| Re: calling a value into another php script... [message #182746 is a reply to message #182711] |
Mon, 02 September 2013 19:13   |
bill
Messages: 310
Registered: October 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-08-30 7:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> > And while I'm at it, you can pretty much ignore Stuckle; he's more of
>>>> > a troll than anything else and very, very seldom parts with any useful
>>>> > information, if he actually has any.
....
>>
>> If one posts wrong information in this newsgroup--wouldn't it be useful
>> to reply by pointing out that it is wrong?
>
> Not if the result of that would be to be called names, regardless of how and
> what the reply is. You see, *that* is the problem. With some people it
> does not matter what you post and how correct you are, you are always a
> troll, and always called names. There are other prominent examples for that
> attitude in the Big 8, and I have them killfiled as well. It is just not
> worth it.
Absolutely; It's not very hard to simply ignore posters who goad on and
on to get a troll-type response and point it out. Most with such a loss
of respect and reputation would just move on if they weren't
appreciated. But when one begins the same types of post over and over,
well, they're bound to be labelled.
>
>> Of course one can simply ignore such posts; other readers may not, and
>> draw the conclusion that the newsgroup is not worth reading, let alone
>> asking a question or starting a discussion here.
Mmm, I don't know; most thinking people realize who the "good" and "bad"
posters are and find it easy enough to ignore them IFF there are ALSO
those who post with the right intent, respect and consideration of the
source of the questions.
....
>>>
>>> (Q: If he realized it was a troll, why would he not just *stop* *feeding*
>>> them? A: It takes one to know one.)
>>
>> On the other hand, leaving trolls trolling around, might easily result
>> in these trolls taking over a discussion group...
Which brings me to the WHY of my taking a minute or two to post. Those
who respond to any troll (or just plain miscreant) types are nearly as
bad as the perpetrator and it dissppoints me to see them lowering
themselves to that level of activity.
>
> Utter nonsense. *Feeding* the troll is the way to destroy the newsgroup,
> because then it will be filled with off-topic flamewars instead of on-topic
> discussions, and participants will leave because even their killfile will
> not help them to see the good threads (they would have to killfile the
> feeders as well, and then nobody would be left). You must not have been on
> Usenet for very long, for simply the record clearly proves me correct.
Right on. The best tool at hand, other than reporting the perp, is to
simply completely ignore him. Any response to a "troll" is "food" to
them as it encourages them to become even worse. Starve them of that
food and they not only get more hungry for it, but also to feel the lack
of any control they may have over their victims, since they end up with
no victims left. That's when they'll get distraught, so to speak, and
look elsewhere for their daily meals, regardless of the reason they do
the trolling at all.
>
>> Besides, calling someone a troll means to pigeon-hole them. IMO that
>> seldom fits exactly--there are more colors than just black and white.
Definitely agreed; Innocent people, especially newbies to Usenet or even
forums though not so much, can easily be caught up in the troll-fests.
You need to develop a tougher skin on Usenet than most other places and
learn that a useless post has no meaning and if a pattern develops, well
.... .
>
> IIRC, *I* have not called anyone a troll or other names in this newsgroup,
> ever. As for “IMO”, you should insert an “H” in the right place, and read
> above.
I don't recall you ever calling anyone a troll and even if you did, as
long as it wasn't misdirected, I wouldn't care about a passing reference
anyway.
Have you noticed; some people see the H as "honest", not "humble", and
other words too. When I offer an opinion, it's a way to separate it from
being interpreted as any kind of fact I'm trying to push on anyone -
thus, "IMO". IMHO is an acronym people just don't bother to know what it
actually means, or don't remember it accurately.
....
> Anyhow, I was not going to start a discussion about Jerry. I just did not
> want to let your statement go without correction.
More accurately, excepting actual PHP comments, you mean in your
opinion, right? :)
>
>
> PointedEars
>
Oh, if Jerry were the only one. I do a lot of work on the proffesional
newsgroups that are left, and he's not unique by any measure. It's just
the way the world works.
IMO: Let's just give him a 100% pass and be done with it.
Regards,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]