locked
Dear Mr. 3-Box RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I'm opening this up as a discussion.

    This is related to forums issues because 3-Box has some questions and comments about forums (two of his accounts were banned, he has issues with the behavior of others, etc.) that might be good to talk through. It's already been very helpful in this thread: http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/reportabug/thread/190773f6-acff-4c49-ad2f-11e3088fe070/

    It was helpful because several people had the chance to explain their actions, and Mr. 3-Box is explaining the issues I mentioned above.

    I recommend that no one engages in this discussion if they are here to argue.

    Mr. 3-Box is very intelligent, and you don't want to argue with him. =^)

    But I suppose if you want to argue with me, it might be short. I'll probably just let you win. =^)

     

    Mr. 3-Box,

    Where we left off...

    I believe it's clear that you are the former accounts 1-Box and Mr. Red-Box, correct?

    Also, you are correct that I cannot see the Mr. Red-Box replies from those other threads.

    - It doesn't look like Mike or Al are offending each other here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproui/thread/41cee6c3-ef36-4849-8b3f-f74c15693cf9

    Mike, if you were offended by Al, I think it's clear that he didn't intend that (he's apologized once already).

     

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM

All replies

  • Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:11 PM
  • Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:15 PM
  •  

    (the first image in the first thread above was an animated gif)

     

    Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:23 PM
  • I'll add this, and then I think I'm through here.

    Ed, you'll notice an conspicuous absence of a response from me, directly before Dunbar's first (and pointless) reply interruption.

     

    Here's what I didn't say at that point:

    Mike, I take it you do not have a copy of Vista to experiment with.

    • Unfortunately, Microsoft is exceedingly uncooperative about making test copies available.
    • You can probably get it from the torrents, but I'd get banned (again) for advising that.
    • You can probably get a guaranteed 100% clean copy from a direct DigitalRiver download.  But I'd get banned (again) for telling you how.
    • Even if I used a new penname, as I have in the past, it'd still get caught and deleted (as it has before for the same reason).
    • Even though other "favored" members here have always posted those DR links, and continue to this very day.

    So buddy, you're on your own.  Good luck.

     

    Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:09 PM
  • I'll add this, and then I think I'm through here.

    Ed, you'll notice an conspicuous absence of a response from me, directly before Dunbar's first (and pointless) reply interruption.

     

    Here's what I didn't say at that point:

    Mike, I take it you do not have a copy of Vista to experiment with.

    • Unfortunately, Microsoft is exceedingly uncooperative about making test copies available.
    • You can probably get it from the torrents, but I'd get banned (again) for advising that.
    • You can probably get a guaranteed 100% clean copy from a direct DigitalRiver download.  But I'd get banned (again) for telling you how.
    • Even if I used a new penname, as I have in the past, it'd still get caught and deleted (as it has before for the same reason).
    • Even though other "favored" members here have always posted those DR links, and continue to this very day.

    So buddy, you're on your own.  Good luck.

     


    Whoa! That's a lot. =^)

    Okay, so you're Mr. Red-Box right? that's the one I'm looking at where you're finishing that conversation?

    And then in the thread you linked to for Mike... that shows that you're also all those other ones... 4-box and 1-box, right?

    That's a lot of accounts! Any particular reason?

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:57 PM
  • I'll add this, and then I think I'm through here.

    Ed, you'll notice an conspicuous absence of a response from me, directly before Dunbar's first (and pointless) reply interruption.

     

    Here's what I didn't say at that point:

    Mike, I take it you do not have a copy of Vista to experiment with.

    • Unfortunately, Microsoft is exceedingly uncooperative about making test copies available.
    • You can probably get it from the torrents, but I'd get banned (again) for advising that.
    • You can probably get a guaranteed 100% clean copy from a direct DigitalRiver download. But I'd get banned (again) for telling you how.
    • Even if I used a new penname, as I have in the past, it'd still get caught and deleted (as it  has  before for the same reason).
    • Even though  other "favored" members  here have always posted those DR links, and continue to this very day.

    So buddy, you're on your own. Good luck.

     

    • Edited by ᅠᅠᅠ Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:35 PM click them. thats a lot of red boxes.
    Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:29 PM
  • I did. It seems the Favored Members are on Microsoft Answers, is that right?

    Yeah, that one thread everyone has a red box. Did some people get in a reporting fight? =^)

    So you're Mr. Red-Box right?

    And then in the thread you linked to for Mike... that shows that you're also all those other ones... 4-box and 1-box, right?

    That's a lot of accounts! Any particular reason?

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:53 PM
  • I did. It seems the Favored Members are on Microsoft Answers, is that right?

    Yeah, that one thread everyone has a red box. Did some people get in a reporting fight? =^)

    So you're Mr. Red-Box right?

    And then in the thread you linked to for Mike... that shows that you're also all those other ones... 4-box and 1-box, right?

    That's a lot of accounts! Any particular reason?

    Thanks!

     

    I am glad to see you have not lost your fecetious sense of humor, Ed.

    I think (nearly) all of those abusive red-boxes were tagged by the same person.  Don't you too?

    If you would terminate a rhetorical question with a period, Ed, then people will recognize it is a statement, and not really a question.   =^)

     

     

    btw - you never did say what you thought about this thread.

    Friday, January 27, 2012 12:53 AM
  • I can't speak for Mike, but you are right in your assumption that I took no offence from anything he posted. I disagreed with some aspects of his posts, perhaps, but we are all free to have our own opinions and disagree. Hey, if we only ever agreed on everything, what would be the reason for having a discussion? I would hazard a guess that it is precisely this element of disagreement (or dispute) that Mr. 3-Box finds so compelling about the dialogs he engages in here.

    I don't even feel offended by what said about me in the first thread you linked above. He is also free to hold whatever opinions he has about me or anyone/anything else. Your posts gave the exchange enough balance that I felt it would suffice for other readers to come to their own conclusions, without me giving my version.

    It is very generous of you to have "opened this up for discussion". Only time will tell if a discussion actually ensues, but one can always hope.

    Friday, January 27, 2012 1:27 AM
  • I am glad to see you have not lost your fecetious sense of humor, Ed.

    I think (nearly) all of those abusive red-boxes were tagged by the same person.  Don't you too?

    If you would terminate a rhetorical question with a period, Ed, then people will recognize it is a statement, and not really a question.   =^)

     

     

    btw - you never did say what you thought about this thread.

    You used my smiley face! Nice!

    Oh, I thought maybe you and one other person got into a flag war or something (wasn't sure how that happened). I'm not a moderator there, so I can't clear the flags.

    Regarding my questions... Ah, so is the answer yes? It seems obvious, because above you are continuing the conversation that Mr. Red-Box started and you link to forums where there's banter from the 1-box and 4-box account.

    I was just asking because I'd rather not assume. It seems pretty clear now that you put it that way, though. So I'll take that as a yes.

    About the thread link... the locked one?

    Oh yeah, you mentioned that like three conversations ago! =^)

    I looked at it. I didn't reply? Thought I had. What am I looking for? Looks like an argument between Ziffel and Patron. You asked us because you wanted the thread deleted, right? Or just unlocked?

    Wait, I think Dr. Arnold Ziffel actually was the one who asked me to check out that thread. Let me go check... http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/reportabug/thread/38d70d10-fc54-4bb9-844b-dc614567cca5/#2d9de040-3989-4914-b9e8-c79998ecc915

    Um, are you Ziffel too? How many people are you? LOL

    It reminds me of that one kid who claimed he was an older doctor with these degrees in religion and other things... he was one of the top editors on Wikipedia. Then they caught him somehow and found out he was a kid and had no credentials for all his advanced theories that he was putting on Wikipedia and justifying with his experience.

    His defense was that he was trying to protect his identity.

    But of course, you're probably the opposite. You probably really are a doctor. =^)

    I don't know why people bother arguing with you. I told them not to in this thread. They'll just lose. =^)

    Have a good weekend!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Friday, January 27, 2012 3:25 AM
  • I can't speak for Mike, but you are right in your assumption that I took no offence from anything he posted. I disagreed with some aspects of his posts, perhaps, but we are all free to have our own opinions and disagree. Hey, if we only ever agreed on everything, what would be the reason for having a discussion? I would hazard a guess that it is precisely this element of disagreement (or dispute) that Mr. 3-Box finds so compelling about the dialogs he engages in here.

    I don't even feel offended by what said about me in the first thread you linked above. He is also free to hold whatever opinions he has about me or anyone/anything else. Your posts gave the exchange enough balance that I felt it would suffice for other readers to come to their own conclusions, without me giving my version.

    It is very generous of you to have "opened this up for discussion". Only time will tell if a discussion actually ensues, but one can always hope.

    Al,

    You were an MVP in scripting? I just noticed that. They stopped offering that one, right?

    Yeah, disgreeing should be fine. I just don't think disagreements need to turn into soap operas. =^)

    My recommendation is if we stay away from name calling and pushing each others buttons. But that's my only recommendation. Like you've mentioned before, it's easy to offend in text.

    Well I think the discussion is ensuing now.

    Thanks!

     


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Friday, January 27, 2012 3:30 AM
  • Ed, I am going to ask you 4 point-blank questions.  Please don't dodge them.

     

    1)  See the first thread screenshot above.   (btw, which took considerable effort to present here)

    Please find Dunbar's first "reply" there.

    Isn't that a by-definition, classic, offtopic argumentative hijacking?

     

    2)  See the second thread screenshot above.  (which also took effort to present here)

    Please review Vishdafish's "reply" there.

    Didn't it pretend to be authoritative, when it was in fact 100% incorrect?

    Hadn't Dunbar already seen in thread (1) above that it was 100% false?

    Isn't the suggestion to use 3rd-party software, but "I don't advise it" a totally contradiction?

    What remains after that nonsense is ignored?  Nothing?

    Since this is all so obvious, why do you think Dunbar submitted a lecture defending it?

    Was that you who voted-up Dunbar's abusive lecture?

     

    3)  See this thread which is a long string of red-boxed posts.

    It began ("OP") as a malicious-moderation complaint, naming one moderator specifically.

    Review just the first few replies there, then skim the rest for that moderator's participation.

    Take an educated guess who red-boxed the majority of the posts there.

    And why.

     

    4)  See this thread which is locked, with moderated un-Proposed answers.

    It should be apparent that most of that thread was an engagement with a lying arguing abusive nntp-troll.

    Coincidentally, that troll happens to be a designated "answerer" on the sister Answers site.

    You may not be able to tell, but most of his posts were marked "abusive" there.  They have been cleared.

    Why do you think he was protected by that moderator, who coincidentally was named in (3) above.

     

    5)  Bonus question.

    What do you think would have happened if I was the other half of that string of exchanges in (4) above?

    Me, instead of Dr Arnold Ziffel (oink) PhD.

    Do you think my posts would still be there?  Or would they be deleted?

    Would my profile have been banned for demanding that truth be told?

    That truth, which is a word-for-word verbatim recital of the MS Windows EULA.

     

     

     

    Ed, I am not interested in winning anything here.

    In truth, I find that point-recognition system which you advocate to be a dis-incentive (whose effect is to reduce quality here).

    Those are your values, not mine.  Please don't project your values onto me in this conversation.

    Nor did I not open this thread to perpetuate an argument with you.  I am not the OP here.

    Please don't try to turntable this conversation, which you solicited, into an argument that I am trying to win.

     

    Had you responded differently from the start of this whole sequence, showing genuine interest, instead of candy-coating, dodging, distorting and trying to discredit what was plainly demonstrated, which you had asked about, then I would have followed up with a private email explaining the recent events that I believe actually led to this recent flurry of bannings.  Now I won't.

    It really doesn't matter anyway.

     

    • Edited by ᅠᅠᅠ Friday, January 27, 2012 7:27 AM it should tell you something that this current profile is not yet deleted
    Friday, January 27, 2012 7:04 AM
  • Ed, I am going to ask you 4 point-blank questions.  Please don't dodge them.

     

    1)  See the first thread screenshot above.   (btw, which took considerable effort to present here)

    Please find Dunbar's first "reply" there.

    Isn't that a by-definition, classic, offtopic argumentative hijacking?

     

    2)  See the second thread screenshot above.  (which also took effort to present here)

    Please review Vishdafish's "reply" there.

    Didn't it pretend to be authoritative, when it was in fact 100% incorrect?

    Hadn't Dunbar already seen in thread (1) above that it was 100% false?

    Isn't the suggestion to use 3rd-party software, but "I don't advise it" a totally contradiction?

    What remains after that nonsense is ignored?  Nothing?

    Since this is all so obvious, why do you think Dunbar submitted a lecture defending it?

    Was that you who voted-up Dunbar's abusive lecture?

     

    3)  See this thread which is a long string of red-boxed posts.

    It began ("OP") as a malicious-moderation complaint, naming one moderator specifically.

    Review just the first few replies there, then skim the rest for that moderator's participation.

    Take an educated guess who red-boxed the majority of the posts there.

    And why.

     

    4)  See this thread which is locked, with moderated un-Proposed answers.

    It should be apparent that most of that thread was an engagement with a lying arguing abusive nntp-troll.

    Coincidentally, that troll happens to be a designated "answerer" on the sister Answers site.

    You may not be able to tell, but most of his posts were marked "abusive" there.  They have been cleared.

    Why do you think he was protected by that moderator, who coincidentally was named in (3) above.

     

    5)  Bonus question.

    What do you think would have happened if I was the other half of that string of exchanges in (4) above?

    Me, instead of Dr Arnold Ziffel (oink) PhD.

    Do you think my posts would still be there?  Or would they be deleted?

    Would my profile have been banned for demanding that truth be told?

    That truth, which is a word-for-word verbatim recital of the MS Windows EULA.

     

     

     

    Ed, I am not interested in winning anything here.

    In truth, I find that point-recognition system which you advocate to be a dis-incentive (whose effect is to reduce quality here).

    Those are your values, not mine.  Please don't project your values onto me in this conversation.

    Nor did I not open this thread to perpetuate an argument with you.  I am not the OP here.

    Please don't try to turntable this conversation, which you solicited, into an argument that I am trying to win.

     

    Had you responded differently from the start of this whole sequence, showing genuine interest, instead of candy-coating, dodging, distorting and trying to discredit what was plainly demonstrated, which you had asked about, then I would have followed up with a private email explaining the recent events that I believe actually led to this recent flurry of bannings.  Now I won't.

    It really doesn't matter anyway.

     


    Mr. 3-Box,

    Maybe you could make a deal with Ed that would have him answer your questions in return for you answering the questions he has asked you. How could that not be a fair deal?

    Unless, of course, you think Ed would take your answers and then not answer your questions.

    So, the deal could go the other way with him answering first. But then, he might be concerned that you might not hold your end of the bargain.

    These standoff things are tricky when discussions take place in the ether rather than face-to-face in a coffee shop. Too bad we can't actually do that, as I have found face-to-face discussions to be better for settling differences and arriving at a concensus.

    But here is an idea. You have listed five questions above. Perhaps Ed could list five of his questions that you have not yet answered. I cannot speak for Ed, of course, but I suspect he would volunteer to go first and answer your question number one. He would then answer your question number two, after you have answered his question number one, and so on.

    Sounds to me like a win-win situation, assuming, of course, that Ed would agree to this sort of arrangement.

    Friday, January 27, 2012 10:23 PM
  • Al,

    You were an MVP in scripting? I just noticed that. They stopped offering that one, right?

    <snip>

     


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)


    Yes, my four years as an MVP was a very interesting time. The first award came in 2003 as recognition for me having provided some useful info and help to people in the old Microsoft public newsgroups. There were few scripting MVP's at the time, so it was not nearly as difficult to become an MVP in VBScript then as it would be in Powershell now. That is not to say that the caliber was lower then, just that there were fewer VBScript experts.

    Main highlights were the MVP Global summits in 2005 and 2007, where I met so many of the people I had come to know and respect in the online community (some of whom are now Powershell or Directory Services MVP's), plus the (infamous) "scripting guy(s)" and members of the Powershell and Exchange development teams, and etc.

    In four years I never got over the feeling that I somehow managed to get into "the magic kingdom" because of some huge mistake!

    I better stop now before someone notices the somewhat off-topic nature of this reply. In my defense, you did ask... ;-)

     

    Friday, January 27, 2012 10:51 PM
  • Mr. 3-Box,

    Maybe you could make a deal with Ed that would have him answer your questions in return for you answering the questions he has asked you.



    Dunbar, maybe you would like to stand-in for Ed and answer (1) and (2).

    Unless of course, you feel there is something inaccurate in the screenshots of the threads posted above which you'd like to dispute.

     

     

    I think I already cleared the air by stating I tagged your post abusive, and gave the reasons, in the earlier locked thread.  Some of those reasons are illustrated by the screenshots above.  Other examples were cited.  But some of the best examples are given by your very words in this present thread.

    To be sure, I was also tempted to tag you abusive again, when you first posted into this thread with that remark "Only time will tell if a discussion actually ensues".   I was stunned to see Ed put a smileyface on that.  I am even more tempted to tag you for what you just said, which I just quoted above.

    But instead, I'll just wait patiently for you to put a good spin on (1) and (2).

     

    Friday, January 27, 2012 11:28 PM
  • In truth, I find that point-recognition system which you advocate to be a dis-incentive (whose effect is to reduce quality here).

    Those are your values, not mine. Please don't project your values onto me in this conversation.


    Wow, 3-Box,

    You have so much to say!

    Okay, I'll start with this one...

    What? =^)

     

    I'm projecting those values? Can you explain please?

    Forums all around the Internetz are doing this. Some, like Stack Overflow, even unlock admin priviledges with your points! It's pretty complex!

    So when I heard that the forums were going to have these points... I did nothing. =^)

    I thought it was cool... like Xbox achievements. But I only just stuck around on TechNet Wiki, doing the social Wiki thing. Not really going for medals or points (they weren't even available on Wiki then).

    After a year or two I slowly got used to the forums and started to understand their value. Now I get it. Lots of folks answer questions, and their points show how well they know their topics (or at least how perseverant they are). It is what it is, and nothing more. So I just try to take it at face value. Points don't mean as much as actually getting to know someone.

    So that's my story with the points and achievements. Not much of a story, is it? =^)

    More later, thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)

    Friday, January 27, 2012 11:37 PM
  • Ed, it was Al's turn.

    If you are just going put up a wall-of-text smokescreen to cover the embarrassment, which I mistakenly stepped into by tagging him the other day, not knowing he is a former MVP, (and which served as an excuse to ban those profiles), and which he continues making even worse, then, we have nothing to discuss.

    It is exactly the same Good 'Ol Boy behavior in Questions (4) and (5) above, which you have again dodged answering.

     

    Ed, we're done talking.  You're insincere.

    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:06 AM
  • Mr. 3-Box,

    Maybe you could make a deal with Ed that would have him answer your questions in return for you answering the questions he has asked you. How could that not be a fair deal?

    Unless, of course, you think Ed would take your answers and then not answer your questions.

    So, the deal could go the other way with him answering first. But then, he might be concerned that you might not hold your end of the bargain.

    These standoff things are tricky when discussions take place in the ether rather than face-to-face in a coffee shop. Too bad we can't actually do that, as I have found face-to-face discussions to be better for settling differences and arriving at a concensus.

    But here is an idea. You have listed five questions above. Perhaps Ed could list five of his questions that you have not yet answered. I cannot speak for Ed, of course, but I suspect he would volunteer to go first and answer your question number one. He would then answer your question number two, after you have answered his question number one, and so on.

    Sounds to me like a win-win situation, assuming, of course, that Ed would agree to this sort of arrangement.

    Ha!

    I like that! I won't force it though. But it sounds fair. I'll answer those 5 later (before or after 3-Box does, I don't care).

    Here are my 5 questions for 3-Box...

    1. Are you Dr. Ziffel (as you implied with the thread links and by continuing that question Ziffel asked me earlier), Mister Red-Box, and all those Box accounts (the profiles say they used to be called Deronsec and some other names that I can't remember)?

    2. I know some of the answer to #1 is true (but not all of it, so it's a real question). So why do some of your accounts get banned (it doesn't seem to happen to anyone else; what are you doing that gets you banned)?

    3. Even if they keep getting banned, that's only a reason to have one account at a time, not a lot of accounts. Why do you have so many accounts (do you have them propose each other or talk to each other or anything like that)?

    4. I get it that people frustrate you and vice versa (I think it happens to all of us in these forums, including me). Would you be up for figuring out why you get banned and then stopping doing those things, whatever they might be?

    BONUS: 5. If you could be a flower, what kind of flower would you be, and what would you smell like?

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:07 AM
  • Al,

    You were an MVP in scripting? I just noticed that. They stopped offering that one, right?

    <snip>

     


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)


    Yes, my four years as an MVP was a very interesting time. The first award came in 2003 as recognition for me having provided some useful info and help to people in the old Microsoft public newsgroups. There were few scripting MVP's at the time, so it was not nearly as difficult to become an MVP in VBScript then as it would be in Powershell now. That is not to say that the caliber was lower then, just that there were fewer VBScript experts.

    Main highlights were the MVP Global summits in 2005 and 2007, where I met so many of the people I had come to know and respect in the online community (some of whom are now Powershell or Directory Services MVP's), plus the (infamous) "scripting guy(s)" and members of the Powershell and Exchange development teams, and etc.

    In four years I never got over the feeling that I somehow managed to get into "the magic kingdom" because of some huge mistake!

    I better stop now before someone notices the somewhat off-topic nature of this reply. In my defense, you did ask... ;-)

     


    Yes, I did. That's pretty cool! It's humble, too. I'm sure you deserved it (and still do).
    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:09 AM
  • Ed, it was Al's turn.

    If you are just going put up a wall-of-text smokescreen to cover the embarrassment, which I mistakenly stepped into by tagging him the other day, not knowing he is a former MVP, (and which served as an excuse to ban those profiles), and which he continues making even worse, then, we have nothing to discuss.

    It is exactly the same Good 'Ol Boy behavior in Questions (4) and (5) above, which you have again dodged answering.

     

    Ed, we're done talking.  You're insincere.


    Als's turn to answer the questions? Okay, that's fine.

    No good old boy. I'm nice to everyone. Even chipmunks.

    I'll answer your 5 questions later (just a time issue; not dodging).

    Also, please answer my 5 questions too. That sounds pretty fair.

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:18 AM
  • Ed, wtf.  This is definitely my last post to this thread.

    I have to believe you are doing this deliberately.  Doing what, you say?

     

    Look at that screenshot.  In the upper right corner.  Where it says

    Sign out

    Mister Red-Box

     

    How in the world do you think I got  signed-in  as Mister Red-Box unless that's my (defunct) account?

    And do you see any +1 votes on my posts there?  No.  How dare you insinuate.

    That kind of superficiality is your speciality, Ed.

     

    Kiss my butt.

    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:35 AM
  • Ed, wtf.  This is definitely my last post to this thread.

    I have to believe you are doing this deliberately.  Doing what, you say?

     

    Look at that screenshot.  In the upper right corner.  Where it says

    Sign out

    Mister Red-Box

     

    How in the world do you think I got  signed-in  as Mister Red-Box unless that's my (defunct) account?

    And do you see any +1 votes on my posts there?  No.  How dare you insinuate.

    That kind of superficiality is your speciality, Ed.

     

    Kiss my butt.


    Mister 3-Box,

    Doing what deliberately? Asking questions that I know the answers to? No, actually. Yes, it's obvious about Mr. Red-Box when you say it like that. =^)

    But I don't know about Ziffel (you implied that but never said it). So the #1 question is still real... I really am curious.

    My #3 question... that's not insinuating. It's a real question. Why would you own so many accounts and jump around like that? The only reasons I can think of are so that you can act like different people, so you can come in and say something to back another account up, or so that you can propose answers. I'm curious if those are real or if there are other reasons.

    Also, I never said anything about "voting as helpful". Yes, that one's obvious to me (like you said, it would have votes on it). Plus I know you don't care about the points (even though you've earned quite a few, so you obviously know a lot and can be very helpful in the forums).

    However, what about proposing another one of your accounts as an answer? Have you done that?

    And then what are the other reasons why you might have so many accounts at the same time? I'm just curious.

    I'll answer your questions too.

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:45 AM
  • Ed, it was Al's turn.

    If you are just going put up a wall-of-text smokescreen to cover the embarrassment, which I mistakenly stepped into by tagging him the other day, not knowing he is a former MVP, (and which served as an excuse to ban those profiles), and which he continues making even worse, then, we have nothing to discuss.

    It is exactly the same Good 'Ol Boy behavior in Questions (4) and (5) above, which you have again dodged answering.

     

    Ed, we're done talking.  You're insincere.


    Mr. 3-Box,

    My turn? you asked Ed a question first then referred it to me later. Seems reasonable for him to take the first crack at it. Maybe if it had been you that started this discussion, and not Ed, it would be reasonable for you to set the rules of procedure...

    Of course, Ed had no way of knowing when I would be available to respond, so he replied that he would start answering your questions later. Hardly jumping the queue...

    Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:10 AM
  • Mr. 3-Box,

    Maybe you could make a deal with Ed that would have him answer your questions in return for you answering the questions he has asked you.



    Dunbar, maybe you would like to stand-in for Ed and answer (1) and (2).

    Unless of course, you feel there is something inaccurate in the screenshots of the threads posted above which you'd like to dispute.

     

     

    I think I already cleared the air by stating I tagged your post abusive, and gave the reasons, in the earlier locked thread.  Some of those reasons are illustrated by the screenshots above.  Other examples were cited.  But some of the best examples are given by your very words in this present thread.

    To be sure, I was also tempted to tag you abusive again, when you first posted into this thread with that remark "Only time will tell if a discussion actually ensues".   I was stunned to see Ed put a smileyface on that.  I am even more tempted to tag you for what you just said, which I just quoted above.

    But instead, I'll just wait patiently for you to put a good spin on (1) and (2).

     

    Mr. 3-Box,

    First thing, I'll have to agree with you about having "cleared the air". I wondered who had flagged my reply as abusive. You said it was you, and then went on to give a detailed rationale for having done so. I wanted to respond that I appreciated the clarification, but when I got back to the thread it had already been closed.

    My "only time will tell" remark in this thread was not directed at you. It has been my experience that discussions of this nature generally involve only those directly involved in a dispute, and that it can often be difficult to achieve resolution. As well, others tend to steer clear to avoid inflaming things.

    But I infer from some of your comments that you may feel that a real discussion has not ensued: "... and then I'm through here", "... facetious sense of humor", "Ed, we're done talking. You're insincere". And above you have asked me to answer some questions, but then indicate that you are expecting me to spin them rather than give an honst answer.

    If you agree that a discussion has not ensued, then that would make my comment seem, well, freakishly prophetic.

    If, on the other hand, you feel that a real discussion is now in progress, then I was right and time has told. If that is truly your opinion, I will concede that the implied negativity of my comment was unfortunate and misplaced. In either case little or no lasting harm has been done.

    So on to your questions. Being no mind reader, I do not know how Ed would answer so I'll answer from my own point of view.

    But first, I appreciate the effort you put in to present the context of those other discussions. I did not do any of my own screen captures to compare, but it does not appear that any of my comments have been altered from the original.

    Q.1) I'll break this question down into its parts:

    1.a) offtopic ... hijacking: in the strictest sense, yes, calling it a hijacking post would not be completely inaccurate, unless perhaps intent and effect were to be considered.
    1.b) classic: I'm not sure on this part. would a hijacking that was not classic be somehow less of a problem? If you do not agree that this is not a critical aspect of your charge, I will concede this point.
    1.c) argumentative: no. contrary or unexpected, perhaps, but not argumentative. A rhetorical question, perhaps, but these can sometimes be useful.

    I made that post because it seemed to me that Mike's client was wanting him to fix something that I felt was not actually broken. Sometimes the best answer to a question is one completely different from the initial expectation of the asker. Especially when it is an easier path to follow, as in not attempting something that might be difficult or impossible because it turns out not to be important.

    But let's consider what followed that particular post: Mike and I had a short side discussion in which he clarified the context for me. You had also objected to my next post: "... Personally, I also doubt that what he has told you is absolutely true...", however, you might remember that Mike's reply to that statement was "... you are correct...".

    Further down-thread Mike invited me and a "Mister Red-box" to respond to a related thread he had started elsewhere.

    Marginally off topic in that it was not a direct answer to a specific question. But it was related to the OP's initial statement: "This is for a customer; I fix PCs for a living". And, as per my intention, it did not cause the thread to degrade into an argument. Neither did my next reply seek to be argumentative or critical of Mike. I will admit that it was somewhat critical of Mike's client, to whom I would apologize if he were reading this.

    If Mike were to indicate that he was offended by my comments, I would apologize to him. You seem to have been offended so I'll offer you another apology.

    I could say that if the comments were indeed offensive, Mike was the obvious direct target, and wonder why you, a collateral offendee, would seem offended to the extent that you would feel it your place to speak on behalf of Mike. But I concede that that is not necessarily inappropriate, as I did basically the same thing in the other thread. Perhaps we are more alike than either of us realize.

    So, that is my answer to your question number one. I hope you take it in the spirit it is intended.

    Now on to question number two.

    But wait a minute, it contains four questions expecting a yes/no answer, and two questions only Ed can answer, as they refer specifically to his opinions.

    Also, it would be helpful to hear your comments on my answer above before forging ahead.

    And finally, you seem to have accepted the idea of alternating between your questions and Ed's. If so, this would seem a good time for you to answer his first one:

    1. Are you Dr. Ziffel (as you implied with the thread links and by continuing that question Ziffel asked me earlier), Mister Red-Box, and all those Box accounts (the profiles say they used to be called Deronsec and some other names that I can't remember)?

     


    Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:15 AM
  •  

    Al, please don't stalk my posts.

     

    And if you must, please research your sermons first.

     

     

    Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:32 PM
  •  

    Al, please don't stalk my posts.

     

    And if you must, please research your sermons first.

     

     


    Mr 3-Box,

    Yikes, it seems I can hardly touch my keyboard around here without offending you.

    If you have a problem with something I said elsewhere, it might be better to take me to task there rather than bring it up here, where the subject is a couple of specific posts of mine that we ahve yet to reach agreement on. I am afraid we may never get there if we have to keep adding my new transgressions to the list.

    Anyway, back to this thread. You asked me to answer two questions. I answered the first one. What did you think of what I said?

     

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:10 AM
  • While we're asking discussion questions, how about this one:

    , why do you feel the need to sweep through after the fact and delete pretty much everything you write?  It seems to be you and (mostly) not others who are deleting your posts, and it seems clear at least some part of you would like your work to remain online for others to benefit from.  That's a noble goal.  You mention the amount of effort you put into things often enough to make me believe that you'd like to be appreciated.  Ed, Al, and I are saying we'd like to help you achieve that.

    Can we assume you do these deletions because some part of you is ashamed of your bad behavior (e.g., name-calling, confrontational remarks, profanity)?  Perhaps you should try to let that part guide you all the time - that's how good people get along in the world.  Sure, we all mutter under our breath now and then - we just don't let it out, whether we can hide behind anonymity or not.  That's just the way life is.

    You seem to feel that what you have to say is important. I GUARANTEE you people aren't going to listen to you or take you seriously, whether your IQ is 150 or not, if you insult them.

    In another thread I asked a question that you did not answer:  Does your mother know what you write here?  If it helps, imagine that she'll read every post, and think about how you want to make her proud.  If she's gone from this world, as mine is, imagine she's still following your good works through God's own internet connection.  :)

    As I have suggested before, why not abandon all your anonymous BS accounts and start fresh with one that has your own name, and write only things that you'll be proud of having said, as though you're meeting the people you have written to.  See how many points you can gather by helping people. 

    What goes around comes around.

    Best of luck to you.

     

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:00 AM
  •  

    From:  ᅠᅠᅠ                                                                             Time: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:32 PM

     

    Al, please don't stalk my posts.

    And if you must, please research your sermons first.


    Mr. 3-Box,

    Al is a regular to that forum. His post was in context. I don't think he was intentionally looking for your posts. It's just a small world because you frequent the same forums (Windows 7, mostly) with the same people.

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:07 PM
  • From:  ᅠᅠᅠ                                                                                            Time: Friday, January 27, 2012 7:04 AM

     

    Ed, I am going to ask you 4 point-blank questions.  Please don't dodge them.

     

    1)  See the first thread screenshot above.   (btw, which took considerable effort to present here)

    Please find Dunbar's first "reply" there.

    Isn't that a by-definition, classic, offtopic argumentative hijacking?

     

    2)  See the second thread screenshot above.  (which also took effort to present here)

    Please review Vishdafish's "reply" there.

    Didn't it pretend to be authoritative, when it was in fact 100% incorrect?

    Hadn't Dunbar already seen in thread (1) above that it was 100% false?

    Isn't the suggestion to use 3rd-party software, but "I don't advise it" a totally contradiction?

    What remains after that nonsense is ignored?  Nothing?

    Since this is all so obvious, why do you think Dunbar submitted a lecture defending it?

    Was that you who voted-up Dunbar's abusive lecture?

     

    3)  See this thread which is a long string of red-boxed posts.

    It began ("OP") as a malicious-moderation complaint, naming one moderator specifically.

    Review just the first few replies there, then skim the rest for that moderator's participation.

    Take an educated guess who red-boxed the majority of the posts there.

    And why.

     

    4)  See this thread which is locked, with moderated un-Proposed answers.

    It should be apparent that most of that thread was an engagement with a lying arguing abusive nntp-troll.

    Coincidentally, that troll happens to be a designated "answerer" on the sister Answers site.

    You may not be able to tell, but most of his posts were marked "abusive" there.  They have been cleared.

    Why do you think he was protected by that moderator, who coincidentally was named in (3) above.

     

    5)  Bonus question.

    What do you think would have happened if I was the other half of that string of exchanges in (4) above?

    Me, instead of Dr Arnold Ziffel (oink) PhD.

    Do you think my posts would still be there?  Or would they be deleted?

    Would my profile have been banned for demanding that truth be told?

    That truth, which is a word-for-word verbatim recital of the MS Windows EULA.

     

     

     

    Ed, I am not interested in winning anything here.

    In truth, I find that point-recognition system which you advocate to be a dis-incentive (whose effect is to reduce quality here).

    Those are your values, not mine.  Please don't project your values onto me in this conversation.

    Nor did I not open this thread to perpetuate an argument with you.  I am not the OP here.

    Please don't try to turntable this conversation, which you solicited, into an argument that I am trying to win.

     

    Had you responded differently from the start of this whole sequence, showing genuine interest, instead of candy-coating, dodging, distorting and trying to discredit what was plainly demonstrated, which you had asked about, then I would have followed up with a private email explaining the recent events that I believe actually led to this recent flurry of bannings.  Now I won't.

    It really doesn't matter anyway.

     


    As promised, let me answer some of your questions. You answered half of my first question, so I'll restate it again more directly. Here are my questions:

    1. Are you Dr. Ziffel (as you implied with the thread links and by continuing that question Ziffel asked me earlier)?

    2. Why do some of your accounts get banned (it doesn't seem to happen to anyone else; what are you doing that gets you banned)?

    3. Even if they keep getting banned, that's only a reason to have one account at a time, not a lot of accounts. Why do you have so many accounts (do you have them propose each other or talk to each other or anything like that)?

    4. I get it that people frustrate you and vice versa (I think it happens to all of us in these forums, including me). Would you be up for figuring out why you get banned and then stopping doing those things, whatever they might be?

    BONUS (I'll switch to Noel's question): 5. Why do you delete your own replies (and sentences of replies) more often than others delete, edit, and or ban your accounts?

     

    So here's the answer to your #1:  "See the first thread screenshot above. (btw, which took considerable effort to present here) Please find Dunbar's first "reply" there. Isn't that a by-definition, classic, offtopic argumentative hijacking?"

    Was it off topic? Debatable. Al was curious about what Mike was doing. Mike fixes computers, but the question wasn't quite related to fixing. It could be interpreted as rude, but as Al has mentioned, he didn't intend it that way. He was just curious about the context and maybe said it in a way that was a bit direct. Fortunately, Mike handled it well and assumed Al's sincerety. So that's a big kudos for Mike!

     

    Your #2: "See the second thread screenshot above. (which also took effort to present here) Please review Vishdafish's "reply" there. Didn't it pretend to be authoritative, when it was in fact 100% incorrect? Hadn't Dunbar already seen in thread (1) above that it was 100% false? Isn't the suggestion to use 3rd-party software, but "I don't advise it" a totally contradiction? What remains after that nonsense is ignored? Nothing? Since this is all so obvious, why do you think Dunbar submitted a lecture defending it? Was that you who voted-up Dunbar's abusive lecture?"

    That's a whole lot of questions in #2! Yes and no. Did it sound authoritative? Yes. Was it pretending? No. Vishdafish seems to have believed what he was saying, even if it was wrong. He didn't seem to be pretending. He just seemed to be wrong. =^)

    I think Al also saw that the answer was wrong, yes. He seemed to be replying to the verbal attack that Vishdafish got more than Vishdafish's actual answer. So he was addressing the tone of the response and words like "100% wrong" and sort of hand-slap for not reading the directions. That's what Al was addressing. I think both Mike's response to Vishdafish and Al's response to Mike were both harsh. So I agree that Al's response was a bit harsh, and I'm super glad that Al has apologized to Mike and everyone and that Mike has taken it so well.

    So I think Al and I both agree with you and Mike that it was 100% false. However, I don't walk up to someone on the street and say, "You're ugly!" Even if it's true, I think there are polite ways to say things (and sometimes thoughts shouldn't be said). And Al was obviously a little frustrated by Mike's response. But again, they both handled it well.

    Regarding Vishdafish's suggestion to use 3rd-party software as the "best solution" and then to say "but I don't recommend it"... yes, that's just silly. I think Al agrees with that as well.

    Regarding voting up... If you link to the thread again, I can check it out and tell you (to the best of my poor memory) what I did and did not vote up in that thread.

    By the lecture you mean Al's abrasive response to Mike's abrasive response? Well, it was followed by your abrasive response to Al. So there were three abrasive responses with some degree of chastisement... Mike to Vishdafish, Al to Mike, and then you to Al. Mike responded to Al well. Al responded to you with an apology (he also handled it well; he stopped as soon as he realized that he offended somebody, which is what Mike did too). I agree that all three abrasive responses could have been avoided. But both Mike and Al handled the abrasive responses well.

     

    Okay. I answered your first two questions. That second question was more like 4. =^)

    So please answer a few of my questions too.

     

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:35 PM
  • While we're asking discussion questions, how about this one:

    , why do you feel the need to sweep through after the fact and delete pretty much everything you write?  It seems to be you and (mostly) not others who are deleting your posts, and it seems clear at least some part of you would like your work to remain online for others to benefit from.  That's a noble goal.  You mention the amount of effort you put into things often enough to make me believe that you'd like to be appreciated.  Ed, Al, and I are saying we'd like to help you achieve that.

    Can we assume you do these deletions because some part of you is ashamed of your bad behavior (e.g., name-calling, confrontational remarks, profanity)?  Perhaps you should try to let that part guide you all the time - that's how good people get along in the world.  Sure, we all mutter under our breath now and then - we just don't let it out, whether we can hide behind anonymity or not.  That's just the way life is.

    You seem to feel that what you have to say is important. I GUARANTEE you people aren't going to listen to you or take you seriously, whether your IQ is 150 or not, if you insult them.

    In another thread I asked a question that you did not answer:  Does your mother know what you write here?  If it helps, imagine that she'll read every post, and think about how you want to make her proud.  If she's gone from this world, as mine is, imagine she's still following your good works through God's own internet connection.  :)

    As I have suggested before, why not abandon all your anonymous BS accounts and start fresh with one that has your own name, and write only things that you'll be proud of having said, as though you're meeting the people you have written to.  See how many points you can gather by helping people. 

    What goes around comes around.

    Best of luck to you.

     

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options


    That "mother" question might be pushing buttons a bit. Hopefully our mothers love us despite our flaws. =^)

    Also, 3-Box has already mentioned that he doesn't like the points system (so I hope he doesn't take offense at that suggestion). But your suggestion of starting over with one account, being nice, and using one's name and picture toward sincerity seems like a good idea. 

    The "delete" question seems very logical. I replaced my silly bonus question with that one. Thanks, Noel!

     


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:42 PM
  • <snip>


    That "mother" question might be pushing buttons a bit. Hopefully our mothers love us despite our flaws. =^)

    Also, 3-Box has already mentioned that he doesn't like the points system (so I hope he doesn't take offense at that suggestion). But your suggestion of starting over with one account, being nice, and using one's name and picture toward sincerity seems like a good idea. 

    The "delete" question seems very logical. I replaced my silly bonus question with that one. Thanks, Noel!

     


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)


    I concur on the nature of the "mother" question. I also agree that the "delete" question is a reasonable one to ask.

    But it seems to me that, since Mr. 3-Box hasn't added to his list of questions, it may be a bit counter-productive (and even somewhat impolite) to add questions to your list before he has dealt with the original ones.

    - I hope you did not find that comment too "harsh" ;-)

    As an aside, since 3-Box does not like the points system, one might deduce that he uses multiple accounts in order to shed the unwanted points he has collected.

    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:33 PM
  •  

     

    The "mother question" thread.

     

    Last night's "11 vote" self-Answered thread.

     

     


    • Edited by ᅠᅠᅠ Wednesday, February 1, 2012 9:31 PM a portrait of good intentions
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:39 PM
  •  

    From:  ᅠᅠᅠ                                                                             Time: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:32 PM

     

    Al, please don't stalk my posts.

    And if you must, please research your sermons first.


    Mr. 3-Box,

    Al is a regular to that forum. His post was in context. I don't think he was intentionally looking for your posts. It's just a small world because you frequent the same forums (Windows 7, mostly) with the same people.

    Thanks!


    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)

     

     

    • He is not a regular to that forum.  Check his profile history.
    • His reply immediatly followed mine.  Surely he was familiar with this thread about him.
    • His contribution was:  take your complaints elsewhere.  But I know not where.
    • That is both stalking and trolling.
    •  
    • You're taking sides and being a jerk, Ed.

     

    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 7:06 PM
  • From: ᅠᅠᅠ       

                                                          

    • He is not a regular to that forum.  Check his profile history.
    • His reply immediatly followed mine.  Surely he was familiar with this thread about him.
    • His contribution was:  take your complaints elsewhere.  But I know not where.
    • That is both stalking and trolling.
    •  
    • You're taking sides and being a jerk, Ed.

    Alright. I'll check his profile history and get back to you. Thanks!
    Ed Price a.k.a User Ed, Microsoft Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)

    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:08 PM
  • Afterwards, you can review Vishdafish's Recent Activity history.

    • Do you see that the top 10 items are Answers?
    • They are the kind moderators love to mark.  No reply.  Default Answer.
    • They are typically one-liners that anybody could've said, but wouldn't bother.
    • Example:  Help!  I have duplicate User Account names.   Vishdafish: Delete one.   Moderator: Answer. 

     

    He's a techno-spambot here, Ed.  You're defending that?  You want to promote that kind of behavior?

    Yes, Ed.  I know you want to see hundreds and thousands of Answered questions.  But jeez.

     

     

    What a farce.  Ban me for saying so.


    • Edited by ᅠᅠᅠ Wednesday, February 1, 2012 9:43 PM permalink that for posterity
    Wednesday, February 1, 2012 9:04 PM