Subject:
|
Re: Can we help?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:10:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> What follows are my personal views, not official statements of position but I'm
> willing to wager that they are close enough as not to make much of a difference.
-snip-
> This post by you: http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=4950 was not, in my view,
> "mocking someone", nor did I say it was. It was merely sarcastic, and sarcastic
> in a way that did not really effectively advance the topic or add clarity to the
> argument. Sarcasm is acceptable when used appropriately, although it often is
> not an effective way to make a point.
But you said in http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=4956 that sarcasm didn't
really have a place.
> This post was, in my view, borderline
> acceptable although as a post making a point, it failed.
>
> This post in reply by me: http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=4954 in my view,
> called attention to that fact, and was also sarcastic, and in hindsight could
> have made its point without sarcasm. It was not, in my view, mocking. Sarcasm is
> acceptable when used appropriately, although it often is not an effective way to
> make a point. This post was, in my view, borderline UNacceptable and I apologise
> for it.
Noted.
>
> This post in reply by you: http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=4955 in my view
> *is* mocking, and is the first post in the string to so mock. You were arguably
> provoked by my excessive sarcasm, but mockery of others is not acceptable, even
> if provoked.
Do you consider the part where I used almost your exact words in response to
your post the part which is mocking? If so, how was your post not a mock in the
first place?
> You have a history of mocking others and it's not good behaviour.
> In future please do not mock others.
Noted.
> It also was pointed to a completely
> inappropriate newsgroup although you have acknowledged that.
Correct, I have acknowledged that. Although I note that you haven't acknowledged
that you failed to correctly set the FUT on your original reprimand to me.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Can we help?
|
| (...) It is part of the mocking in that post, yes. (...) I don't view it that way. Not all sarcasm is mocking. (...) I don't feel the original FUT was wrong. Admonitions (which my post was, although poorly structured) belong in the original group (...) (20 years ago, 7-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Can we help?
|
| What follows are my personal views, not official statements of position but I'm willing to wager that they are close enough as not to make much of a difference. (...) This post by you: (URL) was not, in my view, "mocking someone", nor did I say it (...) (20 years ago, 5-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
