 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this issue? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread. I think it's a far better solution to end (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I don't agree with that overview. (...) David, I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a closer look at what is causing the "fuss" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Many people have polarised views on this issue. They see it in rather simplistic “Bushian” terms; good versus evil or even jews versus muslims. The most commonly asserted views here are that Israel or [very much less commonly] the Palestinians (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) I've read (most of) the thread. And again, without actually debating what's going on in I/P, the point of this little tangent on the debate is to get to a point where we're not banning (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) My view is not extreme. I hold no animosity for anyone. I'm not ignoring anyone. (...) I expect you must have. Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) Didn't say *you* did any of these things. *We* here in ot-d have a problem. We have to come up with a working solution to said problem. In my opinion, this solution should not entail 'Playground Politics'--'Lets just ignore him and he'll go (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Good. (...) Letting go is good. I don't see the need to compromise on every issue. (...) I think I have been. (...) [snip] (...) You'll have to show how you reached that conclusion. [snip] (...) OK. (...) I do not ignore Larry. I very much (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | There was once a "Home Improvement" episode, with special guest star Tom Wopat (from "Dukes of Hazzard" fame...). In this episode, right at the very end, Tom comes up to the door and talks to Tim. The scene went something like this: <Ding dong> goes (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Clarification: I do not think what you claim. I accept that my statement could be interpreted in that way. However, it is not the only way it may be interpreted and it is not the way I meant it to be interpreted. (...) Now you are not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) This is not clarification. You concede that my interpretation could be one way of reading what you said, i.e. "You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7. (...) But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view? In this group [without any (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
