On 08/05/2023 8:01 am, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/05/2023 19:52, Raja USstaffrecruiter wrote:
> <spam job advert>
>
> I hope this thread will discourage spammers like that one from ever
> posting again in Usenet groups.
>
> It may also make him realise the importance of having kindergartens at
> large employers' sites - so that programmers like Bonita, Muttley and
> Flibble can be sent back and try to learn the basics of social behaviour.

Make yourself a nice cup of tea, you muppet.

/Flibble

On 08/05/2023 15:35, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 3:01:21 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> It may also make him realise the importance of having kindergartens at
>> large employers' sites - so that programmers like Bonita, Muttley and
>> Flibble can be sent back and try to learn the basics of social behaviour.
>
> Judging from very recent posts, you need to add James and Öö Tiib to
> the list. And I suspect you're sufficiently self aware to realize that
> you shift effortlessly from disagreeing with somebody to saying something
> negative about them, so add yourself to the list. And me, for writing this
> post :-) Of these, I think Muttley is the least offender.
>

Disagreeing is fine - discussions are what drive a group like this.
I've no problem with disagreements about style, though they should
either have some justification, and be clear that they are a matter of
opinion. (I made a recent post saying how /I/ use trailing return
types, for example.)

But I feel this group has seen more than enough pantomime threads with
these three characters alternately accusing each other of writing
incomprehensible code and/or being unable to comprehend the language. A
number of the regulars in this group have killfiled them as a result -
that is never a good sign, and can mean that any technical thread
involving them will be fragmented.

All three of these posters also make technical and relevant posts too -
which others may find interesting or informative, or disagree with. It
is a shame when these get spoiled by pointless bickering, however.

(And yes, I am aware that I am not a perfect Usenet citizen, and could
amongst other things be better at ignoring provocations.)

On Mon, 8 May 2023 17:30:26 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>(And yes, I am aware that I am not a perfect Usenet citizen, and could
>amongst other things be better at ignoring provocations.)

You don't say.

You're the utter plank who accused me of racism, prejudice, xenophobia, hate
speech and bigotry just because I called Humza Yousaf useless, or Humza
Yousless as just about everyone is calling him and said he'd be no more liberal
than a devout christian, presumably because he's your scots nat poster boy and
knock one out everytime you see him.

The message id is u06nl4$1e8q0$1@dont-email.me dated 31/3/23 in case your memory
has suddenly become faulty.

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:30:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>
> (And yes, I am aware that I am not a perfect Usenet citizen, and could
> amongst other things be better at ignoring provocations.)

Ah, self awareness. I wonder if James understands why he responds
boorishly to a question from Bonita, ".. if you can't be bothered to read it ..."
but he wouldn't respond that way if the same question were asked by
somebody else. And I wonder if David realizes how many of his
posts contain soft digs at people who disagree with him ("I wouldn't
want you on my team").

Maybe we all need to enroll in etiquette school. Or maybe we should
just forgive each other and go back to writing posts.

Best wishes,
Daniel

On 5/8/23 12:58, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:30:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> (And yes, I am aware that I am not a perfect Usenet citizen, and
>> could amongst other things be better at ignoring provocations.)
>
> Ah, self awareness. I wonder if James understands why he responds
> boorishly to a question from Bonita, ".. if you can't be bothered to
> read it ..."

The answer to her question was in the article I referred to. I was
annoyed at her failure to check it out (it's not very long, and it's not
hard to find), and mildly expressed that annoyance. If don't see
anything wrong with doing that. She should take it as a hint that she
should follow up such citations before responding to such messages.

> but he wouldn't respond that way if the same question were asked by
> somebody else.

I believe I might have said the same thing to anyone in the same
circumstance: a question about a citation that would have been answered
by following up on the citation. The main reason you haven't seen such
messages from me toward the people I'm the most friendly with is that
they don't do such things. The people I get along with best tend to
research a topic before posting a comment on it.

> ... And I wonder if David realizes how many of his
> posts contain soft digs at people who disagree with him ("I wouldn't
> want you on my team").

I wouldn't qualify such digs as "soft" - they seem pretty "hard" to me.
However, as a general rule, when he makes such hard digs, his reasons
for doing so seem generally reasonable to me, and the comment justified.

I don't believe that "never offend anyone" is a reasonable rule. People
can be offended by just about anything, including even greetings that
were deliberately designed to be inoffensive, such as "Have a good day!"
or "Happy Holidays!".
Some behavior needs to provoke a response that the perpetrator might
consider offensive, in order to inform the perpetrator that they
shouldn't engage in that behavior. I consider the phrase you object to
in my message as no more than mildly offensive, when it is justified by
the facts (and completely inappropriate if not so justified).

On 08/05/2023 18:58, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 11:30:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> (And yes, I am aware that I am not a perfect Usenet citizen, and could
>> amongst other things be better at ignoring provocations.)
>
> Ah, self awareness. I wonder if James understands why he responds
> boorishly to a question from Bonita, ".. if you can't be bothered to read it ..."
> but he wouldn't respond that way if the same question were asked by
> somebody else. And I wonder if David realizes how many of his
> posts contain soft digs at people who disagree with him ("I wouldn't
> want you on my team").
>

I don't agree that "I wouldn't want you on my team" is necessarily a
"soft dig" at someone. Someone could have very different skills, or
very different styles, and therefore be unsuitable for the task.
Someone could be a top-class Windows GUI programmer, and I'd be unlikely
to want them on my team - you need a different mindset and experience
for small-systems embedded programming. Equally, they would not want me
on their team.

And I don't take digs at people, or talk negatively about them, for
disagreeing with me. It usually takes a consistent and long-term
demonstration of poor programming and a strong resistance to learning
before I think badly of someone's ability. It takes many unpleasant
posts (not necessarily targeted at me), or a few extreme posts, before I
start to dislike someone and lose respect for them as a person.

> Maybe we all need to enroll in etiquette school. Or maybe we should
> just forgive each other and go back to writing posts.
>

Those are good sentiments, and worth aiming for - even if there are
sometimes hard to manage.