Debate : 14268


Off-Topic / Debate / 14268

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)