tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (dmb and stp*d on MO)

Yemon Choi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3430)

Yemon Choi — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:24:13 -0800

@qiaochu: I'm not convinced that the purported disconnect is that relevant. I think that one shouldn't extrapolate from small sample sizes: moreover, just because some of us can't follow, it doesn't mean that others wouldn't be able to discern the intended question or germ of an idea, and be able to offer more detailed corrections.

Sadly, I have no way of forcing either Bob Coecke or David Kribs to log on and devote time to this, so I can't really do much more than not comment. Which should really be my policy on this meta-thread, come to think of it.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3429)

Qiaochu Yuan — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:16:49 -0800

The physicist / mathematician disconnect certainly isn't helping matters. As I noted in the comments to Ian's recent question it was responsible for at least one of Pete's questions, the cause of which was a disconnect between how physicists and mathematicians use the word "matrix."

Zev Chonoles comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3428)

Zev Chonoles — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:03:01 -0800

Ian, no matter how much you dislike the users of this site, your questions have been criticized (and some of them closed) for valid reasons. You have previously tried to explain this as being a disconnect between mathematicians and physicists, or as being due to other users' personal quarrels with you; it's quite clear that neither of these is the case. I understand that no one enjoys hearing that their questions or ideas have significant problems, but leaving in anger would only 1) appear to confirm to other users that the criticisms were valid, which I'm sure you do not want, and 2) prevent you from rationally listening to our advice, prolonging the time it will take for you to fix any errors we have correctly pointed out. Lastly - I think I've been quite courteous while making constructive criticisms of your questions,

http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/206/1/threshold-for-reasonable-debate/#Item_8
http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/206/1/threshold-for-reasonable-debate/#Item_26

and I would not appreciate my time having been wasted on someone ultimately unwilling to listen.

Harry Gindi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3426)

Harry Gindi — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:57:30 -0800

I want nothing to do with this site ever again.

Pinky swear?

Ian Durham comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3425)

Ian Durham — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:44:09 -0800

But, Harry, you will notice at nLab that the folks have been much more helpful. It's called simple kindness and encouragement ("Oh, you didn't get that right and it won't work, but have you tried this method?"). Where I come from and how I was raised, what Pete and a few others do around here doesn't qualify as either. Civil? Maybe. Friendly, kind, and encouraging? Far from it.

Either way, I am done with this site. The fact that absolutely no one on this site can see what I'm talking about here (or is willing to come to my defense if they do) is enough for me.

Note to MathOverflow organizers: please kindly delete my account both here and on the main site. I want nothing to do with this site ever again.

Harry Gindi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3422)

Harry Gindi — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:53:20 -0800

No, I think that your responses were actually really charitable for a question that doesn't make any sense. I will note that Ian has been crossposting between here and the nLab, where I've been following this story. You'll notice that much of what he's posted there doesn't make sense either.

Pete L. Clark comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3421)

Pete L. Clark — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:43:32 -0800

I believe that Ian Durham [who has told me that calling him Dr. Durham is condescending] is referring to the following more recent question:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16077/quantum-channels-question-2-tensor-products-and-composition-of-functions

Since I have already apologized twice to Ian Durham for unexpectedly offending him, I don't see what else to add by way of direct response. I do feel the need to take issue with the characterization of my behavior as not "spending a little time trying to undertand where a person is coming from". I made several comments with exactly this goal, and I looked up some things in order to make my comments. I spent at least half an hour doing so. Unfortunately, these are the very comments that Ian Durham found snide and condescending. That inspired a feeling in me: sadness.

If anyone else feels that my comments and/or answers on MO have a snide undertone, please do contact me privately and let me know what, specifically, you have found problematic. Thanks in advance.

Harry Gindi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3420)

Harry Gindi — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:32:01 -0800

Ian, your you're being a little disingenuous here. The denizens of MO certainly did try to help you fix your question. A lot of them, in fact. However, it turned out that we were right and that you didn't know what you were talking about. You have a lot of chutzpah to keep bringing this up.

You were not wronged. You wasted a lot of people's time, and they were still quite patient with you.

Ian Durham comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3419)

Ian Durham — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:31:00 -0800

@QY: Tom just made that point. However, it is germane to any discussion of civility. It's not my fault Pete started the thread. I don't care who started the thread. The point is that any discussion of civility ought to include a discussion of tone.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3418)

Qiaochu Yuan — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:29:06 -0800

Dr. Durham, this is really not pertinent to the discussion at hand. Please take up your issues with Dr. Clark's conduct privately.

Ian Durham comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3417)

Ian Durham — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:26:10 -0800

Tom, point taken. I commented because it was Pete who started a thread about civility. I have just grown tired of rude, insensitive, and seemingly unfeeling people whose idea of helping seems to be making a person feel like an idiot instead of spending a little time trying to understand where a person is coming from. True understanding (empathy, patience, or whatever you want to call it) seems to be sorely lacking in the world at large these days . I find it particularly sad and depressing that people can't even recognize the difference between the two.

Tom Leinster comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3416)

Tom Leinster — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:29:19 -0800

Let's not have an all-out war, or indeed a war of any kind.

Ian, there are evidently some things you don't like about Pete's contributions (assuming your comment was directed at him). But can you please have that conversation in private? Mail him, phone him, IM him, write him a letter... but please, don't do it here. I don't think this is what meta is for.

Ian Durham comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3415)

Ian Durham — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:00:40 -0800

At the risk of starting an all-out war, let me just say that if your aim is to increase civility on MO, my recommendation would be to be less condescending, patronizing, and "holier-than-thou" to those who do not think precisely the way you do.

At the further risk of God-knows-what, click on this link: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/617 and scroll down to my conversation with James Putnam starting with his comment posted at Feb. 17, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT. That is a civil conversation.

Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3376)

Harald Hanche-Olsen — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:08:46 -0800

@Pete: Of course you can be a little silly. But you're asking us to be a little silly too, and we can manage that quite well without your help, thank you very much.

Yeah, I agree with 1) too. And I second fpqc's question. We can fill meta with discussions of all sorts of hypothetical problems, but I think there are enough real ones. (Plus, there must be many ways to convey the meaning of “dumb” and “stupid” without using those words. They should probably be avoided too.)

Harry Gindi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3372)

Harry Gindi — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:16:58 -0800

Has 1.) been a problem?

Mark Meckes comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3371)

Mark Meckes — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:10:46 -0800

Also agree on 1). I really don't think I can bring myself to write d*mb or st*p*d, but I do also agree with Pete's suggestion that dumb and stupid are better avoided even in reference to oneself, and I just look for different ways to make the same point. ("Oops, I wasn't thinking", etc.)

Grétar Amazeen comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3368)

Grétar Amazeen — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:25:52 -0800

I definitely agree with number 1, but I will not write "d*mb and st*p*d" unless forced to at gunpoint.

Harry Gindi comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3367)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:36:04 -0800

Edit: I've redacted my comment because nobody will find it funny.

Pete L. Clark comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3366)

Pete L. Clark — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:23:42 -0800

Of course 2) is a little silly. I can be a little silly. Who said I can't? :)

Scott Morrison comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3364)

Scott Morrison — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:17:14 -0800

Definitely agree on 1), but feel 2) is a little silly.

Andy Putman comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3363)

Andy Putman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:53:36 -0800

+1 to Pete.

Pete L. Clark comments on "dmb and stp*d on MO" (3362)

Pete L. Clark — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:45:49 -0800

Here is my little attempt to increase civility on MO. Two suggestions:

1) Never use the words "dumb" or "stupid" to describe anyone other than yourself, for any reason.

2) When you wish to refer to your own question, thought or mistake as dumb or stupid, show your support for the idea that these are "dirty words" by writing them as d*mb and st*p*d, or some equivalent construction.

Disclosure: I got this idea from Qing Liu, whom I "admonished" on self-use of the "s-word".

tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (d*mb and st*p*d on MO)

Yemon Choi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3430)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3429)

Zev Chonoles comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3428)

Harry Gindi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3426)

Ian Durham comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3425)

Harry Gindi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3422)

Pete L. Clark comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3421)

Harry Gindi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3420)

Ian Durham comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3419)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3418)

Ian Durham comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3417)

Tom Leinster comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3416)

Ian Durham comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3415)

Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3376)

Harry Gindi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3372)

Mark Meckes comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3371)

Grétar Amazeen comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3368)

Harry Gindi comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3367)

Pete L. Clark comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3366)

Scott Morrison comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3364)

Andy Putman comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3363)

Pete L. Clark comments on "d*mb and st*p*d on MO" (3362)