Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:26:59
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
> >Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
>
> Thats a very fair point.
>
> Would this equate to..
>
> Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
>Yes, rules, reasons for implementing, poster behaviour, limitations, consequences for breaking rules,
> Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
>
> This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
>
> Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
>It's not static, people have different ideas, thing continue to evolve, as is the case for almost everything. Dr. Bob has actually encouraged it. To say as much as "We are going to do it this way because this is the way we've been doing it" isn't everyone's idea of what is best.
> I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
>
> With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
>There is no relevence in that statement to this discussion at all.
If you (as you inferred) "like" a poster does that mean you and their opinions are interchangeable?
That was So's preference and you were welcome to take it up with him. What it has to do with me simply because I didn't attack him is beyond me. Had I agreed with it (his intent) I could almost see how it's germaine to the topic.
As it is, I'll say this. I like and dislike people, I agree and disagree with ideologies. How much one's ideas influence my "liking" them depend of course on my passions.
I'm quite capable of 'liking' someone and disagreeing with them, as well as the opposite. I respond to what is being said, not what other things may influence my feelings about the poster, as much as is humanly possible anyway.And that's it for me on this topic.
influences the other
> If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
>
> That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
>
> Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
poster:gabbii
thread:534688
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537638.html