Mxs wins.

"Kev" wrote in message
s.com...
Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.

You might spurn him, not answer him, or continue to try to reach him,
but to spew hatred? [...]

You are overreacting, and frankly you are inferring way more from my post
than you have any right to.

I used the phrase "to hatred" because that is in fact the phrase that was
used in the post to which I replied. Nowhere in my post did I say such a
response was justified, but inasmuch as anyone here *is* aroused to hatred,
it IS because of the way the guy responds to the answers, and it is NOT
because the people so moved feel guilty about not knowing the answers
themselves.

My post was in response to Michael's claim that the only reason Mxsmanic
gets a negative response is the nature of the questions. That is patently
false -- the response is largely *directly* due to the behavior of Mxsmanic
himself -- and that's what I said. Any other message you get from my post,
that's your own doing and has nothing to do with what I think or feel.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
s.com...
Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.

You are overreacting, and frankly you are inferring way more from my post
than you have any right to.

You are correct. I see now why you replied as you did.

I was misled because, while the response explained what part of the
postings moved people "to hatred", there was no associated condemnation
of that kind of response. That lack appeared, at first glance, as
approval.

Regards, Kev

Peter Duniho wrote:

There has been generally nothing wrong with the initial questions. The
problem occurs when he refuses to believe the answers.

That was my take on this situation as well. Those who are defending the
character obviously missed the many examples of his posts where this
occurred.

--
Peter

Peter Duniho writes:

You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.

People who don't know what they are talking about become emotional and
defensive when the answers they give are questioned. People who know
what they are talking about are undisturbed ... because they know that
they know. So when someone becomes upset simply because his answer
isn't accepted unconditionally, there's an extremely good chance that
he really doesn't have a clue, and is stressed by the potential
exposure of that fact.

I know people who are experts in their fields. If you ask a question,
they answer it. If you question the answer, they explain why the
answer is right. Since they are experts, they can explain as much as
necessary to convince anyone. They don't get emotional or angry,
because they have nothing to hide, and they know exactly what they are
talking about.

If anything, experts are more hesitant to answer than non-experts,
because experts know how many variables are involved. For example,
doctors typically qualify their answers to questions much more than
nurses, because doctors realize how many factors are involved in
giving a correct answer, whereas nurses often do not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho writes:

You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.

People who don't know what they are talking about become emotional and
defensive when the answers they give are questioned. People who know
what they are talking about are undisturbed ... because they know that
they know. So when someone becomes upset simply because his answer
isn't accepted unconditionally, there's an extremely good chance that
he really doesn't have a clue, and is stressed by the potential
exposure of that fact.

I know people who are experts in their fields. If you ask a question,
they answer it. If you question the answer, they explain why the
answer is right. Since they are experts, they can explain as much as
necessary to convince anyone. They don't get emotional or angry,
because they have nothing to hide, and they know exactly what they are
talking about.

If anything, experts are more hesitant to answer than non-experts,
because experts know how many variables are involved. For example,
doctors typically qualify their answers to questions much more than
nurses, because doctors realize how many factors are involved in
giving a correct answer, whereas nurses often do not.

--




So now you are saying those here don't know what they are talking about so I
have one question for you. Why do you keep asking question?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So now you are saying those here don't know what they are talking about so I
have one question for you. Why do you keep asking question?

I didn't say anything about anyone here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

grit your teeth and filter the
troll.

Argh, alright then.

Okay, somebody say, "I told ya' so."

I 'try' to refuse to be dragged into arguments when the quality goes
downhill. I am not always good at it, but when words get put in my mouth
and he claims I am getting personal, that level of behaviour ends it. He
is on his own.

Troll, curiosity or immature, I can't really say, and it doesn't matter.

The Visitor wrote:

I 'try' to refuse to be dragged into arguments when the quality goes
downhill. I am not always good at it, but when words get put in my mouth
and he claims I am getting personal, that level of behaviour ends it. He
is on his own.

"You're on your own."

- Rev. Johnson, after he attempted to defend the new sheriff and someone
shot a hole in his bible, from Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles"

--
Peter