part of others that resulted in what happened to you

Of course it is.

it may not have been any of those things.

Again - saying it may not have been is equivalent to saying it may have been. That's the way the maths works.

It does look as though you do believe that it might have been reasonable, logical, intelligent behaviour for people to vote down posts which had nothing wrong in them, to create multiple accounts so that they could cast more votes, to go back and vote down old posts, to vote down posts they hadn't even read just for their own amusement, etc.

However, the question remains as to why (in this forum) it only happened to you, even if it was unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. That's what you need to ponder.

If it was unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent it was because the people were behaving in an unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent way.

But I would be interested to see a reasoned, logical and intelligent justification of their behaviour from you.

 

[JohnW2]

However, the question remains as to why (in this forum) it only happened to you, even if it was unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. That's what you need to ponder.

If it was unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent it was because the people were behaving in an unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent way. ... But I would be interested to see a reasoned, logical and intelligent justification of their behaviour from you.

Let's try to make it easier for you ... just imagine for a moment that I agreed with you that their behaviour was unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent, and could not be justified. How would you then explain why this unreasonable, illogical, unintelligent and unjustifiable behaviour was directed only at you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Possibly - but, again, why do you think that's what they are only in relation to you?

Because they are {stupid|juvenile|pathetic|vindictive}.

Can you JUSTIFY their behaviour? I don't mean explain, I mean JUSTIFY.

Indeed - but, again, why do you think that they would be unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent only in relation to you?

Because they are unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. There cannot be any reasonable justification for behaving unreasonably. There cannot be any logical justification for behaving illogically. There cannot be any intelligent justification for behaving unintelligently.


But all this is remarkably OT. The original post was an observation that Mod 8 had locked a topic because he was bored by it, and this recent exchange has arisen because I pointed out to you that your idea of providing a "No Thanks" feature has, effectively, been tried and had to be abandoned because of misuse.

Unless of course you think it wasn't misuse for people to vote down posts which had nothing wrong in them, to create multiple accounts so that they could cast more votes, to go back and vote down old posts, to vote down posts they hadn't even read just for their own amusement, etc.

Bear in mind that if you say it probably was misuse you are in effect saying that it might not have been misuse, i.e. it might have been a proper use of the facility, so you ought to be able to justify (not explain, but justify) it being used in that way.

 

[westie101]

I can give you a categorical assurance that they frequently do SFA.

I'm sure, though, that you would agree there could be a number of reasons for them not reacting as expected to reports, however well justified the reporter thinks they are.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed - but, again, why do you think that they would be unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent only in relation to you?

Because they are unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent. There cannot be any reasonable justification for behaving unreasonably. There cannot be any logical justification for behaving illogically. There cannot be any intelligent justification for behaving unintelligently.

... but there must be some explanation if even 'unjustifiable' behaviour is directed by many towards just one individual. You really don't want to hear this, do you? I give up.

Kind Regards, John

 

[GeoffTitch]

FAO Eric

There was a conversation the other day which highlighted that someone had dragged up a very old post (6+ years) and responded to it. The thread was ultimately locked, but I might know how that may have occured.

When you go to a current thread it highlights (at the bottom) other similar or associated threads. I have noticed that these can often be several years old but, due to an interesting looking topic title, it can be easy to get into reading them, then respond or ask a question about it without really realising you are now commenting on a thread that is several years old

Geoff

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope. Not going to happen, simply because *you* are the problem

No - the reason it's not going to happen is that you are unable to justify people voting down posts which had nothing wrong in them, creating multiple accounts so that they could cast more votes, to going back and vote down old posts, voting down posts they hadn't even read just for their own amusement, etc.

If you could justify that sort of behaviour, if you could explain why it is right and proper for people to do that sort of thing then you would.

and if you can't even begin to recognise that then I'm not going to waste time attempting to explain it to you (as I and others have attempted, many times in the past).

I don't think you have ever explained, or even tried to explain, why it is reasonable, logical, intelligent, right and proper, etc., for people to behave like that.

I understand Bernard's sympathy with your position, but John is right - how come it only seems to be you who "suffers" as a result of other people's behaviour

You would have to ask them. They are the ones behaving unreasonably, illogically and unintelligently. As soon as people start reacting unreasonably, illogically and unintelligently to what I write then there clearly cannot be any reasonable, logical or intelligent link to what I have written.

 

[GeoffTitch]

...currently dragging this subject on seems unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent to me...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... but there must be some explanation if even 'unjustifiable' behaviour is directed by many towards just one individual. You really don't want to hear this, do you? I give up.

Go on then, explain it.

 

[JohnW2]

Go on then, explain it.

I give up.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Isn't it funny how when people are asked to justify, or even explain, why there are {unreasonable|illogical|unintelligent|stupid|juvenile|pathetic|vindictive} etc reactions to things I write that they refuse to do so, and when pressed they announce that they are giving up.

It's hard to see, given that, how there can be any justification, or reasonable, logical intelligent explanation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...currently dragging this subject on seems unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent to me...

I think you're right. None of the people who think that unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent reactions to what I post are justifiable are willing or able to explain why they think that.