Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:28:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 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:
> > > > 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.
I had already said it was a matter of perspective.
>
> > > 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.
I get the feeling you are being obtuse...
>
> > > > > > > > > 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.
After avoiding the question a number times, you now claim the question is
invalid. I'll try again; Is that, on balance, good or bad?
>
> > > 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?
He claimed so [irc].
> Wasn't it clear to you (and everyone else) what he had done?
Was it clear to the LP?
> And didn't he apologize, upon finding out that you didn't indeed want to be
> removed from the list?
I don't recall any apology being offered to me.
>
> > > > > > > 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.
I don't disagree with that view.
>
> > > 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?
You could.
>
> > > > > > > > > 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.
Given the examples you have furnished us with below, I can live with that.
>
> > > > 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?
I don't claim to be perfect.
>
> > > > 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 care about anyone calling anyone else 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.
Where does your uncertainty lie?
>
> > 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?
Is that the best you can do?
>
> 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?
Is this really the best you can do? Within the context of the thread, I think
there was ample justification for that statement. This is hardly akin to
calling somebody "anti-American" or a "liar" without justification.
>
> 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?
I had already said it was a matter of perspective. I further explained the
issue at the base of that very post. The rest is self-evident.
>
> 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?
Why not just say you thought my question was a non-starter from the start?
>
> 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?
Within the context of the discussion, that comment was perfectly understandable.
> 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.
Does it need any?
> Wouldn't "disinformation" constitute reason NOT
> to argue a point?
Can you justify that comment?
>
> Anyway, this is getting tiresome. I can find more if need be.
Can you find any good ones? Ones where I make wild accusations? Where I make
baseless arguments?
>
> > 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?
Have I fought fire with fire? I chose to simply dismiss his post as a “troll”,
rather than respond in kind.
>
> > 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.
I feel I have:
"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."
> 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.
I think we have to differentiate between comments which are self-evident, and
those which have no justification whatsoever. I'm not sure you are doing that?
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
|
|
|
|
