http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=1053135


in reply to Re^6: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
in thread Plea for upvotes.

Regardless of whether you consider that first thread warranted some extraordinary response -- I don't. I only asked a perfectly valid question in a perfectly valid, and even polite way (which is unarguable if you read that question, rather than the reaction to it) -- you have to concur that unilaterally disabling an account on the basis of nothing more than a personal distaste for the owner of that account, and his temerity to question the status quo, is exactly why the question needed to be asked; and why it should be responded to.

But I was posting in THIS thread, in which you call tye "a demogodic shithead that has been holding this place back for a decade or more". Funny to be sure, but definitely not polite. FYI, my spell checker spells it "shit head", not one word.

But to address your point of validity, while I respect your experience, and others have piped up to say how valuable you are to the site, you haven't really given much in the way of evidence, really. No one can argue with your point that one shouldn't be able to use power to exercise personal vendettas on a whim. Fine. Agreed. But now what? Has someone done this? You are expecting people to believe someone is actively doing things, without providing any evidence, except your experience. That is really hard to get behind. No?

You may think it selfish of me but I don't see a problem so I don't see the point of changing it. Your first, and as you say, reasonably presented, question presented a poll. I didn't study it closely, but it doesn't look like anyone else has a problem with the way things are? I'd hate to see you go, and so would others, from what I've read. So if your account is fixed now, maybe you won't have any further problems, I hope.

FWIW, I also value your wit and sarcasm over the years. Hilarious. Thanks.

Anne

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 10, 2013 at 01:56 UTC
    But I was posting in THIS thread,

    And this thread was my (exasperated, exacerbated, frustrated) reaction to, the reaction to, the first thread.

    Any attempt to divorce this thread from that thread, and view this thread in isolation, is like claiming "the guy died of a heart attack; the fact that I'd just shot him causing a through'n'through flesh wound is irrelevant".

    You are expecting people to believe someone is actively doing things, without providing any evidence, except your experience.

    How can I present evidence?

    • Do I have access to the Perlmonks Logs? No.
    • Do I routinely wire-shark my every interaction with this site -- or any other? No.
    • Can obtain the PM database and perform a forensic analysis of it? No.

    So, what do I base my charge on.

    1. The time line.
    2. The similarity of what happened to me -- I experienced it; I cannot prove I did beyond asking why would I make it up? What does anyone think I would have to gain from such an exercise -- to what has been recurrently reported by another monk.
    3. A private email (hearsay) from a third party, that I am not at liberty to divulge either author or content, but take to be convincing for several reasons, not least of which is that the author has historically no particular love for me.

      Unsolicited and completely unexpected, it convinced me that I was right about both the time line and the mechanism; but off-base regarding the agent.

      No surprise and no apology there. The complete lack of transparency means the best anyone could do is guess, accuse the 'obvious perpetrator', and gauge the reaction.

    Regarding the non-issue of 'shithead' versus 'shit head'; google has them 473,000 & 925,000 respectively, so I claim a win based upon crowd-sourced wisdom. Wanna argue? Go ahead, but its irrelevant.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      A private email (hearsay) from a third party, that I am not at liberty to divulge either author or content, but take to be convincing for several reasons, not least of which is that the author has historically no particular love for me.
      So... you are now taking techinical advice from sundialsvc4 ?? Holy crap. Surely that's a red light in anyone's book? You are without doubt the single most important contributor to this website. Don't get involved in personal politics of this type.
[reply]
        So... you are now taking techinical advice from sundialsvc4 ??

        Me take "tech[i]nical advice" from sundialsvc4. I should coco.

        And the idea that he's the only person here with "no particular love for me". Brilliant.

        Thank you anonymonk, I needed a good laugh and you gave me two in one sentence. Much appreciated.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      Regarding the non-issue of 'shithead' versus 'shit head'; google has them 473,000 & 925,000 respectively, so I claim a win based upon crowd-sourced wisdom. Wanna argue? Go ahead, but its irrelevant.

      That was a shot at humour, not an invitation to argue or a serious attempt to correct you.

      I wish you luck in fixing any problems you are experiencing.

      Anne

[reply]
        I wish you luck in fixing any problems you are experiencing.

        The "problem" (deliberate, malicious action) was long since fixed (undone) -- by this thread -- several days before you involved yourself.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom