Subject:
|
Re: Larry's behaviour
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:49:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > Ban one of us. Do the poll I suggested.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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...
>
> 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 replies to people uninvolved in the conflict.
>
> That's what I've been arguing for from the start-- don't ban either of them,
> just have them ignore each other. (unless of course they're willing to make
> a reasonable response to a reasonable query/opinion/debate.)
Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14214
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
