 | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) No it wasn't. From: (URL) think there are two different questions here Should discussion on a topic cease (for a while, permanently) if certain things indicate it might be a good idea? Sometimes there are people who post here that some may (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Race Erase
|
|
Race not reflected in genes, study says (URL) course, if Strom had been president, we wouldn't have had all these problems in the first place. Dave! (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Scott, You, of all people, should not point out the shortcoming of others with regard to "justifying or retracting the statement" when found in error. That's from one concerned patron to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It was a jest. But I do view that post as a troll. The post is 1000+ word attack on me, and a request that all ignore me. But check the last 2 lines: ==+== I admit a bit of cheating on ignoring him. if someone else responds, I have been known (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) How so? (...) Oh? What is your understanding? (...) No you didn't. The topic was already discussed and out it the open. People knew exactly what was being referenced, which is why you were banned. Your demonstration of a point that was already (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Hi Bruce, It's those darn Christian ethics of mine--I always have this prevailing hope that people can be redeemed. I'm not the one who do the redeeming, but they can, for themselves, show some sort of movement to bettering their situation and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, Dave, but how can there be a clean slate when Scott is dirtying it faster than it can be cleaned? Your current discussion with Scott simply illustrates all of his usual tricks: decrying personal comments while getting in as many as (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
I think if we bring it right back to the beginning of this particular thread, Larry posted many good ideas and ways for us to agree to disagree and move on. Let us all, then, in the spirit of gentlemen, move on from this particular issue to other (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
I'm probably making a big mistake in responding, but... (...) Ok, I dug out the post I believe you are referring to. In that particular exchange, you were choosing to jump on a single point of mine (as you do to everyone) and tearing me down for it. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) This is not clarification. You concede that my interpretation could be one way of reading what you said, i.e. "You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
