07:16
hoooo.... I step out for a couple days, and all havoc breaks loose :)
I always miss the interesting stuff....
but, as everyone else is probably sleeping in EST time now, I'll take the opportunity to try to clear the air here.
@Ninefingers, to start with, I do owe you an apology.
not necessarily for anything specific that was said (I'll get to that), but as a moderator, I guess I was not as welcoming to you (as a new user) as I should have been. For that, I am sorry.
As I already expressed to @RoryAlsop, I did regret when I realized you felt "chased" away. As @nealmcb said, we do want to make everyone feel comfortable, especially anyone with value to contribute.
Also, I agree with the statements about remembering this is an open, archived forum, and that respect needs to be remembered here too. I actually made most of my comments here hoping you'd pop back in, but it is a good reminder.
Also, @Ninefingers I'm glad you decided to come here to air out the issues in public. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, I'm hoping we'll have a chance to coincide times later.
THAT SAID, I stand by almost everything I wrote, with a few exceptions:
1. the neckbeard comment - I am truly sorry for insulting you with that comment, it did not occur to me that it was considered a disparaging remark. I guess I didnt think that one through fully when I heard it.
(@GrahamLee, that's the 2nd time you got me in trouble ;) ).
I don't even know if you even have a beard (not that its relevant).... FWIW, I do.
(and I still don't really know why its insulting.... ) Anyway, my apologies.
2. "worthy of a dilbert comic" - that one took me a while to figure out, as I didn't say anything like that... Then I realized that I mentioned Scott Adams (the writer behind dilbert, for anyone here that doesnt know... for shame).
But I was referring to Scott Adams'
blog, not the dilbert cartoon. In his blog, and especially in some recent posts, he discussed some doubletalking, that
sounds nice and
seems to be correct, until read carefully, and in context, and then you think that maybe the intent was opposite of what you thought.
yesterday, by
Ninefingers Being accused of rhetoric, condescension and sarcasm is very borderline behaviour for a moderator. Being described as worthy of a dilbert comic is downright rude.
Here, I very much disagree - calling foul on someone's posts is very much in line with a moderator's behaviour. In fact, it is explictly one of the main responsibilities of the moderator - to keep things "nice". And if someone isn't being "nice", it is my job as moderator to deal with it. Attacking someone with "rhetoric, condescension and sarcasm" is very much not nice, from my POV. However....
However, where I do agree with you, is that as the attackee, I should not have been the one to deal with it. Hence, I removed that from my comment, after you rightly called me out on it. I realized that, as I was the poster, I could not be impartial here.
4. I might have been mistaken, and misrepresented your participation in the religious wars on the SO q. I definitely did see your name there, but the nasty comments and personal attacks were probably not from you (I realize now). If that is the case, I apologize.
In my defense, it kind of goes with the territory of joining in a mob. In gangland attacks, anyone that participates is seen as part of the horde.
5. However, if as you say you weren't part of the aggressive attacks, then this couldnt have been including you:
yesterday, by
Ninefingers @Rory The problem isn't the single response. As I said, it's borderline. The problem is that here, on a public forum, my involvement in Stack Overflow was misrepresented, I was described as one of the "unix neckbeards with inflated egos". Specifically "one of them".
The "one of them" was referring at the time to "C/Linux guys from SO".
Again, sorry if you felt insulted from my "splatter" comments.
6. This was specifically intended for you:
yesterday, by
Ninefingers this: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/878567#878567 and this: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/878569#878569
As I said, I wanted you to read that, so you'd understand the other side.
Side being, having been rudely attacked and mobbed on SO, for asking a legitimate question which bothers some's religious convictions.
Again, taking into account the apparent "imbalance of power", I should apologize.
though I'd appreciate why you thought it worthy of closing on SO?