Cataloguing the Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen

Posted by Foolness
Sep 13, 2012 at 12:21 AM

You are a mod so you do have a right to hijack topics whenever you like but once again, I say if a person says someone has this or that, then they should back it up with accurate evidence regardless of whether they are mods or not.

[separator]

Doubly so as they are mods and it’s very easy for mods to get caught by two primary things:

a) subservient to veterans for fear of mob backlash

b) subservient to ones own power as a mod

Doing so is not only flawed reasoning on their part but is worse rudeness than a rude post. A rude poster has a 1 to 1 ratio of influence of which the ratio appears only when a rude replier fans the flames with even less constructive replies. A mod has a 1 to mob ratio of influence and in this situation you are clearly showing corruption by letting this slide:

“Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn’t even got started…”

and honing on me, which contrary to what you may think leads to more mud slinging such as the so called clear reaction to Foolness post in another topic.

You really think in the future promoting such public statements would prevent less ongoing arguments than more? Those people made it more ongoing than I did by bringing it to another topic just because my last reply on general topic hijacking scared them to quarantine their issues here.

I have shown no signs of ongoing anything yet here I am the one you are throwing under the bus by warning me. That is the promotion of corruption sir regardless of intention.

Not that in most cases corrupt mods listen to evidence but call me naive but you don’t come off as a bad mod. At the same time, I don’t consider bad mods to be the only ones capable of being corrupt.

The real question here is whether you would consider an observation with facts (as seen below) as an insult towards you or you will see this as an opportunity to review your case. To review your case not in such a way that you will side or believe my story but to review so that you present a better case of intervention. You know most posters won’t do that. Most mods won’t do that either. But will you?

But I won’t focus on that, I wrote that not for my defense but for your own personality to muse upon long term.

[separator]

My main evidence against your corrupt accusation lies in your lack of investigation and audacity to then judge me as being rude while being 100% wrong in all aspects of your premise.

You have one core point which you think is valid for honing your bias on me. This: “Someone mentioning that they need collaborative tools is not the mark of an egomaniac or an elitist.” - Of course, it’s not!

This is worse than falsehood, you mimicked the same foundation of bs making as Alexander did albeit on a different subject.

In fact the evidence for it is so unanimous that it’s easy to forgive posters who are emotionally attached to their fellow posters and do not even read the details in full but a mod….a mod must not be so blind in light of so many obvious evidences against the claim they threw out. One would think that the fact that your interpretation is so much of a duh statement would lead you to review further but even without this, one could make a long blog post on the evidences against your statement on me.

Evidence A:

My reply to Daly de Gagne also dealt with the collaboration factor. If the mere mention of collaborative tools was what makes a person an elitist or an egomaniac why would I spend many paragraphs dealing with the same issues? Contrary to what the mud slingers throw at me, even those collaborative aspects of my post were in fact points necessary to compare what is the difference between a collaborative workspace vs. a non-collaborative workspace.

Evidence B:

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline
>experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to
>challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done
>in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of
>(to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the
>course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?
> >As long as you have the time to spend in it
>(I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job.

Go ahead, I dare anyone to see any collaborative aspect in this post.

Evidence C:

You quote this as a sign of a personal attack:

“It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic about you or making it about a topic on outliners.”

Yet you omit the next paragraph:

“As you said, this is a forum with several threads. One of this thread that you happen to be posting in isn’t currently dealing with collaboration (in fact you were the one who suddenly turned this into a huge issue with your reply) and yet you not only felt inserting this issue but you totally abandoned the previous subject altogether which is either about Kanban/the mindset relating to Kanban.”

Yes, the evidence here is so rude that I told this person to make a new forum topic instead of insulting him.

Evidence D:

My post: “an egomaniac. (I am using this term as a categorization as opposed to an insult)”

Yes this was clearly not only intended as an insult but we know every rude person writes this to emphasize their rudeness.

Supplementary evidence to Evidence D (aka Evidence E):

My post:

“If you weren’t in a rush to get narcissistic about your own needs, you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn’t talking about power alone, I was also talking about how the different design affected the model and why because of such effect, it cannot be a pure speed boat vs. row boat assumption. It cannot be a linear “this is a superior model to a Kanban” statement especially thrown loosely as you did.”

Yes, I’m so rude that I not only provided evidence but spelled out why he is being an egomaniac.

...and yes as you can see, this is clearly about him mentioning collaboration. NOT!

Does one really need to exhibit egomaniacal behaviours in quotes just to highlight the difference between calling a person an egomaniac because they mentioned collaborative tools and calling a person an egomaniac because they made a reply dealing with their own unrelated issues while selfishly ignoring the core issues? All above the mountain of bs that they’ve just thrown out?

Alexander wrote:

>I can’t fathom updating specifications and task percentages on paper, even though I may have
>used it at the initial planning phase.

Notice the key word, “I”.

>Fredy mentioned Nassi/Shneiderman diagrams; I have not used them, but I could easily have >nightmares of myself endlessly redrawing them. Some things could work on software but fail in
>the physical world.

Notice the sudden mention of “Fredy” with “diagrams” and once again “I”.

Also notice that he no longer talks about collaboration but about “Some things could work on software but fail in the physical world.”

[separator]
The above are the obvious ones and each of those are so random and unrelated to the topic that one could argue they are clear separate evidences of narcissism.

The first quote is a narcissistic tendency towards turning the topic about themselves (while having prior thrown an accusatory reply filled with hollow premises.)

The second quote is a narcissistic tendency towards turning the topic about their their issues with software and the physical world. (while having prior thrown the accusatory reply that I was making a multi-topic post.)

Speaking of the physical world, evidences can contain multiple substances but they are all recognize as one topic. The topic of being evidences against a singular issue.

Need I remind you that this is a long time poster who have written similar thoughts on this issues before on other older threads yet clearly feels justified in bringing them here?

However that is the evidence against him. Please tell me here where he’s even talking about collaboration and how my calling him a narcissist on this is related to him mentioning collaboration?
[separator]

>And when you look at something like Wikipedia, or even much less ambitious projects, you
>realise that simple tools that harness the power of the community are much more powerful than
>complex tools in the hands of a limited number of individuals.

Again, instead of insulting him, I wrote this:

“you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn’t talking about power alone”

Yes, this is clearly evidence that I “insulted” him because he mentioned collaboration.

In fact pay attention to the sentence exactly after this. If this forum featured a bold formatting, this would be what I would bold for you as a mod:

>Apart for the collaborative aspect, the issue of updating is quite important.

APART.

adjective, adverb

without considering or including someone or something in a judgment.

WITHOUT

(prep.) Not with; otherwise than with; in absence of, separation from, or destitution of; not with use or employment of; independently of; exclusively of; with omission; as, without labor; without damage.

CONSIDERING

preposition, conjunction

used for showing that your opinion about something is affected by a particular fact

INCLUDING

used for mentioning that someone or something is part of a particular group or amount

-Sir mod, you may at this point think I am being “RUDE” but there is nothing obtuse about the evidence here. In fact, by showing you these words, I hope you would come to your senses that your reasoning is the one that’s clearly flawed. Not because you are dumb or I am insulting you but it is flawed, for if we don’t consider them as flawed, the above is what happens! The defender has to copy paste definitions of common words just to defend the subject with the premise that you sir, a mod, is using a non-flawed reasoning to justify your proof of righteous interjection and as consequence of this, I too fell into your pit of chaotic reasoning and risked being re-accused as rude by you or by the ones you don’t go after for personal attacks. Had you only investigated, I would not have had to be playing childish evidences such as these and risk being once again called rude because your evidence against me is so ludicrous when one is assuming you are of being sound mind when you concluded upon it.

Evidence F:

The judge, jury and executioner wrote:

>Someone mentioning that they need collaborative tools is not the mark of an egomaniac or an
>elitist.

“Or an elitist”

Sir, you may be right that there are no objective truths about outliners and subjectivity is fine (to which you are barking on the wrong tree as I have also mentioned and channeled this subjectivity factor in this topic) but worse, you say I marked thy mentioner of collaborative tools AS: “an eltist”

and yet these are my words:

“It doesn’t only apply to hard sciences either. Many in the teaching profession, even long time teachers, end up creating the anti-educational reform culture of teachers union because it is very hard to look beyond ones navel even when one has plenty of experience once a person has gone through a certain length of torture/cultural mindset regardless of expertise. It goes hand in hand with abundance. Those people who have worked hard to be rich can easily forget what got them there. Those people who have their problems solved could easily be apathetic yet intrusive in interpreting why other people haven’t solved their problems yet.”

Take this statement:

>Speed boats are no superior to row boats in concept except in technical features but there’s >things you can do with one that you can’t with the other.

“This is not incorrect nor rude taken as a sentence but say someone were to be concerned about engineering a boat and understanding the pros and cons of boat design, would such a sentence help? No. It’s a common unproductive roadblock set up to separate the elitist from the curious amateur so as to kill most enthusiasm on the subject or even as a form of deflection towards the real issue being discussed.”

Where arth thou talking about collaboration? Where arth thou using the word “you” and “are” and “an” and “elitist” together?

Had thy defendant not even said “this is not incorrect nor rude” in the very first sentence? ...or must thy defendant not say “this is not incorrect nor rude” so as to be vindicated from the accusation that he is rude?

Clearly we are in a forum where a mod can based evidence on rudeness on such words instead of sentences such as:

>is to attack anybody who replies to your rambling exegeses by accusing them of stupidity, or narcissism, or some other >kind of self-centred, self-seeking behaviour. Amazing!

>yours are starting to border on trolling.

...or perhaps there were simply a lack of investigation? Perhaps the interjection is in actually an inquisition in disguise?

Only time will tell but I fear I am not long in this forum to find out for myself.

I shall end my evidence here for there’s no point to go any further. Any more would only lead to further mob mud slinging of my rudeness and my tendency to not get to the point when in fact sometimes the point is so clear that it is not the delay that leads to one’s lengthy post - it is blindness. Blindness/bias and mod betrayal of neutral analysis.