Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:46:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1068 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:
> > > > > 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.
You are entitled to that view. Do you care to justify it?
>
> > > 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.
.now you are being obtuse ;)
>
> > > > 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.
Why are you trying so hard not to answer such a simple question? Don't you
like the answer?
>
> > > > > 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!
That's one way to look at it.
>
> > > Wasn't it clear to you (and everyone else) what he had done?
> >
> > Was it clear to the LP?
>
> Was yours clear to Lugnet?
With respect, you've not answered my question. BTW: Are you saying it was
not clear what I did?
>
> > > 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.
You'll have to give me a url for 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.
>
> Again, conceeded!
How so? Can one shoplift in good faith?
>
> > > > > 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!
You could also argue the moon is made of cheese. Perhaps it is:
==+==
"Wensleydale?" Wallace asks Gromit, who shakes his head. "Stilton?" The pair
are at a loss, and Wallace finally declares "Well, it's like no cheese I've
ever tasted, lad!" And they have tasted a *lot*!
==+==
>
> > > 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!
You are going to have to explain that one too.
>
> > > 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!
..and that one.
>
> 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.
You are entitled to that view.
>
> > > > 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?
Is the context not important?
>
> > > > 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?
Would you say the discussions you have quoted are typical of the debates you
'd typify me as taking part in?
>
> 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?
Do you think I could find ones of equal merit for other users? What would
that prove?
>
> > > 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.
Within the context of my comment, I'd appreciate a little elaboration on
this.
Right now you are haranguing me in isolation as you feel I don't justify my
statements enough. Do you feel that my perceived actions are better or worse
for LUGNET than pointless 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.
I thought it was clear what I meant. I still do. Is it not clear to you? Are
you not just being pedantic?
> Whether I like cheese is a matter of
> perspective. Whether something IS a cheese or not isn't.
Meaning?
>
> > 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.
Just what is not clear to 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?
Maybe you should just answer the question?
>
> > > 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.
It was. He'd only just responded to one of my messages that very day!
> If we're talking context, Larry's already admitted he's no
> role model.
I must have missed that?
> 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.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid then?
> Yours was clearly about him no matter
> what perspective it's read from. Yours was a name-calling instance; his was
> barely implied.
I think you are lacking objectivity.
>
> > > 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?
I'd argue that conflicting disinformation leads to enlightenment.
> Is basing conclusions on falsities a good reason to debate?
It's a good reason to question the conclusions, but first one has to
demonstrate where the falsities lie. The reality is that due to the
"liberal" media and "news management", there is a great deal of
disinformation as relates to the ME. In the west, a point of view often
presented is that Israel is fighting a largely defensive war against
extremists / terrorist / suicide bombers. Few are aware that the use suicide
bombers started after the Israeli government failed to act after a suicide
attack made by an [US] Israeli which left 29 Palestinian civilians dead at
the Tomb of the Patriarchs in 1994. Even less know that since the attacker
[Dr Baruch Goldstein] was buried, over 10,000 [I expect extremist] Israelis
have visited his graveside to pay their respects and a political party has
been founded in his name.
Perhaps if more people were aware of what extremists on both sides are
capable of, the conflict would have been resolved some time ago? Do you
think that if your countrymen knew what their tax dollars were being used
for in Israel they'd continue had it over? After all, could it not be given
to the prosperous as a further tax cut? ;)
>
> > > 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.
I see no need to defend them any further. I have seen far worse comments
being made on .debate with no justification. I have to wonder why you have
chosen to focus on little old me?
>
> > > > 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.
Hmm, I thought my notoriety meant all were aware of my faults as noted by
you?
> 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.
The post was aimed at me. Its first line [irc] made ref to an ongoing
discussion I was having with DK. Does that line not set the context for the
entire post?
>
> > > 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.
The post was aimed at me. Its first line [irc] made ref to an ongoing
discussion I was having with DK. The post is just part of a number of
attacks he has levelled at me:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18575
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18449
[contains a great unjustified opinion: "when he's here, he causes other
trouble besides the thread he's active in. He and his posts are sort of an
attractive nuisance in legal terms, or a substrate for infection in
biological terms."]
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18430
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18410
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18405
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18301
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18162
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18260
[I accept that at least one of these are [what Bruce termed] "long distance
twitting" of me.]
Enough? Take a look at those posts. Compare them to the group of posts you
cited as evidence of my poor debating skills as perceived by you. Which do
you feel is most appropriate for this group?
>
> > > 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.
I can't say I've been counting noses. Perhaps you would be good enough to
list the urls? But before you do, can you tell me what "victimisation"
means?
> But even
> by your own admission, you're not perfect and you lack justification at
times.
I fear you are putting words in my mouth. I admit I'm not perfect, do you
claim that you are?
>
> One of the points in contention is that you called Larry's post a total
> troll.
Where exactly did I call it 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.
I can't think how you came to reach that view?
> 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.
Given the context I have stated, just who do you think the post could have
been aimed at? Himself? You?
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
|
|
|
|
