The Soapbox Rules
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy 'controversial topics'. But, as I pointed out, Chris has made it clear that this is not the intent of the SoapBox
Where did I say "no controversial topics"? I said:
Quote:
1. No personal attacks. 2. No trolling. No deliberating picking something you know will upset others just for entertainment. 3. No hate talk, racism, sexism, anything that's just outright unpleasant. 4. Threads that seem designed to inflame pointlessly will get locked
As an aside: I love that when discussing pretty much anything with a developer even the simplest statements will get debugged. This is the Soapbox. Controversy is fine. Deliberately picking fights isn't. Hate speech isn't. Racism isn't. There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic, not for the sake of seeing how far you can push someone's boundaries. To your other point: Yes, the Soapbox was designed to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives. That and a couple of other reasons, too. Things evolve. "Things that affect my daily programming life" is very, very broad and I'm not going to police that because how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E" isn't due to something between you and your manager. So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
We are not going to see eye to eye here Chris. I will make my points and then say no more. I have read the Soapbox for quite a long time and I have observed the behavior in it is often at complete odds with the rules (open to interpretation though they be) as well as the spirit of CP. The behavior of a number of members in the SB is noticeably different from their behavior in the other forums. There is a fair amount of poor behavior and more than a little outright bad behavior. My opinion is that the SB has long been overdue for a cleanup. Did you say, "no controversial topics"? Of course not, nor did I say this. What I did say is, "CodeProject is not about controversy and providing you with entertainment so you don't get bored". I also wrote, "Chris has made it clear that this (i.e. controversial topics) is not the intent of the SoapBox". There is a big difference between having a rant and intentionally picking controversial topics for the sake of entertainment. You wrote, "There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic.". I tested the boundaries in December by creating a signature that included a statement about the Jewish Holocaust. My opinion is there is no place at CP to have this discussion or any other such contentious topics. The point being this was consistent with the poor behavior of other members. I cannot find your responses and so the following is what I recall. Correct me if I am wrong. You asked me to change my signature precisely because it was about a controversial topic. I wrote a rather lengthy response to test if it was open for discussion. Having posted my response, my hunch was this was not going to go well and I quickly edited it. You said something to the effect that you appreciated the changes. You were good natured but your message was clear. There are limits to what can be addressed. You read Matt the riot act the other day and updated the SB rules. I actually thought you were attempting to close pandoras box when you specifically wrote, "The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives". I was wrong. There is nothing in Matts posting history that warrants giving him the benefit of the doubt that something about "dark skinned immigrants who crossed at Calais affected his daily programming life. So while there is not
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
My opinion is such topics have no place at CodeProject. You appear to agree but then go on to make your points. You have no clue what my opinion is on this topic but you are nevertheless quick to judge. See my response to Chris.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
We are not going to see eye to eye here Chris. I will make my points and then say no more. I have read the Soapbox for quite a long time and I have observed the behavior in it is often at complete odds with the rules (open to interpretation though they be) as well as the spirit of CP. The behavior of a number of members in the SB is noticeably different from their behavior in the other forums. There is a fair amount of poor behavior and more than a little outright bad behavior. My opinion is that the SB has long been overdue for a cleanup. Did you say, "no controversial topics"? Of course not, nor did I say this. What I did say is, "CodeProject is not about controversy and providing you with entertainment so you don't get bored". I also wrote, "Chris has made it clear that this (i.e. controversial topics) is not the intent of the SoapBox". There is a big difference between having a rant and intentionally picking controversial topics for the sake of entertainment. You wrote, "There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic.". I tested the boundaries in December by creating a signature that included a statement about the Jewish Holocaust. My opinion is there is no place at CP to have this discussion or any other such contentious topics. The point being this was consistent with the poor behavior of other members. I cannot find your responses and so the following is what I recall. Correct me if I am wrong. You asked me to change my signature precisely because it was about a controversial topic. I wrote a rather lengthy response to test if it was open for discussion. Having posted my response, my hunch was this was not going to go well and I quickly edited it. You said something to the effect that you appreciated the changes. You were good natured but your message was clear. There are limits to what can be addressed. You read Matt the riot act the other day and updated the SB rules. I actually thought you were attempting to close pandoras box when you specifically wrote, "The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives". I was wrong. There is nothing in Matts posting history that warrants giving him the benefit of the doubt that something about "dark skinned immigrants who crossed at Calais affected his daily programming life. So while there is not
I wrote:
So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I wrote:
So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
- No. Common sense is not being applied. 2) Yes. Rules need to be 'debated'. Ian [EDIT] Chris, I have expressed my opinion and will leave it at that.
-
"The Jewish Holocaust is unlike any other holocaust. There are no bodies, no murder weapons, no forensic/scientific investigations " Then what the fuck are these: holocaust bodies - Google Search[^] You are a sick little puppy you know.
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told. I will not discuss this topic here at CP. But you apparently have no such reservations. As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see? Show me that you have read both sides of this story and that you actually know what you are talking about.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Call me daft but I believe Chris was pretty clear when he wrote, "The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives". Would anyone care to take a stab at proving Chris meant something other than what he wrote?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
"The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives".
No idea what the original thread was about but isn't that specifically just a subset of the following? "For discussing anything related to a software developer's life" That of course is what the lounge says - so what would be left for the Soapbox?
-
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told. I will not discuss this topic here at CP. But you apparently have no such reservations. As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see? Show me that you have read both sides of this story and that you actually know what you are talking about.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told.
No that isn't it. That is however how many people attempt to rationalize probably every wild unbelievable thought that crosses their mind.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see?
That you and for that matter the rest of the universe is nothing but a figment of my imagination. That of course is just philosophical bit-twiddling that leads to nothing that is useful but is in fact a valid philosophical argument. But for everyone else living in the real world addressing every possible possibility is not reasonable nor practical. And even philosophers realize that. So fantastical claims about implausible possibilities are not even worth discussing.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
"The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives".
No idea what the original thread was about but isn't that specifically just a subset of the following? "For discussing anything related to a software developer's life" That of course is what the lounge says - so what would be left for the Soapbox?
Chris updated the Soapbox rules the other day at about the same time he read the riot act to Matt's post about 'Is this racist'. The quote I reference is to be found in the updated Soapbox rules.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told.
No that isn't it. That is however how many people attempt to rationalize probably every wild unbelievable thought that crosses their mind.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see?
That you and for that matter the rest of the universe is nothing but a figment of my imagination. That of course is just philosophical bit-twiddling that leads to nothing that is useful but is in fact a valid philosophical argument. But for everyone else living in the real world addressing every possible possibility is not reasonable nor practical. And even philosophers realize that. So fantastical claims about implausible possibilities are not even worth discussing.
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told. I will not discuss this topic here at CP. But you apparently have no such reservations. As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see? Show me that you have read both sides of this story and that you actually know what you are talking about.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss
I didn't know opinions can discuss. Very clever things these 'opinions'. Remarkable animals really!
-
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
This was Matt's call to challenge me
Ooh, pistols at dawn? :) As they old saying goes, build a bridge dude and get over it. You a pompous and self opinionated bore with little of interest to say, so why not just go back where you came from and leave us to do what we like doing.
-
I had started a rather long winded account of my exchange with Matt, starting in January[^] but realized it was probably pointless. You have access to all of my exchanges since that time. You tell me where you want to start. My opinion is that the SoapBox needs to be cleaned up and I have made this point repeatedly, both implicitly and explicitly, in my exchanges. Matt has the dubious honor of being the one most intent on pushing beyond the SoapBox boundaries. I tried several approaches to encourage Matt to self-moderate, even to the point of using wry humor/sarcasm[^] to get my point across. Nothing worked and Chris had to step in two days ago. This is as much my home as it is your home. I finally got fed up with what I saw happening. I recognize my part in escalating events to the point where Chris had to step in. You apparently do too. My question is why you not only tolerate the poor behavior such as Matt and Slacker demonstrate but actually appear to be encouraging it?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
And everyone else's stinks. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss
I didn't know opinions can discuss. Very clever things these 'opinions'. Remarkable animals really!
I will take that to mean you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Chris read you the riot act the other day. So when I first read your response to me here, my immediate impression was you are acting like a whipped Chihuahua who is attempting to ingratiate himself before his master and audience. Your response confirms my suspicions. In your haste to demonstrate your repentant ways, you thought how opportune it would be to project yourself as the Holocaust standard bearer. So, knowing little to nothing about the Holocaust, you did a quick Google search, came up with a bunch of pictures and...voila, stuck the proverbial foot in your mouth again. I just called your bluff and you unwittingly showed everyone here that you are a wind bag and nothing more. If you are going to pick a fight, first learn how to throw a punch.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
This was Matt's call to challenge me
Ooh, pistols at dawn? :) As they old saying goes, build a bridge dude and get over it. You a pompous and self opinionated bore with little of interest to say, so why not just go back where you came from and leave us to do what we like doing.
I will give you a second opportunity to redeem yourself. What is wrong with the pictures you referenced? Here is a clue. Those on both sides of this story share something in common. This is so simple and straightforward. If you are unwilling to answer then you really will demonstrate that you know nothing. In this case, your Google search reflects an uniformed opinion and all you were doing was taking a cheap shot at me. Why don't you give us a pleasant surprise and demonstrate you actually know something about WWII. Now, are you going to punch or are you going to wrist slap?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ok.
Oppps! This is rather embarrassing for you isn't it! Don't you now wish you had paid attention to what Chris wrote instead of flailing away with child like accusations? +1 for Matt, -1 for you.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I will take that to mean you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Chris read you the riot act the other day. So when I first read your response to me here, my immediate impression was you are acting like a whipped Chihuahua who is attempting to ingratiate himself before his master and audience. Your response confirms my suspicions. In your haste to demonstrate your repentant ways, you thought how opportune it would be to project yourself as the Holocaust standard bearer. So, knowing little to nothing about the Holocaust, you did a quick Google search, came up with a bunch of pictures and...voila, stuck the proverbial foot in your mouth again. I just called your bluff and you unwittingly showed everyone here that you are a wind bag and nothing more. If you are going to pick a fight, first learn how to throw a punch.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
You have a fascinating mind.
-
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation.
No. I don't need to read (and watch and listen to) and endless, really endless, nonsensical outpouring of opinionated pieces about things like extraterrestrials, internal earth dwellers, ghosts, Illuminati conspiracies, ancient advanced societies, bigfoots, fairies, odd ball conspiracies, etc to know that they are nonsense. That is because that they all, without exception, are attempting to modify existing data to fit their skewed view of the world. At best. At worst they are just lying to sell a product. Just to be clear I have in fact read articles and/or seen shows about all of the above subjects in the past written by proponents of those theories. But, if they want to prove their hypothesis then they are going to need to provide new, significant and extensive evidence to support it. Because extreme claims require that. And none of them do that.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation.
No. I don't need to read (and watch and listen to) and endless, really endless, nonsensical outpouring of opinionated pieces about things like extraterrestrials, internal earth dwellers, ghosts, Illuminati conspiracies, ancient advanced societies, bigfoots, fairies, odd ball conspiracies, etc to know that they are nonsense. That is because that they all, without exception, are attempting to modify existing data to fit their skewed view of the world. At best. At worst they are just lying to sell a product. Just to be clear I have in fact read articles and/or seen shows about all of the above subjects in the past written by proponents of those theories. But, if they want to prove their hypothesis then they are going to need to provide new, significant and extensive evidence to support it. Because extreme claims require that. And none of them do that.
First of all, my sincere compliments for acknowledging my talking point and offering a civil response. Your first three sentences are nothing but deflections designed to distract us from the simple fact you really do not know anything about the Google reference you provided. There is nothing sinister or nefarious about the errors and misinformation that is readily apparent in your reference. Indeed, anyone who has read about and studied the conditions of WWII (i.e. those on both sides of this issue) will agree on this point. This has nothing to do with hypothesis and requiring extensive support. It simply involves looking at your reference with a critical eye and open mind - this is an Egg of Columbus. You just are not able to see what is sitting right in front of you. I have nothing more to add or say.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
