Subject:
|
Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:24:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
951 times
|
| |
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> Can you successfully fight fire with a well-timed, controlled fire
> you start yourself?
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.
> 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.'
Thankfully, the overall number of cases of banishment calls have been
very small. But have you not taken an active part in a fair amount of
these cases?
> 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.
To take the Scott Arthur case, you've lately jumped into discussions
where he has been active, to tell him to go away. Do you think that
shouting to him actually has a positive effect? If you do not like his
posts in the first place, why do you read them?
I don't think that a bad climate on a discussion group is generated by
single, bad individuals. I think the bad climate is generated by people
who, for some reason, are offended by the content of some articles and
post hasty, negative replies. I've done this myself a few times. It's
difficult to control myself some times, and out pops an article with a
negative tone. From time to time I've had the time to cancel an article
I've regretted posting before receiving any replies.
Take the "Mad Hatter" individual. He was obviously only interested in
causing a havoc here, and he did manage it. But what caused the havoc?
Was it his posts alone, or the heaps of people replying to them? If
noone had posted the replies, no problems would have been caused in the
first place.
In your article, which I have snipped heavily from to keep this short,
you claim your credibility from being an important figure in the LEGO
scene. If you are indeed an important figure, don't you see that what
you do here has a signal effect? You're signalling that posting quick
flames to Scott Arthur's posts is perfectly ok. If everybody were doing
what you do, we would have the "Mad Hatter" situation all over again.
> 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?
I would relate the dawn of the "S&L show" to the administrator's message
on admin.general, and the absence of Larry.
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't mean shouting, per se, but that it is possible to fight noise by reasoning with the person making the noise. (...) I have participated actively in calls for banishment regarding multiple people on LUGNET. But, the cases I have (...) (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
|
| "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrd667vdznp.fsf....uio.no... (...) Can you successfully fight fire with a well-timed, controlled fire you start yourself? (...) Before saying 'fairly frequently,' I'd certainly (...) (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
|
|
|
|
