Debate : 11084


Off-Topic / Debate / 11084

Nothing personal, but... —James Brown

Am I the only one around here who adds off-topic.debate to their skip filter whenever the Scott & Larry show gets going at full steam? Like I say, it's nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious that you two don't see eye-to-eye, don't understand (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Shiri Dori

(...) Nope. (...) Don't know. I've posted about it once before. I really wish they'd take it to email, or just can it. Barely anyone else finds the discussions intellectually intriguing enough to respond. -Shiri (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree with you. I try my best – I really do. If Larry just stuck to the debate, rather than get personal, there would be much less noise. For the record, I try never to get personal / resort to insults and I never say anything here that I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —James Brown

(...) <snip the "If only Larry" part> If you're really trying to quit, you're failing miserably. It takes two to tango, and you guys have been dancing together for a long time. James (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree with you 100%. This would be much less mess if Larry just answered the points I put to him. He throughs insults at me, I ask him questions in return. He just is not willing to justify his opinion in any way: A recent one : (URL) older (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —James Brown

(...) In words, but not in deeds. <snipping again.> You're missing the point, Scott, and you're still trying to dance. I don't care if you think Larry is leading or not; every time you bring this up ("if only Larry" "if Larry just" "if he just did (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) I hear what you are saying James. But I have went much further than Larry ever has. I am not going to stand by and let him try to insult me. I do not expect you would either. Let's just wait and see how Larry responds to my posts. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Duane Hess

(...) "If only...." "Infantile insults"? That sounds like an insult in itself. It sounds like you are trying to avoid any responsibility what-so-ever. -Duane (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) When are insults not infantile? Whaen are they ever required? (...) I am trying to be constructive. Are you? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Duane Hess

(...) Insults are insults. I guess to apply an adjective depends on the perception. I've seen people insulted at the infantile level, and I've seen them insulted on a level so high that they didn't even know they were insulted. (...) They are never (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I think you missed James' point - you can't control Larry, you can only control yourself. I need to remind myself of this all the time. :-) Bruce (ooooo, sorry, that was a dig at myself, not Larry!) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Everyone that is bothered by it ought to. I ought to, for that matter. (...) I admit I ought to do a better job of ignoring Scott Arthur's drivel. But I just don't suffer fools gladly, and when he gets going full steam my perception of him as (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Frank Filz

(...) I was going to stay out of this but...(1) While I possibly agree with you Larry, this seems to be one of those times where it's appropriate for the parents to send BOTH kids to their rooms without supper. I still am not convinced it's good to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I know this wasn't the point, but I have to say that such an action is a really disgusting abuse. The kids should be taught to work out their differences and play nicely. Forcing an abusive authority relationship on them won't do anything (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Dave Schuler

(...) From a simply pragmatic standpoint, I never saw the "no supper" punishment as that effective, including those few occasions when I was subject to it. It was too vague a punishment to have any lasting effect, even in terms of negative (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Larry Pieniazek

<snip> Further, it is my opinion that punishing both children whenever it is not easily determinable who is at fault engenders the notion that if you can just muddy the waters as to fault, you can get away with stuff to the extent of your victim (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree 100% Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Punishment doesn't teach what the punisher normally expects. It merely teaches the recipient to avoid being caught. It also creates a divide between the authority and the punished, rather than bringing them together team-wise. (...) But I (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Kirby Warden

(...) Several weeks ago, my step-son was going too close to the road. My wife and I gave him warnings and examples ("that's danger!") as to why he shouldn't get too close. He disobeyed soon after and was caught by me. I gave him another warning and (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Postmodernist "power structure" drum-beating, if you ask me! Your assertion depends on the assumption that people can never grasp a concept of (culture- and society- based) right and wrong but instead must languish in an attitude of "the power (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Steve Lane

(...) I agree with Dave and it's not like you have to smack the child for every transgression. Once you've smacked them for crayoning on the wall when they discover another inappropriate action you can inform them if they do it again, that too will (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Steve Lane

(...) Surely the term Violence only covers actions that are meant to cause injury, permanent or otherwise. I'd be the last person to assult or injure a child, I just think with the undeveloped mind of a child sometimes a smack is probably the only (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Steve Lane

(...) Ignore all the rubbish I wrote above I've now totally changed my mind. Steve (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Shiri Dori

(...) First off, quick comment. Negative reinforcement is the wrong term here - negative reinforcement refers to the removal of a bad effect, in response to a good action. Negative reinforcement receives the *same* effect as positive reinforcement, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Ah, well. The point remains the same. Let me amend by statement thus: "It was too vague a punishment to have any lasting effect, even in terms of the removal of an desirable stimulus, to wit, dinner." And, anyway, it wasn't Psych 101--it was (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Shiri Dori

(...) It was 101 for me!... Two years ago for me. Which is prolly why I remember better. ;-) -Shiri (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Frank Filz

(...) 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)

Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) (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)

Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Tom Stangl

(...) 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: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Shiri Dori

(...) 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: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

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...) —Shiri Dori

(...) 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: Nothing personal, but... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Oh. My. Goodness. Say this isn't so, Frank! I'd debate you, but I'm afraid we don't have that much to argue about. :) I had somehow presumed your job would require some sort of higher brain function--but am I taking mental engagement for (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Frank Filz

(...) Programming does require higher brain function, but it tends to be very different from the critical examination used in debate. I haven't ever gone deeply into the types of stimulation I get from each activity that I do, but there are definite (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) True. But are problem-solving and critical analysis that different? The only difference I can see is that the latter is played out against a second thinking human being (which, granted, is significant). Is this why we engage in office (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Christopher L. Weeks

Frank and Lindsay write: (...) Higher than what? (...) I've been asking something of RPGers for years: Does what you value about playing RPGs lean more toward the role-playing (i.e. acting) or more toward the problem solving? I've been playing RPGs (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Frank Filz

(...) My valuation changes on a session to session basis. I've been playing for almost 25 years (and I'm sure there's one or two people who can best me on the years). The biggest thing that I identify as a preference is not so much style of play, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Frank Filz

(...) Well, the involvement of another person is certainly an important factor. Like I said, I haven't really dug into what the differences are between the various mental stimulations that I enjoy, but what I do know is that I need something beyond (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —James Brown

(...) I do. (And I will again, if it keeps going.) I foolishly thought that I might appeal to reason, and see if off-topic.debate can be worth my while again, instead of being sucked up by the Scott & Larry show. <snipped 'He's the bad guy & I'm not (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Jesse and Valarie Long

James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in message news:GF6uFz.FB4@lugnet.com... (...) going (...) Now that I am on the bleachers: I used to be an active participant in these things, but it got old. Or I got old. Or just grew up a little (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) Youch, an insult. (...) Youch, an insult. (...) You are wrong on this. I am asking you to justify you quoting of a *fact*. (...) As you well know this is not my point. It is absolutely not my point. As I have said time and time again, I have (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Christopher L. Weeks

Hi, My name is Christopher Weeks and I'm a debateoholic. Even when I know I shouldn't both responding, I find my fingers doing their inevitable dance on the keyboard. I just can't stop myself... (...) It sounds an awful lot like "infantile insults" (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Scott Arthur

(...) Am I wrong for saying this? Or is Larry wrong for tossing insults about? (...) Nope. From his message: (...) Is so, why is he so unwilling to admit that it was a pure fabrication? (...) I shall quote myself from my last message in this thread (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Tom Stangl

(...) HUNCH. Do you know what that word means? Obviously not. (...) What about the word HUNCH do you not understand? Once again, as usual, you've latched onto one word or phrase in a post and pounded it into the ground, ignoring the entire post (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Scott Arthur

(...) Tom, If it was a HUNCH, Larry needs to make it clear that it was a complete fabrication - not dress it up as fact. Read the text I quoted again - does it sound like a hunch. When Larry said he was "unwilling" to tell us all where he found the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Duane Hess

(...) OK, here's some personal data from my observations. All AFOLs (10) that I have met (granted, a small sampling) in person have been white. Of those, one was a female. According to November 1, 2000 US Government Census estimates: (URL) of the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Duane Hess

(...) I just re-read the page and the numbers are in thousands, my mistake.... (...) -Duane (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Jason J. Railton

(...) All US citizens, one presumes... (...) Well, it would be kind of hard to match those decimal places exactly when you had 10 points in the sample, but I see your point. :-) (...) Not a chance. You see, Lugnet does not represent the Lego-playing (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —David Eaton

Y'know, the odd thing is I usually find Scott's remarks to be rather arguing the absurd, but I will admit that he's not wrong. Just pointless. (...) You're absoloutely right. Larry should indeed indicate that his statistics for the countries he was (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...) —Scott Arthur

I agree with you Dave. I think actual question I am asking Larry is very minor. But the reason I am asking the question which is important. As I have said time and time again, I have become tired Larry making assertions and accusations which he (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Tim Courtney

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GF7zI5.LBL@lugnet.com... (...) Here you two go AGAIN! You obviously haven't gotten the whole point of this thread. I doubt many of us CARE who is right, who is wrong, who is insulting who, or (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> Like I said, it *does* matter who is at fault, some of the time. I reject the notion that there is no difference between the person who asks silly questions and the person who just can't resist (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Tim Courtney

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GF928K.xD@lugnet.com... (...) Some of the time, but not all of the time. And I'd say, beyond a certain point, the majority won't care who is at fault - because its been beaten down so (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry, You really are being obtuse. We could all speak many truths about many users here, but most of us do not - as we know it is insulting and because we are civil. I am happy for you to continue to insult me (just like, to a certain extent, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wellll, one of you are anyway. (...) How so? (...) What consensus is that? What I think is that he made an educated guess. When you are quoting government statistics, those are also educated guesses. So his statistic is as valid as the numbers (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) Because it is laden with paranoia. (...) Now you are being obtuse Chris. The stats you mentioned are derived objectively. If, as you say, Larry did guess his stats, I would describe that as subjective. (...) You are being absurd. You need to (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Tim Courtney

(...) Blah blah blah...WHO CARES!! I see you've been totally ignoring the point of this thread (The Scott and Larry Show has been reduced to childish actions carried out to the nth nitpick - and a bunch of us are totally annoyed with it) and my (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Below this line, you quote his stating that it was a hunch. What the hell more do you want from him. He stated clearly that it was just a hunch. (...) What the F are you talking about? What asinine story? Read the quote of him that _you_ chose (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) 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: Nothing personal, but... —Matthew Gerber

Firing up the ol' paranoia machine... (...) Matt who? Unplugging the paranoia machine... (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Scott Arthur

(...) Moulton (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Shiri Dori

(...) It's been awhile, but I caught this, and I just have to respond...: Itching, let me tell you, is a complex thing. I've had skin problems from before I was one year old. Scratching the itch, indeed, relieves anxiety for a short period. But (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Nothing personal, but... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No *perhaps* about it. He's a twit (1) and I'm a sucker for his trolling. 1 - not always!!! Just when he wants to be, which is a good part, but not all, of the time. ++Lar (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)