Subject:
|
Re: Dealing with the problem
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:28:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2207 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry,
Take a look at the current fuss. Look at what started it. You should hang your
head in shame rather that cause more fuss.
It may be a cultural thing, but personally I think sniggering and name-calling
is far more “anti-social” than my alleged crime of "attention seeking".
Before you next try to windup anyone, I think you should read this:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=1629
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > To be honest I wish you wouldn't post on LUGNET(tm) at all, you're somewhere
> > > between extremely low value add, and significant negative value add. Once in
> > > a while you come up with an outside cite of some limited value but by and
> > > large your own comments range from uninsightful to inciteful. Usually
> > > tending toward the latter.
> > >
> > > By and large I do manage to ignore you but when you're at your most
> > > egregious... it's hard.
> >
> > Heck, I ignore Scott, but judging by the flurry of responses, he won't do me
> > the same favor. He wants and craves attention. Ignoring him is still the
> > best option.
>
> Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that
> just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's
> necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently.
>
> This is necessary because if someone is engaged with him (such as John is
> now, for whatever reason) it increases the noise level in general, and
> further, when he's here, he causes other trouble besides the thread he's
> active in. He and his posts are sort of an attractive nuisance in legal
> terms, or a substrate for infection in biological terms.
>
> As you say, he wants and craves attention, and will post repeatedly till he
> gets it. As I say, his contributions are low value add, by and large, and
> often negative. As you say, he's almost pathologically incapable of
> admitting error, and will distort madly to make sure that he's (at least in
> his mind) not caught out.
>
> I think it's clear that off-topic.debate, and the whole of LUGNET(tm), would
> be better off without him entirely. Suz has made it clear, for good and
> valid reasons, that he's not going to be banned, despite his egregious
> antisocial behaviour in many groups, because it sets a bad precedent. So the
> only solution is to deny him the food that sustains him. Deny him the
> responses that validate him.
>
> So, everyone, and I include EVERYONE, ***including John Neal***, in that,
> please ignore him. Even if it means he gets the last word and even if it
> means that he then uses it at some later date to claim that he wasn't answered.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Dealing with the problem
|
| (...) Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently. This is necessary because if (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
