InternationalYearOfTheQuietMind is an idea that I had so many years ago that I have forgotten when I first thought of it. I don't know what it means except that it is not happening this year and certainly not on this wiki. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of the book of the Friends (Quakers) and listen to one another a little more. -- JohnFletcher
I suggest a wiki code of conduct be written, and violators be condemned via signed complaints by volunteer wikizens. (Not a huge penalty, but one nevertheless.)
What do you bet TopMind would be the first condemned, TopMind?
- If I clearly violate a specific and fair rule, I'll indeed work to change my behavior. Roughly only 10% of the claims in ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstTopDiscussion seem to have any real merit, ...
- Note: This is top himself claiming that 90% of the claims have no merit.
- ... and most of those are just forgetfulness. I believe I just have a habit of challenging people's sacred cows, and it ticks them off, making them magnify my small flaws in their mind, and even manufacturing a few. -- top
- If you want to "fix" me, your criticism needs to be more specific. I feel that I tend to generate "heat" because I challenge pet GoldenHammer claims, not because what I do is "bad", at least not more than average.
- [Actually, you tend to generate heat because your arguments are often poorly constructed, and almost invariably demonstrate superficial and sometimes inaccurate knowledge of the subjects or approaches you attack. In attacking OO programming, for example, it's abundantly clear you have only the most glancing knowledge of the subject, but instead of improving your knowledge of the subject in order to attack it effectively, you awkwardly defend your weak arguments. It's that which generates "heat" -- not the fact that you're challenging sacred cows, GoldenHammer claims, etc. -- because there are few things more frustrating than a challenger who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.]
- That is an age-old web copout: when you are losing the argument, call the other person dumb. Its the biggest call-wolf of excuses on the web. It is popular because it is a pot-at-end-of-rainbow technique whereby if somebody does not agree, you can always claim them too dumb to get it and the other party cannot ever present evidence otherwise even if they were a genius. Its an unverifiable claim. As evidence that it is overused toward me, in ChallengeSixVersusFpDiscussion they accused me of "not understanding FP" when the issue at hand was a claim of code-size. One does not have to understand FP to see if the code size is significantly different. Caught them red-handed. Sometimes I admit I forget the advanced lingo, but that is not the same as not understanding. (Wiki should only assume an "average" knowledge of lingo anyhow. It is your job to articulate your working definitions. Further, lingo is not proof of betterment.) I challenge you to point out a single spot with a material example where my alleged lack of knowledge of OOP has caused significant problems. If you cannot find one case, then your "you always do X" claim holds no water. --top
- I'm guessing you'll just be looking for an excuse to call the problem "insignificant" even if one were pointed out. Every single misunderstanding that leads to a fraudulent claim by you or more than a paragraph of explanation by someone else would qualify as "significant" in my eyes. And, with that in mind, pretty much every place where someone has bothered to accuse you of a lack of OOP knowledge is significant - i.e. your misunderstandings regarding how OOP is utilized relative to business domain objects, your tendency to universally assume every OOP language is based in 'trees' of inheritance, your tendency to relate types to 'trees' due to your naive understanding of TypeTheory and your association of it with OOP, etc. would all qualify. I recall several such conversations. A few might be found in ProceduralMethodologies.
I think it would be a disincentive for the very needed work of the
DevilsAdvocate (discussing with
TopMind might be problematic for some, but do not forget that we all are kind of an small sample of what is going on in the
RealWorld and therefor we need to be prepared for the discussions we will have in the
OutThere and believe me or not you will find a lot of people that thinks like him, so, before creating an WikiCodeOfConduct
? we should create a WikiBillOfRights
?, and the first right should be that everyone has a right express his opinion, and fight the
EditWars he/she wishes to fight, of course, everyone also has the right to stop discussing with whomever he/she wants). --
LuxSpes
I disagree that EditWars be allowed to continue. Some kind of consensus should be reached to resolve it in my opinion. For example, if people are fighting over a topic name, at some point a vote should be taken to settle on a topic once and for all. --top
I was puzzled by what happened to this page after I created it. I am adding to it now to express appreciation for the work going on to sort out ChangesInWeek? and generally keep this wiki in a good state. I appreciate also the difficulties. Perhaps we need a page called BlowOffSteam? for people to air their frustrations. -- JohnFletcher
I've been almost entirely quiet at this wiki for over a year and a half, just listening in every couple days, and my mind is at peace. :-) -- ElizabethWiethoff
"International Year of the Quiet Mind" -- interesting concept. I think I'll meditate on it. Namasté, JeffGrigg
AprilZeroEight JuneZeroEight
International Year Of The Quiet Mind