Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:44:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
659 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
What, no response? Example of lack of justification.
> > > > > > 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?
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.
> > 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 both impersonated someone by filling in their name in a form. You both
admitted your fault for doing so. But you criticized him for that
impersonation as though you were guilt free.
> > > > 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?
Those that thought that would be those who either only read the
header/title/author of your message, but not the content, or those who
thought (albeit stupidly) that he had simply signed your name.
Given that Larry admitted to you that he unsubscribed you, who was confused
about him unsubscribing you?
> > > > > > 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.
You dodged the accusation of your own lack of justification by changing the
subject.
> > > > > [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.
It was a "yes". See way up top. You accused Larry of making a troll post
against you without justifying your statement.
> 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.
If police decide to stop one criminal but not others, should they not have
bothered to stop the one? To the point, I find you the largest offender. So
I picked on you.
> Ultimately, if I make statements "without sufficient justification" - you
> can quite easily show my error.
Very true. However, they are often repeat offenses. Showing people's error
repeatedly without apparent improvement or result quickly becomes pointless.
Hence a tendancy on several people's parts to ignore your posts.
> I'm not sure how name-calling can be
> rectified without making a mess. Do you have a solution?
Most definitely. Don't take it personally. When I started arguing with you
and expressed my disapproval of Larry's lack of remorse, he emailed me as
though he took it personally. You took my statement about your 1-liners/lack
of justification as a personal attack. Neither were intended as attacks.
They're attempts at objective analysis of a subjective issue. Getting
emotionally involved in such an assessment seems like a waste of time and
energy to me. If you accept my assessment, then it's up to you to evaluate
it and to respond, if desired. If you agree that your posts are frequently
full of one-liners that would be enhanced by further justification, it's up
to you to decide what you want to do about it. You can either try and change
your posting style, aware of the problem, or you can accept the fact that
that's the way your posts will be-- further accepting that my personal
opinion (and others' who agree with me) on such a style is negative. OR you
can disagree with me (objectively) and maintain that your posts are NOT in
need of further justification. Neither necessitate you or me to feel bad.
Though that too is an option. I'll opt out, though. No mess needed.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
