Subject:
|
Re: Brad J Brickfest 2002 Keynote Speech synopsis
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:33:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
732 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I do apologise. Really I do.
Well, the fact that you think it's cool to make a public examination of my
behavior or character traits is rather annoying. And the statement was
qualified in weird ways that made it a fairly backhanded compliment if
that's what it was supposed to be...
> Nowadays you just insult me by calling me an apologist. That's pretty mild
> compared to your old behaviours, but it's still an insult, dictionary
> citations or not.
I am willing to talk about this to the extent that there was no reason for
anyone outside TLC (to whom the question was rhetorically posed) to reply to
a one liner from me in the first place. If y'all chose to reply in TLC's
defense, as usual, what shall I call you? What is the alternative word to
descibe a person that continually defends TLC's policies? If everyone had
just remained silent, my one line would have faded into oblivion. Instead
the question was expanded slightly to show some other "less than ideal"
practices that TLC/LD is engaging in. Fine by me...
> I would prefer not to go there again if at all possible. It's no fun for me
> or you or anyone else and it's not adding anything new.
I would tend to agree.
> "allowed to" ?? it's not some big prize, you know.
Yeah, you're right -- I wouldn't do it even if asked.
> Posed not because he felt you were really in need of answering but rather to
> try to get you to realise that you were posing similar dilemnas of your own
> to others. If you seriously think he was asserting that you beat women then
> I'm not sure what to say... don't be disingenuous, it doesn't become you,
> you know what he was trying to show, that you were using an unfair
> rhetorical device.
I have answered this elsewhere. What *I* think is not the whole story with
such a question, the way it was posed.
> Like you used to.
O great -- this is your justification? "We all used to act like yahoos --
and even if Hop-Frog is not acting like a yahoo right now -- I STILL want to
act like a yahoo!" What can I say? You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.
Anyway, there isn't anything left to this. If the claim is that I am now
paying for past sins (which I think Ross may be hinting at) -- fine, I'll
accept that. I don't think it helps anyone for the main newsgroups, in
particular, to play host to ad hominem attacks against any individual. If
one somehow must engage in the behavior at least send it to off-topic where
fewer are likely to see it or care that it's there in the first place.
I am still willing to read an excellent (hope springs eternal) refutation of
my side of the "profiteering" argument...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brad J Brickfest 2002 Keynote Speech synopsis
|
| I trimmed lugnet.events.brickfest and left admin.general. I see Todd pointed his FUT to off-topic.debate. I'm not sure I'd send it there, this seems more at this point to be about what is a personal attack and what isn't... (...) If you took this as (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
