User talk:81.179.200.152

Hi, again, '152. I disagree with you as to how to conduct civil discourse (cf. ¶1). In my view, if you raise new positions, arguments, discussions points, etc., then you may not reasonably expect to have the last word. Of course, it is your talk page and you can do what you want, but I don't think it's appropriate to raise new items and then blank the page and suggest you think the conversation is over.

I'm sorry, I forgot that you wanted the last word. And, for the most part, I'm now giving you that by rationing myself and not replying to all the new points you raise. Let's see... ten opportunities to reply, how about sticking to just three of those, including this one? Though, to be fair, one of those potential opportunities specifically requests that I not even try, so makes a nice round 33.333...%.

No, nor am I really a lover of Starett No. 711 devices, although they are pretty neat. It is rather that I object, in principle, to a person purporting to close a discussion when they raise new points. I don't feel obliged to be the last person to respond, although I do tend to respond to new positions raised if I feel they merit a response. And I object to one person telling other people they may not speak, regardless of whether I have something to say. So, once again, it is pretentious, presumptuous, and particularly inappropriate to tell another person that they "wanted the last word" (or the Last Word, see above). (Indeed, even if it were true, and you could somehow know that with confidence, which seems doubtful, it would probably be beyond the boundaries of polite discourse to say it. We don't have to say all the things we think all the time.) JohnHawkinson (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Most fundamentally, I disagree with your conclusion that we are "not particularly capable of understanding each other fully." I find that incredibly unlikely.

I also, however, now being informed (cf. ¶6), that you have simply chosen not to create an account for no good reason, think you are fundamentally being rude every time you speak to me, because you create difficulty and annoyance in responding to you. And not just because of the IP thing, but chiefly that (cf. ¶7). Also that you require I review deleted text from a page in order to see your remarks. And I see that rudeness as a filter through which I view your comments. I'm sorry about that, but I think it's best to state it up front. Your ostensible "everyone else who stumbles across this conversation" and similar would all go away if you if would only choose an appropriate venue. This is the default venue for such conversations. You half-heartedly proposed my Talk page and I explained why it's not my preference, and you've offered nothing else. It would be so much better if you just used an account (cf. ¶7)

Beyond those things, let me try to go in order:

Re ¶2, I do find your pretentious assumption that you have many more accounts and systems than someone else you don't know to be offensive and irritating. It really has no place in the conversation, even if true. And, of course, you seem to be implying you are incapable or unwilling of using the trivial tools that humans have to remember passwords (a password manager this past decade-or-so; a paper notebook the prior ones; or an algorithm if you like). I don't accuse you of being a rodeo neophyte, and I'll thank you not to do the same to me.

Yes, I think you misunderstood the nature of my 'pretentiousness', if you understood it like that.

Re ¶3, I'm not sure what your face value comment is in response to — it feels like a misunderstanding of my point that generally IP users are a good filter for inexperience. Whether you agree that is how it should be or not, I think it's uncontroverted that it happens to be true most of the time.

Re ¶4, I think you are confused about my point about the site notice. I posted to the talk page of the account that made the SiteNotice edit. Whether people are sharing passwords or distributing work in other collaboration platforms or sock puppetizing each other is of no import to that.

Nothing was suggested about shared passwords. So clearly some confusion still exists, somewhere along the line. Until it's otherwise revealed, however, my actual guess makes enough sense for me. Even if the unrevealed reality might be beyond my paygrade.

Re ¶5, I am not looking for "more answers." I am trouble at the process by which a site notice was posted here leaving participants here with strictly less information than Redditors. That has nothing to do with the timing of the Reddit post. But this is not a concern I am raising with you and I hope you won't respond to it.

It would not be reasonable to say that I considered the possibility that you were a "complete n00b." I mean, sure, I am aware of that possibility and accorded it something like a 10% out of 100% chance +/- 5% confidence level, but realistically I did not think it was the case, and did not mean to suggest that I did.

And no, I am not satisfied, nor do I think my satisfaction-versus-time curve is at its terminal value. I am not particularly hard to satisfy. JohnHawkinson (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)