@Sam And shouldn't that tell you a little something about what happens when you're unprofessional and argumentative on a public-facing website? Thinking bad of others because they disagree with you leads to being irrationally angry at people
My 2 year old niece drags my dog all around the house by the ear sometimes, the dog just makes a sad face, doesn't bite or anything. He just wants to be her friend.
@hichris123 Same exact query I've been using. There were like 300 results for the next result-set I was going to do, so I stopped. Now when I run it, all the results seem to have disappeared.
As I said, this is an experiment site. We have to delete answers that don't fully match the guidelines, at least for the first three months or so. Then we can think about relaxing our requirements for answers.
I would like to draw your attention on the following topic. I will cite some part of the guidelines.
"We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed."
"We never claimed that subjective questions were horrible abominations that should never be asked."
"Because we believe so deeply ...
@Sam what were you trying to accomplish with that discussion? Even on a meta site, the discussion should have a goal. A broad "what do you think" kind of stuff doesn't tend to go over well or be productive.
So @Sam, I believe you can make a good contributor. You'll have to work at it, but you can do it. You have to accept criticism with grace and an open mind. I do have to warn you, though: After this suspension is over, the next one will be for a year. You have to try your hardest. Got it?
The fact that SR exists at all is a testament to us recognizing the need for something like it. It cannot, however, be as flexible as it might seem like a good idea from the outside. We've been down that road before (most notably, with Skeptics and Programmers)
@Sam FYI, closing is meant to improve questions. It's meant to be a This question is either off-topic or the site or you could improve it by doing this. It's not meant to be bad, per se. It's meant to make the site better and create better questions.
This conversation is going great. "They should just tell me to stop." "Okay, stop." "Yes, but... keeps repeating the same arguments". It's time to drop this, @Sam.
I knew a psychologist who was calling it self-referentiality.
People are always trying to see only the sentence which confirm their beliefs.
What's the correct name for this?
If someone made a mistake, it would have been reversed by now. but it hasn't been. I'd advise that you just drop this, right now, go sleep or walk away from your computer, and take several deep breaths.
I really respect who is humble enough to change his mind and strongly try to wear other people's shoes. But it's really hard to see this happening.
I didn't said Nazi to no one. I meant that the raise of nazism was possible for the same mechanism that allows so many people on a community to share only one point of view.
It's called confirmation bias. It means the mechanism through wich people are trying to see only the POV which confirms what they already believe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
@undo: good nigth
I chose a really bad example, but you know I was upset, I thought people were lacking of respect to me and no one was listening also when I was taking really authoritative sources :(
I did many mistakes. And I will not write anymore on SR meta, however I would really appreciate a second chance. I think 30 days of suspension without an explicit warning, and taking in consideration that I was upset, and I didn't mean that sentence as an offence, are really not that fair.
Because the default is using ByRef, which you most certainly don't want.
