Subject:
|
Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:29:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
862 times
|
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:qrd667vdznp.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> So your noble intent is what permits you to add even more noise to the
> discussion? Does this work, BTW? Can you successfully fight noise
> with noise?
Can you successfully fight fire with a well-timed, controlled fire you start
yourself?
> > Not that my reaction above was proper, but it was still in the
> > attempt to point out how tiresome the whole shenanigan is.
>
>
> You are fairly frequently asking for the banning of people. You are
> also frequently jumping into discussions, asking people to stay out of
> them (or, bluntly, to "shut up").
Before saying 'fairly frequently,' I'd certainly like to see cites of your
accusations. I can remember a few times calling for banishment of people,
but nothing that could be defined as 'frequently.'
And so what, I make a point against someone being unreasonable and if they
continue to behave like an ignoramus, I tell them to shut up or go away.
Big deal.
...I don't see many others telling me they have a problem with it. Even
Marchetti, someone I've had it out with online, said in a post about me,
"You seem a likable, usually kind fellow." [1] Can you make a justifiable
claim that I tell people to shut up, go away, or call for their banishment
_more often_ than I make well mannered posts and positive tangible or
intangible contributions to the community? [2]
And are you too blind to look behind what I'm saying and see the intent -
that I want to help the community? Perhaps Larry's the same way, with a
different method. He often gets labled 'thread police' when he really is
trying to help. Too bad for him, sometimes he comes off as a bull in a
china shop.
Both Larry and myself attempt to reason with someone before flaming someone
here. Lots of people don't like Larry's methods (and lots of people like
them too), I suppose the same goes for me. [3]
> If you want some credibility, you may want to try to practice what you
> preach.
Well lets see - that would mean being quiet or not commenting when its no
longer appropriate. Have I dropped the S&L show debate? Hmm...when's the
last time I posted on that, Monday night?
You see, I do evaluate the situation and do quiet down when its appropriate.
I do what I do and I say what I say in hope of benefitting the greater
community. I call stuff as I see it, and have tried hard to seek a
well-tempered resolution before flaming someone. I spend a lot of time
working on content for the users. I help people organize and plan events, I
engage in dialogue with the people I know at LEGO, and I've developed
numerous quality friendships with many people here - online and subsequently
in person.
But, after interacting with the number of people I have in the last 5 years
as a contributor to this community, after learning so much and falling in
love more with the brick and with the idea of LEGO, there are bound to be
some people who don't like me along the way. But that's true anywhere else,
so I will shrug and say, 'oh well,' and keep doing what I'm doing.
I've got lots of material I could use to continue to defend my credibility.
But than again, if I start citing numbers, you'll attack it as being
arrogant. Oh well, I'm confident in my credibility here - and frankly see
it silly I have to go about defending it.
Can't please everybody...
-Tim
[1] And interestingly enough, he and I seem to have gotten over our
differences.
[2] Not that I believe telling someone who is being a total jerk to 'go
away' or 'shut up' is a positive contribution - if they actually take my
suggestion, the community will probably benefit, if not for the reduction in
noise level alone. But I'm sure you'll find a way to attack me on that
statement, too.
[3] I don't always like his methods either, and I've made it clear numerous
times. Then again, Larry's complex, and can't be fairly evaluated in a
couple sentences.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) Of course, but your analogy fails because the point of a controlled burn is to eliminate potential fuel, while verbal outbursts provide additional fuel. (...) And, to be fair, the calls for banishment have been directed at specific individuals (...) (23 years ago, 28-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that you can make Scott go away by shouting at him? Please have me excused if that was not what you meant, as I'm unsure about your allegory. (...) Thankfully, the overall (...) (23 years ago, 28-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) So your noble intent is what permits you to add even more noise to the discussion? Does this work, BTW? Can you successfully fight noise with noise? (...) You are fairly frequently asking for the banning of people. You are also frequently (...) (23 years ago, 28-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
