Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:39:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
649 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
> ==+==
It wasn't what? A 1000+ word attack on me or a request that all ignore me?
>
> > 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.
Is that good or bad?
>
> > > 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.
I'm not sure I accept your analogy, can you show why it is relevant?
>
> > > 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?
Can I impersonate someone by using my own name? Take a look, I did [IRC].
>
> > 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 afterwards?
> ==+==
As I said, "My recollection of events was not 100%". I think he should be
ashamed of what he did - I think we all have a right to privacy.
>
> > 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.
Youch – a 2 line attack ;) Does your view of me make Larry's rather ugly antics
acceptable?
[BTW: I was actually complaining about not justifying accusations.]
Scott A
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
