Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:38:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2291 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > You can see the whole message here:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/news/post/?lugnet.off-topic.debate,18605
> >
> >
>
> 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 people. If we can agree on a way of just
> getting beyond a current thread that is this polarized, we can get on with
> discussing other things without animosity and ignoring one another.
My view is not extreme. I hold no animosity for anyone. I'm not ignoring anyone.
>
> That's basically all I'm saying.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's a far better solution to end the debate on the issue than
> > > > > ignoring an individual across all debates. This allows other debates to
> > > > > take place unfettered.
> > > > >
> > > > > For me, it doesn't matter about your perceived 'disinformation'--you made
> > > > > your points, others negated those points in their mind, just as you negated
> > > > > their points to your satisfaction, but no theirs. Rehashing the points over
> > > > > and over again after that doesn't do a wee bit of good for *anyone* concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the final analysis, in the end, cut to the bottom of the page, where are
> > > > > we left after that? Proposing to ignore an individual carte blanc because
> > > > > we don't like him or her dwelling on this one topic? Well, it's a solution,
> > > > > but, imho, a better solution is to step beyond the conversation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not to bring my Christian values into play (not that this value is
> > > > > specifically a Christian one, but there you are), but avoid the sin, not the
> > > > > sinner.
> > > > >
> > > > > All in my personal judgement.
> > > > >
> > > > > You may feel that you have a point to make
> > > > > You may feel that the 'other side' doesn't get it
> > > > > You may feel that if you post 'just one more time' that you will get thru to
> > > > > them
> > > > > But when we're at the point of selectively banning people via 'ignore', then
> > > > > mayhaps you may wish to rethink posting--not your opinion, your point, or
> > > > > your values--just your posting of said stuff to the debate group.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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" here.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I get the feeling that some people want to
> > > > attack me when they think thay sense weakness and then “ignore” me when they
> > > > don’t. Am I being paranoid?
> > > >
> > > > BTW: I made the JC post yesterday fully expecting *not* to get a reply. I blame
> > > > this mess on you ;)
> > > >
> > > > Scott A
> > >
> > > I blame me as well.
> > >
> > > Paranoia is not something I subscribe to about anything--there is no 'they'
> > > and 'they' aren't out to get me.
> >
> > But what about the black helicopters? ;)
> >
> > > I sleep quite well at night thankyouverymuch.
> >
> > With great respect, you appear to have avoided my question. Can you explain
> > this:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18598
Hmm, still no answer on this? I'm a little disappointed with you David.
> >
> > >
> > > What are your views about the "fuss"? Perception is the truth we have to
> > > work with here in a newsgroup--how do you perceive what's going on? You
> > > think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is strong,
> > > and only attack when your point is weak?
> >
> > I would never be so presumptuous.
>
>
> I misinterpreted this then...
>
> Quoteth Scott A
> "
> > Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I get the feeling that some people want to
> > attack me when they think thay sense weakness and then “ignore” me when they
> > don’t. Am I being paranoid?
>
> "
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
lies.
>
> > >
> > > Mayhaps .... • [snip]
> >
> > What are people so afraid of? Afaterall, I'm just a
> > great-big-fluffy-pussycat. ;)
> >
> > Scott A
>
> As far as I interpreted the ignoring thing, I think you're reading it from
> the wrong end--"Let's ignore Scott across the board because we don't like
> what he has to say at all" is not how I took it
Did I say that?
> --I read it as "Scott won't
> give up on the P/I issue so if we ignore him, he'll stop going on about it."
> At least, that was my interpretation.
This is much bigger than the P/I issue [for the 3rd time].
> Whether I received an e-mail saying I
> should ignore someone is irrelevant
Did I mention you? ;)
> --It would have been sent with the best
> of intentions for the betterment of the newsgroup from the party(s) that
> sent it,
I don't agree. It was sent because Larry was upset [in my view].
> just as I am trying to do here--same justification--the want to
> improve the atmosphere here, just different ways of achieving that goal.
Are you saying that I am the only problem here? Do you find mudslinging etc
~OK~? Is it any easier to ignore?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
