ENG: Small talk / Geplauder / Forum Moderation / Spam-Report / Off-Topic

[Fla$her]

what's with the arrogance?
(and users with ~586 posts)

I see this is common problem. If there is a specific claim to me, please voice it by writing my nickname.
I guess you won't like it if you're called user with ~12513 posts. Show respect to the visitors, please.
And as for your question, if it is asked in a discourse way, then now times are so tense (wars, heavy taxes, impoverishment, unemployment, problems with heating and electricity), so people sometimes do not hold back. The world crisis, you know. I'm not justifying anyone, it just happened that way. But in general, I agree with your desire for peace.

P. S.: Why do you need to transfer something to this topic at all, if it's easier to delete messages that are unnecessary for the forum? Why stir up additional interest? I don't see the point. It's easier to delete everything. It's much more productive, IMHO.
P. P. S.: BTW, I didn't understand why you moved the last two posts with my clarifying question on the topic?

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

If there is a specific claim to me, please voice it by writing my nickname.

I was trying to add a little joke, since I called regular users "those with 1000+ posts", but you also joined the bickering. It felt weird to write "those with 1000+ posts and Fla$her".

I guess you won't like it if you're called user with ~12513 posts

I'd find it funny.

I agree with your desire for peace.

Let's keep the forum that way.

Why do you need to transfer something to this topic at all, if it's easier to delete messages that are unnecessary for the forum? Why stir up additional interest?

It's been decided a long time ago to do it this way. Christian strongly prefers free speech and not deleting users' posts as long as they are not against the law or spam. So it's been decided to have one thread (well, there was a German and an English one) for everything OT.

I didn't understand why you moved the last two posts with my clarifying question on the topic?

Yours came out as arrogant in tone. What makes miskox think compression and encryption are the same thing? Did you really expect an answer to your question? Did you not realize this was a simple mistake?
While there was nothing wrong with petermad's post per se, leaving it as the only reply in the original thread would not make sense.
While the moderators usually never edit other users' posts' content (except for when it contains dangerous links or personal information) I decided to make an exception and corrected the OP's obvious typo / mistake to avoid any future discussion about that mistake. The question / suggestion was clearly about auto-suggesting the encryption method already being used in the archive being updated.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

I was trying to add a little joke
I'd find it funny.

Do you find this funny? >>

I remember where the regulars (and users with ~12513 posts) are bickering so harshly, uselessly and not knowing when to stop

It's been decided a long time ago to do it this way. Christian strongly prefers free speech and not deleting users' posts as long as they are not against the law or spam.

I see. Although a dump is also bad.

Yours came out as arrogant in tone. What makes miskox think compression and encryption are the same thing? Did you really expect an answer to your question? Did you not realize this was a simple mistake?

An absolutely far-fetched conclusion. I don't see anything arrogant in my question. And yes, I was expecting an answer. No, I didn't understand, and even now I doubt it. I think you're just overestimating people. My experience of communicating on various forums suggests that people may not understand much more basic things.
Note that under the code tag there is the phrase "unsupported compression method 99". It is possible that the author proceeded from this message. So your assessment of my question is reprehensible, and corrections are premature.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

Do you find this funny?

I find it superfluous as i consider myself a regular. You'd have to use it in a phrase such as "new users (and one user with ~12515 posts)", then it would be both correct and funny / light-hearted.

I was expecting an answer.

What kind of possible answer did you imagine? What other possibility than a mistake could there be, in the context of asking to auto-detect the encryption method used in a given archive?

your assessment of my question is reprehensible

"Reprehensible"? Really? War crimes and torture are usually considered reprehensible.

Note that under the code tag there is the phrase "unsupported compression method 99". It is possible that the author proceeded from this message.

Exactly. That might be your answer to the encryption / compression mixup.
Anyways, first Google result says: "Compression method 99 error indicates the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) encryption."

I think you're just overestimating people.

I believe in the best in them.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

2Hacker

You'd have to use it in a phrase such as "new users (and one user with ~12515 posts)", then it would be both correct and funny / light-
hearted.

In this case, this wordplay is unimportant. The context is important, in which mentioning me in a derogatory way does not pull at humor and lightheartedness in any way.

What kind of possible answer did you imagine? What other possibility than a mistake could there be, in the context of asking to auto-detect the encryption method used in a given archive?

Don't know. That's what I wanted to find out.

"Reprehensible"? Really?

Yes. The value judgment of arrogance comes from reprehensibility (odsúdeniahodnosť in Slovak, if I'm not mistaken).

Exactly. That might be your answer to the encryption / compression mixup.

This is just a guess. If everyone had thought out the answers to the questions that arise in the same way, then most of the topics would have died without answers. You deprived me of a discussion with the author of the words, just because something seemed to you. It's not normal.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

mentioning me in a derogatory way

Well, in that case, replace "where the regulars (and users with ~586 posts)" with "where the regulars (and Fla$her)".

Don't know. That's what I wanted to find out.

You were seriously wondering why someone describing AES256 in the context of compression sometimes called it an encryption algorithm and sometimes a compression algorithm? I assume you know AES256 is not a compression algorithm. So calling it a compression algorithm when speaking about encryption in the context of compression is most probably a slip of the tongue / finger. Anyways, I hope it is clear now.

The value judgment of arrogance comes from reprehensibility

As in, my judgement was reprehensible, or as in I found your post reprehensible and therefore arrogant in tone?

If everyone had thought out the answers to the questions that arise in the same way, then most of the topics would have died without answers.

I must admit, I do not understand the meaning of this sentence. If people understood misphrased questions as they were originally intended, then nobody would provide answers?

You deprived me of a discussion with the author of the words, just because something seemed to you. It's not normal.

Well, the author seems to have been chased away by the whole "discussion" that occured. You can certainly still post in the topic, it's not locked, you're not banned or anything, or you can also send him an email, if you wish.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

2Hacker

Well, in that case, replace "where the regulars (and users with ~586 posts)" with "where the regulars (and Fla$her)".

Well, you won't give me your password to do it, right?
And do not distort, I originally wrote not about a banal replacement, as you may have noticed.

So calling it a compression algorithm when speaking about encryption in the context of compression is most probably a slip of the tongue / finger.

I don't rule it out. But I don't want to see it (or anything else) from someone other than the author of the words. This is the essence of the discussion.

As in, my judgement was reprehensible, or as in I found your post reprehensible and therefore arrogant in tone?

Forget about the tone in the text. I have already written above that your conclusion is absurd. One does not follow from the other. Arrogance by definition cannot come from the wording "What makes you think that?". This is quite a secular, non-negative formulation. There can be no reprehensible in this question/curiosity. In the decision, you were based on conjectures, this is only your problem, not mine.

I must admit, I do not understand the meaning of this sentence. If people understood misphrased questions as they were originally intended, then nobody would provide answers?

If people gave themselves answers to questions posed by someone else and this would be enough for them, then they would not be looking for a goal to participate in the discussion and potentially help the questioner.

You can certainly still post in the topic, it's not locked, you're not banned or anything

No, you have already killed the topic with your intervention. No one will go there to clarify something, help or support. It's obvious. Actually, that's why I started answering you here, because I didn't see common sense in a general approach to everyone, while the request really needed clarification (that's not the only question I wanted to ask after getting an answer).

P.S.: I think there is no point in continuing this argument anymore, you will still stick to your decisions unyieldingly.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

I originally wrote not about a banal replacement, as you may have noticed.

OK, I have edited my post. I consider it more insulting this way, but I understand you consider it better. It was not my intention to insult.

I don't want to see it (or anything else) from someone other than the author of the words. This is the essence of the discussion.

Well, since the author did not reply (as he was chased away, i am afraid), and you cannot really forbid others from posting, this is the situation as it is, and you will have to accept it somehow.

Arrogance by definition cannot come from the wording "What makes you think that?".

What makes you think that?
If there is an obvious typo / slip of "tongue", as in "and to finish, sprinkle the salad with some dried origami", and someone asks "What makes you think origami and oregano are the same thing?", either he really didn't understand the mixup of the words and is truly curious about why the person thinks those words mean the same thing, or the comment is a jab at the mixup. I admit, the former is indeed a possibility, which I find really improbable, but OK, if you really insist you didn't recognize the slip of "tongue" in the mixup of the words, then I admit the comment is indeed not arrogant, just... uninformed?

If people gave themselves answers to questions posed by someone else and this would be enough for them, then they would not be looking for a goal to participate in the discussion and potentially help the questioner.

Sorry, I am still unable to understand the sentence in the context of the original thread. If people would believe they had the answer to your encryption/compression question in the thread, but would not write their answer in reply to you, just think it in their head, then nobody would participate in the discussion with you and potentially help miskox? My apologies, I am really lost.

you have already killed the topic with your intervention

Not really, I was just the one to clean up. miskox made it clear that off-topic posts make him hate writing on the forum, and the thread was full of off-topic posts.

No one will go there to clarify something, help or support.

There is nothing really to clarify. It is a request to Christian to auto-detect the encryption of files in a given archive and auto-suggest the same encryption when updating said archive. People can support the request and Christian can express his thoughts on implementation. If you have any questions, you can ask them there (or here, if you prefer), or you don't. Up to you.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

I originally wrote NOT about a banal replacement, as you may have noticed.

OK, I have edited my post. I consider it more insulting this way, but I understand you consider it better. It was not my intention to insult.

I have a feeling that you are just trolling me. Read carefully, including what I started with. I did NOT ask for a banal replacement.

Well, since the author did not reply (as he was chased away, i am afraid)

Seriously? He simply did not have time before the transfer.

if you really insist you didn't recognize the slip of "tongue" in the mixup of the words, then I admit the comment is indeed not arrogant, just... uninformed?

No, you're definitely trolling. Comparing a reservation and a potential misunderstanding of the difference in terms is already too much.
As an example of ignorance of seemingly obvious things for TC user, I will give a recent example. If you continue to argue after that, then I will have nothing already to say to you.

Sorry, I am still unable to understand the sentence in the context of the original thread. If people would believe they had the answer to your encryption/compression question in the thread, but would not write their answer in reply to you

And what do I have to do with it? It was only about starting posts-requests. And not necessarily in the context of a single topic. I had a generalized thought.

There is nothing really to clarify. It is a request to Christian to auto-detect the encryption of files in a given archive and auto-suggest the same encryption when updating said archive. People can support the request and Christian can express his thoughts on implementation. If you have any questions, you can ask them there

Everyone decides for himself whether clarification is required or not. Several users felt that clarification was needed. And what happens at the subforum, I don't need to explain, I'm a frequent participant there. But I don't see the point in asking questions in the topic where my messages are disappearing from. Interest in the topic is lost (I suppose others have as well).

Let's stop already. I see you have fun playing moderator, who is not going to fix anything in principle anyway. Let it be so. I'm glad I gave you pleasure. But I'm already bored with this format, sorry.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

I did NOT ask for a banal replacement.

Huh? You started with exactly this:

If there is a specific claim to me, please voice it by writing my nickname.

And that is exactly what I now did. What else do you feel needs to be done?

Seriously? He simply did not have time before the transfer.

Yup, seriously. He did not login since the time of his last post. You can easily check in his profile.

Comparing a reservation and a potential misunderstanding of the difference in terms is already too much.

A "reservation"? And comparing them to what? I think english is not really the best medium for our discussion.

And what do I have to do with it?

What you have to do with your own sentence? The one you wrote? Well, you wrote it? Even in a general context it does not make sense to me. To me your point seems to be "if everyone would understand what the requestors are asking then nobody would provide answers" which does not make sense. That's why I asked for clarification, perhaps using the context of the thread we are discussing, and you are asking me what you have to do with it.

Several users felt that clarification was needed.

You mean two. Clarification was provided.

who is not going to fix anything in principle anyway

What needs fixing?

I'm already bored with this format, sorry.

My apologies if the forum does not give you the entertainment you are looking for

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

Huh? You started with exactly this:

If there is a specific claim to me, please voice it by writing my nickname.

And that is exactly what I now did. What else do you feel needs to be done?

Do you think that in this sentence it is written that I am asking you to "replace the text in parentheses"? Аnd do nothing else?
Claims in the generalized context of the proposal, where I was belittled, as such, I did not see. And the indication of me there in general looks strange before the presentation of this claim, so it was logical to remove it, but now it no longer makes sense because of the deployed demagoguery.

Yup, seriously. He did not login since the time of his last post. You can easily check in his profile.

Does the lack of authorization somehow prevent him from reading messages?
And I don't have access to this information. There's a dash.

A "reservation"?

This word has many meanings. It depends in what context to apply it. Will "proviso" or "clause" suit you more?

I think english is not really the best medium for our discussion.

I suggest switching to telepathy mode, there is no language problem in it.

What you have to do with your own sentence? The one you wrote? Well, you wrote it?

Have you read what I wrote next? I wrote about the starting posts, not about myself. And you started asking about my message, which is not a starting post.

That's why I asked for clarification, perhaps using the context of the thread we are discussing, and you are asking me what you have to do with it.

OK. I will try to explain in the context of the discussion. I was responding to this:

That might be your answer to the encryption / compression mixup.

As a result, instead of discussing it with the author of the words, for some reason I'm discussing it with someone else. But any topic tends to develop in a dialogue with the author, where there are questions and answers. If, in your opinion, it is enough to limit yourself only to understanding the essence of the question and having an answer to it in your head, which implies the highlighted part of your sentence, then in most cases any interest in creating topics that are destined to be dead disappears. In general, I sum up to the fact that your point of view "find the answer yourself or from another user in another topic" is not adequate.

You mean two. Clarification was provided.

Two or three, what's the difference? The main thing is that they are there.
I have not seen any explanations (including what Usher wrote about) from the author. And I didn't even have a chance to ask additional questions. You've moved the messages.

What needs fixing?

To begin with, moving two harmless messages back.

My apologies if the forum does not give you the entertainment you are looking for

I'm not looking for a purpose to find entertainment on such forums at all. Joy comes only with getting the necessary solutions from developers.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

Do you think that in this sentence it is written that I am asking you to "replace the text in parentheses"? Аnd do nothing else?

You asked me to "Read carefully, including what I started with". So I read what you wrote including what you started with: "If there is a specific claim to me, please voice it by writing my nickname. I guess you won't like it if you're called user with ~12513 posts. Show respect to the visitors, please." So I did exactly what was asked, wrote your nickname to show respect. What else would you like me to do?

Claims in the generalized context of the proposal, where I was belittled, as such, I did not see. And the indication of me there in general looks strange before the presentation of this claim, so it was logical to remove it, but now it no longer makes sense because of the deployed demagoguery.

Those sentences do not make sense to me in English, I am sorry. Perhaps in German, as a last resort? Unless you know Slovak or Czech? I simply do not understand what you are trying to express in English. Or perhaps someone can explain it to me in some other way.

Does the lack of authorization somehow prevent him from reading messages?

Well, either he has read the messages and chose not to reply, or he hasn't read them.

This word has many meanings. It depends in what context to apply it. Will "proviso" or "clause" suit you more?

Since "Comparing a clause and a potential misunderstanding of the difference in terms is already too much" does not make sense to me, either, not really.

instead of discussing it with the author of the words, for some reason I'm discussing it with someone else

Well, the reason is the wording of your question, in case I did not make it clear enough.

I sum up to the fact that your point of view "find the answer yourself or from another user in another topic" is not adequate.

Ahhhhhhh, OK. Thanks for the explanation. While I agree in general, I simply think the answer is so obvious and clear that there is no doubt. If you still doubt it anyways, as I said previously, you can still ask in the topic, or contact miskox per email. If you decide to post in the topic, I'd suggest a wording that has less chance to be perceived as a jab / attack / confrontation / belittling.

I didn't even have a chance to ask additional questions. You've moved the messages.

At the risk of repeating myself, you can still ask any questions you like, the thread is open, users have added several new posts already.

To begin with, moving two harmless messages back.

Those two harmless messages are unnecessarily off-topic, the first one can be perceived as not really friendly, and both have been answered anyways, even though not by the person you'd wish the answer from, so I see no reason to move them back.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

2Hacker

So I did exactly what was asked, wrote your nickname to show respect.

Again, you are being disingenuous. I thought you were able to understand the essence of a rhetorical question. In the above phrase there is not a word about replacing the text, there is only a question of addressing me by nickname with a personal claim within the framework of the phrase that touches on some old motives, and not the last situation.

Perhaps in German, as a last resort?

As you wish:
Ich habe im Zusammenhang mit dem Vorschlag, in dem ich herabgesetzt wurde, keine konkreten Ansprüche erhalten. Und der Hinweis auf mich vor der Vorlage des angeforderten Anspruchs dort sieht im Allgemeinen seltsam aus, daher war es logisch, diesen Hinweis auf mich zu entfernen, aber jetzt macht es aufgrund der entfalteten Demagogie keinen Sinn mehr.

Since "Comparing a clause and a potential misunderstanding of the difference in terms is already too much" does not make sense to me, either, not really.

Try with "misprint" or "typo". (Tippfehler auf Deutsch)
Der Vergleich von Tippfehlern und einem möglichen Missverständnis des Unterschieds in Begriffen ist schon zu viel.

Well, the reason is the wording of your question, in case I did not make it clear enough.

Well, petermad for some reason did not have any problems with understanding, he supported my thought.

If you still doubt it anyways, as I said previously, you can still ask in the topic, or contact miskox per email. If you decide to post in the topic

I can write to e-mail only for the most important circumstances, but definitely not because of such a trifle. And about the desire to write in the source topic, I have already made it clear above.

Those two harmless messages are unnecessarily off-topic, the first one can be perceived as not really friendly, and both have been answered anyways, even though not by the person you'd wish the answer from, so I see no reason to move them back.

I, in fact, did not expect any other answer from you, returning to the requests to end this discussion. I have also already said everything about far-fetched unfriendliness. Let's stop there.

[Hacker]

Fla$her,

I thought you were able to understand the essence of a rhetorical question.

What rhetorical question? You asked me numerous times to read your original reply and act accordingly, which I did. Now I read it once again and there is no rhetorical question there. Perhaps if you could speak plainly, instead of speaking in hidden meanings, riddles, and rhetorical questions, it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say.

the framework of the phrase that touches on some old motives

What "old motives"?

As you wish

OK, well, switching from difficult to understand English to difficult to understand German did not really help.

petermad for some reason did not have any problems with understanding, he supported my thought.

There is a reason why he didn't ask about it.

Hacker (Moderator)

[Fla$her]

What rhetorical question?

The one you quoted:

Do you think that in this sentence it is written that I am asking you to "replace the text in parentheses"?

Obviously, in my first post there is no meaning indicated in quotation marks. Therefore, this question was purely rhetorical.

What "old motives"?

They are implied in this phrase:

I remember where the regulars (and users with ~586 posts) are bickering so harshly, uselessly and not knowing when to stop