Editor recommendations for new users.

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 14:05:13 UTC, Ryion wrote:
> On Monday, 28 August 2017 at 21:17:19 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> Why "again"? You've not stated so before AFAICT.
>> Regardless, I disagree that discussing the validity of 
>> recommendations in a thread specifically made to gather such 
>> recommendations is a distraction from the topic; I would 
>> contend that it lies at the heart of the topic.
>
> The poster asked for programs that fit his (vague) criteria, it 
> is NOT up to you to determine what those criteria are

We're repeating ourselves here, so we're going to have to agree 
to disagree, as I don't agree that that's what I was doing.

> and then belittle people there posts that try to help out with 
> there own recommendations. The fact that you can not see this 
> even now, really is a issue.

I don't consider the way I argue to be belittling and I resent 
the accusation.
Side point: DlangIDE invalidates my recommendation, as well

>
> And i am not referring to this topic alone or those that i 
> personally post in. There are many where the same patterns are 
> viable and i notice the pattern, that its always your name next 
> to those posts.
>
> Is it so hard for you to not always override topics here and 
> constant "straw man" or other terms calling.

I have to point out that when I attribute "straw man" to a quote, 
it's because the author of that quote has responded to something 
I wrote, but argued against a point that I did not make, which is 
a logical fallacy. The same applies to other such fallacies such 
as "red herring" and if you do catch me in one, I do hope you 
point it out, as it is hard to see when one is committing one 
oneself.

> And i use this term because because you constantly write 
> "irrelevant", "straw man argumentation", "but I don't care" and 
> other belittling statements that seem to indicate that your 
> opinion means more then others.

I don't see how pointing out logical fallacies constitutes 
belittling (again, please do point them out if you catch me in 
one).
W.r.t. the "I don't care" (I assume you refer to the website 
thread): If I perceive someone trying to engage me in a topic I 
have no interest in after I've commented about general procedure 
(which applies to the topic being turned from idea to tangible 
result) I can either ignore them, or point out that it doesn't 
interest me. I consider the first option to be ruder.
Lastly the "irrelevant": If someone disagrees with me dismissing 
their argument like that I welcome a counter argument as to why 
they do consider it relevant to the point I was making in the 
quote they replied to.

> Or how you supposedly do not care and have no issue pointing it 
> out half a dozen times.

I pointed it out again when despite earlier comment(s) on the 
subject the attempt to engage me in it was made again.

>
> It gets very fast tiresome. You are the only poster that i see 
> here that is non-stop doing this. If you do not like something 
> or find it irrelevant, then do not respond to it.

I generally don't; if someone responds either to me, or posts in 
a discussion I've joined, that's another matter, though.

> But they way you act, like posts are below or irrelevant to 
> you...

If they were I wouldn't take the time to respond.
I point these things in responses to me out because I hope for a 
reply containing an actual counter argument to the point I was 
making.

>
> This is the "again" i refer to. You do this is a lot of topics. 
> You dissect people there posts and write how it is irrelevant 
> to you or some other clever looking down terminology. It 
> totally distracts from the topic at hand and frankly, makes 
> people less likely to continue topics.

I strongly disagree that pointing out logical fallacies distracts 
from the topic at hand, because that's what logical fallacies do.
W.r.t. post dissection: Addressing individual points allows the 
exchange of specific arguments and counter arguments.

>
> Its this kind of attitude that in MY personal opinion makes 
> this mailing board toxic for new users. While you are not 
> impolite, the way you act upon people the posts makes it hard 
> to have a honest discussion with you without it turning 
> off-topic or simply scaring away people.

I'm not sure if you're making the point that you want to write 
things to me that you don't want to expose others to, or that you 
don't feel that you can have a discussion with me on account of 
how I write. For the former: You can send me a private email. For 
the latter: The best I can do is assure you that I'll refrain 
from responding to you first in a thread (unless there are 
exceptional circumstances); if you respond to me, that's another 
matter.

>
> So again polity again, to refrain from acting like this and let 
> people have there own opinion without you dissecting every 
> piece.

Again, if someone replies to me with a logical fallacy, I will 
point that out; the same way I would expect them to point it out 
if I were to do it.
I will also address the individual points they were making as a 
response to me as I don't see how that conflicts with them having 
their opinions.

> Its turns topic off-topic and adds no value to the discussion. 
> I await your next well written comment how what i wrote is 
> irrelevant and how you do not notice this behavior.

Thank you for saying they are well written.
I don't consider what you wrote irrelevant, as it did not deviate 
from the point we were discussing and it did cause me to reflect 
and reevaluate.
In hindsight it would've been better for me not to respond first 
to you and wait for OPs evaluation of the recommendations; it 
doesn't change my earlier mentioned position that I consider his 
requirements being clear enough, but I did unnecessarily escalate 
first, for which I apologize.
The other behavior you mention when I respond to someone 
responding to me, however, is quite deliberate (as I've explained 
in the above), because I consider pointing out flaws in a 
discussion vital to that discussion's usefulness.

>
> This site really needs a proper forum with the ability to block 
> specific posters and make this board less toxic. Because 99.9% 
> of the people here are nice but your behavior is hard to deal 
> with.

If it interests you, the forum is a web frontend for a newsgroups 
server [1]. If you have a newsgroup reader (most major desktop 
mail clients support subscribing to newsgroups), you can use that 
interface; most such newsgroup readers include a killfile to 
which you can add people whose posts you don't wish to see.

> And i am sure you will disagree with this.

I don't disagree, as it's an opinion, not an argument in a 
(technical) discussion.

>
> Stay out of my posts

If that is what you wish, outside of exceptional circumstances, I 
won't respond to you first.

> and stop looking down on people

I repeat that I resent this accusation.

> and we will get along. This is my last post on this off-topic 
> issue.

[1] http://www.digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html