Subject:
|
Re: constructive posts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:17:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2193 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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 assert that I made that clear in my last post to you?
>
> > 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.
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.
>
> > 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.
These "remember to dot your eyes and cross your tees" posts are most welcome
from English teachers.
> That noted, your post was not, I believe, constructive because of the
> mood and target audience coupled with your choice of verbiage.
Within the tone of the thread my verbiage was fine. Like I said, I could
have just called him a hypocrite. I used the same approach I had with KW.
Was that bad too?
>
> 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.
That is why I said, later in the thread, "Do not treat others as you would
not like to be treated yourself." I was tempted to mention John 8:1-11.
>
> > 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.
That is your view. I think all posts should be constructive.
>
> > 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.
Christopher, you are only encouraging my paranoia.
>
> > 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.
Yet I posted a very similar message to KW?
> 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.
It was to end the thread - pure and simple.
>
> > 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.
I shall mull it over a little.
Scott A
> > Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: constructive posts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
