Cassette change?

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:07:59 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:

Whatever. I do my job, the company owns some of my time, not my life.
They'll let me go in a heartbeat if it doesn't look like I'm worth the
expense. If I had wings I could fly around like a bird; those investors
of yours made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, you just make my point in spades. If you hire on as a salaried engineer the investors OWN every second of your time. I would have let all of them go in a second if I could get replacements. On the last day of the company, I went into the HR department and looked in their files and he had resumes from dozens of non-degreed engineers with great accomplishments that would have been installed in those offices in a second and those investors would not have been taking a gamble. As a project manager or a department manager that would have been changed immediately and such an HR department would have been thrown bodily out of the door. I went too far and accomplished too much to fall for the sort of bull**** you're handing out.

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 8:52:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you felt
a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable person
in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely glares,
slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in silence. They
often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those fail, one can
walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden silence
- IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it probably makes
Tom or Jute think they've just been proven brilliant. Worse, dimwits
reading them may think "Ooh, he must be right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

If you meet me please roll your eyes Frank. Or try a "steely stare".

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 5:52:26 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you felt
a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable person
in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely glares,
slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in silence. They
often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those fail, one can
walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden silence
- IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it probably makes
Tom or Jute think they've just been proven brilliant. Worse, dimwits
reading them may think "Ooh, he must be right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank other people can think for themselves.

Lou

On 7/31/2020 10:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a
person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly
obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise
arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group
such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it
can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing
post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something
significant to contribute. And for bonus points, you thought
I was wrong, and you felt a need to correct me. So you
posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not
post" - by simply not posting? Think about that a moment.
I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise
unreasonable person in real life, there are many silent
tools. Eye rolling, steely glares, slowly shaking one's head
and more can all be done in silence. They often make a
person realize he's out of bounds. If those fail, one can
walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent.
Sudden silence - IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In
fact, it probably makes Tom or Jute think they've just been
proven brilliant. Worse, dimwits reading them may think
"Ooh, he must be right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.


Dada.

you're welcome

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:35:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's mental
handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner? It's not a
rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be difficult
to not respond.

And as Sir Ridesalot has pointed out, even kill files don't help when
someone else responds.

I find it easier on discussion groups. In meatspace, you may have to
leave the room entirely to avoid the obnoxious person; in a discussion
group, he never knows that you saw the message. There is many a time
that I've been unable to resist writing a response -- and in the cold
light of morning, I deleted it unsent.

People who insist on amplifying obnoxious posts are a problem. There
are people in my killfile who got there by responding in kind.

One of these years, I'll have to find out whether a later version of
Agent has "kill subthread" -- also mark read any replies to the
offending post.

Of course, I do a lot of that by hand: if a subthread hangs from a
post that came in marked read, I can spacebar-x through it.


--
Joy Beeson
joy al beeson at gmail dot com

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you
felt a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable
person in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely
glares, slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in
silence. They often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those
fail, one can walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a
message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden
silence - IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it
probably makes Tom or Jute think they've just been proven
brilliant. Worse, dimwits reading them may think "Ooh, he must be
right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

I will reply only this once, after which I will, indeed, just not post.

You have the dynamics of this and similar forums backwards. Replying to
a post encourages more of the same. Replying with angry insults tends
to *really* encourage more of the same. Continuing to pour invective
into complete silence is just not any fun -- you might as well write
your snide, angry, vituperative, or smarmily superior post and then
just *not* send it. Which is what I suggest.

This isn't theory, just years of observation.

Tom may have his blind spots, but he's absolutely correct in saying that
he gets a much bigger response to off-topic posts than on-topic posts.

At a now sadly defunct forum that I used to read the moderator's
suggested test was three-pronged:
Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it kind?
Two out of three were supposed to be required. Try to understand that.

writes:

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:07:59 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:

Whatever. I do my job, the company owns some of my time, not my life.
They'll let me go in a heartbeat if it doesn't look like I'm worth the
expense. If I had wings I could fly around like a bird; those investors
of yours made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, you just make my point in spades. If you hire on as a salaried
engineer the investors OWN every second of your time.

Of course they don't. They own what they pay for.

I would have let
all of them go in a second if I could get replacements. On the last
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you can't
get replacements maybe the market is trying to tell you something.

On the last
day of the company, I went into the HR department and looked in their
files and he had resumes from dozens of non-degreed engineers with
great accomplishments that would have been installed in those offices
in a second and those investors would not have been taking a
gamble. As a project manager or a department manager that would have
been changed immediately and such an HR department would have been
thrown bodily out of the door. I went too far and accomplished too
much to fall for the sort of bull**** you're handing out.

One of the big reasons for degree requirements today is that they are,
so far, legally defensible. Being accused of illegal discrimination
is at the least a major headache and expense.

I agree that the current trend of requiring formal education for
every job goes too far. You might read some Bryan Caplan on education
for some prespective on how and why it has happened.

On 7/31/2020 2:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you
felt a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable
person in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely
glares, slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in
silence. They often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those
fail, one can walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a
message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden
silence - IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it
probably makes Tom or Jute think they've just been proven
brilliant. Worse, dimwits reading them may think "Ooh, he must be
right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

I will reply only this once, after which I will, indeed, just not post.

But understand what you just did, please - despite advocating just not
posting! IOW, you just illustrated the problem.

You have the dynamics of this and similar forums backwards. Replying to
a post encourages more of the same. Replying with angry insults tends
to *really* encourage more of the same.

You may want to review my posts. Any "angry insults" I've posted have
been extremely, extremely rare - perhaps two per year - and directed at
only one immensely abusive and completely unproductive poster. He's
aself-fueled troll. He'll do what he does whether anyone responds or not.

My responses to Tom have not been angry. I'm serious when I say I feel
sorry for him, because I do think he has real mental problems. But when
he talks nonsense - a "Generator" model hub that does not generate,
tires so good they accelerate when he's coasting on a flat road, etc.
I'll post to correct him. I think most of us post corrections when our
expertise comes upon a real mistake. Isn't that a function of a
discussion group?

On non-bike topics, I've barely engaged Tom. My typical comments have
been very brier, like "Why aren't you talking to Trump instead of us?"
It's not invective, it's not angry. It's a bit sarcastic, but it's also
a valid question.

All this bypasses my original question on this point. Tom is admittedly
a bit demented (in the clinical sense) and showing other signs of problems.

At a now sadly defunct forum that I used to read the moderator's
suggested test was three-pronged:
Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it kind?
Two out of three were supposed to be required. Try to understand that.

Hmm: A _moderator's_ suggestion?

Maybe the question becomes: Why do certain groups have moderators And
where can we get one?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, 31 July 2020 14:26:08 UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you
felt a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable
person in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely
glares, slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in
silence. They often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those
fail, one can walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a
message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden
silence - IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it
probably makes Tom or Jute think they've just been proven
brilliant. Worse, dimwits reading them may think "Ooh, he must be
right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

I will reply only this once, after which I will, indeed, just not post.

You have the dynamics of this and similar forums backwards. Replying to
a post encourages more of the same. Replying with angry insults tends
to *really* encourage more of the same. Continuing to pour invective
into complete silence is just not any fun -- you might as well write
your snide, angry, vituperative, or smarmily superior post and then
just *not* send it. Which is what I suggest.

This isn't theory, just years of observation.

Tom may have his blind spots, but he's absolutely correct in saying that
he gets a much bigger response to off-topic posts than on-topic posts.

At a now sadly defunct forum that I used to read the moderator's
suggested test was three-pronged:
Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it kind?
Two out of three were supposed to be required. Try to understand that.

People who insist on responding to known Trolls are just as bad as the Troll imho.

Without the Trolls and the replies to them this group too would be just about devoid of any MEANINGFUL activity. It's why so many have stopped using it. Look at the other Usenet rec.bicycles. groups and you can see that Trolls and Spammers have virtually killed them.

This used to bea fantastic place to get quick answers to questions about BICYCLES. Now a thread gets hijacked within a few posts and one person insists on calling it Topic Drift. They say that's what happens in real world conversations. In fact in real world conversations, people will ask to please stay on topic. Once the original topic is exhausted they'll start a new topic. That's only courtesy which is sorely lacking here.

Now when I need pertinent information to something bicycling related I go to a moderated forum where my question will have answers pertaining to the question asked.

Andrew is on of the few here who still answers bicycling rlated questions quickly and on-topic. When he's gone I bet this newsgroup will either die or be populated mostly by the Trolls and their respondents.

Cheers

On Friday, 31 July 2020 18:29:09 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2020 2:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/30/2020 9:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

The real problem is, what is appropriate behavior when a person's
mental handicap caused them to behave in a truly obnoxious manner?
It's not a rare problem.

In real life, one can usually walk away or otherwise arrange to not
listen to the disturbed individual. On a discussion group such as this
one, it's more difficult. Despite best resolutions, it can be
difficult to not respond.

Seriously? It's not difficult *at*all* to just not f*ing post.

OK: Why did you post that?

I suspect it's because you felt you had something significant to
contribute. And for bonus points, you thought I was wrong, and you
felt a need to correct me. So you posted. Right?

But couldn't you have proven your point - "It's easy to not post" - by
simply not posting? Think about that a moment. I'll wait.

. . . . .

. . . . .

It doesn't work, right? Here's why:

When dealing with a mentally deficient or otherwise unreasonable
person in real life, there are many silent tools. Eye rolling, steely
glares, slowly shaking one's head and more can all be done in
silence. They often make a person realize he's out of bounds. If those
fail, one can walk away mid-conversation, which does deliver a
message.

On this sort of discussion group, those tools are absent. Sudden
silence - IOW, just not posting - conveys nothing. In fact, it
probably makes Tom or Jute think they've just been proven
brilliant. Worse, dimwits reading them may think "Ooh, he must be
right!"

It's a problem. At least try to understand that.

I will reply only this once, after which I will, indeed, just not post.

But understand what you just did, please - despite advocating just not
posting! IOW, you just illustrated the problem.

You have the dynamics of this and similar forums backwards. Replying to
a post encourages more of the same. Replying with angry insults tends
to *really* encourage more of the same.

You may want to review my posts. Any "angry insults" I've posted have
been extremely, extremely rare - perhaps two per year - and directed at
only one immensely abusive and completely unproductive poster. He's
aself-fueled troll. He'll do what he does whether anyone responds or not.

My responses to Tom have not been angry. I'm serious when I say I feel
sorry for him, because I do think he has real mental problems. But when
he talks nonsense - a "Generator" model hub that does not generate,
tires so good they accelerate when he's coasting on a flat road, etc.
I'll post to correct him. I think most of us post corrections when our
expertise comes upon a real mistake. Isn't that a function of a
discussion group?

On non-bike topics, I've barely engaged Tom. My typical comments have
been very brier, like "Why aren't you talking to Trump instead of us?"
It's not invective, it's not angry. It's a bit sarcastic, but it's also
a valid question.

All this bypasses my original question on this point. Tom is admittedly
a bit demented (in the clinical sense) and showing other signs of problems.

At a now sadly defunct forum that I used to read the moderator's
suggested test was three-pronged:
Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it kind?
Two out of three were supposed to be required. Try to understand that.

Hmm: A _moderator's_ suggestion?

Maybe the question becomes: Why do certain groups have moderators And
where can we get one?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Because of people like you.

Cheers