On 7/31/2020 5:40 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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


Jay is also experienced witty and helpful about newish
equipment where he has more expertise than I. (delegation is
a wonderful habit and it keeps me sane)

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