The Axon Terminal - 2019-12-17

« first day (2889 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1590 days later) »

1:32 PM

@ArnonWeinberg A question you closed has been re-opened as a consequence of major editorial effort. Do you agree that the issues you identified with it are fixed? psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/24526/…

2:03 PM

@IgnatInsarov Do you need him to agree? What are you after, exactly? Do you want his honest opinion and feedback, or do you want to point out there is room for disagreement in a community, which as we mentioned before is only normal?

Note that it is sufficient that I find it could be reopened (and re-assessed by the community), given that many of the comments which lead to it being closed in the first place are now obsolete. At a minimum, there was one less close vote (being mine), so less of a community consensus. When Bryan, Chris, and Arnon weigh in again (who commented previously), they might still decide it should remain closed.

So, it is not sufficient that you find it could be reopened for it to be and remain open. Then yes, I need him to agree.

Previously, I was after some knowledge in social psychology, but the war has changed me. Now I want to see justice served and the wrong made right, so I will research this situation until I know how to prevent it from ever occurring again. Seeing how Arnon was instrumental in inflicting pain and loss on me, be it arbitrary or necessary, it is only reasonable that I want to know his mind before I go to sleep tonight.

I want to finally cast this issue past me and sleep peacefully.

@StevenJeuris Does my present inquiry hurt your interests in any way?

2:58 PM

So, it seems I interpreted correctly you are not after his 'honest opinion', but instead want something else out of this than you are asking him directly. I simply wanted to preempt you from doing so because I don't deem it likely you'll get what you want by pursuing that avenue.

You are wrong. I am exactly after his honest opinion.

But, you are a free man, and no, it does not hurt my interests in any way. I'm simply trying to warn you.

You warn me against trying to see justice served and right a wrong? This is an unusual kind of a warning to receive.

Or are you warning me against trying to get closure and peace?

note: you are being warned by a moderator

@skullpetrol Warned against doing what?

3:05 PM

trying to get what you want

@IgnatInsarov I'm trying to explain you you have not been wronged. This is simply how our (and the Stack Exchange) community works, and is designed to work.

So if you are seeking justice, you are merely doing so by your own expectations of what you hope to get out of it. If that is what you want to do, I suggest you are up front with what you hope to achieve.

Even better would be to post that on Meta, as you can be part of deciding on community guidelines here.

So if you feel the way your specific question was handled was inappropriate in any way, and you want to see it happen differently in the future, make that case on Meta.

You Can't Always Get What You Want

"You Can't Always Get What You Want" is a song by the Rolling Stones on their 1969 album Let It Bleed. Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, it was named as the 100th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone magazine in its 2004 list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" before dropping a place the next year. == Composition and recording == Jagger commented on the song's beginnings: "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was something I just played on the acoustic guitar—one of those bedroom songs. It proved to be quite difficult to record because Charlie couldn't play the groove and so...

3:20 PM

@StevenJeuris Everything in its time. For now, we (I for one, given Arnon's dismissive attitude) have to study the question in question to determine the way it is perceived and the properties that we can truthfully ascribe, so as then to determine the immediate fate of said question. So I simply dropped in to a place where I know Arnon is hanging out, so as to alert him to the recent developments in the situation.

7 mins ago, by Steven Jeuris

Even better would be to post that on Meta, as you can be part of deciding on community guidelines here.

While he is at liberty to abstain from action and comment, it is only fair that he is made aware of the situation, and in the case that he decides to act or comment, I will be saved from the worry of indetermination. All at the price of one short message. Well, what was one short message.

"so as then to determine the immediate fate of said question" This is done by the community. You are singling out Arnon as if he has a reponsibility to reply to you. He does not.

He might, and he might now find it appropriate (maybe for the same or different reasons than I do), or he might still find it inappropriate. But, ultimately we will have to wait and see how this latest edit is perceived by the community as a whole.

Your happiness should not depend on the response of one individual. :)

I greatly appreciate the efforts you went through to edit this question. It has improved, therefore I reopened. I hope it remains open and attracts answers over time.

link please

nvm, found it :-)

It is wrong to say that I assume any person around here has a responsibility to reply to me. I am a free man, you are, Arnon is, and so on. I am singling him out because he previously had such strong objections that he chose to close the question. It is only reasonable that I would ask if his objections are rectified by the edits we put in place after he left the conversation.

3:32 PM

don't take it so personally, pal

it's just a question...

I am not questioning his decision to close, your decision to reopen, and so on. But at the same time, it is wrong to say that some community other than us determine the immediate fate of the question. It is me, you, Arnon and a few other people who are the _[vocal part of the]_community.

As a moderator, he assessed the comments you received so far on the question made by 3 other users. Himself counting as the fourth, that lead to a consensus of about 4 people that saw issues with the question, which he acted on by closing it.

That's as close as we get to a consensus on this Stack.

So I feel you are misrepresenting his (Arnon's) strong objections. It reflects a community decision.

@skullpetrol It is too late for that, my friend. I shall have to stand for what is right and good, if no one else will.

But, yes. Of course it is reasonable you ask whether your edits fix his concerns. But statements as your last one indicate this is not really what you are asking for.

17 mins ago, by skullpetrol

7 mins ago, by Steven Jeuris

Even better would be to post that on Meta, as you can be part of deciding on community guidelines here.

3:40 PM

@StevenJeuris Brian said he will not vote to close. That leaves you, Arnon and Chris. I addressed the objections of Roger and, to my memory, he neither accepted the correction nor re-stated the issue. So, given your subscription, there is a consensus of you and Arnon, but even your subscription was, to my memory, not expressly given prior to Arnon closing my question. So this consensus you are talking about may not have been there.

@skullpetrol As I said previously, everything in its time.

sure, np

@StevenJeuris So what is it that you think I am really asking for?

@IgnatInsarov just remember, they are moderators

41 mins ago, by skullpetrol

note: you are being warned by a moderator

@skullpetrol I know that they are honourable persons above everything else.

To be clear. I don't mind this discussion. I think it is healthy discourse. I would prefer, however, you did not lose any sleep over it.

I interpreted what you are asking from Arnon along the lines of : could you please acknowledge you should not have closed my question since as you can see it is valid the way it is written up now. Do you acknowledge you might have jumped the gun on closing it?

I might be wrong, of course.

3:52 PM

Well, that would be obviously illogical.

Good. Then we have nothing to talk about, right? 😄

Not certain why you brought up 'justice' and right or wrong, then.

You asked what I am after. I honestly answered that I am not after the answer to my question anymore. I have been wronged, or rather failed, by the system, and now I am going to study the system until I understand which is the part that betrayed me.

That is to say, the reason I am asking for Arnon's perspective is not, in the end, to receive answers (which would require my question to remain open). By now, I recognize that my question is too difficult or outlandish to warrant any hope.

But I did have faith in the system refraining from injuring me insofar as I made an effort to refrain from injuring the system. And the system injured me.

So, I am asking Arnon to reveal his perspective so that I understand how the system works.

4:17 PM

So, care to clarify why you feel you have been wronged? That would be the best way forward. Since, as I stated:

1 hour ago, by Steven Jeuris

@IgnatInsarov I'm trying to explain you you have not been wronged. This is simply how our (and the Stack Exchange) community works, and is designed to work.

Here is not a time and a place to discuss this large topic. I merely wanted to clarify my intentions, in order to give the full picture to Arnon and to reveal and uncast your hermeneutics of suspicion, which is now done. So, my immediate concern is to know if the system will betray me again in the same way.

4 hours later…

Bio Neuroscience Questions

8:20 PM

0

Q: Anatomical classification of glial cells

Glial cells can be classified roughly on these two kinds: (1) Protoplasmatic, which is mainly found in gray matter (2) Fibrous, mainly found in white matter. Does that criteria apply for other classic kinds of glia? I'm thinking of oligodendrocytes, and microglia. The sources I have are not exp...

neuroscience classification

« first day (2889 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1590 days later) »

Transcript for

Dec '1917

The Axon Terminal

General discussion for psychology.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile