kakapo

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

If you want the mods to 'come here' then report a post.

 

 

Last friend of mine in my group who did that got banned,  another group member mentioned they banned the wrong person and they were then banned too. So no I don't think I will do that.

21 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Page count is not the metric.

 

This is probably a skewed perception based on ignorance and/or denial of the actual reasons of prior moderation.

You get the mods to come here and tell me we can continue exactly as we have been for these previous 9 pages, for the next 10,000 pages,and 100,000 replies (without fear of suspension or ban, or thread locking under any circumstance), and I will resume public conversation with you.

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

I think I am no longer a mod.  But if I were I would allow the free flow of conversation provided there were no ad hominem attacks or content which went beyond the pale in terms of subject matter.

 

 

Has that ever been the case in the past with threads that went to 100 pages?

8 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I refer to my previous post.

 

 

You were a mod at one time no?

In your opinion would it be kosher to basically copy and repost the previous 9 pages of nonsense for 100 more pages, 1000?

Daniel seems sincere in his believe we can have such a 1000 page conversation repeating the same things over and over in public and the mod team is going to be ok with that.

I don't think they will be.

I think people will be suspended and the thread locked, long before we get to 1000 pages.

What do you think?

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Bro-seph... that's not real. Your fear is unfounded.

 

 

 

My inbox is open for you.  Absolutely open door policy.  We can discuss it as much as you want.

 

But I'm not leaving this venue for several reasons.  Primarily I think it's best that your group is not interfering in what we're saying.  

 

You have my permission to converse with me.  They do not.  

 

Also, making your ideas stronger will only happen if you use your own mind to assess what I'm saying.  The collective, please forgive me, is a crutch.  If there is one thing hopefully you've noticed:

 

I am advocating for your independence from the collective. If there is just 1 flaw to focus on, the most important weak point in your methods, it seems to me, it's an over reliance on this collective.  It's established that this group does not possess complete knowledge. 

 

So, I think it would be wise to seek ways to complete it.  That requires independence.  A great first step would be reading the opposing view of Hoffman's theory and discussing it like gentlemen.

 

Tell you what Daniel go ask the mods if we can discuss this here even if it takes 1,000,000,000,000 posts, 1, 000,000,000 pages and takes 100 years, of circular arguing.

If they come here and give their explicit permission to allow such a thing I will be happy to have this discussion with you in public here.

I am not going to attempt further public conversation with you.

It's clear to me my options are self moderate or get suspended and banned.

We can chat in private if you wish, or we can talk in public on the forum I created.

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

It's only circular if you keep repeating the same arguments, virtually verbatim.  I keep bringing new content, new examples.

 

If you are concerned about moderation, you know what to do...

 

 

You see?  This whole moderation threat is a diversion.  If your group is lurking here... it's not a good look for you.

 

It's like aI said before.  Engaging with an opposing view is useful!  It will make your ideas stronger.  Ask your "senior"?  What do they say?

Hopefully Pak will set you straight on this one, our mutual friend Shadow_self is on a long forced vacation for exactly the type of behavior I am describing.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/54386-shadow_self/

My hope is you and I can self moderate and keep this private or off forum to prevent any problems.

Seems completely reasonable to me.

3 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 
 

Tubar is my new favourite word

Pak could you chime in and let him know I can't have a 10,000 page circular argument without the mods locking the thread and suspending me and him?

You understand that's exactly what will happen right?

He seems to think that can't or won't happen here.

See his post above this one.

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Why won't you read the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories?  What are you afraid of?

What are you afraid of?

The behavior you are desiring me to engage in with you will lead to me being suspended and or banned.

That is to say long argumentative circular forum posts and threads that reach tens of thousands of replies.

I've explained multiple times I have no problem with a public discussion with you, but that it's not going to fly in public here on this particular forum..

I created a public forum, so we could keep the discussion public without disturbing the locals or the moderators here, but you were not interested. 

The only choice remaining is private discussion.

If you prefer public discussion we can use the external forum I created.

2 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 
 

Tubar is my new favourite word

Hi Daniel,

As seems to be normal with you, everything I wrote was completely misunderstood and you are arguing about something else entirely.

At this point I am seriously beginning to question the situation here.

If a person had a disability which caused them to grossly misunderstood 100% of everything that everyone said all the time, then such a person could not possibly function in society.

I can't imagine this could possibly be the case with you, and suspect you are just behaving this way to create conflict for your own entertainment.

I will continue to respond in private until we have this mess worked out.

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

No thank you, we can discuss it here without risk of moderation.  If you are careful.  The only reason it cannot be discussed here is if your intention is to promote banned subject matter.  Because I value integrity, I am not interested in that banned subject matter.  So, there's no reason to depart from this venue. 

You are free to do as you wish.

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I think you can safely discuss whether or not "integrity" meaning "complete" is valued.  It seems clear to me that you are not promoting the banned subject matter.

 

If incomplete knowledge, understanding, wisdom is valued, this explains the incomplete perspective being presented in this thread.  The best example, again, is "We do not look out, we only look in".  That's a one sided, incomplete perspective.  Not only that, the word choice is significant ( unless it is a product of sloppy language ).  Projecting your own one-sided perspective on all readers including myself by saying "WE" is extremely one-sided and incomplete.  It could be you mean something else, or it could be your subconscious being perfectly honest about its projection of itself on all others.  And this honesty is "leaking" out, even if the conscious mind does not intend for this or is maybe even aware of it.

 

And, it's obvious to me, if a person does not value "integrity" in this context of being "complete", then they will not value other people's knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.  It would need to match their own to be valued. This explains why the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories is not being read so we can discuss it.  It doesn't match the one-sided perspective, what is already in your mind, so, it is not valued?

 

It's a good fit, isn't it? Lack of value for integrity?

 

Please be patient and check the external forum for a response.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

Understood.  And the reason they are prohibitted from promoting themself here is because the group promotes a broken lineage, a broken tradition, right?  It's incomplete?

 

And this matches what I've noticed about what you've posted here?  It's incomplete?  The quotes plucked ( feathers reference unintended ) from the sources are incomplete.  The understanding of what the sources are saying is incomplete.  The perception is incomplete.

 

All of it is incomplete?  You do not value things which are whole, complete?  Integrity is not a valued principle?

I am not allowed to comment further on this, but will address it on the public forum I linked to you previously.

I cannot even have this discussion in private with you here on this forum per the rules.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

what's the name of the group?

Please go to to the "Forum and Tech Support" section, and read the 4th pinned post (from top to bottom).

Per the rule established there I am not allowed to answer your question.

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

" [it] will take years of discussion [for you] to arrive even at the most basic of understandings."  -- My understanding includes what you have posted and has moved beyond it. 

 

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

how do you know this is a rule?  and how do you know about patterns of moderation if you have only been a member here since Jan 2023?

I belong to a group of about 30 people, most of them lurk here. 

Several members of our group have been here on the forum since the time of Ron Jeremy circa 2004.

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

And as I stated in the conversation, many problems seem to be the result of "sloppy language".  If it is a repeated problem, why not stop being sloppy with your language?

You are free to interpret the situation that way if you wish, whatever the reason trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to nail a block of jello to the wall.

I will do my best to work with you, though currently it looks as though this will take years of discussion to arrive even at the most basic of understandings.

7 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I privately  think) that’s beyond creepy. 

 

 

When myself or one of my friends that lurk here win the lottery, we will absolutely buy this forum from it's owner Sean, and create a join by request subforum for 100,000 page multiyear arguments to allow for such discussions.

At the moment it's not something that is allowed.

I created an external forum where it could be public, but he wasn't interested.

14 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Nope.  That is not what he suggests.  He suggests the opposite.

 

"No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]."

 

And that's another example.  This is why I said:

 

 

You are completely misinterpretting Hoffman's theory.  He is not saying "similar" he is saying "nothing about it is similar".  That's completely opposite.

 

Good night, I sincerely hope everything goes well with your family.

 

We are spending the vast majority of our time in private with situations like this one.

I say one thing, you take my words to mean something which I did not intend.

I posted my quote again, and I put a bold section in parentheses to clarify meaning. 

About 99.999% of our time is spent dealing with miscommunications like this.

I don't think frustrating is the correct word to use.

Let's please keep this in the private discussion to prevent annoying the community more than we already are.

I will continue to work with you as long as I am able to do so.

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Nope.  That is not what he suggests.  He suggests the opposite.

 

"No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]."

 

And that's another example.  This is why I said:

 

 

You are completely misinterpretting Hoffman's theory.  He is not saying "similar" he is saying "nothing about it is similar".  That's completely opposite.

 

Good night, I sincerely hope everything goes well with your family.

 

Think of it like a computer desktop. When you want to delete a file, you just drag it to the trash can. In reality, what's happening inside the computer is a complex action involving changing magnetic fields in a hard drive or flipping transistors in a solid state drive. But you don't need to know all those details to interact with the computer. The desktop is a kind of "interface" that hides this complexity and allows you to get the job done.

Hoffman suggests that our perception of the world around us is similar (to the situation in the paragraph listed above)

 I'll speak with you in private, for reasons stated previously.

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

As I said in the private convo, the longer it goes on, the stronger my arguments will become, and the longer the list of challenges will become.  While your arguments will remain the same.  What does that tell you?

 

Bringing real world examples which are intended to deny the accuracy of real world perception is a fail.  It will always be a fail.  Self-defeating.

 

I'll speak with you in private, for reasons stated previously.

 We'll continue to work together in private Daniel,  I suspect this is going to be a multiyear endeavor with you.