Subject:
|
Dealing with the problem
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:52:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2127 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > To be honest I wish you wouldn't post on LUGNET(tm) at all, you're somewhere
> > between extremely low value add, and significant negative value add. Once in
> > a while you come up with an outside cite of some limited value but by and
> > large your own comments range from uninsightful to inciteful. Usually
> > tending toward the latter.
> >
> > By and large I do manage to ignore you but when you're at your most
> > egregious... it's hard.
>
> Heck, I ignore Scott, but judging by the flurry of responses, he won't do me
> the same favor. He wants and craves attention. Ignoring him is still the
> best option.
Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that
just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's
necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently.
This is necessary because if someone is engaged with him (such as John is
now, for whatever reason) it increases the noise level in general, and
further, when he's here, he causes other trouble besides the thread he's
active in. He and his posts are sort of an attractive nuisance in legal
terms, or a substrate for infection in biological terms.
As you say, he wants and craves attention, and will post repeatedly till he
gets it. As I say, his contributions are low value add, by and large, and
often negative. As you say, he's almost pathologically incapable of
admitting error, and will distort madly to make sure that he's (at least in
his mind) not caught out.
I think it's clear that off-topic.debate, and the whole of LUGNET(tm), would
be better off without him entirely. Suz has made it clear, for good and
valid reasons, that he's not going to be banned, despite his egregious
antisocial behaviour in many groups, because it sets a bad precedent. So the
only solution is to deny him the food that sustains him. Deny him the
responses that validate him.
So, everyone, and I include EVERYONE, ***including John Neal***, in that,
please ignore him. Even if it means he gets the last word and even if it
means that he then uses it at some later date to claim that he wasn't answered.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Dealing with the problem
|
| Larry, Take a look at the current fuss. Look at what started it. You should hang your head in shame rather that cause more fuss. It may be a cultural thing, but personally I think sniggering and name-calling is far more “anti-social” than my alleged (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
