Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:13:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
606 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Obviously, I'm look at this from a different perspective.
> > > > 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.
You've not answered my question.
>
> > > > > 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.
Indeed. Did I not apologise? Was my apology not good enough for you?
> You could also show someone how a store is vulnerable to shoplifting by
> actually doing it. Or you could just tell them about it.
Given that shoplifting is a crime with a victim, I'm not sure your analogy
holds water.
>
> > > 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.
I think it is. I object to your use of the word "impersonate".
> 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.
I think it is. Feel free to show otherwise.
>
> > [BTW: I was actually complaining about not justifying accusations.]
>
> A statement can be an accusation.
Indeed it can, but that is not always the case. Are you saying I have directed
unjustified accusations at anyone?
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
