Subject:
|
Re: The Frog Apologizes and Shuts Up (at least for now)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:43:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
126 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> The Frog's list of sins:
>
> [X] ad hominem attacks
> [X] provocations into 'flame war'
> [X] rudeness
> [X] gloating
> [X] put-downs
> [X] condescension
> [X] sly remarks
> [X] insults
> [X] sarcasm
> [X] un-helpful, selfish behavior
> [X] excessive 'noise'
>
> Just remember that no one is innocent, but the Frog is even less innocent
> than most.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Maybe I'm thicker skinned than most.
If we're all adults here, and we behave in an adult fashion in these
discussions...
I dunno. I never got the 'ignore him 'cause he's no good to this group.'
I find that many many posts from Scott Arthur are very thought provoking,
and since he's on the 'other side of the pond', he has a differnt view than
what I get from people on this particular continent.
Beyond that,
I find that the only thing that irks me in this group is when I, or others,
put out a reasonable arguement that's like a paragraph or two (or more) in
length, and a one line rebuttal--straw man, what does 'is' mean?--whatever,
and then the discussion starts with the one line replies and the forever
indented > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why?
which, after a lengthy thread gets to, "What the proverbial h-e double
hockey sticks were we talking about???" (which, iirc, is one of the reasons
we were suppose to ignore Scott--he was notorious for this ;) )
But I want to state, for the record (whichever record matters)
That this is o.t-d, and I have come to understand the political process,
religion, and so many other things from the "blather" of Richard, from the
"arrogance" of John, from the "Quips" of Dave!, and the rest.
To those that can't take it, why put yourself thru the stress--It's like the
Home and Garden Network--if you don't want to see 24 hours of flowers being
potted--don't watch it!
Now maybe Richard made some ad hominem attacks, but haven't we all, and
isn't our skin just a little thicker than that? If I say "John, you're
being obtuse", it's not in response to my opinion of him as a person in
gneeral, it's about the discussion we're having. Who can't see that? We're
discussing this topic over here--this is the topic--not the person. Sure I
*should* say, perhaps, that, "Hey John, you're idea in this particuar
instance is obtuse." K, if it'll make folks happy, that's what I'll say.
But for the love of everything debateable, if we start censoring ourselves
because "someone might get offended!" (gasp!!), what debates can we have?
Boy the weather's nice today.
Nyaah, it's too hot.
Well I'm offended!!
Whatever.
I appreciate you all. Thanks for the discussions.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 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
|
|
|
|
