On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 12:29:09 AM UTC+2, 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

Bringing up old statements, opinions or even stupid remarks or verbal abuses again and again from a person you think has mental issues is silly, childish and counter productive. Have you ever admitted that you were wrong? Even now you are looking for excuses. Do you also argue with someone who suffers from Gilles de la Tourette syndrome? Gee you are a person that gets onto my nerves sometimes. Don't reply it is my problem. Have a nice weekend. Pro cycling is resumed this afternoon (Strada Bianca).



Lou