Tim: >> I'm sick of his behaviour. If he modifies his own behaviour, and >> continue to behave normally, he might get unmoderated. Let him stay >> moderated until he can stop being an insulting, aggressive, egotistical >> sod. Robert Holtzman: > Pot, meet kettle. Easy to be a smart arse. You don't honestly believe that he's not insulting, aggressive, and egotistical? You don't really believe that's just find and dandy? I think you'll find that I reserve my venom for those who pick fights. As opposed to Harald, who inflicts it on anyone he considers so stupid as to have had to ask for technical advice. My general demeanour is mild, as several years of email records show. It is entirely justified to criticise someone for the behaviour he has exhibited. It is making a victim of yourself, and others, to simply put up with it. I'm quite tolerant, far too tolerant, really. But his prolonged and awful behaviour has gone past the point. He has not made *mild* transgressions, it's been highly objectionable. And has not been just one or two, it has been on and on. >> Having sociopaths on the list drives people away. New members, old >> members. They unsubscribe, they delete and ignore entire threads, >> because they're sick of reading that crap. > You're a psychiatrist Now? No. Having spent many years working with people with mental problems, it is not hard to pick someone out and label them as being a sociopath, some would go as far as to label him a psychopath. And people who've put up with toxic people in their work staff will have little trouble identifying them, too. Look up the terms if you really care. But the in-a-nutshell description is a person who has no empathy for others, goes beyond simply not caring but is actually antagonistic to others, perhaps even deliberately, even enjoying doing so, and will do whatever they damn well please unless you actually stop them. Their self control is next to nil. The internet is full of people being jerks, they get their kicks out of it. There's no good reason why the rest of us should idly stand by. By doing so, you just condone it. > Speak for yourself my dictatorial friend. I am, and I did. And since people were making undeserving excuses for him, I speak my disagreement with that, too. > One of the basic rules of internet usage has always been to grow a > thick skin. Is someone forcing you to read his posts? Did you forget > where your delete key is? Actually, we do get forced to read his bile. It's easy enough to ignore posts addressed "from" him, but you still end up reading messages with his bile quoted in someone else's messages, often with no clue (since he's directly posting to people, to bypass his moderation, we see them responding to him back to the list, out of sequence). > Is there something wrong with being agressive (whatever you think that > is)? Yes. And, you seem to think so, since you're arguing with me for taking a strong stand against it. Don't forget that this list is indirectly managed by the participants. We're not all expected to call mummy (list owners) to fix every little thing that goes on, in here (which makes victims out of people who don't need to be victims). There is some expectation of members to do something when things go bad, and only bother the list managers when really needed. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
