| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Terry Prosper wrote:
> > Lar, Hop-Frog, shame on you both for this arrogant attitude. We were merely
> > discussing clone-brands MOC here, and you both come here to insult me.
>
> When exactly did Larry insult you in this thread? I can only find one reply
> by him, and I can't see how it was intended to apply to you.
It wasn't intended to insult ANYONE.
Terry, if you took it as insulting you, I'm not sure what to say except sorry.
Richard, if you took it as insulting rather than just stating the truth about
your "latch on to controversy and use it to cause trouble" behaviour in this and
many many other threads here (and elsewhere), well... sometimes the truth can
indeed be insulting, which is too bad, really. I wouldn't lose too much sleep
over it, though... You've certainly insulted others often enough, and as they
say, what goes around comes around.
David, I see (based on the number of posts you've made in the thread) you're not
taking my advice and letting it go... Trust me, you're never going to get any
admission that you're right, so you're better off just letting it go. No amount
of truth, logic, persuasion or peer pressure is going to change Richard's
behaviour or opinions or manner of speaking. So let it go.
To those that can read, comprehend and internalise successfully, the whole thing
is clear already, based on what the owners said long ago. This private property
is intended to host discussion of LEGO(r) products. Not generic bricks, not
other building systems, not *anything* else. Putting clones in the off topic
hierarchy is an acknowledgement that there *may* be *some* legitimate interest
in allowing some *limited* discussion of clones, but it's clearly *off-topic*
just as off-topic.fun and off-topic.debate are.
Quibbling about what particular charters say or don't say when the owners intent
is clear strikes me as not particularly useful. (but then, I tend to resort to
appeal to what the authors of a document intended (c.f. you will often see me
cite the Federalist Papers as a view to what the Constitution framers intended)
rather than split hairs about what the precise wording of a document is)
Worse... agitating, rabble rousing, calling names, insulting others for their
views and other destructive behaviours might be fun for those that enjoy trying
to destroy communities but are not the way to get that policy changed.
Everyone that can read, comprehend and internalise successfully already knows
that. So, in my view anyway, this entire discussion is a dead horse and has been
for some time.
Making the thread longer at this point is just feeding the troll. Which I just
did. But maybe if my one post stops 4 other feeds, maybe it's worth it. And make
no mistake, Richard's trolling this thread at this point, plain and simple.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) Might be useful to ease back on the spin, there. "Quibbling" suggests pointless bickering about minutiae, but I think my question about the charter was legitimate and perfectly in keeping with honest exchange of information. I could have been (...) (21 years ago, 19-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
Message is in Reply To:
66 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
|
|
|
|
