| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it.
> > > >
> > > > No. Because he SAID he didn't want it.
> > >
> > > And that's what made you think he didn't want it.
> >
> > No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am
> > not going to argue epistemology with you on this)
>
> I found the following:
> Scott:
> > Your post is amazingly similar to junk mail I received today
>
> Larry:
> > > Are you getting mail from someone or some organization that you didn't sign
> > > up for, • Scott:
> > Yes. I think it is somebody’s idea of a joke.
>
> Larry:
> > > > > or have tried unsuccessfully to unsubscribe from? • Scott:
> > > > No. • Larry:
> > > So you're too lazy or clueless to unsubscribe, then, but *not* too lazy to
> > > cluelessy and unjustifiably carp about it? • Scott:
> > No.
>
> Scott:
> > Its content is mostly junk. I did not sign up for it. It is junk mail. QED.
>
> I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the
> email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to read free Scientology propoganda
> just to get a laugh out of it. I might still call it junk mail, but not
> particularly want to go and unsubscribe myself. Plausible interpretation
> applicable? I'd say so. Correct? You'd have to ask Scott.
Perhaps he should have.
>
> Did he lie about not signing up for it?
No. What would the point of that be? I'll even admit I subcribe to
"talk.politics.libertarian " for the bile.
> Maybe. About whether or not he tried
> to unsubscribe? Maybe.
I did not.
> But I don't really see anything specifically
> indicating enough to convince me that he didn't want to recieve the
> mailings.
Thank you.
Scott A
> Certainly it would be my HUNCH after seeing the above, but not
> enough to convince me. (Darn you for making me not delve into semantics!
> That's my favorite part! Especially when we've got words like "think",
> "lie", and "want" :)
>
> > My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and
> > thinking that I'd be doing him a service in doing what he said he wanted
> > done, and second in violating his privacy to do him that service.
>
> So, just to clear up here then-- your reasoning was (in part) to provide
> Scott a service? IE something both you and he would benefit from (he
> wouldn't get the email and you wouldn't hear him gripe about it,
> presumably). Knowing that he may in fact want it or that in fact by forcing
> the issue that he's MORE likely to gripe about it would then lead you to be
> less likely to do it again? Note I'll refrain from saying "will" or "will
> not", as you rightly point out below.
>
> > > Interesting then. On threat of being banned from Lugnet/LP group/whatever,
> > > would you do it again? IE do you hold that it is up to Lugnet Admins/LP
> > > Email Systems to enact punishment? Such that until you're presented with an
> > > actual threat you'll keep going? Regardless of whether or not you think you
> > > *should* be punished?
> >
> > I am prepared to face the consequences for my actions.
>
> Well, the question was whether or not you'd be more or less likely because
> of punishment you're *assured* versus punishment you *may* get versus
> punishment you think you're *deserving* of.
>
> > I can't honestly say I wouldn't do it again, even though I know it
> > was wrong. I'm calmer now than I was a few hours ago, I know I probably
> > wouldn't do it again even if provoked.
>
> Ahh.. I suppose that's more of what I was looking for.
>
> > But if you ask me to swear I won't... I cannot in all honesty so avow.
>
> And nice call on your part, might I add.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
