Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:54:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2214 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> It was a jest. But I do view that post as a troll. The post is 1000+ word
> attack on me, and a request that all ignore me.
No it wasn't. From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612
==+==
I think there are two different questions here
Should discussion on a topic cease (for a while, permanently) if certain
things indicate it might be a good idea?
Sometimes there are people who post here that some may view as
troublemakers, or nonconstructive participants. What, if anything, should be
done about it?
==+==
> But check the last 2 lines:
> ==+==
> 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.
> ==+==
>
> After all that fuss and effort, he can’t even bring himself to commit to it! A
> case of : “Do as I say, not as I do!”
At least he admits he knows he shouldn't do it.
> > No you didn't. The topic was already discussed and out it the open. People
> > knew exactly what was being referenced, which is why you were banned. Your
> > demonstration of a point that was already clear was unnecessary.
>
> That is not how I remember events. I can assure you I did what I did in good
> faith and in plain view.
There is a difference between shoplifting by example and explaining to
people about shoplifting.
> > but agree that it was
> > probably done out of more of an emotional reaction than your impersonation.
> > Yours (it seemed to me) was done out of a sense of pride-flaunting without
> > respect for the severity or necessity of the action. I suppose ultimately
> > that was an emotional reaction, but less so than Larry's.
>
> I admit I did it without realising how seriously it would be viewed.
Does how it was viewed matter? Shouldn't what matter be that you
impersonated someone?
> My recollection of events was not 100%, but below is some text from the post I
> remembered. He left due the general indignation created – not in shame of his
> actions.
You said: (http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18624)
==+==
Did he not leave in shame for a couple of weeks afterwrds?
==+==
> The post was one of the many times he called me a liar [not quoted above]
> without either justifying or retracting the statement.
Complaining about not justifying statements? I would like to see you justify
more of your statements in the future, and fewer 1-liners.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
