Debate : 14174


Off-Topic / Debate / 14174

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) Ok, here's what I don't get. Better to what end? What happens when everyone comes to that conclusion? Do you get a prize? Does Larry get to no longer debate? Does the name calling stop? Why is it so phenomenally important that each of you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Richard Marchetti

Hey Y'all: I know it was wrong to do, and I feel really bad about it (HONESTLY!), but Larry P. and Scott A. are just fake personas I have occasionally been assuming to amuse myself online here in off-topic.debate. By a devilishly intricate means of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Matthew Gerber

(...) TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! 8?) Matt (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Truth at Last!!! (re: The Larry P. /Scott A. Show) —Scott Arthur

Richard, Have you been cashing cheques in my name too? Scott A (The real one) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Maybe because I think what he has done is wrong? Maybe I think that by not sorting the situation that is worse? Maybe I think he should apoligaise? Maybe he will? Who knows? Who cares? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) That's not what I asked. I *KNOW* you think he should apoligaise. I *KNOW* why *YOU'RE* doing it. You're way too proud to bother giving it up. You're addicted to the idea that you'll win. But that's not what I asked. I asked why is it better (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ban one of us. Do the poll I suggested. I have my preference as to which, but would support a democratic outcome either way. I have my honor, too, so would abide without a need for administrative intervention to enforce it. And then, once that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) As I'm sure you'd expect, I don't think the poll would be done as proposed. I think it's an all-or-nothing type deal. I think given the choices, I'd rank them as: 1. Ban neither of you 2. Ban both of you 3. Ban Scott 4. Ban Larry If I were (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Low

(...) How about 1a. Ban both of them from replying to each other (at least as a trial measure)? Or, at least, a moratorium on the codependent "he's a liar, he's a squirmer" drivel... --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps there should be a "poll of polls". :) (...) Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost by doing that? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Schuler

(...) The reason, fairly obviously, is that there are only two real offenders whose behavior requires the formal implementation of formal rules. Larry and you both contribute useful points to some debates, but far more often than not, your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) So, if we had rules how would things get worse? Say we had a rule like: "No name calling permitted" - why would that be bad? Do you feel you have to retain the right to call me a "rhinoceros"{1} from time-to-time? Scott A {1} I rather like the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Dave Schuler

(...) Without calling into question your ability to read, I am obliged to point out that I did not, in fact, call you a rhinoceros. Further, I am indeed entitled to call you anything I wish to call you, barring slander. If you feel slandered by your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Rhinos —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think it is equally important to point out that Scott did not say you did, in fact, call him one Dave! He merely inquired if you wished to retain that right (if in future you decided you felt you needed to). Seems a reasonable question to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rhinos —Dave Schuler

(...) On further reflection, I see that you are correct, although I further assert that I did not claim that Scott accused me of calling him a rhinoceros; I merely asserted that I had not thus far called him one. Regardless, my apologies to him for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rhinos —Scott Arthur

(...) Myself and all rhinos graciously accept your apology. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour) —Richard Marchetti

Say Dave!, could you stop wasting time on this issue and send me that clones.zip, dammit!!! =oP -- Hop-Frog (hopping mad) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More Shamelessly Insisting I Get What I Want (was Re: Larry's behaviour) —Dave Schuler

(...) Uh-oh! I sent you this email on the 22nd: (...) When I didn't get a response, I figured: a) You were snubbing me b) You were rendering a really cool model with the new elements and couldn't be bothered with an email c) Had been abducted by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) The ones near us had their last calf a year or so ago now (they are now too old to safely have any more). The newborn calves are dream. Their feet are huge, they look like they could never lift them. As the calves get older they tend to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) No. (...) Good point. (...) The ones near us had their last calf a year or so ago now (they are now too old to safely have any more). The newborn calves are dream. Their feet are huge, they look like they could never lift them. As the calves (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think formal debating rules will work, here. The set I'm familiar with are too formal (8 minutes for argument, 8 minutes for response, 4 minutes for rebuttal, 4 minutes for rebuttal response) since they're structured for face to face (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) Key word "basic". (...) There are more than one version of debating rules. I am sure ones could be made which would suit this forum better than those which you mention. Do you think otherwise? (...) Are there any others which you think won't (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. These are all good rules as far as I am concerned. They're not aimed at you, they're aimed at bad behaviours. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But do go ahead and post some proposed rules too, you can direct them at things you (and others) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) No. It will end in bickering. (...) I don't agree with you on that. Scott A (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —David Eaton

(...) Agreed. Although I don't see any way to enforce such rules, I fully agree that trying to abide by them would make things a bit better. Rule 1: (...) I like that enough. Rule 2: (...) Agree. "Close to it" being hard to define, but in general, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No frigging way. You're a great big rhinocerous for even suggesting that these debates are not absolute life and death, and I "mark territory" in your general direction. My second will be contacting your second. Bring your wet noodles. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: rules —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't. People can (and do) get this wrong. If anyone wants to take an issue to debate, let them move it there. It’s no big deal. People should be able to reply to any message in any *appropriate* group. (...) For rules 2 & 3. I think there (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —David Eaton

(...) That's certainly the option I'd choose, though from a technical standpoint the most difficult to enforce. Plus the fact that I would tack on the addendum "ban each one from talking about the other"; as I've seen both mention the other in (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —David Eaton

(...) Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't think everyone (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant, presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —David Eaton

(...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU. (...) Define "reasonably well". How is 7-10%? That's my current track record (in a small enough moving average). I think ignoring 90-93% of irrelevance is a pretty good approximation of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal —Scott Arthur

(...) Did you ever think that getting an answer from you was not the only aim? (...) It is my view that apart from the "what no answer" type posts you only answer the useless ones – i.e. the ones where you can score a cheap point. When I do make a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A modest proposal from a modest person —Scott Arthur

(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Larry's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. In fact why don't we take turns. Each time someone else slips up it's the other one's turn not to get replied to by the group. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In fact, the more I think about this, the more I like it. It gives a very strong incentive NOT to post irrelevant things, and instead to post things that are so compelling that people want to reply to them. As long as I'm the one "in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —David Eaton

(...) It's really a rather good idea actually... A good bend on the original proposal, though as usual it's the implimentation that's difficult. As more of an aside, anyone familiar with perlmonks? They've developed quite a good system for behavior (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The person who posted or the person who is ranking? (...) How does this differ from Slashdot ratings (which I admit I have not closely perused the mechanics of)??? It sounds kind of similar. (...) Unless you can find some other Dave, yes. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —David Eaton

(...) Yes. If JimmyBob makes a post and JoeLuke votes the post as bad, JimmyBob's rank has a 1/4 chance to go down, and JoeLuke's rank has a 1/4 chance to go up. If JoeLuke votes JimmyBob's post as good, both their ranks have respective 1/4 chances (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Ross Crawford

(...) Slashdot uses a system called "karma", and it is described in a little detail here (URL) it seems to work pretty well, but it's a fairly complex system - and the hassle involved in implementation may be more trouble than it's worth for a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Ed Jones

(...) Hmm... the hockey analogy seems to bring the whole issue home. It seems that for Larry, debate is not about discussion, its about WINNING the debate. Its not about learning something new, its about supressing/discrediting the opposing (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't see this comment as useful. Or true either, for that matter. In fact most of your comments lately have seemed to be trying to carry the notion forward that all I want to do is insult others. That's just flat out false and my record (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is off-topic.debate a competition? —Ross Crawford

(...) Where did this come from? Sure, Larry like to win, don't we all? And there's probably an element of that here, too, but I personally think a large percentage of what he posts here (except when personal comments are involved) is *very* (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Dave Low

(...) I think it's got potential, although as you said here: (URL) dross itself is pretty distracting. Maybe we can keep a record of Debate RhinO Poop Posted In this News Group -- too many DROPPINGs and you spend some extra time in the sin-bin (Aus (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A modest proposal from a modest person —Scott Arthur

(...) You are starting to sound desperate. Scott A (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Larry's behaviour —Scott Arthur

(...) I have "won". The moment Larry called me a liar without basis I "won". (...) I would have thought that was clear. (...) See: (URL)If your opinion is really a worthwhile one, then (...) I do not hate anyone (honest). I do not want anyone to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)