he's exiled himself and can return to posting at any point

I'm not remotely ignoring the fact Bruce can post

Why do you even think that?

because you think that other people are responsible for a decision he is entirely responsible for, he's a grown man if it were me and people were asking Mason to expand on why he thinks it terrific I start posting again I'd be extremely embarrassed.

No I don't and frankly I have no idea why you keep saying this obviously false stuff.

I know Bruce can post and obviously it's entirely his decision as to whether to post or not

People heard so about recent events and they know the action that was taken but where is the other side of the story? You might think it would make no difference to you but maybe you're not really thinking it through.

You can't even be consistent across two posts,

yes it is, as soon as you make it not just down to Bruce you make other people responsible for something, Bruce not posting, that Bruce is entirely responsible for.

There is no other side to the story it's all there across multiple threads.

What?

?
Bruce is entirely responsible for posting or not. That's a function of him and the situation. Bruce's views are not fixed and not is the situation. Others can make decisions that change the situation and indeed they are all the time. Making the decision to talk about the good side of Bruce changes the situation for the better and I'm pleased Mason chose to speak up - more would be welcome.

We disagree, that's massively focused on recent events and anything else has been drowned out.

Okay you can suggest you don't know what I mean but can you explain what

If Bruce is entirely responsible for posting or not.

^
Posting or not is entirely down to Bruce. The situation in which he makes that decision is not entirely down to Bruce.

Everything changes the situation and we all get to make decisions about that. Mason posting helps and I'll embarrass Bruce to high heaven if I think it helps - first thing i'll do if he returns is to apologise

So if Bruce is more likely to post if the discussion moved on then the people failing to move the discussion on are in some way responsible for Bruce not posting?

The weather is responsible as well if you want to really mangle the point.

So is Zeno's hairdresser.

It's not mangling the point Chez, it's called trying to clarify, so you think that others are responsible for an environment which deters Bruce from posting but consider Bruce entirely responsible for whether he posts. You don't see any problem with this but have made it clear you don't understand pretty simple points when I make them.

Have you asked Bruce why he doesn't post? If not why not, if so what does he think about the discussion continuing.

The point is pretty clear now hopefully

We had a semantic issue with the word 'entirely' which we have hopefully recovered from.





Sent from my XT1021 using 2+2 Forums

Semantic issues are important, if two people are using words differently communicating becomes a little difficult.

Bruce is entirely responsible for whether to post, other people may be responsible for whether he wants to?

Is that a fair summary of your position?

I've spoken a lot with Bruce, especially at the time, but its my views I speak for (unless I say otherwise) and we don't agree about everything - no surprise there.




Sent from my XT1021 using 2+2 Forums

have you spoken to him about posting recently

I agree about semantics it didn't start well.

That a closer version that in normal circumstances I might just agree with but although others can make a difference to whether he wants to post I wouldn't say they have a responsibility to talk about why they want Bruce back which your version might suggest.

My point is that imo they want something and should be aware that there is something they can do which makes it more likely to happen.

Sent from my XT1021 using 2+2 Forums

Well, given that the situation Bruce finds himself in is that no one is against him posting, and several people, including Mat and MM, have expressively stated that they would like him to post, I fail to see how the situation could be better with even very loose hold on what can reasonably be expected to be offered.

Quite frankly, being told that others, again including Mat and MM, would like him to post if he wants to is as favorable a situation as could possibly exist. It is unreasonable to desire more. Such would amount to looking the gift horse in the mouth, even if it were of a different color in some other one horse town.

Should MM offer to cook him the breakfast meat of his choosing as well? Should masque promise to be more sensible with the topping he will put on hotdogs in the future?

This has been beaten well past the point where it would take a forensic veterinarian to identify it, and while quite tenderized for the beating it cannot literally be eaten no matter how hungry you are.

I know you are chomping at the bit to find a resolution that you find favorable, but the horse has been led to water and at that point the horse has all that the world will offer in encouragement to enjoy a beverage.

The problem we have is that I think you would have said it was as favorable as it could be before Mat and Mason said that again. Now you say it afterwards somehow ignoring that these things do make a difference.

It may be but you can blame me for that. I think it could make a huge difference and I 'desire' it.

what's the big deal about saying why we want someone to post when we want someone to post? You make out like I'm asking for the moon.

In my view, it was totally fair and uncontroversial to ask for the 2+2 admins to put out a hand towards going forward with the outcome you want. It doesn't need to be diminished, exaggerated, or argued.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a downside to doing so, unless you count people complaining about people communicating as a downside. So yeah, I agree- not a deal, big or small.

Cheers!

They are two more. Mat and MM had already expressed the sentiment before.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that it turns out to make no difference. There will be either ridiculous demands* or there will be crickets.

I am making out that you already have that.

*ridiculous as that really ridiculous thing that I can't think of right now.

That's the nub of it and I think you are mistaken. Things change and it's easy to get stuck in the past.

Either way it's not exactly in the realms of Pascal's wager.

dereds sometimes we cant agree on such basic things as if we are each fighting for some team and not logic itself or the proper description of the true world we find ourselves involved. We should in fact be able to agree though and its sad if we dont.


Isnt it true that an entire system and not an individual is responsible for something happening? Is there such a thing as free will in the truest of senses?

Is someone really free to post if a place has decided to let anyone attack them 24/7 with insults and distortions without the top people that have known him for years saying anything? Why would you want to post and devote precious personal creative time in a place that is completely ungrateful for example (not saying 2+2 is or not but many here clearly are ungrateful and abusive and left unmoderated by those that should know better if they really represent professionally well the site). Why would you want to post in a place that doesnt recognize the value of editing your past work? Why even post in a place that told you to stay silent and keep your modship and then without explanation days later while staying silent (all this after all the nasty things have happened already not while happening) boom you lose it again and nobody takes the time for months to say anything (lets say thats how it did happen, if not we can correct that statement if evidence to the contrary surfaces).

Why post in a place that people that knew you for over a decade didnt stand up to speak about the nature of the person they should have known for years and who was even responsible for the very existence of forums like probability or when they were created etc. Why people that know you didnt take the time to stop people that were calling you the guy that does other's homework and other insulting characterizations that trivialize one's participation to the community (as well as real tutors themselves)? Why would i want to be in a place that eg management or their mods dont care that the members treat the other members in a more civilized manner minimizing the trolling, bullying and other pathetic behavior that is taking place for example. There are indeed a ton of things that are kind of independent of yourself and intrinsic to that system that may prevent you from wanting to post there in a legitimate, principled, not egocentric kind of way.



Lets say that Bruce has decided to not post again until x (some set) of things happen. Then suddenly someone here posts a link of a current event that is taking place in his garage and the people in the video link are about to do something that will kill them or damage them in the next 10 minutes because of some chemistry error or math/physics/engineering error in the set up or some failure on their part to understand something in what is video-linked to a thread. Only someone connected to that location live or by phone that is posting the link and looking at the thread can tell them to correct what they are doing and avoid the disaster. Lets say that at that moment Bruce had happened to take a look at that thread because i dont know he browses by habit once a week or month what is going on or maybe someone alerted him by email or because eg TomCowley that was banned and cant post himself emailed him, pick a reason. There is no time for Bruce to do anything other than suddenly post in 2+2 for the first time in months something that he had decided based on how the system was at the time before to not do. Do you have any doubt that the guy then would regardless of anything else step in and post to prevent the damage that is about to happen as soon as possible? Lets then say that suddenly the people even those that had mocked him start posting and saying hey look we didnt like the guy but see what he did there. And just like that the mood of the community becomes softer and more open minded. Wont that random, exaggerated to funny levels for effect surely but not unreasonable, event suddenly prove a catalyst? A lot of things you cannot control can change your mind.

So why are you thinking that posting is entirely up to Bruce or whoever it is you use as example. Of course the decision to do or not something derives input by a ton of things that are changing and even chaotically so.


Its not about explaining why someone is terrific etc. Its about showing with your choices without even saying it that you actually do think this to be true, that it matters to you when someone is treated in a way that their past history hasnt earned and that their mistakes never deserved in such magnitude, because of something else called commitment that was there for years to "buy" in the most legitimate of ways friendship, respect and yes love/care.

I do think Bruce should come back and post and remind people a few things not with words and volatile arguments but with the best dids that defined that person for years, wiser, stronger, more motivated, leaving behind some edges and toughness. But then the leadership of the community must finally reclaim its true dignity that should always be there shinning, able to make a place desirable in how it is ran by uniting not dividing people and demanding responsible behavior by posters. They should finally do what is right with such person that worked for the community and also deal in a more effective manner with those that undermined that process, unable to help him in a moment of poor choices like true ethical people should do for each other rather than being enslaved by their own petty wargames.

Once again you have to be the change you want to see in the world.

Lets have Bruce back posting again so that among other creative things we can also disagree again in a civilized manner, like people who care for the discussion arriving at the truth and not for scoring individual victories. We can actually all benefit from such approach in how we interact with respect for the process.

There's rich irony and a lesson to be learned here. This whole thing started when Bruce made the objectionable post trying to make the point that more extreme measures are justified in response to what's perceived to be part of a "problematic pattern". The application of this idea looks very different depending on who's the one being hoisted on the point of this particular petard.


PairTheBoard

chezlaw you are right, and rule this thread right now.

Deschutes Armory XPA

IBU: 58 / ABV: 5.9%

I liked it.


Lagunitas Hop Stoopid

IBU: 102 / 8.00% ABV


I really liked it.