Responding to forum "misinformation"

[another_jim]

However, in this regard, when Mark (LaMarzooka) displayed maybe a bit less expertise than is usual here, IMO it would not have been out of line to display a link to your fine water "FAQ"...

You're probably right; but when someone blithely skips over a half dozen posts explaining the issues and appends their rhapsody in RO, I lose hope in further instruction and get angry instead.



...split from Rant: Coffee Cheapskates by moderator...

[zin1953]

Don't lose hope, Jim -- tomorrow is another day!

[malachi]

IMHO if you don't think a post or poster is sincere in learning something or has not done his/her homework then simply don't reply.

If we were to do that:
1 - misinformation would be even worse than it is now,
2 - signal to noise ratio would be even worse than it is now.

In many ways, I (for one) view my role here to be to mitigate these two issues.

[GC7]

Chris

You take my quote out of context. If your replies are angry in nature and designed to embarass and slight the poster then I suggested just not replying. Your posts do not fit that category. You always seem to attempt (very well most of the time too) to educate with respect to the poster and the idea that few have your knowledge and background and many don't really do enough background reading before posing a question.

Jim on the other hand all too frequently IMHO takes a different approach as documented in his quote above "You're probably right; but when someone blithely skips over a half dozen posts explaining the issues and appends their rhapsody in RO, I lose hope in further instruction and get angry instead."

Ian - I wonder if you care to explain your statement "IMO, we're too tolerant". What in your opinion is the purpose of this discussion group? Perhaps it should be limited to invited members and only those invited members can post as a highly regarded golf architecture board does? Then you can control the input to a discussion among you "experts"

EDIT - While this has been moved to a new thread with a title "responding to forum "misinformation"" my original comments in the other thread were also directed to honest questions and attempts to get information. I note the so called rules for productive discussion in this forum

"To-date there's been no need to formally publish forum rules, however I would like to share Team HB's guidelines for fruitful online discussion:

"Be respectful. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Be patient. Everyone is at different points in their learning."

I must assume this also applies to moderators - Jim?


I leave this particular thread to the rest of you from here on.

[another_jim]

...
I must assume this also applies to moderators - Jim?

I share my time and what knowledge I have generously with anyone willing to learn. People who ask questions and then ignore the answers, or who repeatedly and willfully make unsupported and false statements that need to be corrected, are not just violating the posting guidelines; they are wasting my time. I am in my fifties, and acutely aware of my mortality. Wasted time is the only thing I can never replace.

So if you absolutely must post little moral sermons, eye rolls, and sighs; look in a mirror first. You'll see yourself, and perhaps a few wrinkles as well.

[GC7]

You have much to learn about patience, humility, teaching and dealing with people.

I hope you work it out before you are 60.

"Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools." - Albert Einstein

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education" Albert Einstein

"Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character." Albert Einstein

[malachi]

While I appreciate that it may seem like I'm the "good cop" and Jim is the "bad cop" (a stretched analogy I know), the truth is that there is far less difference than you might perceive - over time.

There are times when my frustration boils over a lot - and there are times when it doesn't.
I'm guessing the same is true of Jim.

Please understand that for both of us - the goal is likely the same.
Given what I went through when I learned about coffee - and all the misinformation I made the mistake of listening to and how much this held my progression back - when I give a f**k about other people learning about coffee nothing bothers me more than people spreading the same sort of cr*p dogma and unfounded opinion that wasted so much of my time early on.
In other words - when I care, my goal has become less "share my opinion, learnings, etc" and more "steer people away from the sorts of traps, mistakes and wrong paths I followed."
I'm guess something similar can be said of Jim.


Oh... and trust me... if you spent time with each of us in person I think you'd find Jim to be the more gentle and considerate and patient one. I'm much nicer not in person

[GC7]

Chris

Thanks for a thoughtful response. Perhaps the problem is that I don't read enough of the board or know enough about the subject to recognize the thoughtless and repeatedly baseless posting you and Jim both mention. I just try to suck the knowledge out of you guys. I have more then enough experience teaching and working with very smart people to know that the Einstein approach works and garners more respect then the Schulman method. However, if I failed to recognize posters who hurt the board by purposely or stubbornly passing on bad data than I apologize. Still, I think there might be better ways to moderate such situations that do not alienate.

Thanks for "listening"

[Dodger1]

I'm 60 and don't have the patience, or inclination, to contribute to the drivel that is often omnipresent on the forums I peruse. That holds especially true when I lack the "chops" to meaningfully contribute, unlike the preponderance of posters found on most sites.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that couching your responses, so as to not alienate anyone, i.e. being politically correct, is most often an exercise in futility and calling a spade, a spade, is often times the most succinct way to get your point across. Of course, that only holds true if you have the knowledge to contribute in the first place.

I salute Jim, and many others on this site, for their willingness to share their knowledge and correct misleading/incorrect information. That stance is why I visit this site and find Jim's responses to be so enjoyable and imho, correct.