How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
When has this ever worked on Usenet?
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:When has this ever worked on Usenet?
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
On the contrary; perfection is
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does
not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me >transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you),
you may call me on it.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection is
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does
not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me >transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you),I have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
you may call me on it.
as you do above.
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than >> >> most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you >> >> to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed. >> >
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does
not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change
one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you),
you may call me on it.
as you do above.
in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being >better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly >perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than >> >> most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you >> >> to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does
not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >> >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >> >you may call me on it.
as you do above.
in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being >better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly >perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior.
2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, or
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of proper behavior.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, however
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarily
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall short
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know
which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't
blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almost
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 4:20:10 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:.................
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it >in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you >> >> are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always >> do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent, >> as you do above.
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does >> >not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >> >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >> >you may call me on it.
better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly >perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior.nope.
2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.Nope.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, orNope.
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of proper behavior.Nope.
None of those reflect how I read his post.I read his post as saying - "If you don't like the way someone behaves online, you are more likely to convince them to behave in a way you do like by modeling the behavior you like rather than by telling them they are behaving badly."
I suggest you have imported context that was not present or implied.
Reflect, albeit briefly, on how you often dislike how others interpret
what you have written. Consider that they are not being willfully contrarian, or antagonistic, or "trolling". For my part, I imagine that
your response above represents your sincere impression, but it is
certainly at odds with how I read Mark. It's further at odds with how
I think most read Mark. No, I don't have a robust scientific survey of
how others read him.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, however
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarilySpeaking of willfully contrary for the sake of it, your accusations
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
of willfully stupid fall flat with me. It's hard to establish comparative reliability of different people's impressions about others, especially
in a written forum like t.o. The best approximation I can think of is
to look at how often someone seems to find conflict with others
over potentially innocent statements.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall short
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almostI'll suggest you're missing an element within your analysis.
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
It's worth pausing to consider whose opinions you find yourself
inclined to consider, and most especially, when you read something
that contradicts with your first impulse, how do you react?
Are there some authors who are much more likely to give you pause
to ask yourself if you should reconsider, and some who --- should they express a view opposite of yours --- give you more confidence that
you are probably correct. I think that happens with most.
Then consider, what is it about those with the greatest ability to
make you check your first impulse? And not just their documented
erudition, but their behaviors. And the contrary.
That is what one should consider in molding ones on behavior.
I think that goes beyond the method you described.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:11:26?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 4:20:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:.................
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>nope.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it >> > >in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you >> > >> >> are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always >> > >> do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent, >> > >> as you do above.
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does >> > >> >not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >> > >> >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >> > >> >you may call me on it.
better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly
perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior.
2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.Nope.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, orNope.
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of properNope.
behavior.
None of those reflect how I read his post.I read his post as saying - "If you don't like the way someone behaves online, you are more likely to convince them to behave in a way you do like by modeling the behavior you like rather than by telling them they are behaving badly."
In a sort of "meta" way, Mark's post could be construed as violating its own advice, but since it mentioned neither specific behaviours nor specific posters, I don't think the violation very severe.--
I suggest you have imported context that was not present or implied.
Reflect, albeit briefly, on how you often dislike how others interpret
what you have written. Consider that they are not being willfully
contrarian, or antagonistic, or "trolling". For my part, I imagine that
your response above represents your sincere impression, but it is
certainly at odds with how I read Mark. It's further at odds with how
I think most read Mark. No, I don't have a robust scientific survey of
how others read him.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, howeverSpeaking of willfully contrary for the sake of it, your accusations
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarily
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
of willfully stupid fall flat with me. It's hard to establish comparative
reliability of different people's impressions about others, especially
in a written forum like t.o. The best approximation I can think of is
to look at how often someone seems to find conflict with others
over potentially innocent statements.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall shortI'll suggest you're missing an element within your analysis.
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know
which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't
blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose
selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almost
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
It's worth pausing to consider whose opinions you find yourself
inclined to consider, and most especially, when you read something
that contradicts with your first impulse, how do you react?
Are there some authors who are much more likely to give you pause
to ask yourself if you should reconsider, and some who --- should they
express a view opposite of yours --- give you more confidence that
you are probably correct. I think that happens with most.
Then consider, what is it about those with the greatest ability to
make you check your first impulse? And not just their documented
erudition, but their behaviors. And the contrary.
That is what one should consider in molding ones on behavior.
I think that goes beyond the method you described.
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than >>>>> most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you
are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you >>>>> to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed. >>>>
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does
not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >>>> one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >>>> you may call me on it.
as you do above.
in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being >> better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly
perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior. > 2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, or
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of proper behavior.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, however
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarily
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall short
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know
which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't
blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almost
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 4:20:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than
most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you >> >> >> are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you
to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed.
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does >> >> >not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >> >> >one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >> >> >you may call me on it.
as you do above.
in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being >> >better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly
perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior.
nope.
2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.
Nope.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, or
Nope.
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of proper
behavior.
Nope.
None of those reflect how I read his post.
I suggest you have imported context that was not present or implied.
Reflect, albeit briefly, on how you often dislike how others interpret
what you have written. Consider that they are not being willfully
contrarian, or antagonistic, or "trolling".
For my part, I imagine that
your response above represents your sincere impression, but it is
certainly at odds with how I read Mark. It's further at odds with how
I think most read Mark. No, I don't have a robust scientific survey of
how others read him.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, however
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarily
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
Speaking of willfully contrary for the sake of it, your accusations
of willfully stupid fall flat with me.
It's hard to establish comparative
reliability of different people's impressions about others, especially
in a written forum like t.o. The best approximation I can think of is
to look at how often someone seems to find conflict with others
over potentially innocent statements.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall short
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know
which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't
blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose
selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almost
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
I'll suggest you're missing an element within your analysis.
It's worth pausing to consider whose opinions you find yourself
inclined to consider, and most especially, when you read something
that contradicts with your first impulse, how do you react?
Are there some authors who are much more likely to give you pause
to ask yourself if you should reconsider, and some who --- should they >express a view opposite of yours --- give you more confidence that
you are probably correct. I think that happens with most.
Then consider, what is it about those with the greatest ability to
make you check your first impulse? And not just their documented
erudition, but their behaviors. And the contrary.
That is what one should consider in molding ones o[w]n behavior.
I think that goes beyond the method you described.
On 5/2/23 1:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 06:30:08 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:38:14 -0700, Mark IsaakThere exists impossible idea of flawlessly perfect. No one can reach it
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 5/1/23 2:26 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:27:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
How to change other people's improper behavior:
Display the proper behavior in your own behavior.
That's all. Carry on.
Even as I acknowledge that your Usenet behavior is usually better than >>>>>> most, you have exercised you inner child from time-to-time. IOW you >>>>>> are not the flawless paragon of virtue your comment above requires you >>>>>> to be. But don't feel bad, no poster on T.O. comes even close, no
matter how often they pretend otherwise. At best, all demonstrate
only relative degrees of maturity, and even that is temporary.
My comment does not ask for perfection.
Not what I wrote. Your comment asks from others what you don't always
do yourself. There's a difference.
On the contrary; perfection isI have. They became more comments for you and others to misrepresent,
often the enemy of progress. If you want an elaboration on my
suggestion, look up "social learning theory" in Google Scholar or PubMed. >>>>>
It is virtually impossible to change the behavior of someone who does >>>>> not want to change. It is far easier, and still damned hard, to change >>>>> one's own behavior.
I acknowledge that I often fall short of my ideals. If you see me
transgress too far over a line (where you draw the line is up to you), >>>>> you may call me on it.
as you do above.
in this universe (outside of religious texts). That is irrelevant as being >>> better than average (IOW good) is possible.
If one may not suggest becoming better because they are not flawlessly
perfect then flawlessly perfect is worst enemy of good.
I acknowledge perfection is the enemy of excellence. Moving on...
Isaak's suggestion implies:
1. There is one defined model of proper behavior. > 2. Isaak's behavior reflects that model, however imperfectly.
3a. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect that model, or
3b. Other posters' behaviors don't reflect their own model of proper
behavior.
I had written corrections of the above, which imperfectly reflects my >original post.
But then I thought, what's the point? We all know that
there's a problem here with civility in posts. I made a suggestion on
how to improve the situation. Reading more into the post would probably >displease Ockham's ghost.
I acknowledge Isaak's behavior reflects his model, however
imperfectly. Moving on...
I acknowledge there are some posters who sometimes behave contrarily
for the sake of it, but the far more common case is over what
qualifies as "proper behavior". As a very specific and
contemporaneous example; how best to deal with willfully stupid
comments.
Also, Isaak honestly acknowledges that his behaviors often fall short
of his own ideals aka his model of proper behavior. My experience is
all reasoning people would acknowledge similarly about themselves, as
do I.
Keeping all of the above firmly in mind, ask yourself, "How do I know
which behaviors to follow?" My experience is reasoning persons don't
blindly follow the behaviors of others and instead pick and choose
selectively behaviors based on their own ideals, which is almost
certainly what they already do, however imperfectly.
Human behavior is more complex than can be captured in a two-line post,
of course, but social learning theory *does* have empirical support.
You are skeptical about whether it can work. I applaud that sentiment
and invite you to look deeper into the subject. In the meantime, I can >guarantee that my suggestion will not work if nobody follows it.
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.
Gisulat ni Mark Isaak:
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.Imagine arriving here and the first and foremost action you see in here
is JTEM and jillery fighting their silly kindergarten wars till death.
Btw, can you point me to the practical moderation rules? Not the nice
and friendly instructions how to do nice and polite evolution vs
creation discussions, but to the nitty & gritty of moderation on message content. I couldn't find any.
--
Zippo
Gisulat ni Mark Isaak:
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.
Imagine arriving here and the first and foremost action you see in here
is JTEM and jillery fighting their silly kindergarten wars till death.
Btw, can you point me to the practical moderation rules? Not the nice
and friendly instructions how to do nice and polite evolution vs
creation discussions, but to the nitty & gritty of moderation on message content. I couldn't find any.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:01:31?AM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni Mark Isaak:
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.Imagine arriving here and the first and foremost action you see in here
is JTEM and jillery fighting their silly kindergarten wars till death.
Btw, can you point me to the practical moderation rules? Not the nice
and friendly instructions how to do nice and polite evolution vs
creation discussions, but to the nitty & gritty of moderation on message
content. I couldn't find any.
--
Zippo
Don't piss off the moderator.
It's hard to piss of the moderator as he usually ignores the group. >Occasionally, people have persisted with antisemitism, holocaust
denial, extreme misogyny, and he decided it was too much. Whether
it was too much because the mod concluded the poster was just
being outrageous to troll for reactions, or was pushed over some
other otherwise tolerant edge ultimately does not matter. He is
all powerful.
Gisulat ni Mark Isaak:
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.
Imagine arriving here and the first and foremost action you see in here
is JTEM and jillery fighting their silly kindergarten wars till death.
Btw, can you point me to the practical moderation rules? Not the nice
and friendly instructions how to do nice and polite evolution vs
creation discussions, but to the nitty & gritty of moderation on message >content. I couldn't find any.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:01:31?AM UTC-4, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni Mark Isaak:
We all know that there's a problem here with civility in posts.Imagine arriving here and the first and foremost action you see in here
is JTEM and jillery fighting their silly kindergarten wars till death.
Btw, can you point me to the practical moderation rules? Not the nice
and friendly instructions how to do nice and polite evolution vs
creation discussions, but to the nitty & gritty of moderation on message
content. I couldn't find any.
--
Zippo
Don't piss off the moderator.
It's hard to piss of the moderator as he usually ignores the group. >Occasionally, people have persisted with antisemitism, holocaust
denial, extreme misogyny, and he decided it was too much. Whether
it was too much because the mod concluded the poster was just
being outrageous to troll for reactions, or was pushed over some
other otherwise tolerant edge ultimately does not matter. He is
all powerful.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 422 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:58:12 |
| Calls: | 8,951 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,352 |
| Messages: | 5,992,477 |