Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:28:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
I thought I had responded already?
> Example of lack of justification.
From my perspective, Larry's post was a troll. I read it as just another of
similar posts he has made. I stopped myself going through it line-by-line just
after it was posted – as I thought it would be too disruptive. I fully
appreciate your view that the post was not 100% troll. However, you must
acknowledge that my perspective is entirely different from your own?
>
> > > > > > > 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.
With respect, you have still have not answered my question: Is that good or
bad? I’m
not interested in what is better or worse than.
>
> > > 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.
I view that as a slightly misleading and incomplete record of events. As I have
said already, my action may have been silly, but it was undertaken in
good faith. It was clear to my “victims” what I had done, and I apologised. The
two actions are not the “same”
>
> > > > > 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.
Hardly comparable to shoplifting – where there is a clear “victim”.
>
> Given that Larry admitted to you that he unsubscribed you, who was confused
> about him unsubscribing you?
The Libertarian Party? The victims of Larry's fraudulent activity were myself &
the Libertarian Party. One could argue that we are all victims, as IRC he
broke the
t&c of this site.
>
> > > > > > > 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.
Nope. You turned my statement of fact regarding Larry's behaviour into an
attack on me.
>
> > > > > > [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.
I think I have justified my 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.
Because you feel I misbehave in this single group. Whereas, other "criminals"
have been accused of treading on toes right across this whole site and even on
Bricklink.
>
> > 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.
...when it suits them.
>
> > 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.
I’m still waiting on my apology. However, I find it notable that he can’t
defend himself publicly.
> You took my statement about your 1-liners/lack
> of justification as a personal attack.
If you mean I believed the comment was directed at me - I agree.
> 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.
I don't feel I get "emotionally involved" with anything in .debate. I have tried
that - it does not work.
> 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.
I am finding it difficult engage fully on this debate for two reasons:
1) My view is that that this thread was largely started by Larry as he felt I'd
dented his ego in some way.
2) I feel that you are overly generalising, eg: "your posts are frequently full
of one-liners that would be enhanced by further justification". It is difficult
to really discuss comments like this without linking it to an example. You have
gotten yourself excited as I called Larry’s post a "1000+ word troll" - but to
me that is what it is. I have my own view on how I expect Larry to interact
with me, and that post is simply part of his usual truculent routine [he seldom
disappoints]. Ultimately, my analysis of that post was within the context of
his habitual attacks on me. However, your argument appears to be that we should
analyse each line of the post in abstract terms - I can't accept that notion
without justification.
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
|
|
|
|
