No, Chris. That wasn't the problem, although it may 'seem' that way to you.
I did not insult anyone who did not draw first blood. (I can think one
possible exception, but I'll deal with the other 'Bob' later)
One of the reasons why it may 'seem' that way to you is because you may not
be reading the posts in the chronological order they were written. The
structure of the thread can give this illusion, but a more careful
examination of the facts will reveal otherwise.
The policy I adhered to in this newsgroup is precisely the same one I adhere
to in all other human relations. I treat people with exactly the same
respect that they accord to me.
To quote myself from an a post I made in reply to 'Two Bob' earlier on this
same thread:
"When people ask anything from me, they must display to me the same respect
that I gave to them, when I asked something from them, or I will not submit
to their demands.
If the cost of this personal policy is not receiving the help I requested
then I would much prefer not to receive it. The price of self-respect is
inestimable. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
The direct inference from your comments here and elsewhere on this thread is
that you expect me (and possibly all newcomers) to submit to this bulling in
order to receive the help that they need.
That is the definitive behaviour of a 'Phil-of-pile's."
end quote.
It's there; go read it for yourself.
Secondly, I may well have asserted "as facts a few things that happen not to
be correct". We all harbour some false beliefs, even Phil. However, I
usually qualify statements that I am unsure of with the pre-amble "the way I
understand it". Not in all cases because like most people I understand some
things better than others. There is not the slightest trace of arrogance in
my manner. Indeed that may be the very reason why I have suffered SO MANY
attacks. em.go.
People usually equate a certain level of arrogance in others with knowledge.
If I display no arrogance then I am adjudged to have little knowledge (of
electronics, in this case). A fact that I have repetitively and consciously
confirmed, with simple admissions of that fact.
So the absence of arrogance AND the inability to defend myself with
knowledge is like a beacon to those who like to play the humiliation game.
It says: "soft target here, he can't defend himself, this is a chance to
humiliate someone".
And so it started. Phil dives in and the 'Phil-o-philes' follow suit, safe
in the knowledge that they can strike and not be stuck back.
Phil is nothing more than a common bully and so are the 'Phil-o-philes' that
trail in his wake. The 'Phil-o-phile' is extraordinarily easy creature to
identify. They are the perpetrators of the "me too" humiliations (flaming)
once Phil as identified a target for them to attack. He is the 'decider', as
he often describes himself (that he was describing himself is an inescapable
conclusion , btw.). The one who "gets to decide what others should accept or
believe."
Of course, the 'decider' must also have his first officers, and this too was
implicit in his statement. He ascribed the power to "decide what others
should accept or believe." with the qualities of a RIGHT, that is something
held by some but not others.
He does not describe on what basis he shares this right with others, but it
is a fairly safe assumption that it requires the display of superior
knowledge or experience. Power is, of course, a perfectly negotiable
commodity, so one can envisage any number of arrangements by which he might
share this power out.
You see, the organisation of 'Phil-o-philes' is essentially and elitist
club and membership has its privileges. The main privilege, is the pleasure
drawn from the public humiliation of innocent targets (or even not so
innocent targets, it doesn't really matter) These are his 'attack dogs' so
to speak.
I don't discount the possibility that other members may have their own
motivations for joining his club. Perhaps they actually like Phil but they
are more likely to be scared of him. In some circumstances their decision to
ally themselves with him is purely a practical one, it gets him off their
back and frees up their time to pursue legitimate interests within the
newsgroup. These people are more likely to be the casual observers of the
humiliations rather than his agent provocateurs.
Now, the attitude that many of the casual observers of this all too
predictable event have taken is that in order to receive the help I need, I
must be prepared acquiesce to this bulling, and they have said as much (in
once case EXACTLY that)
I am of the opinion that the price of self-respect is inestimable. If the
cost of my refusal to acquiesce is that I don't receive the help that I need
then I am prepared to pay that cost. I am completely untroubled by my
position.
