Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:47:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
<snip>
> >
> > Help clear this up, please.
>
>
> I said:
> ==+==
> Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense
> weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.”
> ==+==
>
> Do you need an example?
Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different
issue than the comment posted below--
> Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I get the feeling that some people want to
> attack me when they think they sense weakness and then “ignore” me when they
> don’t. Am I being paranoid?
Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and
weaknesses--what people deem to be a weakness, may or may not be the actual
weakness of the arguement.
So far so good.
That said, your other comment was specifically addressed at you, in which
you said, "and then 'ignore' me when they don't". There are two
possibilities that run thru my mind when someone doesn't respond to a point
I made--either they agree with me, in which case there's no need to debate
it, or they don't have a good enough response, in which case, there's also
no need to bother continuing the dabate. Of course, there is the third
possibility that, yes, they are, indeed, ignoring the point, but that's not
my problem--the 'ball is in their court'.
It also amazes me what people focus on in debates in general, what people
think the actual point is--it seems to be different. In this very thread, I
focused on trying to find common ground between all parties, others try to
put forth their agenda--it makes for a variety of different POV's, which,
for me, make for much interesting reading.
<snip>
> I have no idea. But why go to the bother of telling you to ignore me, when he
> is not willing to do so himself. I’m sorry, but I’m not a big fan of >hypocrisy.
And yet I do not find hypocrisy in Larry's posts. I see him working towards
a betterment of ot-d. Not that I'm a great debater myself, but I am willing
to improve my erronous ways once I know about them.
There are two proverbs in the Bible:
Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like
him yourself.
Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in
his own eyes.
Two completely contrary Proverbs in the good book, and yet I do not find
them to be hypocritical at all.
<snip>
> >
> > Do you think that there is a current problem in this newsgroup?
>
> At this moment, yes.
What is it? How would you fix it?
<snip>
> > If there are threads and topics that are dwelled on to the dissatisfaction
> > of most of the participants here in ot-d, what would your solution be to
> > lessen the dissatisfaction?
>
> Stop reading the thread?
That's a good solution. Another would be to stop *posting* on the thread if
its deemed to be a 'dead horse', if it's deemed to cause derision and
dissention amongst *most* of the participants.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Again, am I misinterpreting your POV when I read 'remember people are being
> > > > asked to ignore all my posts on any issue'? and the rationale behind it?
> > > > From my read, you believe that others aren't interested in your opinion at
> > > > all, whereas my take on the issue is that others are just done with the
> > > > particular P/I thread, you won't let it go, and therefore the others are
> > > > resorting to other means to get you to end the thread. It's not a 'carte
> > > > blanc--we dislike Scott', it's "Oh no, not this topic rehashed again! What
> > > > can we do to end it?"
> > >
> > > Indeed. I still think you focus too much on the "Isreal thing", take a look at
> > > this:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612
> > >
> > > I think that it supports my view that is about wider issues. Do you not now
> > > agree? Larry is annoyed as he attacked me again and it flopped again:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18566
> >
> > These particular postings derived from the original instigation--the P/I
> > issue and specifically how to make ot-d a better place for discussion. In
> > my view, they still come from the P/I thread, and not much more. This very
> > thread still has the original subject title, 'Ignorant views fuel
> > oppression', which hearkens right back to the P/I issue.
> >
> > So, imho, all this furor still derived from the P/I debate.
>
> That seems very tenuous to me.
Again, it was my opinion. That said, the issue remains--what to do about
threads that have gone well beyond the appreciation of almost everyone (such
as, probably, this one ;) )
<snip>
> > Well, by this very posting, to me, you have reinforced Larry's view about
> > your perceived 'poor debating techniques'--You have obfuscated, avoided, and
> > have not pinned down what you meant to say.
>
> Largely because I lack motivation to engage fully on this.
And yet you wish to continue the debate. I wish to continue the debate to
achieve common ground on which everyone feels comfortable enough to post
their opinions without things degenerationg to the point where 'banning' and
'ignoring' are the only alternatives to stop threads from continuing, to
stop people from being 'shouted down', to basically bring a little civility
into the mix.
<snip>
> >
> > Furthermore (not to get technical), for the most part, Larry was responding
> > to other persons replies, not yours.
>
> He was replying to others, but responding to me – understand the difference.
> That said, do you think that is good or bad?
I think discussion is great! I love it when a bunch of people post their
opinions on an issue! I love it when Larry comes up with an option to fix
something, then tries to work it out in an even better fashion. Right now,
though, he's probably pretty much regretting his replies to your postings
for there, once again, is a failure of interpretation. He's not trying to
be malicious or baiting, he's trying to work out a way to make this place
better. I just chose a different route.
>
> > His replies directly to your posts
> > were to offer clarification as to what he is trying to accomplish for the
> > betterment of this newsgroup and I applaud him for the effort.
>
> Nonsense on stilts! Explain this:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18410
>
> >
Yeah, and when you reach the end of your rope, you use such phrases like
"Largely because I lack motivation to engage fully on this"
We all have to learn to separate the stuff from the Stuff. We all have off
days, we all reach that 'end-of-rope' when we become snippy. And you very
well know that there is no love lost b/w yourself and Larry. You're talking
with me now. How do you think we can improve the situation in ot-d?
<snip>
> >
> > I cannot comment on events I was not privy to.
>
> I can assure you, I’ve still not received a Christmas card. ;)
Nor have I, but I have received Christmas cards from close friends, so I'm
pretty much happy in this regard.
>
> > What I have to go by, here
> > and now, is what I perceive. On LUGNET, today, the perception is that Larry
> > is an upstanding member of this community.
>
> My inbox does not support that view 100%. That said, I do still have a great
> deal of respect for Larry. But as discussed elsewhere, he has trodden on a heck
> of a lot of toes.
Let us all work to the betterment of the newsgroup, and let the past rest in
the past.
<snip>
> > That is a good place to start, but when adults clash on an issue, what then?
> > What if the topic becomes so polarized, and dwelled on, that discussion of
> > ignoring have to happen just to get beyond the topic?
>
> Polarized suggests black and white. If I’m black, who’s white? The rest of
> Lugnet?
>
> > My point is that
> > there is room for compromise on both sides--the side that says we should
> > ignore 'that guy' *and* the guy who thinks he's so right that he won't let
> > it go.
>
> So the “compromise” is that I should do as I’m told?
No, the compromise is what we work out, as a group. I personally do not
believe that ignoring is the best solution for this difficulty, and want to
come up with another solution.
<snip>
>
> To be honest, I’m happy with the ignore thing.
Well then, everyone is in agreement but me, and since I'm not bigger than
the group, there you are.
>
> Scott A
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7. (...) But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view? In this group [without any (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
