 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Erik Olson writes:
> This all comes down to "Wah, I can't have what I want".
No, actually I got most of the trees I wanted -- I could go for more though...
...and the people that write to me privately could go for more too. I get
this funny idea that my views are very popular with a silent majority from
the private emails I get a lot of the time. I can only assume that the
others in agreement with what I have stated do not post publically because
they are not interested in the heat or the personal attacks.
I mean, you are calling me "immature" right? And for what? Pointing out
the silly practices of a company even you won't defend? What have you got
against me? So, if we ever have the chance to meet in real life you won't
mind my kicking your ass, right?! I guess it doesn't matter if I have a
reason...
> I wonder, who are the adults and who are the children here?
Yeah, me too. Was your post supposed to be in opposition to my views? I
agreed with most of it.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
It was a rhetorical question. Present audience excepted, but if the shoe
fits, wear it.
I'm sorry I got into this.
The thing that gets me angry is whingers who reason like "it's so easy, X
must be stupid for not doing it." (example: molding parts.) And insist X is
rationalizing when X gives a few details.
-Erik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Erik Olson writes:
> It was a rhetorical question.
No, you began with a statement that I think was intended to imply quite
specifically that I am a whining child. It was also in direct reply to my
own post.
As it turns out, I don't take offense because I don't even know you nor do I
care what you think. But please admit when you are making, or attempting to
make, personal attacks. You could have stayed on point, but you chose not
to -- you chose to make it personal instead.
Larry chose to end his reply with a kind of personal attack also (this is
the guy that is allowed to moderate and curate newsgroups here and on
bricklink?).
James posed a famous trick question that cannot be answered yes or no
without admitting fault (in this case the *really sweet* assertion that I
beat women).
I might disagree with some of the views stated by Larry P., James B., or
even those of Erik O. but I don't think I go out of my way to insult them
personally. Maybe there is some confusion about the word "apologist" -- it
merely means "A person who argues in defense or justification of something,
such as a doctrine, a policy, or an institution."
Anyway, I don't see why some of you choose to attack me personally for my
views. Disagree with my opinions, mount your own arguments, etc. -- no problem.
Get in my face and we have a problem.
Frankly, I am not sure why some of you are not banned from posting for
failure to keep a civil tongue when replying to others' posts.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > It was a rhetorical question.
> No, you began with a statement that I think was intended to imply quite
> specifically that I am a whining child. It was also in direct reply to my
> own post.
Ok guys, take this to another group -- like .off-topic.debate or something.
This part of the thread isn't about BrickFest anymore...
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> James posed a famous trick question that cannot be answered yes or no
> without admitting fault (in this case the *really sweet* assertion that I
> beat women).
Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
particular type of answer.
If you found it insulting, please accept my apologies - it was not my
intent. The opposite, rather; from your fairly solid grasp of debate
techniques, I expected you to recognize my intent without spelling it out.
I'll try and remeber the kid gloves in the future.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
> enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
> what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
> an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
> accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
> particular type of answer.
That's pretty sketchy.
My question was essentially rhetorical. I didn't expect to get any kind of
reply at all -- the fact that I got replies from some of the usual persons
makes those replying apologists (the negative connotation this word may have
is not my fault -- it quickly and easily describes the routine defense of
TLC's actions that some of you like to engage in). The form my question took
was off the top of my head -- I could just as easily have asked: "Why are
you discontinuing a brisk selling accessory item even if it means creating a
replacement mold?" or some such thing. The question rhetorically asks for
an explanation and is not a trick question that I can see. If undue emphasis
is to be given the word "smart" and that is the key word that makes the
question somehow unfair, I guess you are suggesting that TLC doesn't have
"smart" reasons for the things it does -- with which I might tend to agree.
BTW, the fact that I know it's a famous trick question doesn't mean that
everyone knows this, and this IS a public forum. That's why I called
attention to this fact immediately. Many may also not realize that I am not
married and hence have no wife -- again, something people do not necessarily
know. You claim it was used innocently, and I guess that's possible -- but
I am suspicious of this claim. I wouldn't be annoyed if you canceled that
post and replaced it with one without the offending trick question.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | |
