Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:20:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2536 times
|
| |
|
|
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 the door bell
Tim opens the door, sees Tom, and grunts
"Grunt"
(subtitled: What do you want?)
"Ehhhh, grunt" says Tom
(subtitled: I just came by to say I'm sorry and I really respect you as a
toolman)
"Eh eh eh... grunt" says Tim
(thanks for that, but I'm upset with you making a pass at my wife)
Basically the scene goes on like this for a bit, with the two grunting at
each other, and the subtitles telling us what they're really saying.
It was one of the better moments of television history--that one scene, in
my opinion--priceless, but bringing this pop culture reference back here,
I'm just not getting this conversation--there's a failure to communicate
here--I need subtitles, more explicitness, outright 'say what you mean'
because I'm not getting the inferences at all.
For example,
Quoteth Scott:
"
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?
"
to which I answered
"
You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is
strong, and only attack when your point is weak?
"
I thought it was just paraphrasing your point, but you mentioned that I
misinterpreted it. This went on for a bit--I would like explicit
clarification please.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
<snip>
> > 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'.
>
>
> Letting go is good. I don't see the need to compromise on every issue.
Not compromise on your stance on the actual issue, compromise on letting it go.
>
>
> > <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.
>
> I think I have been.
And, for me, you haven't, and since it's you and I in this particular corner
of the conversation, I feel I have answered it by saying the following:
Quoteth yours truly
"
> Mayhaps these 'others' believe it's 'oh no, here he goes again down that
> same old well-trodden road--he's saying nothing new--we didn't believe him
> the first time, why would we change our POV now?' and it really has nothing
> to do with weakness or strength in the actual arguement--it's just, as many
> folks have posted 'asked and answered' to their satisfaction.
"
So, for me, your origional issue, "Hmm, still no answer on this? I'm a
little disappointed with you David" was actually answered, but not to your
satisfaction. I therefore need clarification as to what the actual issue is.
<snip>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> You'll have to show how you reached that conclusion.
Quoteth Scott
"
I think you are still focussing too much on the "Israel thing". Remember people
are being asked to ignore all my posts on any issue – I understand that
harassment via e-mail may also be taking place. This is being done whilst what
is termed “long-distance unstated twitting” is condoned – but I am harangued
for daring to answer.
"
Again, am I misinterpreting your POV when I read 'remember people are being
asked to ignore all my posts on any issue'? and the rationale behind it?
From my read, you believe that others aren't interested in your opinion at
all, whereas my take on the issue is that others are just done with the
particular P/I thread, you won't let it go, and therefore the others are
resorting to other means to get you to end the thread. It's not a 'carte
blanc--we dislike Scott', it's "Oh no, not this topic rehashed again! What
can we do to end it?"
<snip>
>
> > It's schoolyard mentality.
>
> Really wonder why I scare the "schoolyard" so much.
Nowhere in this thread did the idea that anyone scares anyone else get
raised. We are trying to come to a consensus as to how to keep ot-d a
healthy place for discourse and debate. I don't want harmony, or monotony,
but at the very least, civility. How would you go about achieving that goal?
> >
> > >
> > > > 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'
>
> Take a deep breath. I was not speaking about you [although I expect "ignorers"
> will be upset at your "school yard" comments].
However, you inferred that I find mudslinging OK, when I do not, in fact,
appreciate trashing other people at all (unless it's in rtlToronto, but
that's 'cause we all have thick skins over there and we know where it's
coming from...) Further, I did not say that you are 'the only problem
here'--I did not point my finger at any specific person. *We* have a
problem and I want to achieve a solution that is good for all of us, across
the board. The school yard comments is my take on ignoring people.
However, I also don't try to make ammends with people who hate me.
There was once a person in my life who absolutely despised me--have no idea
why. Did I go out of my way to start a discourse with said person?
Nope--for it wasn't my problem to begin with--I am open to communication,
and if someone has an issue with me, I have absolutely no problem sitting
down for a chat about it, and see if a good consensus can be reached, but
they have to open the dialogue--I'm approachable.
>
> > 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.
>
> Me too.
Thanks for the support--lets see what we can achieve for the betterment of ot-d.
> Scott A
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
