On 7/31/2020 5:29 PM, 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?



Many feel that the occasional idiot or invective is much
preferred to a controlled environment. I for one would just
go away.

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