2 much noise recently

Discussion in 'C++' started by Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

    "
    Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
    resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
    incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
    worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

    Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
    every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
    full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
    as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
    fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
    Mandelbrot set in finite time.

    If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
    Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
    say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
    "


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf


    PS: The URL I gave is not the original. Google listed sort of everything but the
    source.

    --
    blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
    Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Mar 17, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Mar 17, 4:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
    > wrote:
    > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
    >
    > "
    > Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
    > resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
    > incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
    > worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
    >
    > Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
    > every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
    > full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
    > as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
    > fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
    > Mandelbrot set in finite time.
    >
    > If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
    > Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
    > say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
    > "
    >
    > Cheers & hth.,
    >
    > - Alf
    >
    > PS: The URL I gave is not the original. Google listed sort of everything but the
    > source.


    Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
    person anymore.
    Joshua Maurice, Mar 18, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    SG Guest

    SG, Mar 18, 2011
    #3
  4. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    itaj sherman Guest

    On Mar 18, 8:37 am, SG <> wrote:
    > On 18 Mrz., 00:10, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
    >
    > >http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
    > > [...]

    >
    > Also an interesting read:
    >
    > "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
    > One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
    >
    > ( Social Psychology,http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/70939/)
    >


    That would actually give a good reason why good people try again and
    again to teach him anything. If they just put a bit of sense in him he
    might realise his fault.

    However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
    conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
    conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
    but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
    a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
    verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
    - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.

    itaj
    itaj sherman, Mar 18, 2011
    #4
  5. itaj sherman <> wrote:
    > However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
    > conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
    > conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
    > but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
    > a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
    > verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
    > - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.


    It is actually possible that someone acts a lot like a troll, but does
    not do it just for the fun of it nor out of malice, but instead they are
    being honest, but can't help it nor control their impulses. There are
    people who (only semi-intentionally) seek attention and acceptance
    without realizing that their behavior is actually detrimental and that
    the only thing they are achieving is getting completely negative attention.
    Sometimes they do realize this but, as said, can't help it nor control
    their impulses: The urge to keep arguing and to repeat old tired arguments,
    to defend one's position (no matter how hopeless or nonsensical), can be
    too strong.

    This is by no means necessarily a sign of a mental defect, just a strong
    personality trait (even if a rather detrimental one in many situations).
    Often one can learn from experience and "grow out" of it and stop doing it,
    but it can require time.

    The anonymity of the internet can severely aggravate this personality
    problem. The person might be completely different in real life because
    not being faceless and anonymous imposes great restrictions on one's
    behavior, and the person can very easily restrict their impulses in real
    life situations. On the internet the threshold to let oneself loose is much
    smaller and easier to cross.
    Juha Nieminen, Mar 18, 2011
    #5
  6. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Paul Guest

    "Juha Nieminen" <> wrote in message
    news:4d83c710$0$2838$...
    > itaj sherman <> wrote:
    >> However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
    >> conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
    >> conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
    >> but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
    >> a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
    >> verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
    >> - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.

    >


    A started a new thread where I invited yourself and James to have a proper
    debate about member functions being the same as ordinary fucntions. Which
    you did not parcipate.
    That was after all your argument and the only discussion I've had with you.

    I think you were the one who reached a logical dead-end. And you started
    making posts such as , "be a man and answer my post".
    But then you did not answer my posts. :) Which wasn't very manly of you I
    must say.

    <snip>
    Paul, Mar 18, 2011
    #6
  7. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Paul Guest

    Sorry my last post for intended for itaj. Although I replied to Juha.
    Paul, Mar 18, 2011
    #7
  8. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    James Kanze Guest

    On Mar 18, 12:38 am, Joshua Maurice <> wrote:
    > On Mar 17, 4:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
    > > wrote:
    > >http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness


    > Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
    > person anymore.


    I reply to posts that seem sain, but wrong, on the grounds that
    others reading them may be taken in by them.

    And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    picture.)

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Mar 18, 2011
    #8
  9. On Mar 18, 4:26 pm, James Kanze <> wrote:
    > On Mar 18, 12:38 am, Joshua Maurice <> wrote:
    > > Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
    > > person anymore.

    >
    > I reply to posts that seem sain, but wrong, on the grounds that
    > others reading them may be taken in by them.


    A necessary annoyance, I suppose. Kudos.
    Joshua Maurice, Mar 19, 2011
    #9
  10. Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    > On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
    >> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    >> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    >> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    >> picture.)
    >>

    >
    > You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
    > newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
    > disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
    > case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
    > a troll nevertheless.


    You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
    conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
    start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
    You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

    The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of
    the time. I actually was on your side until you started acting the same
    way as Paul. Especially that signed/unsigned issue is your personal red rag.

    > Troll off.


    See what I mean...


    Peter
    Peter Remmers, Mar 19, 2011
    #10
  11. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Paul Guest

    "Peter Remmers" <> wrote in message
    news:4d84293c$0$7652$-online.net...
    > Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    >> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
    >>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    >>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    >>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    >>> picture.)
    >>>

    >>
    >> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
    >> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
    >> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
    >> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
    >> a troll nevertheless.

    >
    > You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
    > conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
    > start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect. You
    > act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.
    >
    > The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of the
    > time.


    LOL
    Paul, Mar 19, 2011
    #11
  12. Am 19.03.2011 05:23, schrieb Paul:
    >
    > "Peter Remmers"<> wrote in message
    > news:4d84293c$0$7652$-online.net...
    >> Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    >>> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
    >>>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    >>>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    >>>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    >>>> picture.)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
    >>> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
    >>> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
    >>> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
    >>> a troll nevertheless.

    >>
    >> You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
    >> conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
    >> start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect. You
    >> act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.
    >>
    >> The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of the
    >> time.

    >
    > LOL
    >


    Don't laugh. I hereby assert that to those still talking to you it is a
    a sport/challenge/entertainment/duty to try and squeeze at least a
    little truth out of you.

    To me it was entertaining reading your wretched farce. But it does get
    tiring at some point.

    Peter
    Peter Remmers, Mar 19, 2011
    #12
  13. itaj sherman <> writes:

    [Kruger-Dunning effect]

    > However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
    > conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
    > conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
    > but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
    > a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
    > verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
    > - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.


    Actually he's not even a very good troll. He works too hard.
    A good troll can post one message and incite the existing users to go
    into a long discussion about a small contended point, and then only
    feed the discussion with snippets when it's starting to boild down.
    If every other post is from the troll, he's just not very good at
    trolling.

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Mar 19, 2011
    #13
  14. Am 19.03.2011 12:56, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    > On 19/03/2011 03:55, Peter Remmers wrote:
    >> Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    >>> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
    >>>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    >>>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    >>>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    >>>> picture.)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
    >>> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
    >>> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
    >>> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
    >>> a troll nevertheless.

    >>
    >> You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
    >> conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
    >> start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
    >> You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

    >
    > Kanze labelled me a troll as I disagreed with him; that is "calling
    > names"; he has done this on more than one occasion. Childish? Mantra?


    With mantra I referred to this:

    <quote>
    In C++ a member function is a member of a class not a member of an
    object. Classes only exist during compilation; after compilation
    functions (member or otherwise) only exist as machine code in the text
    segment. In C++ an object is simply a region of storage.
    </quote>

    Which you annoyingly pasted into almost every reply to Paul.

    And I referred to your constant chanting that std::size_t is used in the
    standard library, so this must be proof enough that unsigned is to be
    preferred.

    > Unsigned integral types can of course be used to represent
    > non-negative values; there is evidence to support this position; a
    > position which I am simply defending.

    Actually, I too am in the pro-unsigned camp, but what's disturbing is
    that you just paste your standard texts at every opportunity, thinking
    that repeating then often enough will make your argument stronger or
    something. Don't tell me that's not childish.

    And apropos... Your useless ping-pong with Paul - "You are an idiot" -
    "No, *you* are the idiot" - "No, it is *you* who is the idiot" - "No,
    you".... ad nauseam, is as childish as it can get, and far from
    constructive.


    > /Leigh


    Peter
    Peter Remmers, Mar 19, 2011
    #14
  15. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Mar 19, 1:56 pm, Leigh Johnston <> wrote:
    > On 19/03/2011 03:55, Peter Remmers wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
    > >> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
    > >>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
    > >>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
    > >>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
    > >>> picture.)

    >
    > >> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
    > >> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
    > >> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
    > >> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
    > >> a troll nevertheless.

    >
    > > You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
    > > conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
    > > start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
    > > You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

    >
    > Kanze labelled me a troll as I disagreed with him; that is "calling
    > names"; he has done this on more than one occasion.  Childish?  Mantra?
    >   Unsigned integral types can of course be used to represent
    > non-negative values; there is evidence to support this position; a
    > position which I am simply defending.


    Yes, unsigned types can be used (and are used in C and in C++ standard
    libraries) to represent positive values. Also char arrays can be used
    (but are not used in C and in C++ standard libraries) to represent
    positive values. So what? Is it now good reason to flood newsgroup
    with posts stating it?

    What i think Alf was exactly worried about was such flooding with
    worthless posts. CLC++ community now looks like group of lunatics
    arguing in 100 posts threads about things like "what is function",
    "what is class", "what is array", "what is pointer", "what is int",
    "what is unsigned", "what is object" and "who is even more idiot and
    troll".

    Long argument often with with foul language ... whoever wins it is
    retarded anyway.
    Öö Tiib, Mar 19, 2011
    #15
  16. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Ebenezer Guest

    On Mar 17, 6:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
    > wrote:
    > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
    >
    > "
    > Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
    > resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
    > incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
    > worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
    >
    > Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
    > every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
    > full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
    > as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
    > fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
    > Mandelbrot set in finite time.
    >
    > If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
    > Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
    > say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
    > "
    >


    I'm not liking the swearing in these threads. It
    becomes abusive pretty quickly. Perhaps I should
    review other options besides Google groups.

    Brian Wood
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
    Ebenezer, Mar 19, 2011
    #16
  17. On 19/03/2011 15:08, Ebenezer wrote:
    <snip>
    > I'm not liking the swearing in these threads. It
    > becomes abusive pretty quickly. Perhaps I should
    > review other options besides Google groups.
    >
    > Brian Wood
    > Ebenezer Enterprises
    > http://webEbenezer.net


    +1
    Stuart Golodetz, Mar 19, 2011
    #17
  18. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    James Kanze Guest

    On Mar 19, 3:08 pm, Ebenezer <> wrote:
    > On Mar 17, 6:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach


    [...]
    > I'm not liking the swearing in these threads.


    Independently of what I like, telling someone to **** off is
    hardly a conclusive technical argument.

    With regards to swearing, I rather like my mother's point of
    view: it shows a remarkable lack of vocabulary. I'd perhaps
    nuance her statement with regards to context, but in the context
    of a technical discussion, I think it pretty much applies.
    Swearing is the last resort, when you don't have any valid
    arguments to present. Swearing is, in fact, an admission that
    you are wrong, but that you're not man enough to admit it.

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Mar 20, 2011
    #18
  19. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Paul Guest

    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Strøiman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,066
    Peter Strøiman
    Aug 23, 2005
  2. Adam Hartshorne
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    643
    Victor Bazarov
    Jul 9, 2005
  3. cpp4ever
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    359
    Francesco
    Sep 8, 2009
  4. Raymond Schanks
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    500
    Raymond Schanks
    Apr 11, 2010
  5. Jim Weirich
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    140
    Jim Weirich
    Aug 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page