Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:07:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
<snip>
> >
> > 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.
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 strong, and only attack when your point is weak?" This is, in
fact, the only way I can interpret it, for it is what you said, in my opinion.
Saying that there is another way of interpreting it without telling me what
you really meant to say is like me telling someone, "You're fixing your
computer wrong" and not telling them how to fix it properly.
Help clear this up, please.
<snip>
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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. ;)
I'll clear this up as best I can--you do not have to change your views on
any issue--this is not the problem. However, when the debate degenerates to
the point where ideas like 'ignoring people' or the like are surfacing, we
should re-evaluate posting our views concerning these debates to this
newsgroup. I hope that makes it clearer.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > <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.
I love Americans. I dislike Americans. It all depends on what we're
discussing at the time. If you, Scott, bring up something that Larry finds
particularly respondable, why whouldn't he post a reply? I mean, before the
discussion about ignoring folks. Now that that particular solution has been
posed, it's one solution. I'm endeavouring to find another.
Do you think that there is a current problem in this newsgroup?
Do you think that some threads can go on beyond the appreciation of most
parties here?
If there are threads and topics that are dwelled on to the dissatisfaction
of most of the participants here in ot-d, what would your solution be to
lessen the dissatisfaction?
<snip>
> > 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
These particular postings derived from the original instigation--the P/I
issue and specifically how to make ot-d a better place for discussion. In
my view, they still come from the P/I thread, and not much more. This very
thread still has the original subject title, 'Ignorant views fuel
oppression', which hearkens right back to the P/I issue.
So, imho, all this furor still derived from the P/I debate.
>
> 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.
Well, by this very posting, to me, you have reinforced Larry's view about
your perceived 'poor debating techniques'--You have obfuscated, avoided, and
have not pinned down what you meant to say. Whether I agree with Larry's
list is irrelevent--that you broke most of his points, for him, is. Thus,
logically, his points, he justified. Your points, you justify. My points,
I justify. Can we find common ground on which to work out a viable solution
for all of ot-d?
Furthermore (not to get technical), for the most part, Larry was responding
to other persons replies, not yours. His replies directly to your posts
were to offer clarification as to what he is trying to accomplish for the
betterment of this newsgroup and I applaud him for the effort.
> 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]!
>
>
I cannot comment on events I was not privy to. What I have to go by, here
and now, is what I perceive. On LUGNET, today, the perception is that Larry
is an upstanding member of this community. Since I have read and liked his
postings elsewhere and have appreciated his effort and work for the LEGO
community in general, I would surmise that I'll like the guy if I ever met
him. I also would probably appreciate you if we ever met--your
tongue-in-cheek humour is very funny. I cannot, nor will not, make a
personal judgement as to the 'honesty' of either of you.
What I am trying to do is to make this little corner of the internet a
better place to be. If my efforts are unappreciated or not wanted, that's
not a problem. But as long as I feel there is a chance to make ot-d a more
civil place for debates to happen, I'll put in the effort.
>
> >
> > <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 ;)
Ahh, missed that.
>
> > 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. ;)
That is a good place to start, but when adults clash on an issue, what then?
What if the topic becomes so polarized, and dwelled on, that discussion of
ignoring have to happen just to get beyond the topic? My point is that
there is room for compromise on both sides--the side that says we should
ignore 'that guy' *and* the guy who thinks he's so right that he won't let
it go.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
Again, like the 'scaring' comment, no where did I mention that I was upset
by this. I mentioned that this is how I am interpreting what your point
was. I inferred by your posting that I find mudslinging OK. Again, there
was a failure to communicate.
>
> > 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.
Yeah, those rtl folks--interesting bunch--waittaminit! I'm one of them.
>
> > 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.
I'm clarifying--not upset. I do not appreciate failures of
communication--"say what you mean or you can never mean what you say."
>
> > *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.
Agreed, but it still isn't nice to be hated. That said, I did not try to
open the lines of dialogue with that person--I wasn't the one with the problem.
Our little corner of LUGNET, however, appears to have a problem and I would
like to find a viable solution such that *no one* has to be ignored--what
would you suggest? Is there a compromise that will appease both sides?
Dave K
> 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
