To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *11226 (-20)
  Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) Hehe. Good. I like you better this way! (From your .debate posts I barely recognize the funny guy I met at Brickfest last year! It took me awhile to convince myself I was not mistaken and it was the same person. You're usually so serious (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
Thanks for the response Shiri, I was begining to worry that my poor behavior had actually run everyone off from the topic. That, I think, would be an embarrassing first. I'll be disagreeing more politely now. :-) (...) In as much as you are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL! OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly pointed out (and you seemed to agree). I'm claiming (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: LUGNET as an "Adult" site
 
(...) Seems a bit suss, although of course people can change over time. I had a go at the jal-baiting, failing to follow my own advice at (URL) : (...) IMHO the best response is to deal with them on their own terms. Leaving them alone is probably (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Some Lego buying stats
 
(...) My sister lives in a two bedroom two bath apartment in Santa Monica, probably considered a desirable neighborhood (whenever you see a Southern California street lined with those tall skinny palm trees in a movie, chances are good it is her (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) to (...) time. (...) If he had been so severe that I thought the other children needed their rights protected, I would have done so. In the instance that I'm thinking of, that wasn't the case. He wasn't bein egregiously abusive, he just wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) And in the meantime everyone ELSE has to put up with your child being a brat? You disgust me. You're one of the people that lets their children run rampant over everyone else, letting them "learn", and then "discuss" it with them afterwards. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
(...) But not unreasonable. Sure, some others may miss out on stuff of interest, but I don't think that makes it any less reasonable. (...) Thats a sweeping statement, and not always true. Sometimes continuing a conversation privately *can* bring (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
(...) Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end, on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free flamage at the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) (And (...) I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between "too much," "too little," and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) I do agree that as much as possible the "punishment" (consequences) should be related to the "crime". The consequences for mouthing off could result in no TV for the day if the consequence is actually "since you refuse to be civil today, you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
 
(...) Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.) (...) It sounds like you think I'm (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Is it.....?
 
(...) Hmm.... I guess it depends on the contest. I mean, take the following three examples: 1) The Lottery. This is self evident-Winning is the only thing that matters. If you don't win, you don't get nay feeling of satisfaction or (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
(...) Well, would saying that mean that we would advocate keeping it public? I wouldn't. I'd just advocate dropping it, not spreading it into the public domain. (...) Again, are you suggesting that keeping it public would be better than keeping it (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
(...) Aint diversity wonderful? 8?) (...) Are you disappointed because you didn't get the answer you expected? Or just surprised? (...) Um, careful with the out-of-context quotes, Larry. I said "always a reasonable course of action". I then went on (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
I think we have discussed this before(?). I remember thinking that we are constrained by the attributes assigned to the "partisan" in the final para on this page: (URL) do not think the text I quote answers you question, because I doubt there (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) Moulton (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nothing personal, but...
 
(...) It is the source of the collberation data I am taliking about. I have said this so may times, I fail to see how you could have missed this. Anyhow, I am actually fed up with all this now as it is clear to me that Larry is unwilling to justify (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
 
Some good discussion but nobody answered this question the way I expected, perhaps because I was a bit too subtle in trying hard to disengage from a particular situation (and Tim, you get marked down because you didn't stay general... :-) ) (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR