Self Importance, Censors and Censorship

[ces]

ces, no offense but I seriously think you should rewind your life back to 1992, and pay more attention the second time through. Make that 1982 or even 1972 if you want to insist on making such self-important encyclopaedic posts. Honestly if you don't understand the basics and the history you've got no hope of understanding what Torvalds is saying, nor those who know more than Torvalds (of which there are many).

Thank you for your interest in my personal life. I'll pass on your offer to discuss it.

I learn by asking questions. I learned something in the instance you are referring to... by asking questions. It isn't always so easy when people throw cryptic jargon around without attempting to explain what it means to others who do not understand it. And I have to admit I was struggling.

Everyone has their own learning style. What is yours?

But here is the real question. What do you think evidences that a person believes the world revolves around them? I think there is often a correlation between that and censorship. Think about it. Go back all the way to 1072... or even 72.

In fact I would propose that most of the the suffering of the world, is caused by people who take themselves or their belief systems too seriously. This is applicable, in my opinion, through the whole gamut of people out there... not just famous genocidal despots with no tolerance toward others... but going on to academic bullying.... down to the local work place or school yard bully.

In my opinion, censorship and exaggerated self importance are seldom found other than in each other's company.

There is nothing on this forum that is really that important. It's just chatter. It's just a hobby. It isn't that important. But that is just my view.

So what is your view?

(I moved this here so we can discuss what you brought up without going off topic)

[ces]

ces, no offense but I seriously think you should rewind your life back to 1992, and pay more attention the second time through. Make that 1982 or even 1972 if you want to insist on making such self-important encyclopaedic posts. Honestly if you don't understand the basics and the history you've got no hope of understanding what Torvalds is saying, nor those who know more than Torvalds (of which there are many).

How can I know that you know more than Linus Torvalds without asking questions? I know what Linus Torvalds does for a living. For all I know you could be some monkey typing away at a keyboard. How would I know otherwise?

It occurs to me that you could be making the point that you are so self important because of your superior knowledge of 86 architecture that I should not ask questions about the subject in your presence. In fact as I think about it, maybe that is what you are saying.

Is that so?

[ces]

The Caning of Wrong Thinking People

On the afternoon of May 22, 1852, a Senator Brooks walked up to Senator Charles Sumner as he sat writing at his desk. As Sumner began to stand up to greet him, Brooks began to beat Sumner severely on the head before he could reach his feet.

Senator Brooks was expressing his objection to a speech in which Senator Sumner ignorantly proposed repeal of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, which permitted prison terms for white northerners in non-slave northern states for assisting escaped slaves or interfering with Southern bounty hunters pursuing escaped southern slaves.

These fine Southern bounty hunters had a reputation for a noted inability to discern the difference between a free black person and an escaped slave.

Sumner did not attend the Senate for the next three years while recovering from the attack. A fine example of Southern honor (commencing the beating without warning), Southern intolerance (ignorant talk about slavery... something that Sumner obviously had no experience with) and also highly effective censorship (he shut up Sumner, a much more able orator than Brooks, for a period of 3 years).

The offensiveness of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, subjecting Northerners to an unfair and unfairly enforced law, in order to empower hooligan Southern slave hunters in free states... was in my opinion a major contributing factor to the friction that started the United States Civil War.

Intolerance of any person holding views differing from their own.

[ces]

A Shared Watering Hole for both Neophyte and Expert

A simple, "I disagree, and here's why..." is all that's necessary to convey your point and still promote healthy discussion. But if the purpose is to bully someone into not responding....

you aren't helping anybody by posting large amounts of questions about a topic you don't understand. Even after 12 messages in the thread you still made it clear you didn't understand the original post. *

Some people post to help others, some to learn. Sometimes a posting does both, sometimes neither.

But, at least in my opinion, someone with superior knowledge in a subject area shouldn't berate, demean or denigrate those with lesser knowledge who are attempting to broaden that knowledge by asking questions or engaging in an intellectually honest dialog... especially cutting in and doing so in a manner intended to interrupt such a dialog between two other people... calling one of them a dummy.

These forums are filled with dumb questions posed by the ignorant. I think that is one of their main attractions for the majority of us users (the dummies). If someone is so stupid as to irritate you, don't read their postings. That is what I do. How hard is that?

But butting into someone else's discussion to censor someone for being ignorant while they are attempting to learn from another... that is going a bit far isn't it?

* Note: Most intriguing, apparently "Censoring Party", an expert in the very subject matter of the thread he complains of, was himself unable to answer the question posed by the original poster in a thread (apparently not even understanding the question). I am still attempting to determine what to make of that. The original poster's question remains yet unanswered by the expert Censoring Party!