Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:34:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8901 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> Of course, this goes contrary to my other idea that "bad things happen when
> good people don't speak up", so I'm at a loss as to what I'm going to do.
You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that
there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken
up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone
(excluding perhaps Ken) will think any less of you or the communal opinion if
you don't respond. At this point, I think only your (collective) personal
opinions are at stake. I'd just say respond if you feel like it, and if you
think you can make some headway.
> 200+ posts may be a good time where all people just let it go. I'm not
> convinced that Ken is right, and it's apparent that Ken isn't convinced that
> we are. So where does that get us at the end of the day?
I may be just about done. Note I'm now switching this to o-t.d because I'm
discussing the discussion, and not so much the points therein. Note this post is
also probably in danger of meriting me a "time out" because arguably I'm putting
Ken down. I suppose this may make a good test case. Anyway.
I'm getting more and more convinced that Ken is not being open-minded about
this. I'm actually rather glad that I was in error earlier in this thread and
admitted so, because it demonstrates that I'm willing to be convinced. Ken
doesn't seem to do the same. We've repeatedly dissected the semantics of Jake's
phrase "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
At Home.", and shown that it actually (as we've claimed all along) does NOT
demonstrate a promise concerning potential future runs of the same set. Yet
despite this continued demonstration, Ken not only ignores the error by not
addressing it in his replies, but repeatedly uses the phrase again as though it
were further proof of his point.
By comparison, you'll note that each post since the admission of my error
attempts to make careful note of the fact that Lego DID make an erroneous
statement which could be legally interpreted as a promise ("It ... is your last
chance to buy Maersk bricks!"). Instead, I've changed my argument such that I'm
focusing on the meaning behind the words, suggesting that the erroneous
statement was not intended to imply policy.
I suppose it could also be because Ken isn't really reading the responses, but
rather wantonly replying to everything "pro-Lego" that is posted in reply to
him. I dunno. I mentioned a couple times that I admit that Lego has been on a
downtrend, yet he's presented that downtrend to me a few times now as though I
were totally unaware of it, or that I thought that they've totally reversed
direction. Hence, either he's unaware of the continuity of the sub-threads and
doesn't know who I am and what I've already said, or he's not reading what I've
written. Or he's just so eager to keep referring to the downtrend that he'll
ignore the debate at hand and revert right back to what he really WANTS to be
discussing, and expound on the horrors of the company.
To be honest, I don't mind continuing the debate with Ken. It hasn't gotten
boring to me yet, though it may get there shortly, as he does seem to be
starting to repeat himself to me. If my portion of the thread were the only
active one, I might consider just taking it to email, but it does seem to still
be active, so I haven't really gone that route. I guess I'd normally say that if
the administration wishes, I'll take it to email, but my guess is I don't need
to even ask that. Perhaps my next reply to Ken (assuming there is one) will just
take place off Lugnet.
So, now that I've written all that, I guess I'm more worried about this time out
thing. Does what I've written here constitute slander to Ken? Do I deserve a
time out for it? Hm. I kinda wonder about that. On the one hand I want to say
no, because I think I've stated a personal analysis of actual facts. They just
happen to relate to Ken's behavior. But at the same time the more I think about
it, the more I think I just disagree with the policy in general, so maybe it
DOES merit me a time out. Perhaps the policy is in place to prevent us from
making valid (or invalid) negative assessments of other people and/or their
behavior, regardless of how much evidence is used to back up those facts, or how
emotionally/unemotionally they're presented.
I dunno though. After all, I don't think the policy wants to prevent, say, the
belittlement of George W. Bush, but I DO think the policy wants to prevent, say,
me belittling a fellow Lugnetter to their face in a heated debate with that
person.
I think in the end, I'd rather have either:
1) No policy at all regarding slander, you're free to slam people all you want
2) No guidelines whatsoever, admins know trouble when they see it
As it is, I keep coming up with iffy situations and wonder whether they're
allowed or not. Anyway. Enough for me for now. I guess we'll see what the
verdict is later.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE" (...) Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey did. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch Larry and Dave. (...) As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that at the time were (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
