Subject:
|
Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:54:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
988 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:
> > > > > > > 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.
I fear your “lack of justification” argument against me has grown rather
diffuse. Part of the problem is the lack of good evidence you have been
willing to produce. The text in this post contains a quote that I said
“contains a great unjustified opinion”. In a different post this week I also
highlighted another unjustified opinion [actually a group of 3]. Can you
offer similar evidence against me? If you can’t, can I not argue that I’m
being victimised by you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
What makes you think I don’t like him? It may seem strange to you, but I
actually respect him a great deal. He does worry me a little. He does often
leave me feeling bemused. But I don’t dislike him. I’ve never even met the guy.
> 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".
Perhaps I think it is clear how it is consistent. I assume you think it is
not clear, or are you just being pedantic?
>
> > > > I get the feeling you are being obtuse...
> > >
> > > That's another baseless accusation AND name calling.
> >
> > .now you are being obtuse ;)
>
> Another conceded point?
Nope, a jest.
>
> > > > 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?
No, I was asking why you are trying so hard not to answer the question. You
may not like the wording of the question, but you are perfectly capable of
interpreting what was being asked.
>
> As for your new question, to put it in relative terms: have you stopped
> beating your wife?
I don’t beat my wife, and never have. You see; it is possible to fully
answer a yes/no question without saying yes/no.
> 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.
I’d love to see you justify that comment. What was your general
“lack-of-justification” case against me?
>
> > > > > 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".
So you’ve made an assertion based on a “recollection” which you now won’t
substantiate. Can we consider the assertion null and void? What was your
general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
>
> > > > > 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.
Example? What was your general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
> *I* couldn't, but
> then again, *I* couldn't "in good faith" forge my name the way you and Larry
> did.
Can one forge one’s own name? ;)
>
> > > > > > > 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?
As I have said before, my action was undertaken in good faith and with the
best of intentions. I have also offered a sincere apology. It appears the
best you are willing to offer as evidence of comparability is a recollection
that you are not willing to substantiate. What was your general
“lack-of-justification” case against 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
Is that the only implication, or merely the one you wish to state?
>
> > > > > 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?
What do you think!
>
> > > > > > 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?
I’m not sure I accept your analogy; do you care to justify it? What was your
general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
>
> > Would you say the discussions you have quoted are typical of the debates you
> > 'd typify me as taking part in?
>
> I suppose so.
You’ll have to justify that. What was your general “lack-of-justification”
case against me?
> Each one is different.
Indeed. Most [or all] of the posts you cited related to personal discussions
rather than the normal debate fodder.
>
> > > 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.
So why focus on me?
> It would also help validify the point
> that you were attempting to lower the bar to make yourself appear less
> imperfect.
I don’t agree with your form of words. All I’m trying to say is that if
others are committing greater misdemeanours, why focus on me? Is this, even
in a very small way, related to the views I hold and not the way I state
them? Do you think Larry would be less critical of me if I agreed with him a
little more? What if I agreed with him a lot more?
>
> > > > > 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.
Can you justify that? Are you saying nobody knows John 8:7? I’d bet even
that guy in the Whitehouse who calls himself your president would know it.
What was your general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
> Why didn't you quote it?
I suppose I expected David would know. I suppose I was trying to make the
exchange feel a little more one-to-one.
> 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.
Only quasi-correct! ;) Do you care to justify that? What was your general
“lack-of-justification” case against me?
> Had you quoted it or even merely given the jist
> of it, within the context, it would have been right. But you didn't.
Do I have to? Lets look at that post again:
==+==
DK:
There are two proverbs in the Bible:
Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like
him yourself.
Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in
his own eyes.
Two completely contrary Proverbs in the good book, and yet I do not find
them to be hypocritical at all.
SA:
Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7.
==+==
Do you not see the symmetry?
BTW: Do you think making unjustified statements [like both DK and I do
above] is a valid debate method which can be used to draw out the views of
others taking part?
Further, do you approve of posts which, instead of justifying a view, say a
topic is “ploughed ground” [or similar] without giving a cite?
Likewise, what can we expect readers to know? Cleary you think not John,
8:7. What about who John Ashcroft is? Where the UK is? Where Europe is? Who
the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Australia are?
What the Boston Tea Party was all about? Should I be penalised as a reader
may never have heard of [say] Thomas Telford, Adam Smith, John Logie Baird,
Alexander Fleming, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bodacia or Orlando Bosch ?
>
> - 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.
I question his motives later in this post.
>
> > 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.
So why not act against name-callers rather than give me a hard time as I
simply said “John, 8:7” more readily than quote the actual text. What did
you say victimisation meant?
> Not that I
> think which is worse matters, really-- I think both issues should be
> rectified, regardless of which is worse.
So there are no priorities then? Tackling me in this group is preferable to
dealing with [say] someone who steps on toes right across this forum?
>
> > > > > 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.
Does it mean the contrary? I don’t agree I took it “badly”, but do you think
I was supposed to?
>
> 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.
Care to expend on that? What was your general “lack-of-justification” case
against me?
>
> > > 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.
Indeed, you only thought it was “trollish” [irc]
> Point of fact, though, in order to make that
> claim, you have to show evidence of Larry's intent to prove "troll-ism".
Do I really? How can I prove his “intent” to do anything? His actions
suggest it was a troll, why is that not enough?
>
> > > > 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?
What makes you think I was “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,
What was your “case” against me?
> explain more.
Are you being obtuse again? ;)
>
> > > > > 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 think it is. But then, I’m not a big fan of hypocrisy.
> I would call this more of a
> troll post.
Why so?
>
> > > 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.
Care to give “quite a few” cites?
>
> > > 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.
Care to justify that? [i.e. show how I’m “more subjective”?]
> 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?
Lol. Does he have to? Follow the thread - its pretty clear. Honestly, who
do you think that was aimed at?
>
> > > 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*.
Was the logic of my statement not self evident to you?
>
> > I see no need to defend them any further.
>
> So-- why bother responding then?
Indeed.
>
> > 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.
Can you justify that, or are you just shooting from the hip?
> 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.
Can you justify that, or are you just shooting from the hip? What was your
general “lack-of-justification” case against me?
> I think instead that you're lazy.
> You have potential to make it clear what points you're making, but you
> don't.
Perhaps I expect too much from the readership? ;)
> 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.
You’ll have to justify that 1st. Examples? What was your general
“lack-of-justification” case against me?
>
> > > > 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 see how you can construe that as an attack. If I’ve offended you,
I’m sorry.
> 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?
When did I say it was a complete troll?
>
> > > 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?
Would he have posted if I had not posted for a few days? Somehow, I doubt
it. Do you think Larry was concerned wholly with standards of debate, or
merely dealing with me and my “anti-American” views? Both? How about you?
>
> > > 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"?
What do you think?
>
> > 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?
[I was not aware the world had an oil problem. I know that some would say
that Bush wants to invade Iraq so that your countrymen can drive SUV’s. Do
you mean that world “oil problem”? ;) ]
> How are Larry's attacks on you in any
> way related to whether or not Larry's post contained valid objective points?
I may have spliced the text above in the wrong place[!]. That said, do you
think all of those posted are rational and 100% objective? Reading those
posts can you not see that he has tried various ways of attacking me, and
[based on that observation] that complaining about ungentlemanly conduct
could be argued to be a smoke screen?
BTW: As an aside, can one make valid and objective points, and still be a troll?
>
> > 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.
It is in a way. If the pot calls the kettle black, why jump on the bandwagon
with the pot?
Why is this not a "which is worst" situation? Because you don’t want it to be?
> 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".
But if you were to focus on little old me when there are worse offenders,
could I not claim victimisation? Are you not pushing the pot out of the way
to call the kettle black?
BTW: What “error” are we addressing now?
>
> > > > > 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?
As I expect you’d guessed, I meant for you to list the URLS which support
your point. Do you care to now?
> 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... ;)
It appears we are separated by a common language. ;)
BTW: An aside - “z” is a “zed”, not a “zee”. ;)
>
> Anyway, rather than asking me snide questions, shouldn't you just instead
> say what you mean?
I did not mean to be “snide”. However, I think it’s pretty clear what I 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.
Do you care to expend on that? Am I the only person with a “mild attitude”
[or worse] whom you have publicly castigated? If so, why?
>
> > > 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.
What about the former point I made?
>
> > > 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.
I could've sworn I actually did *not*.
> On Dec. 17th,
> (http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18647) I had thought you called
> it a "100%" troll.
But I didn’t
> I searched to get your exact wording, and somehow
> concluded that you had called it a "total" troll. I must have misread.
Indeed.
> 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.
Do you care to justify that?
>
> > > 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...
But not the other?
>
> > 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.
Perhaps because it was aimed at me?
> His recommendation that points be dropped after sufficient
> discussion and that 'troublemakers' should be ignored stands without needing
> a specific subject.
Does it even need to be stated?
BTW: What is “sufficient discussion”, when only two people are taking part? ;)
> Sure, you saw it as an attack, but aren't his points
> still valid?
Do you agree it was attack?
> You can defend yourself as a 'non-troublemaker' and your debate
> threads as 'non-exhausted', but that doesn't dismiss the points at hand.
Do you think is possible to make a 100% objective statement that is still
inflammatory?
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
|
|
|
|
