To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 18647
18646  |  18648
Subject: 
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:48:16 GMT
Viewed: 
617 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
It wasn't what? A 1000+ word attack on me or a request that all ignore me?

It was only in part a request to ignore you. It was not a total troll post.

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?

It is better than not admitting that he behaves wrongly.

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?

You could have explained how to fraudulently post instead of actually doing
it. You could also show someone how a store is vulnerable to shoplifting by
actually doing it. Or you could just tell them about it.

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].

That is not the point. You shoplifting a paper clip is still shoplifting.

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?

Again, that is not the point.

[BTW: I was actually complaining about not justifying accusations.]

A statement can be an accusation.

DaveE



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
(...) Obviously, I'm look at this from a different perspective. (...) You've not answered my question. (...) Indeed. Did I not apologise? Was my apology not good enough for you? (...) Given that shoplifting is a crime with a victim, I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
 
(...) It wasn't what? A 1000+ word attack on me or a request that all ignore me? (...) Is that good or bad? (...) I'm not sure I accept your analogy, can you show why it is relevant? (...) Can I impersonate someone by using my own name? Take a look, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR