Blocked by JSConf.eu Twitter account

Post by ThomPete » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:05 AM UTC

goldenkey wrote: post #63

hbaav6 wrote: post #41

At some point you offended the wrong person, they added you to one of those shared blocklists, and that's all, you're banned forever. Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring. This is the way politics works now, and some software projects have, for some reason, joined the politics battle. By caring you're giving them weight. Just flip them off, tell them to go fuck themselves, and keep thinking the way you do. It's no…

"Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring." This is logically inconsistent and snarky. The ban came before the reaction to it. In addition, publicizing an egregious sleight because it pissed you off, does not make you "lose" because you cared. If you smash your phone, if you crash your car, if you get angry, sure..then you sort of lose because the reaction didn't measure up to the reason for it. But here...JS Conf org…

Post by zem » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:07 AM UTC

alanfranzoni wrote: post #57

Slightly off topic: I've always found twitter-style blocking totally nonsensical. I mean: you've got a public account. Blocking should prevent people from replying or tweeting at you, and from sending you DMs, maybe even retweeting what you said (even though I'm not sure about the usefulness of this last thing)... but why should ANYONE be prevented at just READING PUBLIC CONTENT when LOGGED IN? (I think the same appl…

Post by goldenkey » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:08 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #91

goldenkey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring." This is logically inconsistent and snarky. The ban came before the reaction to it. In addition, publicizing an egregious sleight because it pissed you off, does not make you "lose" because you cared. If you smash your phone, if you crash your car, if you get angry, sure..then you sort of lose because the reaction didn't measure up to the reason for it. But here...JS Conf org…

It sounds like you dont understand the intent of the post you are responding to or that i am not understanding your irony?

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:14 AM UTC

abcd_f wrote: post #74

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference that seems to be important professionally to that person. They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, sec…

Perhaps all his 30 speech proposals were completely inane and he's been viewed by organizers as that spammy fellow in late stages Dunning–Kruger syndrome? If that's the case, then muting communications is the least offensive option and it is entirely appropriate. However it does require the other side to be able to take a hint.

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:17 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #56

michaelmrose wrote: post #11

What kind of people tell paying customers they are not worth the time required to answer a question?

I deliberately chose not to work in the "enterprise" market with 6-digit contracts anymore and instead sell a consumer product to many more people so that I could fire any customer that annoyed me without thinking twice about it. They get their money back and can find someone else to annoy. I really don't see what's so outrageous about the practice. There is no moral law that being paid by someone somehow creates a h…