Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:53:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
768 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:
> > > > 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.
Alright then, I don't accept your perspective. I think it's a baseless
emotional response to Larry.
> > 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...
That's another baseless accusation AND name calling.
> > > 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?
There is no balance point. There is no line to cross between "good" and
"bad". See my posts on relative morality.
> > > > 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].
Wow, point conceeded!
> > Wasn't it clear to you (and everyone else) what he had done?
>
> Was it clear to the LP?
Was yours clear to Lugnet?
> > 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.
I believe he did, though it was mixed in with self-defense.
> > > > 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.
Again, conceeded!
> > > > 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.
Point #3 made and conceeded!
> > 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.
We're on a roll! Point #4!
> > 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.
#5!
I have to ask you, though-- you accept your fault, but do/will you attempt
to improve?
> > > > 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.
But why call Larry's post a troll? As far as I can see it was an emotional
reaction from you, effectively calling Larry a troll.
> > > 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?
Why does how the thread *started* have anything to do with the points at hand?
> > > 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?
Is that the best defense you can give?
As for "best", I searched for "+Scott +Arthur" in o-t.debate. The first few
posts all yielded examples, but they were from recent threads, so I listed a
few of them, then jumped ahead. I could easily turn up better examples I'm
sure, but why bother when you can't even defend the simple, recent ones?
> > 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.
This was an example of lack of justification, not an instance of name calling.
> > 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.
Kind of, but you didn't justify it. Whether I like cheese is a matter of
perspective. Whether something IS a cheese or not isn't.
> I further explained the issue at the base of that very post. The rest is
> self-evident.
You explained the issue, but not the reasoning behind it, beyond your
emotional expectation of Larry's post being against you.
> > 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?
Because it wasn't clear to me that you expected a black/white answer. Maybe
if you had explained more?
> > 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.
No it wasn't. If we're talking context, Larry's already admitted he's no
role model. He was talking about the system itself, you were talking
instances. Further, his implication given the context is you, but his post
still need not be in reference TO you. Yours was clearly about him no matter
what perspective it's read from. Yours was a name-calling instance; his was
barely implied.
> > 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?
Not really in and of itself, but you continued-- below was the point.
> > Wouldn't "disinformation" constitute reason NOT to argue a point?
>
> Can you justify that comment?
Doesn't conflicting disinformation lead only to the possibility of accepting
those as truths? Is basing conclusions on falsities a good reason to debate?
> > 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?
I found a bit of both. I'm not terribly interested in finding more. Unless
you defend the ones in question to my satisfaction and I feel I need to
further prove the point.
> > > 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.
No, he accused your posting methods and you did likewise. You just chose a
different description. Further, again, while Larry's post did IMPLY you,
those unaware of the situation at hand needed not your history to comprehend
Larry's post. It had merit of its own without making reference to you.
Yours, on the other hand, had seemingly no objective merit and only served
to accuse.
> > 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."
Admittedly, some of the post was directed at you. But some wasn't. Please
show how his point about topic continuation was an attack on you even in an
implicative manner.
> > 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?
Oh most definitely not. Whether a post needs further justification is often
a matter of opinion. But I have yet to find an opinion other than your own
which accepts your posts in general as having sufficient backing. But even
by your own admission, you're not perfect and you lack justification at times.
One of the points in contention is that you called Larry's post a total
troll. But even after such an accusation, you admitted (through implication
admittedly, IIRC) that you hadn't even *read* the whole of his post. How can
you possibly maintain that such an accusation (IE calling his post a total
troll) was justified acceptably given merely the above fact? Let alone that
his post need not indicate you specifically.
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
|
|
|
|
