Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:11:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
437 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm probably making a big mistake in responding, but...
Scott A wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > I know where Dave K. is coming from, hate the sin, love the sinner. He's a
> > > nice guy with a big heart, but I think sometimes love includes shunning if
> > > nothing else will work. For that reason I think Scott Arthur should be
> > > completely ignored. Even when he posts something interesting. Not just by
> > > me, but by everyone. He fails the above test pretty badly. (not straight
> > > zeros mind you, but nowhere near any sort of good score)
> > >
> > > I admit a bit of cheating on ignoring him. if someone else responds, I have
> > > been known to respond to the responder. I probably should stop that.
> >
> > I'm an incredibly tolerant person. It takes quite a bit to get me to
> > speak ill of someone.
>
> I seem to remember that the last time we interacted here, your post was
> described as an “extreme overreaction”… and you were advised to ignore me. ;)
Ok, I dug out the post I believe you are referring to. In that
particular exchange, you were choosing to jump on a single point of mine
(as you do to everyone) and tearing me down for it. My response was to
say that I was done debating. I'm still not sure why I even bother to
read this group anymore. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. The
response calling my reaction an over-reaction wasn't because I was
speaking ill of someone. Of course I also notice that the call of
overreaction was from the only other voice here who won't let a certain
issue rest. On the other hand, that individual also contributes to other
parts of the community (though often in a way that I find far more
abrasive that Larry's - and I would point out that I do wish Larry could
manage to be a little less abrasive).
> > There was a time when Scott was a significant
> > contributor to the community even though it was only through sales (I've
> > looked in the past for Scott's posts, I found almost no posts outside of
> > market posts and debate posts).
> >
> > I know there are other folks whose primary participation in Lugnet is on
> > .debate, but they do occaisionally contribute in other areas of Lugnet,
> > and I have seen their participation in the community outside of Lugnet.
>
> As I have said before, I make absolutely no secret of the fact that I largely
> only post here and in loc.uk – e-mail me, and I shall tell you why.
Ok, so somehow I missed your posts to .uk (and I managed to forget your
recent post about the Airfix find to .clone-brands - though I note that
the items you found quickly were put on the market). I even note that a
few of your .uk posts aren't market related, and I note that most (all?)
of your .uk market posts are pointing out sales and such (certainly
positive contribution). Why don't you post publicly why you don't post
to the rest of Lugnet? Are you ashamed of your reasons? Do you build at
all? I think I've seen you mention gatherings.
I don't even think that someone whose entire involvement with the
community is market based is a non-contributor (one person who would be
a big reason for me paying a visit to the SF Bay area is such a person).
In my mind you would earn a lot more respect if you showed a true
commitment to the community. I see .debate as a sideline. A chance to
explore wider horizons with my LEGO friends. But I perceive your
participation in the hobby as being pretty much just .debate (and I note
that your .uk posts are dwarfed by .debate posts). And your
participation in .debate is not positive (perhaps Larry's isn't very
positive either, but Larry is a very visible participant in the hobby to
me, and beyond just participation, I know he is active in building
community).
> > I know many would like to point the same test at Larry. I'm sure there
> > are others who would score better than Larry. But there's a difference
> > between Larry and Scott. Larry has repeatedly demonstrated not only that
> > he does actually play with the brick (I'm trying to think of a time
> > Scott has posted a MOC or picture of his collection or anything), but
> > has repeatedly demonstrated a committment to building community.
>
> As are many others - including yourself and myself.
Yes you contribute to the community. But my perception is that your
.debate style harms the community more than anything else you do (that
is visible to me) helps the community.
Please, consider dropping out of .debate, or at least not participating
in your hot button topics. Consider participating more visibly in other
areas. Surely there is something which interests you that you can share?
> > He
> > occaisionally tramples someone's toes while doing so, but so does
> > everyone else (I know I'm not perfect in that area myself).
>
> Has anyone else engaged so much "toe treading"? [you don’t have to answer]
Yes. And the ones who contribute are still here. The one's who have only
caused disruption are not here. Sadly, there are folks who have been
trod upon who are no longer here. I have no idea what anyone's score on
that is (well, ok, I can guess at least one person whose score, when
divided by their "positive contribution" score would be infinite... he's
been mentioned recently...). I'm sure I've trod upon a few feet myself.
> > Respect is something which is earned, though most of us automatically
> > grant a new person some amount of respect (but really they still earn
> > it, a pleasant greeting, for example, justifies a certain amount of
> > respect be given to a person). Respect is earned by contribution, not by
> > force of argument.
>
> I do not make strong arguments here to gain respect - I do it to correct
> misconceptions. GBS once wrote:
> "The more things a man is ashamed of, the more respectable he is."
> Perhaps if there were less flag-waving and more humility shown in this group,
> I'd have much less to post about?
But you strew misconceptions all over the place. In the debate you
called me on at the top of this, you misconstrued my position. You
constantly harp on single issues, under the guise of dispelling
misconception, but creating your own misconceptions. Heck, I'm not sure
any of us even have a correct conception of your opinions.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
