Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:37:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2639 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
Now you are not being clear. ;)
>
> >
> >
> > > <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.
My point was that others were being asked to ignore me by a person who is not
ignoring me. I find that stance highly questionable.
>
> <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?"
Indeed. I still think you focus too much on the "Isreal thing", take a look at
this:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612
I think that it supports my view that is about wider issues. Do you not now
agree? Larry is annoyed as he attacked me again and it flopped again:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18566
Just the same happened a week or so ago. Say what you like about my "debating
style", but Larry is happy enough respond to me when he thinks he is on strong
ground:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18566
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18410
...and when it all falls apart we are treated to a little rant:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18430
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612
Yet, the conclusion is that I am a problem which should be ignored. Go back and
look at both those exchanges and figure out what I have done wrong.
I'll remind you that Larry has attacked me here, elsewhere on Lugnet, via
e-mail, on the Bricklink forum and has even fraudulently impersonated me on the
Libertarian Party Website [how ironic is that]! [By “impersonated”, I don’t
mean he dressed up as an athletic, handsome and well educated Scotsman] All
that, and he has not even sent me a Christmas card this year [yet]!
>
> <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.
I did not mean to imply that it did – it was a jest ;)
> 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?
Act like adults, and respect the views of others. Don’t do anything on here
which you won’t do in real life – that includes sniggering. ;)
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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,
I did not. I posed the question to you… I’m sorry if I’ve upset you on this.
> 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...)
I agree.
> Further, I did not say that you are 'the only problem
> here'--I did not point my finger at any specific person.
Again, I was asking you a question - not putting words in your mouth. I’m sorry
if I’ve upset you on this.
> *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.
"Hate" is a overused and misunderstood word. Anyone who really hates anyone has
problems IMHO.
Scott A
>
>
> >
> > > 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?
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
