Subject:
|
Re: constructive posts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:51:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
836 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > Surly another case of: "do as I say, not as I do"! ;)
> >
> > Was this a constructive post Scott? I remember you once asserting that your
> > posts outside of l.o-t.d were always constructive.
>
>
> I doubt I said "always"?
Written in .debate:
"when I post outside this group I try to be 100% constructive. I have to be..."
You didn't use the word always, you used 100%. And, to be fair, you said you
try. So are you asserting that this was constructive or that you tried and
failed?
> I would also suggest you read the context to my
> comment, where KW was able to show a little humility in his response:
> http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=2252
I read the whole thread. I understand the context. I happen to think that it
is in poor taste and certainly _not_ constructive for you to bait Larry.
> If we agree that hypocrites chastising people for writing “Lego” rather than
> “LEGO(r)” would encourage a non-constructive environment here, then perhaps
> my post was constructive?
I hope that these "remember to dot your eyes and cross your tees" posts stay
infrequent. If they were common, then it would be a problem worth working out.
But it isn't. Since it isn't, I can only assume that you were taking a cheap
shot. That noted, your post was not, I believe, constructive because of the
mood and target audience coupled with your choice of verbiage.
I also think it's worth noting that it's much more annoying for person X to
tell me to (r) LEGO than for them to tell me to (tm) their own interest. They
are kind of required to protect their own trademarks, but not those of others.
> If I wanted to be non-constructive I would have
> just called LP a "hypocrite" or let him cause another mess... I done
> niether.
Are all posts either constructive or non-constructive (I'd say destructive)? I
think I'd call most notes neutral. I think yours was slightly destructive.
> If you read the entire thread you will see that my view, at least
> in part, is shared by others.
This is irrelavent to what makes your note destructive. You have fostered
(and I belive I have also, by the way) a situation where a note from someone
else that might be constructive, is not when from you. Whether anyone else
agrees with you (which I think I do...I'm not going to (r) and (tm) everything
because I'm lazy) doesn't bear.
> You will also note that to end the "debate" I set FUT L.O-T.F.
I actually think this is part of what annoyed me. It seemed to me that the
main point of your note was to hassle Larry. Then setting it to .fun adds
insult to injury. It makes it seem like you're trying to make Larry baiting a
sport. If so, shame on you. If not, it might be worth taking care at how
things appear.
> You have
> replied to L.O-T.D - was that "constructive" or trouble making? (an honest
> question)
I dunno. I figured it was most appropriate for my topic. I definitely don't
feel the levity to make it appropriate for .fun. I guess I think it was
constructive not to place my note elsewhere, but possibly not as constructive
as not placing it anywhere. To some extent that's up to you in how you take
this, I suppose.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: constructive posts
|
| (...) I would assert that I made that clear in my last post to you? (...) I would agree that it would not be constructive if I were to bait Larry. Read the thread again and think about who is doing the baiting. (...) These "remember to dot your eyes (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | constructive posts
|
| (...) I doubt I said "always"? I would also suggest you read the context to my comment, where KW was able to show a little humility in his response: (URL) we agree that hypocrites chastising people for writing “Lego” rather than “LEGO(r)” would (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
