 | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) It was only in part a request to ignore you. It was not a total troll post. (...) It is better than not admitting that he behaves wrongly. (...) You could have explained how to fraudulently post instead of actually doing it. You could also (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) It was not a total troll post. Feel free to show that it was. (...) Yes I did. It is better to admit than not. (...) The apology was acceptable. But your criticism of Larry for the same seems hypocritcal. (...) The victims were people who (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) With respect, you have not answered my question: Is that good or bad? (...) I was able to apologise and acknowledge my errors. Further, I don't view it as the "same" - can you show how it is? Like I said, my action may have been silly, but it (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) What, no response? Example of lack of justification. (...) Yes I did. Admitting fault is better than not admitting fault. It is not as good as never having acted wrongly in the first place, though. (...) You both impersonated someone by (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Now, can YOU and DK finally beat a clue into your heads, and realize that you are never going to get Scott to admit to his errors, and IGNORE HIM? I don't know how many times people have mentioned in here that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Does "bent" mean in the US what is does in the UK? Scott A (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) What does it mean in the UK? In Norway, the Norwegian equivalent of "bent" would mean drunk or gay. Fredrik (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers andnonconstructive participants —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | "Bent" can mean many different things, you have to place it in context. In the context I was using it (trying to straighten SA out), it simply meant that people aren't going to be able to straighten him out: (...) Didn't think that it could be that (...) (22 years ago, 24-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | Hey Tom, It's hard to work against ones upbringing. My Papa always told me, "Son", he'd say, "No matter what you do, do your best. If it doesn't work out, well so what? At least you did your best." The idea is for *me* to do what *I* can. If the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well said. However, realizing WHEN to let it go and move on seems to be a problem (for many, if not most, in this specific group). Can you please just realize that it's time to let it go? Instead of adding to the posts in here (like I am by (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Very true, but the Wright brothers didn't say "Let's try the same methods that failed for all those other guys." They also didn't say "Let's try to make our airplane work by flying repeatedly into an impenetrable barrier." Your attempt to (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I thought I had responded already? (...) From my perspective, Larry's post was a troll. I read it as just another of similar posts he has made. I stopped myself going through it line-by-line just after it was posted – as I thought it would be (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I'd be happy so see where. (...) I would acknowledge your perspecive if it had a basis I could see. I could claim that George Bush is smarter than Stephan Hawking, but I don't expect you to acknowledge my perspective without me explaining (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I had already said it was a matter of perspective. (...) I get the feeling you are being obtuse... (...) After avoiding the question a number times, you now claim the question is invalid. I'll try again; Is that, on balance, good or bad? (...) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Alright then, I don't accept your perspective. I think it's a baseless emotional response to Larry. (...) That's another baseless accusation AND name calling. (...) There is no balance point. There is no line to cross between "good" and "bad". (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) You are entitled to that view. Do you care to justify it? (...) could (...) expect (...) me (...) the (...) at (...) .now you are being obtuse ;) (...) or (...) paper (...) not (...) Why are you trying so hard not to answer such a simple (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ok. You said it was a matter of perspective, not definition, thereby making it your opinion. Hence, you rank the term "troll" as a qualitative value rather than a definitive one. And because of your repeated dislike of Larry, I think you held (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I fear your “lack of justification” argument against me has grown rather diffuse. Part of the problem is the lack of good evidence you have been willing to produce. The text in this post contains a quote that I said “contains a great (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well-- you could, but would that somehow prove that you didn't deserve it? (...) Alright then-- If that's the case, then it's my opinion that you didn't like the implication of an attack on your person which is what you read into Larry's post, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | <snip> —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | David, I have a couple of issues with your post which I'd like to highlight before tackling the other points you raise: 1. Issue 1 (...) I'm not being clear on this one bit. In fact I've made a bit of a mess. Let's rewind[?]. Asking me to find (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
