Subject:
|
Re: Apology.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:48:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7273 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Ban him.
>
> I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with
> another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think
> you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because
> you will end up getting more than you bargained for -- I think I am not
> alone in wanting to ban you and Larry, both, from off-topic.debate in
> particular (at least I want to every so often, more often than I'd like).
>
> I think it's a fair observation that more people reading these newsgroups
> appreciate his contributions to the community more so than your own, Scott.
> Not just here in debate, but elsewhere as well. So in a way, his
> contributions protect not only him, but yourself as well -- people are
> loathe to get rid of Larry and you together (for example, in a more general
> ban from lugnet altogether) if it also means losing his contributions
> elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you would like it to be otherwise, it is
> what it is. Larry can be a jerk, but when it comes to some things lego
> others value his knowledge, expertise, etc.
Ignore who is involved. A member has broken the rules. He is threatening to
do the same again. Either he should be removed, or the rules should be changed.
>
> Even though I often agree with some of your political views, you have other
> habits and tendencies that somehow manage to REALLY get under my skin and
> annoy the **** out of me. Larry often has the same effect on me, but
> despite his occasional lapses into childish behavior (esp. where you are
> concerned), I find his general tone to be considerably more civil and
> considered -- less getting in the dig just because it can be done. You, by
> contrast, seem to often raise questions over things just to get a rise out
> of someone -- not because you are genuinely interested in what will then be
> said or because you didn't know what the possible responses might be.
> Basically, I have come to think of you as ****-disturber in many instances
> -- and that's not a great thing for people to think of you.
I can't agree with you. Take a look at who continually tries, and often
succeeds, in starting large noisy “debates” in .debate. It is not me.
>
> It seems to me that you often tear down the views of others without having
> very many original thoughts yourself (and I don't see where anyone nominated
> you the off-topic.debate "Socrates"). Endlessly citing URLs (that I am not
> going to visit and read in depth anyway) does not an argument make. Say it
> yourself and say it reasonably well, or shut the hell up.
If a person's view is corrupt, do I have to provide an alternative? If I
catch him having sex with a cat, do I have to supply him with an alternative
in order for him to stop? I think not.
Scott A
>
> Anyway, I am not wedded to any of these views -- these are just the feelings
> and thoughts I have had on the subject for at least a little while. I
> thought I might share them with you because it seems to me that you may have
> lost perspective on how you come across in these various forums. I imagine
> we all lose persepctive from time to time, and this is hardly a perfect
> medium of expression.
>
> Larry and I have also been known to mix it up a bit, and I know we both have
> said very stupid things about each other even though we don't really know
> each other except through these hyperlinked texts -- and believe me, this
> represents far from perfect knowledge about a person! (If memory serves...)
> I once suggested to Larry that he and I were actually above the petty
> bickering in which we were engaged. I observed that we were both probably
> very intelligent persons who just happened to disagree on some issues and
> had a hard time backing away from the argument. I went so far as to suggest
> that if he and I actually knew each other in real life we might turn out to
> be friends -- life is strange that way. I knew of a fact that he and I were
> both wasting out time arguing about stuff in the manner in which we both
> pursued it at that time. When I first tossed these ideas out, Larry was
> probably not very receptive to them. In the course of the intervening months
> I dare say that Larry has mellowed in his attitude as regards me. I
> wouldn't necessarily say that he and I are pals, but I think I have reason
> to believe that he doesn't actively dislike me (idle speculation on my
> part). Perhaps he doesn't care one way or the other, but even so little as
> that allows us to interact in a more civil manner.
>
> Call me the idealist, but I think we should be trying to communicate here.
> Be fiesty, be fierce, be opinionated -- just don't be a jerk (not ALL the
> time). The sandbox approach to debate has gone on long enough.
>
> Try to take all of this as coming from one jerk to another, discussing a
> third. Yes, we have our own freaky, little brotherhood going...
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
