Subject:
|
Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:20:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
>
> Plus, I already tried it your way, a year ago. I know that I myself knew • what
> to expect from the thread, unless MM had changed his ways from the Mad • Hatter
> scansite incident, there was going to be a lot of nastiness from him and a • lot
> of circular reasoning, factual errors, deliberate misstatements, • inappropriate
> amplifications, etc. He hadn't changed, and all that came to pass. That's • why
> I urged ignoring.
And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I
would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not to repeat
his past mistakes, instead of sitting and letting someone else discover it
and use it in a small-minded, destructive way (which they did with bells
on).
>
> That was my experience the last time I had a run in with
> this character. I was polite to him, he wasn't polite back. I could find • you a
> half dozen other people who had the same experience.
Politeness and friendliness are different things. They were inarguably
polite, but their tone was anything but friendly. But then, why should have
they been friendly to such a horrible person? There, I can only refer you to
the quote on the front of LUGNET.
>
> I think you might be in the cultural relativism trap, unable to say that • some
> people are twisted enough that there is no rational dealing with them • because
> they don't have the same premises you do, don't acknowledge reason as a
> mechanism, and don't conform to behavioural norms. You may think that
> appeasement and prevarication will somehow work to integrate them in. • Didn't
> work for Neville Chamberlain. Won't work here.
I have already explained more than once now that my friendliness towards
Matthew _did_ work . His apology, flawed as it may have been, was _not_ a
coincidence. I explained to him that it was the only, both publicly and in
private correspondence (in which he was, I might add, completely
reasonable). Matthew was _not_ beyond help.
>
> LUGNET is the friendliest place on the internet. One way to keep it that • way
> is to exclude the deliberately and irretrievably unfriendly, by enforcing • the
> ToS. LUGNET is not a psychotherapy club and it's not the members job to
> resolve festering issues in those that cannot confirm by trying to be nice • to
> them even when they spit in your face.
There's the flaw, Larry - "irretrievably". I was friendly to Matthew even
while telling him his error and giving him the proper advice, and _never_
did he even once "spit in my face". He responded to be with friendliness,
regrets, even reason! Can you believe that! Amazing but true. I mean, who
would have thought this unhelpable monster would respond to being treated
nicely? He was _not_ beyond help.
>
> But that's not all that needs doing. Rather than talking about MM in this
> thread, I'd rather identify the other things to do that will help LUGNET be
> more inclusionary.
Actually, in all my huffing and puffing that's exactly what I'm trying to
do - I think we could make more of an effort to see how we can help problem
individuals, and therefore be equipped to help them rather than simply
ignore/banish them! I see it as part of being "the friendliest place on the
Internet".
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
67 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
|
|
|
|
