Forgotten Bios Password

as that thread is full.

Assuming you aren't just flame baiting (i'm feeling pretty done with that) and actually are interested in a response, i'd say this:

The implication of my statement was 'jd is stupid', the rest was snark.

To actually address your question; responsibility can be viewed in subjective and objective components from either the oppressed or the oppressor.

Objective oppressor responsibility lies in actual depravation of rights (to vote, marry, hold land etc.) or opportunities (glass ceilings, poor education, rejection from prominent social organizations, etc.) to the oppressed. Subjectively, the oppressed may or may not even be aware of the loss, though awareness would likely be the norm (most people know when they are getting screwed over).

Conversely, which goes to your point, one may 'feel' oppressed with or without an objective external justification. If it is phantom oppression, then apparently yes, the 'responsibility' is on the person 'feeling oppressed'. That's why referring to 'traditional categories of oppression' is a useful tool to reference what is going on, and of course those vary from place to place. (eg. Koreans may have few negative stereotypes in New York, but are often looked down upon in Japan, it's very situational).

In sum, the oppression at hand here is based on a quality assigned to an individual based not on an intrinsic quality of that individual; but instead a quality assigned by another based on a non-determinative trait that is not shared by the oppressor. (ie: in your example, if someone is 'stupid', that is a determinative quality as to that person's intelligence; if a person is gay/black/jewish/mexican/female etc., these are non-determinative qualities for most socially valuable things (eg: hard working/smart/good tempered etc.)). Thus when someone uses a non-determinative quality ("you're gay") as a referent to a qualitatively determinable trait ("you're a troll/stupid hacker") that is a manifestation of perpetuating objective oppression through social construction of negative stereotypes.

That is a lot better. Know that if you go about your life with a more mature attitude, you will do a lot better. There are many things that make up being "mature". One of them is being a little more flexible, giving, and forgiving with those around you.

You know, learning on your own is better than not learning at all. But, I recommend you get some formal education. Do it however you have to, but do it. By learning WITH others, you will learn to be more comfortable, have more confidence, and be less defensive with your peers. There's a lot more to learn than just the technical stuff.

I think you have a lot to learn about a great many things. In spite of your many mistakes here, I wish you well.

edit: Correction of tone.

You snooze, you lose! :-)

This thread should have died a long time ago.

To a particular "writer", that wasn't the issue.

As I recall it, that person decided to do two different things at the same (roughly) time- complain about a peer "stalking" her via peer mail, and sending unwanted peer mail to a second peer. When she was asked to cease, she responded with a second PM, thus becoming guilty of the same thing she wanted the PTB to kick someone else over.

Was it warranted? Opinions, like people vary. From my personal perspective, I think that she was out of line.

Keeping in mind that I only became active around that time, I think there was a feeling about that person individually. I don't know that I am any more or less "nice", simply that I left people alone unless invited- courtesy.

Just my read. :)

By your comment here, you apparently condone wildmandan69's posts here. I disagree with you.

Wildman's first-ever and second-ever TR posts are what this is about. The first was poor. The second was unacceptable. If somebody walked into a real-world group like he did here, the reaction would be similar to what occurred here. You're on the wrong side of this.

Any of these phrases in wildman's first two posts could have changed everything: "...Hello, I'm new here and need some help..." "...I know how this looks but..." "...I understand your reluctance to provide specifics, but..." "...Thanks for your answer but...". Doesn't wildman have any responsibility for his own posts in your view?

Did this thread take on a life of its own? Absolutely. Wildman is free to express himself, just like you. Everyone else is entitled to express their view, just like you.

By your post, you apparently think socially deviant behavior is to be coddled. Poor wildman is "misunderstood". Well, all of us have a responsibility to be understood and be sociable while doing so. Coddling deviant behavior will produce more deviant behavior.

Rndmacts, bingo, I agree with everything you said. The flaming WMD got was embarrassing.

T2's first paragraph *was* great. And the second paragraph *was* cast as a mild accusation. She could've omitted it completely and WMD would've been perfectly happy with her response and grateful for her help.

And yes WMD did over react too in his subsequent response. But so many of the follow-on postings to *that* response were just over-the-top and as immature as WMD was accused of being. (I'll point out that the name calling did *not* begin with WMD, but with other self-described "professionals" in the forum, which is about as far from professional behavior as you can get.)

If she really felt it necessary, T2 could've made the same point in her second paragraph with language that didn't imply she suspected there was at least a 50/50 chance that WMD was trying to do something nefarious.

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? And since when does someone posting to an on-line discussion forum of all places have to "earn" anyone else's respect? Either choose to answer their question or not, that's the right of any other person in the forum, but isn't *anyone* due respect as simple common decency until they prove they do *not* deserve it, not the other way around? Given T2's direct implication in her second paragraph that she was suspicious of WMD's motives (and that's what she did folks), WMD's defensive response to T2's first post didn't rise to the level that justified the verbal abuse to which he was then subjected.

Sadly, the attitude that was thrown at WMD so quickly just illustrated why the stereotype of the self-important, rude and dismissive company IT technician with a chip on their shoulder has a kernel of truth to it. Jimmy Fallon didn't pull his SNL "IT Guy" character out of nowhere.

Sad, sad, sad...

Where I ACCUSED him of anything. What I did was tell him what further assistance he could not expect.

What in this sentence is accusatory? [i]You won't find much additional help here. This is a professional technical forum and no one here will knowingly help you or anyone else to crack a password.[/i]

As I do work in the security sector, before I will help you to crack a password, I have to see some proof of ownership that the computer is yours. Anything less is unprofessional in the extreme and I would expect anyone working in this sector to know that. Furthermore, I provided him with the correct answer that would take him to a solution.

I prefer to not think that someone could steal a corporate laptop carrying sensitive data on it and be able to come here for information to break the protections on that laptop. I certainly do not want the conduit of that information to be me.

I did in no way, shape, or form, ask anyone to step in. That my peers recognised that I was responding in a responsible manner and CHOSE to defend me was their choice. The fact that I have always in this forum conducted myself within reason might have been part of their decision making process.

To my knowledge, we have not been guilty of bullying. While some of the peers here are strong in the expression of thier opinions, "wildmandan" certainly brought that on himself.

Edited to correct a typo and add the following:

I have watched flames erupt for giving the very answer I supplied in para one. I have been harassed via peer mail for only providing that much information. The statement was in no way accusatory but specifically stated what many people here consider to be good policy. As it is the policy I follow in the corporate world, and is stated as such, I see no reason to change or omit it here.

I would bet you anything "69" is NOT the year of this clowns birth.

Bully? Nah. And no, I was not the picked on one either. If you have actually read many of my posts outside of this discussion, you would know that I am not usually the one to start throwing flames around. Have I before? Of course, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Did I intend to offend anyone but Wildman? No.

I apologize for your offense to the statements, as well as anyone else that felt the same but didn't feel strongly enough about it to say something like you did.

I got it. Wildman is not responsible for anything. Everyone else is responsible for poor wildman.

Where is wildman's response to this reasonable post to him? I must say, you are completely full of it.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200703&messageID=2092965

When a statement of policy is unacceptable.

It is not the responsibility of the peerage of this board to play mommy to anyone. Most, when hearing that they have gone off on the wrong foot, either ask for additional assistance or chose to not participate.

I would not suggest that you take the "watercooler" (that is where you are here) and consider it indicative of all of TR. This is the place where people "cut loose" if you will and have fewer restrictions. It is also a place where most folk know each other.

You aren't irrelevant. Perhaps do not have the "lay of the land" as it were. Tech QA is a valid place to ask questions and receive answers. Miscellaneous, not so much if you are verbally inappropriate.

You post was clear. The one place where I disagree with you is in terms of respect. I offered an individual respect before they earned it once. That individual found it necessary to impersonate me and well as delete all of his posts. I am a bit more reluctant now to assume that everyone is as they claim to be.

As NB has already stated, this is the Miscellaneous topic. As such, it is home to (and prey for) some of the most highly opinionated, easily offended, and quick reacting members of TR. And as you so rightly pointed out, we are a family of sorts here. Like all families, we have our disagreements between ourselves and we tend to gang up on outsiders, particularly if we perceive offense. And yes, it can get uugly.

If you do not wish to participate in discussions in this topic, that is your choice. I lurked in this topic for years, making only periodic posts, before I became more active. Of the thousands of TR members, probably less than 500 are truly active in the Miscellaneous topic.

As one of the more senior active members of TR, I would like to ask you to reconsider putting TR on your blacklist. The Miscellaneous topic is but one of 18 TR topics (albeit probably the one with the most activity). Please review those of the other 17 topics in which you might be interested and determine for yourself whether the shortcomings of the Miscellaneous topic are so great that they offset the value of the other 17.

It's no accident that your post and the response to it is very different than those by "wildman" and the response to his. That difference gives you all the answers you need. The response to "wildman" would never occur with someone reasonable and responsive like yourself.

THIS IS A FORUM OF PEERS

This forum is not a public service. It's an online forum of peers. "Wildman" has been a very poor peer so far and has earned a failing grade of "F". In an online forum, you only get back what you put into it. "Wildman" has shown great immaturity and sensitivity. He posted rudely and then went away for TWO DAYS. The other peers did whatever they did. I wouldn't read too much into it. A lot of it really has little to do with "wildman". Who knows who he really is? Who knows the truth? How do you KNOW what the truth is? Should you really BELIEVE what "wildman" has said? Should you BELIEVE what I say? I suggest to you that because I am reasonable and responsive to you, that I'm believable. But, it's completely up to you. "Wildman" could have done something to change this at any time but did not. Wildman's contribution to TR has been less than zero so far. It's not the peers' job to coddle the other peers.

A few late posters have cried about unfair treatment of "wildman". Well, cry me a river. The peers are not the "powers that be"! We're peers, just like "wildman". He has not more or less power than anyone else here.

WILDMAN ASKED FOR HELP BREAKING INTO A COMPUTER

Simply put, "wildman" asked for help in breaking into a computer. Was it his computer? Who knows? The smart response is to direct him to the manufacturer for help in order to avoid helping someone do something illegal. Tigger was smart. End of story.

EPILOGUE

Everything else that happened is just "fluff". I suggest you ignore it. TR is a great place to interact with technical peers. And, you only get out of it what you put in.

All the best to you.

I really only found this thread just a few hours ago. And in between when I started reading it and when I finally replied, I had to go to the doctor because I have strep and I need some meds. I know, boo-hoo ;) Besides, had I caught it on day one, how would I have known that it would go this far?

I'd like to make clear that when I referred to attacking, I meant people's comments, not really any person in particular. I don't know any of you, and we all act goofy at certain times, me included. When I'm with my friends, we have a heck of a time ripping on certain people, believe me. I just don't get off on doing it to perfect strangers. And I'm certainly not the kind of person that likes hurting other people's feelings, even if I felt like I was egged on.

Another thing you guys (and gals?) have going for you is that many of you know each other, if not personally, at least through dialog, probably for quite some time. I'm guessing that when each of you go back and forth, you know who you are talking to and what you can say, as well as how it will be received. This is great camaraderie, but I don't feel it's helpful to people outside your circle looking in.

Which raises the point that people are looking in. This is a totally public forum that anyone, like me, can view and/or participate in. But since I don't you know you guys (and gals?), it's hard to say that I want to take the chance to get to know you when I see these kinds of comments.

peace.

Hi T2,

As everyone knows, one of the drawbacks of textual communications is that it is difficult to express nuance or tone; voice inflection and body language that might soften the meaning of a given statement is missing. That may be what happened here. But so without that other non-written information to help interpret what you really meant, the last line of your post can only be taken on face value:

"This is a professional technical forum and no one here will knowingly help you or anyone else to crack a password."

The statement above may be factual, and does in fact express a positive, socially responsible policy. But its wording is loaded. You may disagree, but I contend that the average reader of that line as worded could only come away with the interpretation that you felt there was a good possibility that not just anyone in general, but WMD in particular was trying to do something malicious. You didn?t explicitly *say* that he was, but the very fact that you felt it necessary to admonish him in that manner after first helping him is difficult to interpret in any other way. That?s what I meant by ?mild accusation.?

And yes, it is true that there is a possibility he *was* trying to surreptitiously ?crack? into someone?s computer without authorization. But we have absolutely no way of knowing that one way or the other. So why add the extra statement that suggests you think that?s what he may be trying to do? (Again, you didn?t say that explicitly, but you certainly implied that?so I say again, what happened to the presumption of innocence principle?)

Without proof of nefarious intent, why wasn?t it sufficient to tell him how to solve his problem in a way that wouldn?t allow him to compromise a system he didn?t have a legitimate right to access? If his intentions were honorable, that approach would?ve given WMD the help he needed without putting him on the defensive, and if his intentions were dishonorable, it wouldn?t have helped him at all.

As it was, the additional line about no one in this forum being willing to help someone ?crack a password? could only serve to offend a person with innocent intent, and would be ignored by someone with malicious intent, not stopping them from trying to get that information from another source; either way that extra comment serves no useful purpose. So why bother with it?

As for the flaming that occurred, that certainly wasn?t your doing, and you admirably didn?t participate in that, and it is also nice that you have such loyal friends in the forum, but I stand by my earlier criticism of that behavior. It was rude and unwarranted.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in a civil dialogue, even if we disagree.

Respectfully,

BB

"...bleeding heart moron."

Again with the name calling, and in the first line even. T2 herself said this was a professional forum, and you said we're all "peers" here. TE2, do you call your professional peers in your place of work disparaging names? If you do, and that's considered acceptable office etiquette, that's a pretty poor commentary on your place of employment. I know of few really outstanding IT professionals who would tolerate such a disrespectful work environment.

"Peers have the right to make their own judgements without due process of law."

They do, but if they don't exhibit traits like simple politeness and more importantly a sense of fairness, most such peers will soon lose the respect of their peer group and be marginalized by that group. That's just the way human social interactions work, like it or not.

"Posters ALWAYS have to earn respect."

I'm sorry, is there some democratically elected "on-line forums" legislative body that makes laws codifying rules like the above, that I'm unaware of? Why isn't the more civil assertion that "Posters always have to earn DIS-respect" just as legitimate?

"He has been completely nonresponsive to his own thread...."

My gosh, he was completely trashed by several members of this forum with his very first post, and you actually are puzzled by his lack of continued posting? Why would *any* newby want to subject themselves to any further such abuse? I know I wouldn't.

-BB

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200711&messageID=2091714

read Tig's post, and follow the links. You may get more of an idea of what the "Stalwart Crew" is all about.

There are a few of us here who are lucky enough to have grown close personal friendships on this site, and not just with others from the same location/country. I personally have accrued some very close friendships with peers from the US and Canada, as well as from my own country and Ireland.

Try to understand that in some parts of this board are some of the most caring and supportive people from around the world.

A few examples: one peer has recently undergone brain surgery, with myself acting as communications mediator - all he had to do was mail me, and info on his condition was on the board. He also had my contact numbers, and those of others on the board in case he just needed to talk things out.

Another peer has recently undergone surgery and some of the rest of us are trying to think of alternative careers for him, so that he doesn't have to return to work which may be detrimental to his surgery in the long term.

One stalwart admits that the only thing that kept him sane during his divorce was the support he was getting from the TR peeps - we kept him on the right track, warning him of pitfalls, and making sure he was legally covered every step of the way.

Tig2's Breast Cancer walk was something else. I've never seen support like it on any other forum; the hot 100 looked great by the end of the walk, with something like 30 of a very dodgily-counted 100 top posters changing their avatars to pink ribbons. One peer was actively searching and posting links to newscasts and videos as the walk was actually taking place.

In a way, I suppose we are a support group outside of work life, too. All our combined life experiences are brought to the table on request of help from a peer. We find that sharing our ups and downs of life may help others from making the mistakes that we did.

As for the initial post - Tig was right, but I totally understand where her second sentence came from. You need to understand that over the last six months or so we have had so many trolls/seagull posters/flamers/troublemakers that we do tend to question peoples' motives. Sorry, but that's life. If six different people borrowed money off you in real life, and didn't return it, you wouldn't lend money to the seventh, would you? That's what's happening here - the first batch were treated with help, civility, and we were flamed in response for not giving what the poster considered to be an adequate answer. So we stopped giving adequate answers, and certainly not 100% solutions. The other problem with this board (sorta) is that we do have a lot of high school kiddies joining, posting, asking us to complete their high school homework for them. Another reason for our wariness.

Sorry to ramble on, but I think you ought to give us a chance - being off work sick myself, I've already had peer mails wishing me well, virtual hugs and kisses better, and good thoughts to keep me going.

I'll just finish by sending you a virtual fever reducing pill, a virtual hottle bottle, and a drink of your choice to help your recovery.

Trust me, it's a good place. Have a sticky personal or work problem, put the word "help" in the post title, and the regulars respond everytime. (Once to the point that a peer posted a thread before going into work - by the time he got to work an hour later, he had 38 replies waiting for him.......) Hover and read for a while and I guarantee you'll get an insight into every one of the regulars, we don't change, we don't put on facades for others. We're just us.

Yes, I'm biased - I love this regular crowd to little buttons! :p :D

Get well soon

GG