PDA

View Full Version : Re: Hugely Disappointed in Unix/Ubuntu



hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 04:44 AM
Ah, so you are on the staff here. Where can I show this "Warning" of yours to a second memeber of the staff for resolution? I think your attack was baseless and shortsighted.

p_quarles
February 25th, 2008, 04:50 AM
Post moved to the resolution center.

KiwiNZ
February 25th, 2008, 05:15 AM
Ah, so you are on the staff here. Where can I show this "Warning" of yours to a second memeber of the staff for resolution? I think your attack was baseless and shortsighted.


I completelty support the action of staff with he two infractions you have recieved.

As for the second one I would have made the infraction higher.
Your post was rude and disrepectfull to the staff member concerned.

I suggest you revisit the Code of conduct for this Forum

hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 05:18 AM
I think that p_quarles intervention in the original thread was invalid.
He apparently did not understand the original problem (as a number others in the thread), and did not realize that I had and even had given useful explanations for the original problem (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4394283&postcount=74) earlier in the thread.

He suddenly appeared, made remarks about technical things that were not relevant to the problem at hand, nor my points, and accused me of being off-topic (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4399242&postcount=82)(yes, ironically).
Meanwhile I received a "Staff Warning" from him in my PM, warning me that I had insulted other users, which at this point could only refer to
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4399075&postcount=79
(I see no insult here)

I had not realized yet that p_qualres was a staff member, so I replied in the way I did, i.e., I perceived him to be clueless and cheeky.
Then I received an infraction from him for that (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4399242&postcount=82)

I was in the process of writing a more clear explanation in the original thread, but since p_quarles had already, within 2-3 minutes, blocked me from posting I sent him the explanation via PM. I copy it here so that someone may please reconstruct the event, and verify that a retraction and an apology is in order


I'm sorry, there's a misunderstanding at hand here. Bear with me.

I answered the question of the user Sandy, because I understood the problem.
Here's the post I made before you blocked my account (be aware that it's a technicality, a specialist's function, that Sandy is asking for):


Ah, so you are on the staff here. Where can I show this "Warning" of yours to a second member of the staff for resolution? I think your attack was baseless and shortsighted.

To make it easier for you to understand, this is what Sandy said in the OP:

Most (all?) routers have room for more than one WEP. I had my system set up to use one other than the first, to make it harder for anyone trying to break in. I could find nowhere in the wireless setup to tell it which key to use.
He refers to something that Network Manager doesn't do yet:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.networkmanager.devel/6643/match=key+index

Apparently I'm the only person who understood the problem. No big deal, but I expect you to retract your warning, p_quarles.

Finally, p_quarles reminds me of the Code of Conduct.

hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 05:20 AM
KiwiNZ, I find your support of the actions of q_quarles very frustrating after spending two hours answering unreplied posts, in the positive spirit of the Code of Conduct.

I want to ask you to revisit this issue taking my explanation into account.

hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 05:22 AM
correction: The inital post of p_quarles was # 81

KiwiNZ
February 25th, 2008, 05:47 AM
"You have no clue, didn't bother to read/analyze the original problem, and think you can mouth off here, or what?"

This is insulting in anyones language.

Its is innapropriate to talk to anyone on this forum in such a manner .

hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 06:04 AM
Of course, because I was really annoyed by this random guys behaviour.

I really didn't see that he was a staff member, and I think that should not be relevant, when we look at his first reply to me. Which was offensive in my direction.

Plus, his first intervention was for nothing. There simply was no insult, and his point was invalid.

How would you read this? First someone makes a stupid remark (out of situational/temporary ignorance for all I care), and then because of his "powers" admonishes you, _en-passent_.

p_qualres first post there still stands as really stupid, and he deserved my reaction, but the dimension of staff→respect→insult→infraction is fundamentally based on a misunderstanding and should be corrected.




Dear hugmenot,

You have received a warning at Ubuntu Forums.

Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)

No, WEP encryption is not secure. That has absolutely nothing to do with this poster's question, though, which was about why WEP encryption didn't work with his/her firmware in Linux.
-------

I urge you to revisit the issue. This is the first PM I got. How is this related to what I proposed as the explanation to the OP's problems???
I never made _any_ claims about the security of WEP crypto. Neither was firmware mentioned at any point by the OP. He had a peculiar setup, namely WEP keys with an index. That was all. People were simply on the wrong track, and I clumsily tried to poinjt that out.
:

KiwiNZ
February 25th, 2008, 06:11 AM
Your post 79 in that thread was not needed. To attack people who ar etrying help is just not appropriate.

You recieved a warning for that . And it was right that you did recieve a warning.

Your reaction in post 82 was wholey innapropriate whether it was addressed to staff or other members. The infraction issued was appropriate.

The infractions issued will stand.

hugmenot
February 25th, 2008, 06:19 AM
I didn't attack. I defended myself. But anyway. Perhaps I should take a leave from this forum and turn to my PhD stuff.

I never come here to chat, I never ask questions. I always came here to help people out with my knowledge. Under a positive interpretation of a CoC, the signed one, and my inbuilt one.

Typical case of internet super-ego. I acquit.