Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:22:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
667 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 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.
>
> It was not a total troll post. Feel free to show that it was.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Yes I did. It is better to admit than not.
With respect, you have not answered my question: Is that good or bad?
>
> > > 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?
>
> The apology was acceptable. But your criticism of Larry for the same seems
> hypocritcal.
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 was undertaken in good faith.
>
> > > 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.
>
> The victims were people who thought your post was by someone else.
Given that I was clear about what I was doing, who would have thought that?
>
> > > > > 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".
>
> If you do not think you impersonated someone, they why did you apologize?
As I misused this forum.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Obviously the point here was you justifying your statements. Not Larry's
> 'antics'.
As far as you are concerned; perhaps.
>
> > > > [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?
>
> I am saying your statements are often made in o-t.debate without sufficient
> justification.
That is a "no" then. You are spending time taking me to task as you feel I
make statements "without sufficient justification", yet you appear content
to let others make insulting and unjustified accusations. I find that a
little ironic.
Ultimately, if I make statements "without sufficient justification" - you
can quite easily show my error. I'm not sure how name-calling can be
rectified without making a mess. Do you have a solution?
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
|
|
|
|
