KK please fix unsolicited addition to my Ignore list!

[clau clau]

I did not post blasphemies against the Mother of God.

edit:

You (and your lackeys) insulted a poster who I have a great deal of respect for.

Did I say you did?

You implied it.

Go forth and multiply.

[Insanis]

I did not post blasphemies against the Mother of God.

Did I say you did?

I was pointing out the things that I had to deal with while you were high fiving people criticizing me and you were predicting I'd be banned.

You get pissed off about petty things. It is inordinate.

You insulted a poster who I have a great deal of respect for.

So it is rightful to get angry about insults? Shall I list the ones I had to deal with constantly?

Was I insulting a poster or his posts? Was this poster insulting another person at the time?

I am not going to engage in tribalism.

[Miriam_M]

I think she is right in this case Miriam, because I could not see Clau Clau's post either and I don't have him on ignore and his show me the post was hyperlinked elsewhere which a bug would not do.

Well, if there was still any lingering doubt about MaximGun and Greg being the same person, this should dispel it.  Greg would never admit Jayne to be right 

I respectfully disagree, Munda, that she was "right" about blaming me for "wasting KK's time."  If you disagree, please explain to me how I can obtain the clairvoyance that some of you apparently possess -- or, lacking that, the inside knowledge that it is only now revealed by a few who knew the existence of a prank.

There is no way that I could have known in advance what was going on unless there had been some obvious clue, which I deny there was.

I thank clau clau for finally coming public with his admission.

[Insanis]

If you disagree, please explain to me how I can obtain the clairvoyance that some of you apparently possess -- or, lacking that, the inside knowledge that it is only now revealed by a few who knew the existence of a prank.

There is no way that I could have known in advance what was going on unless there had been some obvious clue, which I deny there was.

Well, if you really want to know it from a technical perspective...

(I specifically refrained from respond to your problem earlier and I hope you appreciate that...I do not act like a moderator).

There is no clairvoyance needed. From the technical side, your post provided very little information about the issue and the admin would have had no way of using what you provided to fix any problems if any existed. You should have provided links to the posts being blocked and screenshots of your browser to show the issue. So yes, technically, you were wasting the admin's time by not providing the necessary information to diagnosis the problem.

The others did provide information that might have helped, and that is usually a good thing, to eliminate possible causes of the problem before the admin has to think about what is going on. If the other posters were right, then you could easily end the request and everybody would be happy. If the other posters were wrong, you would have eliminated that as a potential cause of the problem. Most technical problems are actually PICNIC errors and it is useful to eliminate as many as possible as early as possible before looking for a technical solution. Had this been a technical issue, the admin would have had very little means of fixing it, because it would require altering SMF code. And while this is possible, debugging apparently stable code on a live deployment is very, very tricky. The fix would have been very time consuming. It would have been inconvenient even if the admin routinely altered the SMF code himself (which I don't think he does).

And, finally, my own view is that the posts are obviously not real: the ignoring function dynamically hides a lot more than the post, including the signature and other details of the poster. The text isn't consistent with a real blocked poster either. It is a very superficial resemblance.

I don't blame people for mistaking it as a real block though. Most people do not view webpages the way a web developer would.

In short, just assume people have good intentions when they post and most problems go away. Just address the blatant insults instead of reading between the lines for hidden meaning.

[Insanis]

If it makes everybody feel better, anybody who was fooled by it at all at any time was behaving like a normal user, so you have that in common.

The admin should break out the LART, but I'm staying out of it.

[Miriam_M]

In short, just assume people have good intentions when they post and most problems go away. Just address the blatant insults instead of reading between the lines for hidden meaning.

Do not lecture me.  It was a blatant insult.  I was accused of "wasting the moderator's time."  I did no such thing, and I am not expected to "have the perspective of a web developer" as a user of a Catholic discussion forum.  I didn't read anything "hidden" in the poster's words but quoted her directly.

[Jayne]

I respectfully disagree, Munda, that she was "right" about blaming me for "wasting KK's time."  If you disagree, please explain to me how I can obtain the clairvoyance that some of you apparently possess -- or, lacking that, the inside knowledge that it is only now revealed by a few who knew the existence of a prank.

I did not blame you for wasting KK's time.  I would have blamed myself if I had let him investigate a "problem" that I had already solved.  That would have wasted his time.

Also, there was nothing in my words or "tone" to suggest that you should have been able to figure this out.  I simply told you, in objective terms, what had happened.  But, in the future, don't be surprised if people don't offer to explain things to you, since you have shown that you will attack them for it.

In short, just assume people have good intentions when they post and most problems go away. Just address the blatant insults instead of reading between the lines for hidden meaning.

I didn't read anything "hidden" in the poster's words but quoted her directly.

You read all sorts of imaginary things into my words. 

[Insanis]

In short, just assume people have good intentions when they post and most problems go away. Just address the blatant insults instead of reading between the lines for hidden meaning.

Do not lecture me.  It was a blatant insult.

Well, it was very diplomatic. If you considered that blatant, can we switch profiles? I wish the blatant insults I get were like that.

I was accused of "wasting the moderator's time."

Technically, it would have been a lot less efficient had he responded and looked into it before others gave their input.

I did no such thing, and I am not expected to "have the perspective of a web developer" as a user of a Catholic discussion forum.

Jayne had the same perspective you did when she saw the posts like that the first time.

I didn't read anything "hidden" in the poster's words but quoted her directly.

You must interpret "blatant" differently than I do.

She didn't call you names, ask for you to be banned, etc. That is pretty good for this forum.

(And if it reveals something, calling someone a "user" is kind of insulting for a technical person and you didn't protest the PICNIC errors line, so you kind of do miss the actual blatant slights (not really insults, but hardly flattering), and you did appear to go after someone providing actual useful information that apparently explained your experiences.)

So not everything is at it seems sometimes.

(Sorry everyone, it is not your fault you are users, but that is the world of technology for you.)

[Insanis]

You read all sorts of imaginary things into my words.

It is funny, you get pushback for your apparently benign assistance to a technical problem, and I get away with all sorts of less than flattering words when describing the problem.

The worst I got was being accused of lecturing.

(And honestly, sometimes people need lecturing: I could go on all day about why ignorance about the technology one uses is a bad thing.)

[Jayne]

It is funny, you get pushback for your apparently benign assistance to a technical problem, and I get away with all sorts of less than flattering words when describing the problem.

It was genuinely benign assistance and I have no idea how anyone could even read a problematic tone into it.  I used completely neutral language.

[The Curt Jester]

I noticed those posts.  I just figured Clau Clau was being loony for the sake of interrupting a thread or something along those lines, but that is probably because I've never used the ignore feature so I didn't know that it looks (somewhat) like that. 

Of course, why use the ignore feature?  Ultimately, the best way to ignore someone is to actually do it with one's own willpower.  Just scroll past and voila! -- you ignored him (or her, or it). 

It takes an incredible amount of effort, relatively speaking, to read a post, hit reply, type something out, check for spelling mistakes or other errors, then post than it does to give a little flick of the scroll wheel on the mouse.  In other words, ignoring a person (whose writing you can still see) is still much easier than responding to him.

[Jayne]

Ultimately, the best way to ignore someone is to actually do it with one's own willpower.

I don't have enough willpower for important things as it is.  I'm not going to use it up when there is a forum function to take its place.   

[Miriam_M]

I respectfully disagree, Munda, that she was "right" about blaming me for "wasting KK's time."  If you disagree, please explain to me how I can obtain the clairvoyance that some of you apparently possess -- or, lacking that, the inside knowledge that it is only now revealed by a few who knew the existence of a prank.

I did not blame you for wasting KK's time.  I would have blamed myself if I had let him investigate a "problem" that I had already solved.  That would have wasted his time.

Also, there was nothing in my words or "tone" to suggest that you should have been able to figure this out.  I simply told you, in objective terms, what had happened.  But, in the future, don't be surprised if people don't offer to explain things to you, since you have shown that you will attack them for it.

In short, just assume people have good intentions when they post and most problems go away. Just address the blatant insults instead of reading between the lines for hidden meaning.

I didn't read anything "hidden" in the poster's words but quoted her directly.

You read all sorts of imaginary things into my words.

Nothing imaginary was read into your words but the literal sense of them.  Stop trying to backtrack on what you said, Jayne.  You did in fact accuse me of wasting KK's time.  It's right there in your reply #3, which you edited at least once and will probably now edit again.

You are quite unaware of your tone in many of your posts.

[Insanis]

It is funny, you get pushback for your apparently benign assistance to a technical problem, and I get away with all sorts of less than flattering words when describing the problem.

It was genuinely benign assistance and I have no idea how anyone could even read a problematic tone into it.  I used completely neutral language.

"User": kind of benign most of the time, but for a hacker, it is insulting to be accused of being a user, ignorant of technology and not caring.

LART: Luser Attitude Adjustment Tool

PICNIC: Error code: Program In Chair, Not In Computer.

Maybe it is the subject being technical, or maybe it is the vaccine talking (I was stabbed two days ago, which one might note was followed by lack of activity for an extended period of time, as I was very fatigued and slept most of the day after waking up after sleeping all night), but maybe I am loosening up.

Seriously long posts are not what I want write...I'd rather have fun.

And this weird turnaround is genuinely causing me a lot of mirth.

This is why I don't do tech support anymore. I really lost the diplomacy when dealing with users. I'm not sure why.

Nothing imaginary was read into your words but the literal sense of them.  Stop trying to backtrack on what you said, Jayne.  You did in fact accuse me of wasting KK's time.  It's right there in your reply #3, which you edited at least once and will probably now edit again.

Well, I confirmed you were wasting his time...

You didn't provide enough information for a technical problem to be addressed and you resisted the efforts to explain the possible issue.

You are quite unaware of your tone in many of your posts.

Tone is very ephemeral sometimes, but I know the tone in my posts was evident even to me, but you didn't notice it.

So maybe tone is not so evident and easily mistaken one way or another.

Anybody who caught onto my tone would have caught my snark immediately.

The failure to do so and the apparent perception of hidden tone in Jayne's posts is causing me unusually high levels of amusement.

[The Curt Jester]

Ultimately, the best way to ignore someone is to actually do it with one's own willpower.

I don't have enough willpower for important things as it is.  I'm not going to use it up when there is a forum function to take its place.   

Yeah, but if it has a link which permits you to open it and read the post anyway, doesn't that play with your curiosity?  It's kind of like having a gift from that relative who always pranks you, but yet it's a tempting package nicely wrapped and waiting for your curious fingers to tear it open.  At least if it's out in the open then you already know it's the candle which is scented to smell like something out of a dog's rear end.

And yes, someone gave me a gag gift like that for Christmas.  He thought it would be hilarious, but since he didn't know me well (wife's relative), he didn't realize that my allergies often bother me to the point of not being able to smell very well.  That day I couldn't smell anything, so he didn't get a reaction from me at all.  Of course, he probably wouldn't have even if I could have smelled it.