Subject:
|
Re: A modest proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:45:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone
> > > > > else does too...
> > > >
> > > > 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 should be prevented from replying to ANYTHING is because we
> > > > aren't repeat offenders. I've had 2 o-t-debate dialogues with Scott in as
> > > > many years, present situation included. You seem to have one every month or
> > > > two. I think you need the discipline more than us.
> > >
> > > Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant,
> > > presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error.
> >
> > The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a
> > particularly relevant post.
>
> I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU.
Did you ever think that getting an answer from you was not the only aim?
>
> > 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 seems not to include Scott ANYWAY, why does it matter
> > what Scott thinks of his own posts? Unless you meant to say in your proposal
> > that Scott be part of the 'everyone else' and must not reply to his own
> > posts or else the deal's off.
> >
> > No, I think the pressure should be on you. You're the biggest offender of
> > replying to Scott's useless messages. The rest of us seem to do reasonably
> > well.
>
> 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 "reasonably well".
>
> Better yet would be some mechanism that stopped the useless messages
> altogether but since Scott doesn't see them as useless, nothing short of his
> banishment will do that unless you can convince him they are.
>
> Work with me here. I'm seriously trying to come up with something that is
> less than a ban and that punishes the offender (which in this case is the
> originator of the useless message as well as the replier) for bad behaviour
> instead of rewarding the offender for it.
>
> Scott's useless messages are clutter and leaving them be by everyone
> silently ignoring them isn't the best solution. Unless he's three and has a
> parent likely to fix the problem. Ditto vice versa. And I know my parents
> are both dead at this point... My useless messages are also clutter. But
> there are significantly less of them.
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 point, or when I do show that you have based your arguments
on your own say so, rather than knowledge - that is when you do not answer.
In all honesty, why have you not answered this:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14203
In the post previous to that you defined "lies". I quoted you twice, and
asked that if using your own system were you a liar? Why did you not answer?
Because my post was “useless” - I think not.
Look at this message:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14191
In the post previous to that you denied you were rude, and asked me to show
were you were rude. I did. Why did you not answer? Because my post was
“useless” - I think not.
Look at this message:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14106
I asked a couple of questions based on your post, and yet you did not
answer. Because my post was “useless” - I think not.
I am convinced that if you could, you would have replied with cheap
responses to these. But because they raise questions you do not like you
ignore them - not because they are “useless”.
Scott A
>
> > But maybe that's what you meant? You don't trust your own judgement of
> > what's a relevant debate point?
>
> No, I know what's relevant and what isn't. That's not it. I just can't turn
> the other cheek when he gets away with it consistently.
>
> > You're one of the only ones with the
> > problem. All the more reason to force you and only you not to reply to
> > Scott. If we were all having problems with it, maybe you'd have a point.
>
> No, I think you're missing the point. What is the desired outcome? Less
> clutter, of all forms. My replies to Scott's useless messages are a symptom
> of the problem as well as a part. But his useless messages are the larger part.
>
> Come up with a scheme that reduces the clutter in the first place, not just
> one that rewards the clutterer and punishes everyone else. This (the flip
> flop variant, anyway) is the best I can do so far.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
