| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allister McLaren wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Who in their right mind would provoke a 'known entitiy' and not expect the
> > 'known result'--isn't that the very definition of insanity?
>
> Who said I didn't expect it?
>
> > Nor, in our particular case, should someone who
> > maliciously provokes Eric be given a 'bye' because of how you rate the
> > seriousness. It is a toy forum. In the grande scheme of 'life' it really isn't
> > even a drop of water in teh ocean. However, the second we allow one injustice a
> > 'bye', what's to stop others? Someone could do someting even more 'bad' here on
> > LUGNET, and, if we protest, they could say, 'Well, that thing with Eric!..."
>
> Show me where I asked for a 'bye'. If I've breached the TOS, I'll take my lumps.
>
> I don't consider anything that's happened here a 'malicious' provocation.
> 'Mischievous' at worst. And your repeated claims that Ross' little joke was
> somehow an 'injustice' is laughable. Get some perspective.
I'm not saying it's an injustice that requires severe punishment. It's your
perspective that you need to work on.
The facts--
Person A, in a position of authority, changed links on the Technic sidebar. The
*only* links that were changed were Eric Sophies. You say it was mischievious
'at worst'. I say that a cop driving through a red light without his flashers
on is still breaking the law--no one here is 'above' the ToU, and Person A, in
fiddling with the links to the detriment of Eric, is still breaking the ToU, if
not in specifics, at least in spirit.
And Person A, being in a 'legal' position to affect changes in the Technic
sidebar, has somewhat more 'power' with regards to the dealings of LUGNET.
paraphrasing a movie a few years back (which ripped it from so many other
places), 'with power comes responsibility'.
Was there consious intent by Person A to change the sidebar? Yes
Was the intent of Person A *at best* mischievious? Yes (you stated so yourself)
Did Person A use his power responsibly? No.
Was Eric negatively affected by this intended mischieviousness? Yes
Did Person A (and, for that matter, all the 'usual suspects' here at LUGNET)
know that the repurcussions of the 'intended mischieviousness' would directly
*cause* the negative impact on Eric? Yes (or why do it in the first place?)
What points listed there can't you understand?
Yes it's not on the same scale of putting Libby on trial for outing a CIA
operative. Fine. I never said that this was the Crime of the Century. ( A
MASH episode comes to mind in which Hawkeye and BJ go thru great lengths to
ground a helicopter pilot because the pilot wanted Korean kids to gather
trinkets in a war zone for his profiteering--"You haven't stop others from doing
what I was doing!" stated the pilot. "but our own little corner is a little
better" said BJ or Hawkeye--can't remember which)
Yes, if it happened to you, or me--hey, nice joke. Still not in the spirit of
the ToU, but, eh, fix it and life goes on. For example, Calum is responsible
for the rtlT sidebar--if he 'pulled' a similar stunt on any link relating to me,
eh, whatever.
But that completely misses the point. If I drive through a red light and a cop
pulls me over for it, he has the *right* to give me a ticket. Whether he does
or not is parenthetical. The focus is on the *fact* that I drove through the red
light, not the punishment metted out for the transgression.
You can go on about how Eric's response was 'over the top' but then you're
focusing on the *result* of the transgression, not the *cause* of the
transgression. And your continuous belittling of the issue--'get some
perspective', et al) is like saying to the cop--'it's just a red light--get some
perspective!!'
Try that next time and let me know the results.
> I don't single Eric out for special treatment. He acts like an prat, I call him
> out on it, same way you do for supposed 'injustices'. I'd do the same for
> anyone, it's merely the fact that Eric acts prattishly more often than anyone
> that it seems like he's being picked on. Eric's responses are his own
> responsibility, even if I have a good idea beforehand what it's likely to be.
> Eric doesn't get a 'bye' from me just because of an apparent mental instability.
Again, I've stated numerous times exactly what you just stated--if Eric's being
a 'prat', then I'll call him on it, too. I'm not 'singling out' Eric for
special treatment. Who says I am. My entire focus of all posts has been on the
*issue*. You (and others) by your very post above, are focusing on the 'Well,
it's Eric!!!' Your whole paragraph--Eric acts prattish, Eric's responses are
his own, Eric doesn't get a 'bye', 'apparent mental instability'... thus losing
focus on the *issue*. And when you actually talk about the *issue*, it's like,
Well, get some perspective--have a sense of humour--dont' take it
seriously--where's the injustice?
I've shown the injustice. I'm not taking it seriously. I have a sense of
humour (though some might not get the 'Daveisms', but, eh, whatever), and my
perspective is that had *anyone* 'tamperd with' a sidebar to the detriment of
*anyone else* here at LUGNET, I'd be pretty much right here, right now, doing
the same thing. Why? Unlike you, my perspective doesn't change if the victim
changes. Had this not been Eric, would we even be going on about for this
length of time? The closing summation from "A Time to Kill" comes to mind.
> I work on the assumption that, until proven otherwise, Eric is a normal,
> functioning member of society, and should therefore act like one. I don't see
> why I shouldn't take a jab at him (within the bounds of the TOS) when he
> doesn't, simply because he's known for wigging out over it?
>
> >
And I'll back you up on that. Hey, we play '*insert rtl member name here*ball
all the time in rtlT. By all means, have fun at it. Where does it say in the
ToU that we can change the sidebar of an NG for the *intent of mischief* (at
best)? And again, I'll readily admit that it doesn't explicitly state that we
*can't* change the sidebars in order to make fun of someone, either. However,
we're back to the 'spirit' of LUGNET's ToU, and, pretty much in this case, I
don't think anyone can come down on the side of 'Well, the spirit of LUGNET and
the ToU allows me to poke fun at someone by mischieviously altering sidebar
links" Go try that at Wikipedia and see how far that gets ya.
> > > The images have been rectified, explanations have been made, and your still
> > > harping on it, although I do applaud your very laresque ability to belabour a
> > > point ad nauseum.
> >
> >
> > My 'harping' is merely to point out the falicious arguements of, well, you and
> > others. If you didn't make the falicious arguements, I wouldn't be 'harping'.
>
> What exactly do you think I'm arguing for? All I'm saying is there's no harm
> done and that it's all a huge joke, a fact that both you and Eric seem to be
> ignorant of.
And I'm saying that there was harm done. The facts show that. I know humour
(Canadian humour is the best of all worlds, but I digress). "Oh officer, I
drove through that red light knowing that you'd see me and pull me over--isn't
that a lark?" Yeah, maybe that kinda humour is lost on me. As well, if you
don't know the difference between laughing *at* someone vs. laughing *with*
someone, then I'm not the one who's ignorantly missing the point.
>
> > > I refuse to take this thread seriously. As should you. As should anyone. The
> > > second you lose your sense of humour, then, well, whatever...
> >
> > I don't take any of this seriously.
>
> That's not what you said in your last post.
If you want to get into semantics--my 'posting seriousness' of this thread is
related to a) how much time I have, b) how much the other points aren't making
any logical sense, c) where my 'injustice-o-meter' is pointing (much like Dan
Rydell--sometimes you need a break and let others step up to fight the
injustices of the world)
> > Trust me--I'm in no way losing any sleep
> > over it nor is it negatively impacting on my lifestyle. I am a person, however,
> > who refuses to 'drive by' and ignore an injustice. The images may be fixed, the
> > explanations may be given, and the LUGNET community will go on--no worries...
>
> Indeed. So why not internalise the whole thing and move on? The Community
> Policeman thing doesn't really suit you anyway.
I'm not wearing a policemans hat--pointing out the fallacies of others is not
the same way as writing tickets and hauling them before court. I'm not
demanding that people be banned--heck I'm not even demanding apologies. I'm
saying there should be one from the *transgressor* to the *transgressee*, for
all the facts are indisutable. However, if it never happens, I really coudn't
care--as you said, in the grande scheme of things, it truly is irrelevant. I'll
still appreciate Eric's MOCs and I'll enjoy my banter with Ross.
But that's not even the important bit now. The important bit is how some pepole
are stating that there's a scale to injustices around here--'Because it's
Eric...', 'Because it was just a joke...', 'Because it's just a sidebar...',
'Because it's just LUGNET...'--that kinda talk--maybe we're all jaded and
'Seinfeld-esque'--more than willing to be bystanders and watch as injustices are
happening (and videotape even) to our fellow citizens (and making snarky
comments all the while to boot...) I'm sorry. Sometimes I can't stand there
and watch and enjoy the 'joke' at the expense of others. It's like being back
in grade school, hearing all the 'retard' jokes and knowing my oldest cousin is
mentally disabled. I'm sorry--I don't get it.
You want me to 'move on' (something you seem unwilling to do, btw, but that's
neither here nor there). But the truth can't be trampled over. Moving on would
leave the truth in the mud.
All this being said--like the rest of my life, I'll go my own way and make
observations--if someone heeds these observations--then horray for us! If
people ignore 'em (heck, I ignore me for the most part, too), then horray for us
(again)!
'Cause, again in the grande scheme of things, isn't LUGNET all about the brick
and the building thereof? Instead of tearing one another down at the least
provocation (something I'm guilty of more than most people around here), shall
we try building a better community? I think I stated that way back at the
beginning--we're better than this. I've seen it. I know it.
And that's about all she wrote...
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (snip everybody) Here's the thing, Dave: you're totally right. But there's no point in worrying about it any more. There seems to be a consensus that it's OK to bully Eric on LUGNET. I've (URL) protested it before>, but apparently the admins and the (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) <spits pop all over screen> I hope this is an example of that Canadian humour you were talking about! The Libby trial makes this kerfuffle seem like world war! :-) JOHN (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Who said I didn't expect it? (...) Show me where I asked for a 'bye'. If I've breached the TOS, I'll take my lumps. I don't consider anything that's happened here a 'malicious' provocation. 'Mischievous' at worst. And your repeated claims that (...) (17 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
183 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
|
|
|
|
