Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:36:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
896 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:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > It was not a total troll post. Feel free to show that it was.
> >
> > What, no response?
>
> I thought I had responded already?
I'd be happy so see where.
> > 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?
I would acknowledge your perspecive if it had a basis I could see. I could
claim that George Bush is smarter than Stephan Hawking, but I don't expect
you to acknowledge my perspective without me explaining more. If you want me
to respect your opinion that it was a 100% troll, you have to at least
explain what you think a troll post is, and show that Larry's post fit the
description. Once you do, I may still disagree with your definitions, but at
the very least I will be forced to accept your opinion.
> > > > > > > > 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.
Then your question is in err. That's like handing me a sheet of grey paper
and asking me if it's black or white. Good and bad are relative terms, not
absolute.
> > 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”
Didn't Larry act in "good faith"? Didn't he think you genuinely wanted to be
off the list? Wasn't it clear to you (and everyone else) what he had done?
And didn't he apologize, upon finding out that you didn't indeed want to be
removed from the list?
> > > > > > 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”.
As I said, shoplifting a paper clip is still shoplifting.
> > 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.
Then can't I just argue back that you broke the t&c of this site by posting
fraudulently and that similarly we're all victims of your fraud?
> > > > > > > > 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.
That topic's being dealt with, see above. But you haven't even attempted to
defend against my claim that your posts are often too unjustified.
> > > 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.
I'm not really concerned with others. It seems, however, that you keep
defending yourself by saying that others are worse offenders. Does this mean
you acknowledge the faults I'm accusing you of in this group?
> > > 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.
Hence why I called it a "tendancy".
> > 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.
Excellent then. In that case what do you care about others calling you names?
> 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.
I'm not sure why this constitutes a reason for you not wishing to engage fully.
> 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.
Really? Alright then:
1) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18685
Your implication is that you're looking for more than a "yes/no", and that
you want to respond. But if what you're looking for is really a "yes/no",
shouldn't you have explained what "bent" means to you? How else is Tom
supposed to judge whether or not it means the same thing to you both?
2) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18686
What's John 8:7 and why do you prefer it? You doubt Dave K will expect you
to agree? Why?
3) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18687
Where have you already responded? Why do you think it is a troll? What's a
troll? Where had you *previously* justified your statement concerning troll
posts?
4) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18664
Wasn't it clear to you that I believe good and bad are relative terms? Why
didn't you explain that you wanted things in black and white?
5) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18601
Your implication is that Larry isn't a good role model. But no
justification. Further, if Larry just said "no", wasn't your post in vain?
Why not say what you meant to say?
6) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18602
Implication is that you think the continuation of the topic is acceptable,
again without justification. Wouldn't "disinformation" constitute reason NOT
to argue a point?
Anyway, this is getting tiresome. I can find more if need be.
> You have gotten yourself excited as I called Larry’s post a "1000+
> word troll" - but to me that is what it is.
No, I got excited because you didn't justify the accusation. I couldn't care
less Larry were actually trolling you. Actually, that's not really true--
but certainly it's not the point.
> 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.
So-- to this point, why return fire?
> 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.
No, but in this instance I felt that you were wrong. If you accused Larry of
responding to you again and again without justification, I wouldn't really
care. I've seen evidence firsthand which supports that claim. I don't need
more justification. Your calling his post a total troll, however, I did
*not* see justification for, and so I asked you to explain. You still
haven't. It is only too often, however, that you make claims without the
support they deserve. Certainly some stand without it, but yours frequently
need more.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
