|
adatesman
Apr 14, 2008, 7:04 PM
Post #1 of 10
(2377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Apr 14, 2008, 11:52 PM
Post #2 of 10
(2361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
What started out as a reasonable debate around the facts and their interpretation has devolved into a personal contest where both parties are unwilling or unable to keep the person out of the debate. I'm not choosing sides. Please drop it or I will lock the thread.
DDT
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 15, 2008, 11:06 AM
Post #3 of 10
(2343 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 15, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #4 of 10
(2322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: Had you or any of the other Mods stepped in to calm things down when JT and Shoo were getting heated...
It never got heated between Shoo and me. Shoo was making fundamentally wrong statistical inferences, and I corrected them, and explained why they were wrong. I can't help it if he didn't understand the explanation. That was the explanation. Period. But he didn't understand it, and continued to insist that he was correct. Since I'd already explained why he was not, there was nothing more to do except tell him that he was incorrect, and confused. Those aren't insults; just facts. Eventually it occurred to me to suggest that he consult an introductory statistics text, which he finally did, at which point he "conceded."
If people don't want to be repeatedly told that they are wrong by a statistician, then they should not repeatedly post false statistical statements. It's pretty simple.
In reply to: ...or told JT he was out of line when he called me naive, deluded and that my tests assumptions were fucked up, none of the ensuing unpleasantness would have occurred (from my side at least).
What I said was that if you think you can replace every substandard anchor you come across, then you are naive. That's not an insult; it is just a true statement. "Deluded," was a bit inflammatory, but pretty mild, and certainly not something that should have caused you to fly off the handle as you did, lose complete control, and proceed to first unintentionally, and later deliberately, derail your own thread.
Now, calling you "just another Gumby in Pennsylvania (TM) with a machine," that was a flame!
In reply to: The only reason I've not been simply ignoring him is that since the rules aren't being enforced, there's no other way to get him to play nice in the future other than making the point now that stepping out of line will result in lots of wasted time and energy on his part.
Your standard of "niceness" is absurd. You interpret telling someone that he is factually wrong as being not "nice" or "heated." I know people don't like to be told that they are wrong, but that's too bad. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. Oh, well. It happens.
In reply to: They're your rules, either enforce them or don't have them.
Try following them yourself.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Apr 15, 2008, 9:27 PM
Post #5 of 10
(2288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: Had you or any of the other Mods stepped in to calm things down when JT and Shoo were getting heated... It never got heated between Shoo and me. Shoo was making fundamentally wrong statistical inferences, and I corrected them, and explained why they were wrong. I can't help it if he didn't understand the explanation. That was the explanation. Period. But he didn't understand it, and continued to insist that he was correct. Since I'd already explained why he was not, there was nothing more to do except tell him that he was incorrect, and confused. Those aren't insults; just facts. Eventually it occurred to me to suggest that he consult an introductory statistics text, which he finally did, at which point he "conceded." If people don't want to be repeatedly told that they are wrong by a statistician, then they should not repeatedly post false statistical statements. It's pretty simple. In reply to: ...or told JT he was out of line when he called me naive, deluded and that my tests assumptions were fucked up, none of the ensuing unpleasantness would have occurred (from my side at least). What I said was that if you think you can replace every substandard anchor you come across, then you are naive. That's not an insult; it is just a true statement. "Deluded," was a bit inflammatory, but pretty mild, and certainly not something that should have caused you to fly off the handle as you did, lose complete control, and proceed to first unintentionally, and later deliberately, derail your own thread. Now, calling you "just another Gumby in Pennsylvania (TM) with a machine," that was a flame! In reply to: The only reason I've not been simply ignoring him is that since the rules aren't being enforced, there's no other way to get him to play nice in the future other than making the point now that stepping out of line will result in lots of wasted time and energy on his part. Your standard of "niceness" is absurd. You interpret telling someone that he is factually wrong as being not "nice" or "heated." I know people don't like to be told that they are wrong, but that's too bad. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. Oh, well. It happens. In reply to: They're your rules, either enforce them or don't have them. Try following them yourself. Jay
Jay's explanation of how the thread went down is exactly the way I read it. Thus my note in that particular thread. I'd rather not also take sides. I support Daniel (ddt) in saying that the issue should be dropped now. These are the sort of issues that can go round and round with ever less chance of resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 15, 2008, 10:45 PM
Post #6 of 10
(2280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Apr 16, 2008, 2:50 AM
Post #7 of 10
(2261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
In reply to: Feedback from the mods over this sort of thing, whether via PM or just a quick "hey guys, tone it down a bit" in thread, would go a long way towards defusing the situation.
This is not an unreasonable expectation to have. Sometimes we get lazy or we secretly hope issues will sort themselves out without us getting involved. No excuse though. Your suggestion is a good reminder.
DDT
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 16, 2008, 11:38 AM
Post #8 of 10
(2229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Apr 16, 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #9 of 10
(2226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
I'm sorry I dropped the ball on this one as I am one of the two who were PM'd. The information presented in the Lab is understandable, but the specifics of the conversation were almost above my head. I am paying a bit more attention now that there is increased activity in there. My specific attention was elsewhere at the time.
My suggestion to all parties is to try to keep a neutral tone in their writing in there, and don't feed the trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Apr 16, 2008, 1:09 PM
Post #10 of 10
(2218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I dropped a reply in the Lab forum before coming here and finding this conciliatory tone in regards to what was occuring in that particular thread. If I'm a little behind the times in that post you will know why.
You'll have to excuse all of the mods as we do not moderate 24/7 much as we would like. Sometimes we do not respond in as timely a manner as an issue deserves and often we like to see where things head before stepping in. I thought I had put a lid on that heated thread. It got out of control somewhat and then it appears that the participants have taken it upon themselves to moderate their own behaviour which to us is always the best outcome.
One issue for me in the PM that was originally sent to me in regards to the issue at hand was that no thread was linked to so I had to stumble around for a while till I found what it was that it was referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
