Look...Now that riskarb has been banned several weeks now can he come back?

[zdreg]

ask most child rearing experts. they explain that you critcize the actions of the child but do not say the child is a worthless good for nothing.

as mentioned before nothing precludes explaining why the action is an example of a........

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from ElectricSavant:

Perhaps some come here for entertainment?

People who abuse EliteTrader and its members, and who interfere with its serious discussions, and who do so for selfish entertainment purposes, should be banned from the website.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from zdreg:

ask most child rearing experts. they explain that you critcize the actions of the child but do not say the child is a worthless good for nothing.

This is not what you are saying. You are saying that the action or statement is that of a crybaby or whiner. This is semantically equivalent to calling your target a crybaby or whiner. If you tell your child that his actions are those of a worthless good for nothing, this is no different from telling your child that he is a worthless good for nothing. The point is to explain why the actions are bad, without either direct or indirect name-calling.

 

[zdreg]

who can argue with your statement. the devil is in the details. there are some pretty thin skinned moderators and members on the ET board.

great policy statement but not a manual.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from jimrockford:

This is not what you are saying. You are saying that the action or statement is that of a crybaby or whiner. This is semantically equivalent to calling your target a crybaby or whiner. If you tell your child that his actions are those of a worthless good for nothing, this is no different from telling your child that he is a worthless good for nothing. The point is to explain why the actions are bad, without either direct or indirect name-calling.

we have a difference of opinion of semantic equivalence. perhaps a poll can help.

saying that a person's action is that of a crazy person is not the same as saying the person is crazy.
that is my opinion. that is the difference between you and me

 

[sulong]

Quote from jimrockford:

People who abuse EliteTrader and its members, and who interfere with its serious discussions, and who do so for selfish entertainment purposes, should be banned from the website.

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.
Abuse and interference in conversations is fine as long as abuser and interferer are not doing it for entertainment.
Happy to have you as our decider.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Wait.... my eidetic switch is on the fritz.....

not getting any signal....

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from sulong:

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.
Abuse and interference in conversations is fine as long as abuser and interferer are not doing it for entertainment.
Happy to have you as our decider.

No, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. If the abuser's purpose is clearly for amusement, he should be banned. If it is not, then ET should be more careful, and the issue becomes more complicated. I certainly did not mean to suggest that abuse should be tolerated just because the intent was other than entertainment. I was avoiding expressing any opinion, in that case, because it is a more difficult situation. But in the very simple situation, of people abusing others for entertainment, I think it is much easier to make a general statement that such abusers should be banned.

 

[zdreg]

maybe this is some kind of joke, but riskarb has been posting

 

[ElectricSavant]

i'M tED bELL