Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:00:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1035 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:
> > > > > > 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?
Ok. You said it was a matter of perspective, not definition, thereby making
it your opinion. Hence, you rank the term "troll" as a qualitative value
rather than a definitive one. And because of your repeated dislike of Larry,
I think you held the view of it being a troll post because your opinion of
*Larry* is low. Not because of the post itself. Thereby making it
"emotional". Further, the only basis you've given is that it was your
"perspective", and that you 'felt it was in a manner consistant with his
posts', rather than citing *how* it was consistant or *how* it was a matter
of perspectives, even when asked *how*. Hence, "baseless".
> > > I get the feeling you are being obtuse...
> >
> > That's another baseless accusation AND name calling.
>
> .now you are being obtuse ;)
Another conceded point?
> > > 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?
Does that mean you (finally) accept my answer that there's no answer?
As for your new question, to put it in relative terms: have you stopped
beating your wife? Don't you like the answer to that question?
> > > > 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?
It was as clear to the LP as your action was 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.
>
> You'll have to give me a url for that.
I'm a bit too lazy for that. If it were anyone but you and Larry, I might,
but there are so many posts by the two of you, it makes searching for such
things quite difficult. My recollection is that Larry admitted he was wrong,
said he was sorry for assuming your wishes, but firmly stood by his actions
insofar as he maintained that they were done "in good faith".
> > > > 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?
I'm sure if the right situation came up, someone could. *I* couldn't, but
then again, *I* couldn't "in good faith" forge my name the way you and Larry
did.
> > > > > > 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:
Are you implying that you didn't similarly break the t&c of this site just
as Larry did to LP's site, and that we are all "victims" by violation of the
t&c? Or are you saying that your argument was invalid to begin with?
> > > > 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.
You said you could "live with that". Implication is you accept my point and
don't care.
> > > > 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.
Ditto.
> > 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.
Does that mean you don't disagree with that assessment?
> > > > > 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?
No, it's not. If we start talking about cheese, and then somehow I end up
making a claim that stealing is immoral, does the fact that the conversation
started out with cheese affect the validity of the claim?
> Would you say the discussions you have quoted are typical of the debates you
> 'd typify me as taking part in?
I suppose so. Each one is different.
> > 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?
Probably.
> What would that prove?
That some people also need improving. It would also help validify the point
that you were attempting to lower the bar to make yourself appear less
imperfect.
> > > > 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.
- I didn't know what John 8:7 was offhand. I had to look it up. So would
anyone else reading your post. Why didn't you quote it? Then we'd have *one*
person looking it up instead of many. Is your time more valuable? But you're
quasi-correct on this one. Had you quoted it or even merely given the jist
of it, within the context, it would have been right. But you didn't.
- Your point with "I doubt you'll expect me to agree" makes no sense to me.
Do you agree or disagree? Did you think David dodged the issue? Did you not
like his explanation? Why not? Big question mark.
> 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?
A bit of both, but in general, I think the name calling is worse. Not that I
think which is worse matters, really-- I think both issues should be
rectified, regardless of which is worse.
> > > > 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?
Nah, I don't think it's much of a matter of perspective. I'd say trolls are
defined by the intent of the author, IE to instigate a response by means of
evoking a negative emotional reaction in a given target. Just because you
took it badly doesn't mean it was intended as such.
Aside: I think what I found most humorous was the fact that part of Larry's
suggested solutions in question were the *same* as what you suggested elsewhere.
> > Whether I like cheese is a matter of perspective. Whether something IS a
> > cheese or not isn't.
>
> Meaning?
You were offended by Larry's post? Fine. That's a matter of perspective. You
don't like trolls? Fine. Same diff. *Was* Larry's post a troll? Not
perspective. We really can't say at all one way or another-- you can claim
you *felt* like it was a troll, or that you *thought* it was a troll, and
I'll even disagree with you. Point of fact, though, in order to make that
claim, you have to show evidence of Larry's intent to prove "troll-ism".
> > > 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?
What makes you think it was a troll post? Because you were offended?
> > > > 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?
Didn't I? Which question? Case in point, explain 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.
>
> It was. He'd only just responded to one of my messages that very day!
? My point is that whether or not he's a role model was irrelevant to the
point at hand. It wasn't a justifyable comment. I would call this more of a
troll post.
> > If we're talking context, Larry's already admitted he's no
> > role model.
>
> I must have missed that?
You must have. He's said it quite a few times.
> > 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?
I suppose that's a word for it. I would instead say that you're more
subjective than one in o-t.debate ought to be. I don't think I'd attempt to
name a cause like paranoia.
> > 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.
Really? I'm forgetting-- did he even mention your name in that post?
> > Doesn't conflicting disinformation lead only to the possibility of
> > accepting those as truths?
>
> I'd argue that conflicting disinformation leads to enlightenment.
That would've been fine, but why didn't you just say so? I'll skip the
debate on whether or not it actually should be debated or not-- that's not
really relevant. However, the fact that your logic wasn't readily apparent *is*.
> I see no need to defend them any further.
So-- why bother responding then?
> 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?
Because I've seen you offend the most. Quite truthfully, it seems that most
people hold you in low regard as an uncritical thinker or just plain stupid
insofar as you can't see the real points. I think instead that you're lazy.
You have potential to make it clear what points you're making, but you
don't. You're also remarkably susceptible to flame. Granted, so is Larry,
but you're the only one of the two of you who seems to not acknowledge that
fact.
> > > 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?
Attacking me now? I don't get it. Are you admitting that Larry's post had
merit apart from the minor implication of your faults, and that it wasn't a
complete troll? What's the point of being snide?
> > 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?
? Would Larry's point be invalidated if your thread didn't exist? Does it
not have its own objective value?
> > 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.
I suppose that's true-- but isn't it aimed also at any other ongoing debates
that appear to be exhausted and/or other "troublemakers"?
> 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?
Uh... [scratches head] I guess so. Do you have enough plastic McDonald's
toys to solve the world's oil problem? How are Larry's attacks on you in any
way related to whether or not Larry's post contained valid objective points?
> 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?
Neither. But this isn't a "which is worst" situation. There's no prize for
being the least offensive. Your own error is enough reason that you should
rectify it, without needing to be verified as the "worst".
> > > > 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?
List the urls where people other than you accept your posts in general as
having sufficent backing? Shouldn't you be listing those? I'll list every
one I know of:
> But before you do, can you tell me what "victimisation" means?
Nothing, apparently. "Victimization" on the other hand... ;)
Anyway, rather than asking me snide questions, shouldn't you just instead
say what you mean? I think this is often an additional problem with your
posts. There's a mild attitude behind many of them that instigates dislike
towards you, which tends to reverbate, getting worse and worse.
> > 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?
Uh... [scratches head again] no. But you're the one who's defending certain
actions/remarks/posts as being justifiable when being accused. If you want
to discuss my own faults, go right ahead. Doesn't affect your faults, though.
> > 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"?
Huh-- I could've sworn you actually did. On Dec. 17th,
(http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18647) I had thought you called
it a "100%" troll. I searched to get your exact wording, and somehow
concluded that you had called it a "total" troll. I must have misread. I had
probably confused the 100% with the "1000+ word troll" comment; though
admittedly, such is quite implicative of 'total troll' or '100% troll'
anyway, I might say.
> > 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?
See above-- I think at the time I must have been doing searches on your
posts and pulled up one on a different issue. Odd. I thought for sure you
had said something to the effect that you didn't bother with the entire post
since it fit in with Larry's 'usual' manner or some such. Sorry for that one...
> Given the context I have stated, just who do you think the post could have
> been aimed at? Himself? You?
Point of fact was that who it was aimed at only seems to bother you
specifically. His recommendation that points be dropped after sufficient
discussion and that 'troublemakers' should be ignored stands without needing
a specific subject. Sure, you saw it as an attack, but aren't his points
still valid? You can defend yourself as a 'non-troublemaker' and your debate
threads as 'non-exhausted', but that doesn't dismiss the points at hand.
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
|
|
|
|
