Subject:
|
Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:13:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1888 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said
> > before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post.
> > They already know this stuff.
> >
> > Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my breath
> > based on his track record, but if we can at least get him to stop repeating
> > himself, that's a minor win.
> >
> > Scott keeps dredging...
>
> Balance snipped.
>
> Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really
> cares about any of this?
>
> If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again?
As he enjoys playing to the crowd.
>
> Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique that you
> find it worth your time to post diatribes like this? You should know full well
> by now that Scott is going to either ignore this, or (worse) post a response
> you find to be less than what you were after, thus getting you wound up again.
> I don't remember who said it first, but I've often seen it quoted: "The
> definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and
> expecting different results." By that score, you've been around the bend for
> quite some time now.
>
> Several times reasonable people have asked you and Scott to take your ranting
> and arguing elsewhere, to email or what have you. People in lugnet.general
> have discussed ways to restrict posting to lugnet.off-topic.debate simply to
> avoid the "Scott vs. Larry" factor.
>
> But I'm addressing this to you for a few reasons:
>
> First, I'm pretty sure at this point that Scott is trolling you. Remarkably
> successfully.
I _feel_ the contrary. I have promised many times to leave LP alone - if he
does the same with me. However, I feel he just can't resist taking a shot at
me. Look at this thread – the message he just replied to is 4 weeks old!
> He posts two or three lines, and like a well-trained troll
> victim, you crank out page after page of result. Kudos to Scott on his
> trolling ability. But a troll is a troll, and I doubt he's going to stop.
I promise to leave LP alone - if he does the same with me.
>
> Which brings me to my second reason- you seem at this point to be the one who
> keeps bringing it out. You expect Scott to respond in a way he's just not
> going to respond in. You can't make him, it's just not going to happen.
> You're playing by a different set of rules than he is, and he's not going to
> agree to your set. But you keep engaging him, and getting upset when he
> doesn't respond. Scott is content to throw his 2 cents into just about any
> debate, and the rest of Lugnet, for the most part, seems to recognise that it's
> not worth fighting him over.
I have tried to withdrawal from the "gun debate" a couple of times, but LP
just has to keep winding me up. This was a instance where I thought the
whole that had run its course - note the ":-)" :
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8680
> You seem, in many ways, to be a reasonable guy...
> when are you going to realise it's just not worth your (apparently valuable)
> time? Other than give you high blood pressure, what does it do for you?
> Surely you realise it's both futile and, ultimately, useless even if you did
> "win".
>
> I'm not interested in turning this into a debate between you and I- which, I'm
> sure, means you're going to dismiss all of this as being a "drive-by", or
> whatever pseudo-debating or consulting term you see fit. I guess I'm just
> trying to get it through your head that the way you carry on with Scott is
> useless and childish, and ultimately is making you look very very bad to Lugnet
> as a whole.
>
> In reality, this probably makes me just as insane as you, if we're still
> following the above definition.
>
> Anyway, I'm posting this as an open letter to you so that everyone can have
> ample opportunity to agree or disagree as they see fit. I do hope, as insane
> as it might make me, that you think about the above just for yourself. Don't
> answer me, because in all likelihood I won't even bother to read it. Instead,
> take the time you would have spent crafting a reply to meditate to yourself on
> what you hope to gain by continuing to engage Scott. Is it really worth
> choking lugnet.off-topic.debate? Is it worth looking like a prat? Is it worth
> being Scott's troll victim? Is it even worth your time?
I tend to view myself as LP's "victim" - but then I am a little paranoid. :-)
Scott A
>
> I don't think it's worth any of that.
>
> eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Is it necessary to make this a conditional promise? Can't each involved party rise to the moral high ground and ignore the other? (...) That comes from driving on the wrong side of the road and using that crazy metric system of yours. 8^) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
