| |
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:
> > > > 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)
>
> 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.
"consistent liar" can you justify that?
You really are slime.
Scott A
>
> > > > Either way, how should we judge your action? Were you moral and/or justified
> > > > to do it? Why or why not? Let's say I think *you* want to be/should be
> > > > unsubscribed to the same list.
> > >
> > > Have I said I did? Do you have reason to believe I do? Your whim or feeling
> > > carries much less weight than what I say about my desire. Here, let me be
> > > clear... I explicitly state that I don't consider it junk mail and that I
> > > subscribed on purpose. Those two statements make it clear that my desire is
> > > to receive it. NO amount of your reasoning can refute that.
> >
> > Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people
> > aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to
> > that conclusion. And perhaps as such I'll want to unsubscribe you. Why
> > shouldn't I then? But you already answered that.
>
> Are you prepared to face the consequences of your actions? That's the key
> question, not whether your reasoning is faulty or not. I am so prepared.
>
> > > Do you apologise to your children before you punish them? I do. I'm
> > > sincerely sorry for the inconvenience my punishment causes them. Yet I still
> > > punish them.
> > >
> > > This is nothing like that.... except in the nature of sorrow and of the
> > > distinction. I am sincerely sorry for violating Scott's privacy, but not for
> > > the larger outcome that resulted, to wit, he's unsubbed from something he
> > > previously said he does not want and did not subscribe to.
> >
> > Alright then, I'll allow that. Though generally I think of an apology as
> > saying that in retrospect your actions were incorrect, versus "I'm sorry",
> > which perhaps merely denotes your emotional reaction.
> >
> > > I gave one. Scott hasn't accepted it. Rather he has escalated it, and he has
> > > a point. What I did violates the spirit of the ToS and to deny it would be
> > > intellectually dishonest.
> > >
> > > No matter how big a liar he may be every day, it still doesn't give me a
> > > pass.... I freely admit that it was a violation in spirit of the ToS.
> >
> > 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.
>
> It is not about who enacts punishment, it is about that I feel strongly
> enough about this particular slur that the liar Scott has repeatedly put
> forth that I am prepared to violate his privacy again to put paid to his
> lie. I'll be truly sorry for violating his rights, just as I am this time,
> but I may well decide in future to do it again.
>
> Guess what. I'm mostly good (as are most people) but I'm not perfect. He's
> irritated me so much about this particular lie that I've backed myself into
> a corner. 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. I've taken steps to prevent it from
> being possible, I sent a very strongly worded note to the LP urging them to
> change their system and reminding them of how much money I've donated.
>
> But if you ask me to swear I won't... I cannot in all honesty so avow.
>
> And that makes me more honest than most people who would conveniently lie
> and say they would not do it again even if they were not sure... (or
> conveniently lie and say "it's not merchandise because I'm a small time
> seller", or conveniently lie and say they are getting "junk mail" that they
> actually *wanted* to get).
>
> See, I march to my own metronome, and the violation of his privacy rights
> when weighed against the harm he causes here on a daily basis with his lies
> and slurs and troublemaking just tilted the balance for me to do something I
> know is a violation of the ToS.
>
> 1 - Pay attention here, Dave! .... not "manifold" as two < many...
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) 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) My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and thinking that I'd be doing him a service in (...) (23 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
