Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:03:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
733 times
|
| |
|
|
David Koudys wrote:
> 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 Wright brothers followed
> your logic, they'd say, "Well, look at all those other failures--those
> people tried and didn't fly, so we might as well not put in the effort
> ourselves."
>
> Sure, learn from past mistakes--he who doesn't learn from historys mistakes
> is doomed to repeat them. That said, those two proverbs quoted by yours
> truly earlier (darn those Christian ethics of mine!!) also apply:
>
> 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.
>
> It's a difficult time distinguishing which of those proverbs apply at the time.
>
> You put in the effort. You 'do your time'. You do what you can. If, at
> the end of the day you didn't get anywhere, you let it go and move on.
> However, you don't give up hope that someday, it will get better--that
> someday someone will get it together enuf to get it to fly.
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 replying, eep!) by
banging your head against the SABW, spend a few days/weeks reading all past attempts,
and realize that yet another attempt really isn't going to succeed.
BTW, some may take issue with the term numbskulls. Well, TOUGH. Think about what the
word means (as in numb skulls, take that whatever way you want, but I take it as
stubborn non-thinkers whose brain is numb), and you will see that it applies to you and
DaveE in your attempts to "debate" with Scott.
> Dave K
> -the eternal optimist.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> > David Eaton wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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 that is the only way
> > to deal with him.
> >
> > Don't be as thick as he is - listen to people's advice, especially when it is
> > coming from people that have beat their head against the Scott Arthur Brick Wall
> > before.
> >
> > I put him on Ignore long ago, and it certainly has raised my enjoyment of this
> > group...
> > except when some of you numbskulls can't take a hint and continue to try to
> > straighten him out. He's permanently bent, deal with it, move on.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
