 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
