Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:31:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2304 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
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 away.' That isn't helpful to the advancement of discussion and
debate--again, all in my opinion.
If a topic gets so far gone that we are at an impasse, then let *us all* try
to do something to get beyond it--compromise and letting go are things that
adults do for the betterment of all--holding on to a point to the exclusion
of all else, including healthy communication, is 'pitbulledness'.
<snip>
> > > 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.
Stand in line, take a number--my dad is disappointed that I still play with
those little pieces of ABS which cannot be named in OT-D 'cause we're off-topic.
I thought I answered this point below with the infernece to the off-line
e-mail, but mayhaps that is not the question you are posing. Explicitness
please.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
My POV, yes you did, but then, as pointed above, I seem to be
misinterpreting you a little bit.
>
> > --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].
And for the third time, it isn't bigger than the P/I issue--in my opinion
you're reading it wrong. If others feel you're 'dwelling' on your stance on
the P/I issue to the exclusion of good discourse, then the others will try
to come up with a solution. I just took this as a collective *we* have a
problem and *we* have to derive a solution that is to the benefit of all
parties.
>
> > Whether I received an e-mail saying I
> > should ignore someone is irrelevant
>
> Did I mention you? ;)
No, but I was making a point--if anyone received an e-mail, it's
irrelevant--we're discussing the betterment of ot-d--that's the relevant part.
>
> > --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].
You have your opinion, I have mine, others have theirs--what's good for the
community as a whole? Larry ignores you, you ignore Larry, we all get
together and ignore anyone named Dave (waittaminit!)--where does it end?
It's schoolyard mentality.
>
> > 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?
I would personally take that as a twist, for nowhere in my posting do I
'mudsling' and I think that this very thread shows my concern for the
betterment of the community as a whole--I have been actively fighting
against the 'ignoring people' solution and have voiced my personal
preference that attacking the issue, not the person (a la 'mudslinging) is
taking the 'high road' and is conducive to better conversation.
But again, all in my little rose-coloured sky world.
Dave K
>
> Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
