Debs resigns

[WizardStan]

Poppycock,,,People provoke people to do things they normally would not do if they thought it out. People do have the power to totally sway ones emotions and actions even to the point of mind control. Just look historically at the various cults. Many acts of passion are impulsive and not thought out.. to the point of a conditioned response.

For someone who has said several times that you were done you seem to have an awful lot of trouble sticking to that decision. You have failed, yet again, to grasp even the slightest sliver of what I am talking about.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Poppycock,,,People provoke people to do things they normally would not do if they thought it out. People do have the power to totally sway ones emotions and actions even to the point of mind control. Just look historically at the various cults. Many acts of passion are impulsive and not thought out.. to the point of a conditioned response.

For someone who has said several times that you were done you seem to have an awful lot of trouble sticking to that decision. You have failed, yet again, to grasp even the slightest sliver of what I am talking about.

I think it is the other way around....I have always said that people are NOT always responsible for their actions while you claim they always are. Why you cannot grasp this is beyond me  ; perhaps to attempt to insult me again.  I broke my decision because of what you say is so untrue, it needs a counter response. 

Not everyone thinks before they act. This is human nature = impulsivity wether it be a neurologically rooted or psychosocial...or both combined.

 

[WizardStan]

I broke my decision because of what you say is so untrue, it needs a counter response.

How's that for an example? My statement didn't NEED a response. The world would not end if you hadn't responded, you had many choices available to you. You chose to go back on your previous decisions and make a response. Whether you did so emotionally or consciously does not alter the fact that it was you that made the decision. It wasn't me making "untrue" posts, it wasn't some uncontrollable spirit from another world, it's not aliens broadcasting thought control rays, it is you and you alone who opted to respond. The very fact that you think making such a response somehow contradicts my statements proves, once again, that you have absolutely no idea what any of this was even about and that there can be nothing gained from it except my own amusement, and that has worn thin. So this is definitively my last post to you; there is nothing you can say or do that would make me respond to you again. That's a choice I'm making. If at some point in the future I do get caught up in some emotionally charged debate and do respond to you then that will still be me making that mistake.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Funny how you turn things around to your favor. You are a wizard at that for sure. Don't try to tell me why I did what I did. 

Whatever we type here is not carved in stone tablets. One has the right to retract any statement. Why you have an issue with this is beyond me.  ??

I re entered this post because 1. You act like you are an authoritarian on this matter and you are far from so  2. This bothered me [yes again] to the point of responding even if I am stooping so low to do so. 3. I just strongly disagree and felt the conscious need to go against my previous 'last post' statement. 

Everything here you say is a result of you "getting caught up emotionally" as you say and THAT is your problem. You might know quite a bit about the workings of the Pandora and some [such as I used to] will respect that but otherwise you are an reactionary,foul mouthed, hot headed individual who needs another nap.

I bet 1,000 pounds you read this which is just the same as responding as far as I am concerned.

 

As the great Yogi Berra said...'it ain't over til it's over'.

Though I really do not care if you respond you will not respond to me because perhaps you have seen your errors and realize that all your mean spirited persuasive techniques are to no avail with me.

Oh yes and one more thing....we just fundamentally disagree and always will . You say Craig is not directly responsible for all this negative behavior and I say he is.

Now go find another argument to float your boat.

 

[b_o_b]

she made the choice.

 

I think it boils down to one big question. Is there something like free will. You definitely think there is. I am not so sure about that. There might be, but I am pretty sure most of our actions/choices/decisions are not and just results of outside and inside forces. 

German neuroscientists have done some research about free will. They found that they could predict what choice people would make before they were consciously aware of their choice by monitoring brain activity. Pretty amazing study. It is fascinating to see how much of our decision making is made by the unconscious mind. 

 

[Asiyura]

When you click on a "send" button after filling a comment on kickstarter with insults and incitations to suicide, it's a conscious choice.
You must be perfectly conscious that that behaviour is not socially acceptable, moreover when the reason of your anger is a gaming device (nothing that'll prevent you from eating/sleeping under a roof/…).
If you're not, then you seriously need some psychological help!

EDIT : I agree that Craig has his part in the situation, just 5 minutes every week even to write "We're still waiting for the parts, the lead time for bluetooth is X weeks, leds Y weeks, …" would probably have calmed a part of the people. But even if you're angry at Craig, it doesn't mean that you're allowed to insult Debs or Jacquelyne.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

she made the choice.

 

I think it boils down to one big question. Is there something like free will. You definitely think there is. I am not so sure about that. There might be, but I am pretty sure most of our actions/choices/decisions are not and just results of outside and inside forces. 

German neuroscientists have done some research about free will. They found that they could predict what choice people would make before they were consciously aware of their choice by monitoring brain activity. Pretty amazing study. It is fascinating to see how much of our decision making is made by the unconscious mind. 

^agreed.

When you click on a "send" button after filling a comment on kickstarter with insults and incitations to suicide, it's a conscious choice.


You must be perfectly conscious that that behaviour is not socially acceptable, moreover when the reason of your anger is a gaming device (nothing that'll prevent you from eating/sleeping under a roof/…).


If you're not, then you seriously need some psychological help!

EDIT : I agree that Craig has his part in the situation, just 5 minutes every week even to write "We're still waiting for the parts, the lead time for bluetooth is X weeks, leds Y weeks, …" would probably have calmed a part of the people. But even if you're angry at Craig, it doesn't mean that you're allowed to insult Debs or Jacquelyne.

I see what you mean. I would say that if they knew of any malpractice on Craig's behalf and knowingly allowed it or condoned it then they deserve the angry emails that customers transmit. I think anyone that resigned from Craig's company did the honorable thing. Anyone that continues on working there is culpable and not beyond reproach. No matter how bad they need the pounds and who knows if the employees are even being paid in a timely,professional matter which I think not.

 

[WizardStan]

Is there something like free will. You definitely think there is.

No, no nono no. No. Don't even go there, you are entirely mischaracterizing everything I have said. I have been very careful to avoid the subject of free will. That's a philosophical debate that has absolutely no bearing on what I am saying. I'm not even going to attempt to address anything else you said because it is irrelevant to the previous discussion. If you want to start a new discussion on the nature of free-will then we can start a new discussion provided that the old one is concluded amicably but I won't get into a new debate while the other remains open. Do not attempt to define any words that depend on a nebulous definition of "free will", I'll just ignore them.I will say again,

If you shoot someone, it was your brain that told your hand to pull the trigger and it was within your power to make the decision not to shoot the person. The person may have made you angry, the result may have been a foregone conclusion but it still stands that it was you that decided to pick up the gun, not me, not anyone else. Your brain, your body, your success or failure. If you decide to rape a woman that decision is entirely on you and whether she was wearing a jeans and a t-shirt, short skirt, or walking down the street entirely naked does not change the fact that you could not exercise control.

Once again I present the following scenario: a man is angry at his boss so goes home and beats his wife. Demonstrate to me that the man's boss is responsible for the wife being beaten and the husband is not (under the traditional definition of "responsible" used by modern society and not based on chaotic notions of "free-will") and my entire argument collapses. If the boss hadn't been mean to the man the man wouldn't have beaten his wife, cause and effect, but we do not absolve the man of his action. The choice was his to make, even if it was an emotional outburst without any conscious thought whatsoever. I simply use inductive reasoning to apply this to a general case, and then to any specific case you can imagine.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Is there something like free will. You definitely think there is.

No, no nono no. No. Don't even go there, you are entirely mischaracterizing everything I have said. I have been very careful to avoid the subject of free will. That's a philosophical debate that has absolutely no bearing on what I am saying. I'm not even going to attempt to address anything else you said because it is irrelevant to the previous discussion. If you want to start a new discussion on the nature of free-will then we can start a new discussion provided that the old one is concluded amicably but I won't get into a new debate while the other remains open. Do not attempt to define any words that depend on a nebulous definition of "free will", I'll just ignore them.
I will say again,


If you shoot someone, it was your brain that told your hand to pull the trigger and it was within your power to make the decision not to shoot the person. The person may have made you angry, the result may have been a foregone conclusion but it still stands that it was you that decided to pick up the gun, not me, not anyone else. Your brain, your body, your success or failure. If you decide to rape a woman that decision is entirely on you and whether she was wearing a jeans and a t-shirt, short skirt, or walking down the street entirely naked does not change the fact that you could not exercise control.


Once again I present the following scenario: a man is angry at his boss so goes home and beats his wife. Demonstrate to me that the man's boss is responsible for the wife being beaten and the husband is not (under the traditional definition of "responsible" used by modern society and not based on chaotic notions of "free-will") and my entire argument collapses. If the boss hadn't been mean to the man the man wouldn't have beaten his wife, cause and effect, but we do not absolve the man of his action. The choice was his to make, even if it was an emotional outburst without any conscious thought whatsoever. I simply use inductive reasoning to apply this to a general case, and then to any specific case you can imagine.

Nebulous definition of free will?? Are you serious?  I agree with b_o_b.

Free will involves a conscious decision do make or not make that decision. That is not philosophical at all. You are confused. Rather  free will happens billions of times a day in the world for better or for worse.

Free will is the essence of thought wether it be primitive or on a different hierarchy of needs. I think that fits perfectly here. However I also believe that free will or thought out conscious choice does not always apply. Sometimes there are neurological,biochemical responses in ones body that there is little or no control over and totally negates free will. The neurological straw that broke the camel's back so to say...

 

[Asiyura]

I see what you mean. I would say that if they knew of any malpractice on Craig's behalf and knowingly allowed it or condoned it then they deserve the angry emails that customers transmit. I think anyone that resigned from Craig's company did the honorable thing. Anyone that continues on working there is culpable and not beyond reproach. No matter how bad they need the pounds and who knows if the employees are even being paid in a timely,professional matter which I think not.

NO!

When you need a job to eat everyday, you take what's available, as long as it's legal!

You seem to think it's easy to find a job and get money to live, hint : it isn't. 

Working for a company doesn't mean you endorse every action it makes.

You're only using a shitty excuse for a fucked up action : incitation to suicide is never acceptable. No matter what.

Insults toward someone that is just some kind of "interface" between you and the person who fucked up neither. (in a perfect world, they would be unacceptable, no matter what)

EDIT : As far as I know, except a serious lack of communication and serious delays for delivery, you have absolutely no proof that iControlPad ltd. has made any "malpractice".

ED even said that many hardware parts have been ordered and are ready to be used to build iCP2 in GC factory…

 

[b_o_b]

No, no nono no. No. Don't even go there, you are entirely mischaracterizing everything I have said. I have been very careful to avoid the subject of free will. That's a philosophical debate that has absolutely no bearing on what 

Well, I was pretty consistent. My first post in this thread was about free will. It was in Dutch though

 

I am still thinking nobody is responsible based on my assumption that there is no free will. That is a pretty theoretical and philosophical discussion though, but I like it because it forces you think of cause and effect. 

 

My more 'real life' common sense however says the man is responsible for beating his wife. That said, if the boss knows the man and knows by making him extremely angry he will beat his wife (maybe because of previous encounters) the man is partly responsible and maybe even mostly. 

 

So if I use the same logic to the original post I would say Craig is partly and maybe even mostly to blame, because he created an atmosphere that is unworkable for his employees by infuriating his customers willingly. 

 

[WizardStan]

Well, I was pretty consistent. My first post in this thread was about free will. It was in Dutch though

Yes, and when you said it I explained that in the sense of the universe being a giant machine with each action caused by previous actions then absolutely there is no such thing as free will, and then I moved on because the discussion was entirely irrelevant. I am not talking about free-will in a cosmic responsibility sense, I am talking about it from a local sense: if you perform an action are you responsible for that action?You have already acceded that there exists at least one situation where it is so, you accept that local responsibility exists therefore any discussion on cosmic responsibility and whether or not "free-will" exists is entirely irrelevant. We've got local responsibility: the man is responsible for beating his wife.

So if I use the same logic to the original post I would say Craig is partly and maybe even mostly to blame, because he created an atmosphere that is unworkable for his employees by infuriating his customers willingly.

Ok, if that's the direction you want to go, then that isn't the end of the story. Craig has been extremely frustrated. Things aren't going as well as he'd hoped. He has a history of bringing bad news and getting bitten for it so he's stressing out trying to figure out what to do. Meanwhile, users are sending emails asking for updates, every day more and more requests and he just can't keep up with them, so he does nothing. He didn't fail to send any updates through an active choice, he simply couldn't send any update because of lack of status from suppliers and from piled on frustration of the backers. Therefore, by your same logic, it is the suppliers and the backers making frustrating requests that are to blame.See the problem? Do we draw a line and stop somewhere? Do we know where we can draw that line or is it an arbitrary "I know it when I see it"? Or do we just keep going back to the beginning of time and no one is at all responsible for anything?

And that's why your argument on "free-will" is irrelevant. Either the people writing the emails are responsible for their own actions or if they are not responsible because there is no "free-will" then neither is Craig. Everything is action-reaction, but it is your brain that came up with the reaction. Own the reaction, don't blame it on someone else.

Alternatively, if you still insist that they aren't responsible and were simply reacting then be consistent and stop taking credit for things as well: you didn't choose to study hard and get an A+ on that test, it was all a reaction, etc. You can't have the good without the bad.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I see what you mean. I would say that if they knew of any malpractice on Craig's behalf and knowingly allowed it or condoned it then they deserve the angry emails that customers transmit. I think anyone that resigned from Craig's company did the honorable thing. Anyone that continues on working there is culpable and not beyond reproach. No matter how bad they need the pounds and who knows if the employees are even being paid in a timely,professional matter which I think not.

NO!

When you need a job to eat everyday, you take what's available, as long as it's legal!

You seem to think it's easy to find a job and get money to live, hint : it isn't. 

Working for a company doesn't mean you endorse every action it makes.

You're only using a shitty excuse for a fucked up action : incitation to suicide is never acceptable. No matter what.

Insults toward someone that is just some kind of "interface" between you and the person who fucked up neither. (in a perfect world, they would be unacceptable, no matter what)

EDIT : As far as I know, except a serious lack of communication and serious delays for delivery, you have absolutely no proof that iControlPad ltd. has made any "malpractice".

ED even said that many hardware parts have been ordered and are ready to be used to build iCP2 in GC factory…

YES!

If you are aware of foul play then you too are guilty. Find another job!!

 

[Asiyura]

EDIT : As far as I know, except a serious lack of communication and serious delays for delivery, you have absolutely no proof that iControlPad ltd. has made any "malpractice". ED even said that many hardware parts have been ordered and are ready to be used to build iCP2 in GC factory…

 

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Well, I was pretty consistent. My first post in this thread was about free will. It was in Dutch though

Yes, and when you said it I explained that in the sense of the universe being a giant machine with each action caused by previous actions then absolutely there is no such thing as free will, and then I moved on because the discussion was entirely irrelevant. I am not talking about free-will in a cosmic responsibility sense, I am talking about it from a local sense: if you perform an action are you responsible for that action?
You have already acceded that there exists at least one situation where it is so, you accept that local responsibility exists therefore any discussion on cosmic responsibility and whether or not "free-will" exists is entirely irrelevant. We've got local responsibility: the man is responsible for beating his wife.

So if I use the same logic to the original post I would say Craig is partly and maybe even mostly to blame, because he created an atmosphere that is unworkable for his employees by infuriating his customers willingly.

Ok, if that's the direction you want to go, then that isn't the end of the story. Craig has been extremely frustrated. Things aren't going as well as he'd hoped. He has a history of bringing bad news and getting bitten for it so he's stressing out trying to figure out what to do. Meanwhile, users are sending emails asking for updates, every day more and more requests and he just can't keep up with them, so he does nothing. He didn't fail to send any updates through an active choice, he simply couldn't send any update because of lack of status from suppliers and from piled on frustration of the backers. Therefore, by your same logic, it is the suppliers and the backers making frustrating requests that are to blame.
See the problem? Do we draw a line and stop somewhere? Do we know where we can draw that line or is it an arbitrary "I know it when I see it"? Or do we just keep going back to the beginning of time and no one is at all responsible for anything?


And that's why your argument on "free-will" is irrelevant. Either the people writing the emails are responsible for their own actions or if they are not responsible because there is no "free-will" then neither is Craig. Everything is action-reaction, but it is your brain that came up with the reaction. Own the reaction, don't blame it on someone else.


Alternatively, if you still insist that they aren't responsible and were simply reacting then be consistent and stop taking credit for things as well: you didn't choose to study hard and get an A+ on that test, it was all a reaction, etc. You can't have the good without the bad.

I would bet nasty emails were sent by Craig or the companies involved. Yes this sort of thing travels on and on and on and there always is a root where it all began. In the realm spoken here it is Craig's cross to bear and he is responsible. 

Perhaps he picked to deal with business people that made him an unrealistic offer he could not refuse at the time? It seems to me he is a poor business man and made poor decisions and now must deal with it. Maybe drugs and alcohol have superseded his thought process?

Exactly....own the reactions...You are responsible for them, 'them'... meaning other people's anger of not getting their product or money!! Perhaps if all people were civil they would just attempt to take legal matters against him. Personally,, I would rather be scorned at and threatened rather then getting a letter in the mail every other day saying  a legal action is going to be taken against me.

wow 8 pages.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I wanted to say another thing in all seriousness. In my life and my work I have seen humanity at it's worse. I met people that would kill or have you killed at the drop of a schilling if you said something they interpreted  wrong to them. 

It made me think how could anyone in their right mind do these things??!!  I saw people in burn units who got into an argument with their spouse or lover and had a pot of boiling water thrown on them in a fit of rage. In their face!!!

Again I used to take this home with me and wonder...how could a human being do this to another??. What were they thinking? Talking to some of these people after the fact you would never imagine how someone that could hold a rational conversation now with me could have done such a barbaric thing then.

My answer now is that they were not thinking and something snapped and took over momentarily. Because my reasoning is nobody in his or her right mind would do such things. Who would think this even for a micro second!!??... My answer is nobody of clear thought would.

Label it free will or will free ,,cause and effect ,,effect and cause...whatever, it is it is not of cognition in many,many cases. There are exceptions when things are pre meditated but that is another mode all together from what I am talking about here.

I will say Craig deserves all the grief from these people. But perhaps those people are not really mad at him but rather have a host of other bigger problems and this finally tipped over their dingy so to speak.

 

[ramboky]

WizardStan, people can be conditioned to perform certain actions triggered by certain stimuli, just like most semi-intelligent animals. It's been proven countless times in psychological studies. Conditioned responses are not conscious choices, ergo not all actions are a result of choice. To state categorically that an abused woman who kills her husband always made the choice is (again) extremely naive and suggests limited life experience. 

You can fluff it up with all the philosophical wankery that you like but the fact is people do not always make conscious decisions for their actions. They're not always choices. Try reading a few psychology textbooks and lay off the philosophy pseudo-science.

 

[moxie]

CocoCreek, you really, really don't get what WizardStan is talking about. Really. Just drop it.

And Ramboky: Nobody is disputing that, either. You are both reading far too much and far too little into this.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

CocoCreek, you really, really don't get what WizardStan is talking about. Really. Just drop it.

And Ramboky: Nobody is disputing that, either. You are both reading far too much and far too little into this.

Moxie...I don't think anybody knows whaWizard

WizardStan, people can be conditioned to perform certain actions triggered by certain stimuli, just like most semi-intelligent animals. It's been proven countless times in psychological studies. Conditioned responses are not conscious choices, ergo not all actions are a result of choice. To state categorically that an abused woman who kills her husband always made the choice is (again) extremely naive and suggests limited life experience. 

You can fluff it up with all the philosophical wankery that you like but the fact is people do not always make conscious decisions for their actions. They're not always choices. Try reading a few psychology textbooks and lay off the philosophy pseudo-science.

^agreed!!!

CocoCreek, you really, really don't get what WizardStan is talking about. Really. Just drop it.

And Ramboky: Nobody is disputing that, either. You are both reading far too much and far too little into this.

Moxie, I don't think anybody gets what WizardStan is saying[except you and a few ] and no I won't drop it as you rudely suggest. Really.

All I ever said was Craig was responsible for all of this anger including the hateful emails,calls,etc. from the consumers who felt they have been taken advantage of financially. I stated it was human nature for people to react angrily when they feel they are being ripped off. I was cursed at and called a idiot for saying that and not seeing his viewpoint. Obviously you side with him and also have been combative with me.

I also say that people are not always responsible for their actions.Again you both had a big hissy about that too.

We can agree to disagree and close this topic but you both would rather dismiss me as an idiot. I am hurt by this and feel both of your wrath towards me is personal and I think I know why. This is disturbing to me. 

I also agree with ramboky that wizardstan uses too much philosophical wankery to get his point across. Perhaps you get him Moxie but I do not buy his snake oil salesman approach. Just because you do not understand somebody that does not make you an idiot!!! Maybe just maybe that person is hard to comprehend. I had teachers in college that lectured and I just could not 'get them'. So I transferred to another instructor for the same course and low and behold I understood him/her and passed the course. Had I stayed with the other professor and deemed myself an idiot for not 'getting him' I would have failed!!   Do you get that???!!!!!!??????? Get that/Get him = understand that/him.

In my eyes I just don't think you or wizard are good communicators but rather mega worded individuals poorly attempting to be intellectual and correct all the time.

 

[thatgui]

WizardStan, people can be conditioned to perform certain actions triggered by certain stimuli, just like most semi-intelligent animals. It's been proven countless times in psychological studies. Conditioned responses are not conscious choices, ergo not all actions are a result of choice. To state categorically that an abused woman who kills her husband always made the choice is (again) extremely naive and suggests limited life experience. 

You can fluff it up with all the philosophical wankery that you like but the fact is people do not always make conscious decisions for their actions. They're not always choices. Try reading a few psychology textbooks and lay off the philosophy pseudo-science.

 If you start from this angle, it is all the way back to square one - the definition of free will in a societies context - something wizardstan deliberately tried to avoid (with good reason)

Moxie, I don't think anybody gets what WizardStan is saying[except you and a few ] and no I won't drop it as you rudely suggest. Really...

I think wizardstans argumentation is perfectly fine, the only thing I critize is him calling you an idiot (or something in that line, can't remember right now) it was unneccessary and uncalled for.But utilizing your logic this would be your fault alone, as you repeatedly denied his attempts to get involved in his argumentation and examples, thus practically forcing him to take "harsher" actions.