[Tutor] OT: Netiquette

[Prasad, Ramit]

Note: attributions might be a bit off due to the way this was sent. 

Dwight Hutto wrote:
> 
> Dwight,
> 
> Please stop responding to Mark.   His behaviour is typical schoolyard
> bully, meaning he's saying things precisely because he gets a reaction
> from you.  He probably doesn't even realise that he's doing it
> consciously, but either way the best way to deal with such behaviour
> is to stop giving such a person what they want, e.g. the reaction.
> So, please just **stop responding** to any of his posts
> 
> I respond, to let him know that he just thinks I don't add context,
> but lacks the ability to cheeck, that I do try to include context, but
> in these question answer sessions, you should be following, the
> conversation, which should put everything into context.

To be fair, I do not think Mark is chastising you for context anywhere
that you actually provide context; only when it is missing. I do agree 
it was unnecessary to remark on your use of context in one thread.

> .  He'll soon
> grow bored and move on.  If you had kept out of the conversation when
> I'd originally replied to him then I'd have been able to take him to
> task for his childish behaviour.   As it stands now unfortunately,
> Myles' thread has become a wasteland of exchanges between yourself and
> him.   Again: Please just stop responding to him.
> 
> Well, It's an argument, and I won't let him win. I could stop
> responding, but then he would think he had won, and do it to someone
> else.

Hmm, arguing on the internet. Reminds me of:
http://www.systemcomic.com/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/ 
and http://xkcd.com/386/ 

> 
> He's wrong. He took one response out of context, and assumed that is
> what I do, when usually it's just I followed the conversation for
> real, and if he had, then he would know the context in which a certain
> comment was made.

You have forgotten context more often than "one response". I am not 
sure what you mean by "I followed the conversation for real..."

> 
> Thank you sincerely,
> 
> Walter Prins
> 
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On 24/09/2012 17:52, Walter Prins wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> On 23 September 2012 22:53, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Is the personal sniping really necessary?  (That's a rhetorical
> >>>> question, just to be clear.)
> 
> >>>
> >>> Well if Dwight insists on replying to something without quoting the
> >>> context
> >>> so the rest of us haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about what
> >>> are
> >>> we meant to do?  Sadly my mind reading capabilities are quite low, I
> >>> don't
> >>> know about that for anyone else.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well then tell him how to do it properly and/or provide a better
> >> answer without the personal invective.  No one expects you to read
> >> minds obviously, but the personal attacks and sarcasm are really way
> >> out of line.  I can only hang my head in shame at what Myles must be
> >> thinking of all this.  So childish.

Agreed. Wait, who is Myles? The OP?

> >>
> >> Walter
> 
> He only has one conversation to prove his point on, and I made the
> point of telling him I was following a short conversation(at the
> time), and therefore needed no context at the time, because the OP is
> following the thread for the answer, and knows the context.
> 
> Walter's point of entry into the thread is of no concern to me,
> because the OP is following the conversation. If Walter wants to know
> the context, read the every post just like the OP would, because
> that's who I'm responding to, not Walter.
> 
> > Dwight Hutto refers to my family as pigs and you have a go at
> 
> And when did I do that, please point out where I said that about your family.

"""> window I've just spotted a squadron of low flying pigs.

A family reunion no doubt. Maybe if you could pay attention instead of
picking sides you would understand the argument, and comment.
""""
From: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.tutor/77951/focus=77955

> 
> > downright bloody check.  We're here to teach Python.  If he's too thick to
> > understand context he can search the web for the word or resort to a
> > dictionary.
> 
> If you're too thick to understand that sometimes it's an offhand
> remark to JUST the OP, then you don't understand the context of a
> tutor session in which one person asks a question, and gets responses.

True, but that is not really helpful to other people who may be reading
and curious or able to offer a correction/comment. Not to mention
anyone in need of future help. Though I have noted that you do attempt
to place context sometimes and I appreciate that. 

> 
> You also seem to have missed lots of other conversations, where my
> replies are in line.
> 
> You want an argument, and in this case you lose, because you couldn't
> understand the context of my remark, because you think that every time
> I respond it's without inline responses.
> 
> You don't know enough about me to say I always quote out of context,
> and I can provide the evidence that I do.

Activate your super powers! ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.