Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:55:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2619 times
|
| |
|
|
> > But why go to the bother of telling you to ignore me, when he
> > is not willing to do so himself. I’m sorry, but I’m not a big fan of >hypocrisy.
>
> And yet I do not find hypocrisy in Larry's posts. I see him working towards
> a betterment of ot-d. Not that I'm a great debater myself, but I am willing
> to improve my erronous ways once I know about them.
>
> There are two proverbs in the Bible:
>
> Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like
> him yourself.
>
> Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in
> his own eyes.
>
> Two completely contrary Proverbs in the good book, and yet I do not find
> them to be hypocritical at all.
Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7.
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Do you think that there is a current problem in this newsgroup?
> >
> > At this moment, yes.
>
> What is it? How would you fix it?
>
> <snip>
>
> > > If there are threads and topics that are dwelled on to the dissatisfaction
> > > of most of the participants here in ot-d, what would your solution be to
> > > lessen the dissatisfaction?
> >
> > Stop reading the thread?
>
>
> That's a good solution. Another would be to stop *posting* on the thread if
> its deemed to be a 'dead horse', if it's deemed to cause derision and
> dissention amongst *most* of the participants.
But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be
abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view?
In this group [without any justification] I have been called a liar, racist,
anti-American and [worst of all] English. It has also been inferred that I am
anti-semitic and support terrorism. Based on the nature of these claims, I’m
willing to admit that my views do not map 100% onto the rest of the group’s.
However, I do wonder if I’d get less flack if I changed my views….
> >
> > He was replying to others, but responding to me – understand the difference.
> > That said, do you think that is good or bad?
>
> I think discussion is great! I love it when a bunch of people post their
> opinions on an issue! I love it when Larry comes up with an option to fix
> something, then tries to work it out in an even better fashion. Right now,
> though, he's probably pretty much regretting his replies to your postings
> for there, once again, is a failure of interpretation. He's not trying to
> be malicious or baiting, he's trying to work out a way to make this place
> better. I just chose a different route.
I doubt you’ll expect me to agree.
> >
> > > His replies directly to your posts
> > > were to offer clarification as to what he is trying to accomplish for the
> > > betterment of this newsgroup and I applaud him for the effort.
> >
> > Nonsense on stilts! Explain this:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18410
> >
> > >
>
> Yeah, and when you reach the end of your rope, you use such phrases like
> "Largely because I lack motivation to engage fully on this"
I partly lack motivation as we cannot agree on basic issues.
>
> We all have to learn to separate the stuff from the Stuff. We all have off
> days, we all reach that 'end-of-rope' when we become snippy.
Do you really feel this statement is valid when applied to post I referenced:
"His replies directly to your posts were to offer clarification as to what he
is trying to accomplish for the betterment of this newsgroup and I applaud him
for the effort."
> And you very
> well know that there is no love lost b/w yourself and Larry.
I feel no dislike for Larry. At worst, I feel mildly bemused by him. At one
time he used to really wind me up, but [thankfully] that is in the past.
> You're talking
> with me now. How do you think we can improve the situation in ot-d?
I have said already - act like adults.
>
> >
> > > What I have to go by, here
> > > and now, is what I perceive. On LUGNET, today, the perception is that Larry
> > > is an upstanding member of this community.
> >
> > My inbox does not support that view 100%. That said, I do still have a great
> > deal of respect for Larry. But as discussed elsewhere, he has trodden on a heck
> > of a lot of toes.
>
> Let us all work to the betterment of the newsgroup, and let the past rest in
> the past.
I've no problem with that ;)
> > So the “compromise” is that I should do as I’m told?
>
> No, the compromise is what we work out, as a group. I personally do not
> believe that ignoring is the best solution for this difficulty, and want to
> come up with another solution.
I'm happy with it. If instituted, I expect I'd only get a reply to a post when
I was [or perceived to be] blatantly wrong. It would prove an educational
experience.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > To be honest, I’m happy with the ignore thing.
>
> Well then, everyone is in agreement but me, and since I'm not bigger than
> the group, there you are.
Democracy is a funny thing sometimes ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
