 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Terry Prosper wrote:
<snip>
>
> And Larry has this talent for bringing the worst out of everybody and making
> this place a very unpleasant place.
must... resist... cliche...
> Especially since he's an Admin... I
> still can't understand how such a person could have so much power here...
For the most part--k, for 99 percent of the part, I think Larry is a guy who
steps up and does what he thinks is better for the community. At least he
tries--he volunteers, he helps out where he can, he works hard and dilligently,
and I applaud his efforts. Met him in person at BF last year for the first time
and even there he did what he could to help out,what, withthe auction and all...
Whether people are 'rubbed the wrong way' by his efforts is another matter
altogether--at least he showed up and worked at it. Some might think that he
sticks his nose in a little too much, and some get 'up in arms' when he posts
because 'there goes Larry again!', but look at the big picture--he's doing work
for this community. I might add that it's 'volunteer'--i.e. he's not getting
paid to put up with the crap thrown at him. I know what that's like, having
been involved in volunteer organizations for over half my life.
I've personally gone 'round and 'round with the ++Lar a few times, both in o.t-d
as well as in other places on LUGNET. In no way does this detract from my
appreciation of the man--I may disapprove of some of his flawed reasonings ;)
but I, in no way shape or form, have issue with the person.
> Terry
We have a saying in Canada (y'know, the country you live in...)--'Put up or shut
up'--you try to be admin for a while and see the pressure from the other side.
Dave K
-who caved on the cliche thing... rats!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
<snip>
I want it known that I wrote this before Larry posted his tirade!!! ;)
I was just slow in the composition so it shows up after his rant...
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> We have a saying in Canada (y'know, the country you live in...)
Now you're teasing me... You know pretty well that I'm no Canadian... I'm
Québécois and not part of your country, which is a fine country i might add, at
all.
--'Put up or shut
> up'--you try to be admin for a while and see the pressure from the other side.
I'm not even talking about his Admin job... I'm talking about his personality.
But I should stop right here before this blows up in my face. I know the
reputation he has here, totally opposite of the one he carries in other AFOL
communities onj the web. And I know my reputation here too, so I'm no match for
the Mighty Lar...
So I'll shut up about Lar. Still, my point about Chris is still standing. No
one should be treated as "inferior" because they use the "f" word in a sentence.
It's uncalled for.
If I had written the said word here instead of "the F word", would I have been
censored? To what point is this community about respect of the others and their
right to express themselves? Just wondering...
Terry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> But I should stop right here before this blows up in my face.
Then why didn't you? Would have been a good idea...
> Still, my point about Chris is still standing. No one should be treated
> as "inferior" because they use the "f" word in a sentence. It's uncalled for.
The "f" word is uncalled for, it is last resort of a man without ideas,
foundations, positions, or principals. It is the tool of an uneducation man.
I know Chris personally and he is a man if charactor and I hold him in very high
regard.
> To what point is this community about respect of the others and their right
> to express themselves?
I don't remember any such rights, the only right I know of here is the right to
post until such time it is deemed by the owners and administrators of this sight
the one should not have the right to post anymore... In fact I find, along with
George Carlin, that people who are desperate for repect and to be heard, seldom
resect others nor listen to their points of view...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Whittenburg wrote:
> The "f" word is uncalled for, it is last resort of a man without ideas,
> foundations, positions, or principals. It is the tool of an uneducation man.
I expect that you meant "an uneducated man," but it would be churlish of me to
make an issue of a typo when I myself am endlessly guilty of same.
However, it's a mistake to identify the dreaded "f" word as an indicator of a
lack of education or sophistication. Plenty (and I mean plenty) of educated and
respected authors make use of that word, among them Henry Miller, Charles
Bukowski, Cormac McCarthy, Umberto Eco. To dismiss a speaker/writer as
uneducated simply because he invokes this word is as baseless as it would be to
dismiss as undeducated someone who speaks with a Southern accent. He may or may
not be uneducated, but his accent (or use of the "f" word) is irrelevant.
> > To what point is this community about respect of the others and their right
> > to express themselves?
>
> I don't remember any such rights, the only right I know of here is the right to
> post until such time it is deemed by the owners and administrators of this sight
> the one should not have the right to post anymore...
I think that would be more accurately described as a privilege, since one is
generally described as having one's "posting privileges" revoked/suspended
rather than one's "posting rights." A trivial distinction? Perhaps. But some
people here subscribe to the notion of "inherent rights," and it could be
problematic to equate "inherent rights" with "granted privileges."
> In fact I find, along with George Carlin, that people who are desperate for
> repect and to be heard, seldom respect others nor listen to their points of
> view...
This is a restating of the old "if you're tolerant you must tolerate my
intolerance" argument, and it's been fairly thoroughly dismantled in this very
forum. Additionally, if you demand that your views be heard and respected, then
it behooves you to recognize that everyone who hears and respects your view
needn't also accept or adopt that view.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Whittenburg wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> > But I should stop right here before this blows up in my face.
>
> Then why didn't you? Would have been a good idea...
Meh. Comments like that come from an education man I guess???... I was
implying "about Lar". Stop talking about that person, not at all. I'm
surprised a superior being like you couldn't understand that.
> The "f" word is uncalled for, it is last resort of a man without ideas,
> foundations, positions, or principals. It is the tool of an uneducation man.
Woh... So by saying the "F" word, we're stupid worthless people, is that it?
I'm sorry, I didn't know we were so inferior. I guess I couldn't know, seeing
how inferior I must be compared to you, the great education man who never
pronounces the dreaded word... I mean, since I've used that word before, it
makes me a person without foundations, ^positions, principals, even ideas!? And
I thought I was a human being just like anyone! Boy was I wrong! I'm sorry I
ever considered myself your equal! What an insult it must be for you!
>
> I know Chris personally and he is a man if charactor and I hold him in very high
> regard.
Never said anything against him. In fact, I respect him as well.
> I don't remember any such rights, the only right I know of here is the right to
> post until such time it is deemed by the owners and administrators of this sight
> the one should not have the right to post anymore... In fact I find, along with
> George Carlin, that people who are desperate for repect and to be heard, seldom
> resect others nor listen to their points of view...
Must be your case then, because you lacked respect for a whole lot of people
right there. Are YOU desperate, education man?
Terry
PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
And since I have no principals...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
> directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
> And since I have no principals...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist jumping in, being the nitpicker that I am, in the
good spirits that I'm in right now.
1) That was not a pun, just a (IMO) joke so obvious that it was pretty pointless
making it in the first place.
2) I think you meant principles. Here are the references:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principle
Legoswami
FRPA member in training
:P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
>
> > PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
> > directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
> > And since I have no principals...
>
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist jumping in, being the nitpicker that I am, in the
> good spirits that I'm in right now.
>
> 1) That was not a pun, just a (IMO) joke so obvious that it was pretty pointless
> making it in the first place.
>
> 2) I think you meant principles. Here are the references:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principal
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principle
While we're at it, here are two others:
http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/skinnerpointing.gif
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000595/
(but I should caution that the place-of-birth listed in that second reference
might strike some readers as borderline profanity...)
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principal
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principle
>
> While we're at it, here are two others:
>
> http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/skinnerpointing.gif
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000595/
> (but I should caution that the place-of-birth listed in that second reference
> might strike some readers as borderline profanity...)
>
> Dave!
I'm wondering if you've seen the 'seal pads' thread at JLUG. I can't quote/link
to the contents of the thread here, but I think it may interest you, so you'll
have to find it yourself if you are so inclined ;-)
Legoswami
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> >
> > > PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
> > > directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
> > > And since I have no principals...
> >
> > Sorry, I just couldn't resist jumping in, being the nitpicker that I am, in the
> > good spirits that I'm in right now.
> >
> > 1) That was not a pun, just a (IMO) joke so obvious that it was pretty pointless
> > making it in the first place.
> >
> > 2) I think you meant principles. Here are the references:
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principal
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principle
>
> While we're at it, here are two others:
>
> http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/skinnerpointing.gif
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000595/
> (but I should caution that the place-of-birth listed in that second reference
> might strike some readers as borderline profanity...)
>
> Dave!
Speaking of puns, see her mom's name? It's very revealing...
Who wold do that to a kid??? If your last name is 'Veal', you don't call your
kid 'Ree'!!!
Dave K
-just my opinion, of course--name your kid what you will--just be advised of the
trauma you may inflict... Like nameing your kid 'Dave' or something... Sheesh!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000595/
> > (but I should caution that the place-of-birth listed in that second reference
> > might strike some readers as borderline profanity...)
> >
> > Dave!
>
> Speaking of puns, see her mom's name? It's very revealing...
>
> Who wold do that to a kid??? If your last name is 'Veal', you don't call your
> kid 'Ree'!!!
They could have named her Milk-Fed.
> -just my opinion, of course--name your kid what you will--just be advised of the
> trauma you may inflict... Like nameing your kid 'Dave' or something... Sheesh!
I've never met anyone named Sheesh.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
>
> > PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
> > directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
> > And since I have no principals...
>
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist jumping in, being the nitpicker that I am, in the
> good spirits that I'm in right now.
>
> 1) That was not a pun, just a (IMO) joke so obvious that it was pretty pointless
> making it in the first place.
I knew it was so obvious. As I said, I just couldn't resist.
> 2) I think you meant principles. Here are the references:
Of course I'm referring to principles! I know that. Even if English is my
second language, I know the difference between those 2 words. However, I was
"paraphrasing" Jason with the word uneducation man and principals the whole
time. Wonder how you didn't catch that?! ;-)
It's ok to be a nitpicker, I can be very nitpicking at times :-)
Terry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
(snip)
> PS: Sorry about the pun, but making a mistake so obvious while writing something
> directly related to your level of education, it was just impossible to resist.
> And since I have no principals...
um...shouldn't that be "principles"?
Terry, I challenge you to do a show, and tell every one of the children viewing your display "its f---ing cool!" That's using it in everyday language, right? I wonder how many parents will be leaving with a good impression of you...
Granted, I swear--it's usually when something a bit distastrous happens...like
trying to loosen a bolt under the hood, only to bust a knuckle so bad you have
to wash it off and bandage it..
I once watched comedian Billy Connelly...every other word out of his mouth was
swearing and cussing. To me, that didn't display very much comedic sense or
talent. I changed the channel.
Remember your audience here. You have a good probability of your things being
read by minors. Keep that in mind.
I think it might be time to hear from one of our level headed resident
youths--Samarth, where are ya?
Scott Lyttle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Whittenburg wrote:
> The "f" word is uncalled for, it is last resort of a man without ideas,
> foundations, positions, or principals. It is the tool of an uneducation man.
> In fact I find, along with
> George Carlin, that people who are desperate for repect and to be heard, seldom
> resect others nor listen to their points of view...
George Carlin - now there's a man that can swear.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jason Whittenburg wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > But I should stop right here before this blows up in my face.
>
> Then why didn't you? Would have been a good idea...
>
> > Still, my point about Chris is still standing. No one should be treated
> > as "inferior" because they use the "f" word in a sentence. It's uncalled for.
>
> The "f" word is uncalled for, it is last resort of a man without ideas,
> foundations, positions, or principals. It is the tool of an uneducation man.
Oh, puhleez. It's a WORD, not a lifestyle/defining principle.
And that's "uneducated".
> > To what point is this community about respect of the others and their right
> > to express themselves?
>
> I don't remember any such rights, the only right I know of here is the right to
> post until such time it is deemed by the owners and administrators of this sight
...and that's "site".
Oh, the irony.
>
> the one should not have the right to post anymore... In fact I find, along with
> George Carlin, that people who are desperate for repect and to be heard, seldom
> resect others nor listen to their points of view...
The irony is even thicker...
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
> Now you're teasing me... You know pretty well that I'm no Canadian... I'm
> Québécois and not part of your country, which is a fine country i might add, > at all.
Lets see: Passport=Canadian
Money=Canadian
Last Referendum= Canadian
Therefore, you are Canadian. You may be a Quebeccois, and I might be a Smurfing
Squarehead (Insert apropriate swearword that started this whole thing instead of
Smurfing if you want), but you are a Canadian-Quebeccois. If you don't like
Canada, then I can suggest moving to East Timor, or some other entirely
hospitable (ha!) place for a while.
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
>
> > Now you're teasing me... You know pretty well that I'm no Canadian... I'm
> > Québécois and not part of your country, which is a fine country i might add, > at all.
>
> Lets see: Passport=Canadian
> Money=Canadian
> Last Referendum= Canadian
>
> Therefore, you are Canadian. You may be a Quebeccois, and I might be a Smurfing
> Squarehead (Insert apropriate swearword that started this whole thing instead of
> Smurfing if you want), but you are a Canadian-Quebeccois. If you don't like
> Canada, then I can suggest moving to East Timor, or some other entirely
> hospitable (ha!) place for a while.
>
> James Powell
Here's the thing for me--
iwork for a Canadian company that has locations throughout Canada (except the
Territories--I'd love that, but not so much at this time with the trips to the
Yukon...)
Anyway, we have 6 or so locatoins in the province of Quebec, therefore, as
support guy, I get to speak with people on an almost daily basis who were born,
live and work in that wonderful province. Every single one of them would love
this 'separation' issue to die. They let me know, in no uncertain terms, that
being part of Canada is much better for everyone in Quebec than separating.
They are well-educated individuals who have thought the issue through logically
and without some sort of 'rose-coloured glasses'.
I respect the right to want rights. I respect the 'unique society'. I don't
even mind the 'French Only' laws, though that's bad for tourism, imho--but if
people want to shoot themselves in the foot, then all the power to them.
The separation issue, however, is where I have the problem. Either get out
entirely, or stay in--this 'hanging in the doorway' is costing money, resources,
and creating divisiveness for all of Canada.
The next time this comes up, no wishy-washy question about separating--put it on
the table--all or nothing--own currency/everything else, and pay for what the
province owes towards the national debt.
I won't even go into the sponsorship scandal.
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> Here's the thing for me--
>
> iwork for a Canadian company that has locations throughout Canada (except the
> Territories--I'd love that, but not so much at this time with the trips to the
> Yukon...)
>
> Anyway, we have 6 or so locatoins in the province of Quebec, therefore, as
> support guy, I get to speak with people on an almost daily basis who were born,
> live and work in that wonderful province. Every single one of them would love
> this 'separation' issue to die. They let me know, in no uncertain terms, that
> being part of Canada is much better for everyone in Quebec than separating.
> They are well-educated individuals who have thought the issue through logically
> and without some sort of 'rose-coloured glasses'.
Do you speak French? If not, I guess you don't speak to the vast majority of
people here that speak French as their natural language, that have no idea that
there is a Canadian culture (most people here wouldn't know that Avril Lavigne,
Bryan Adams or Jim Carrey are Canadians, they're all Americans to us). If you
speak to Anglophones, they're ALL federalists, so no wonder you think we all
think like that, but Anglophones are ony 10% of the population of Québec.
Allophones? Same thing. The 80% remaining are French, mostly separatists, they
don't want the Canadian currency (I'd go for the Euro myself), they have no
desire of being in the doorstp and just wish this whole thing will be over soon.
Now, you should also know that after the 1980 referendum, there was a period of
about 10-12 years when people didn't care about that issue anymore. It happened
also after the 1995 referendum. We call this the post-referendum blues. It
happens everywhere in the world after a political group loses a big battle.
However, it should also be noted that in 1980, we got 40% of yes. In 1995,
49.4%. The polls have never been as high as right now in a non-referendum
context. With both Liberals at provincial and federal levels screwing us so
blatantly, one can only assume that in 2009, date expected for our final
referendum, we'll get over 60% yes.
And yes, don'T even get me started on the sponsorship scandal. Ìt only shows to
what lenghts the Canadians are ready to go to keep Québec enslaved.
> I respect the right to want rights. I respect the 'unique society'. I don't
> even mind the 'French Only' laws, though that's bad for tourism, imho--but if
> people want to shoot themselves in the foot, then all the power to them.
By saying that, you show a total lack of understanding of the question. We NEED
those laws. You can't understand what it's like to be 6 millions Francophones
in a continent full of 300 millions anglophones that wish nothing shorter than
assimilate you.
> The separation issue, however, is where I have the problem. Either get out
> entirely, or stay in--this 'hanging in the doorway' is costing money, resources,
> and creating divisiveness for all of Canada.
>
> The next time this comes up, no wishy-washy question about separating--put it on
> the table--all or nothing--own currency/everything else, and pay for what the
> province owes towards the national debt.
Amen to that. Would it be me, the question would be "Do you want Québec to
becaome a soverain country ?"
Still, David, I'm not anti-Canada, as I once was. I understand that Canada is
one of the best places to live in the world. But since you cone in Québec on a
regular basis, you must know the same applies to Québec. The thing Canadians
don't understand is that for the majority of us, Canada is our neighbours, not
our nation. We are a nation of our own and we want to be recognized as so. We
want to be able to make our own laws. We want to develop our economy according
to our needs, not those of Alberta, PEI or whatever Ontari decides for the rest
of Canada since they elect by themselves the government in place (lst federal
elections are the undeniale proof of that).
Terry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper wrote:
>
> > Now you're teasing me... You know pretty well that I'm no Canadian... I'm
> > Québécois and not part of your country, which is a fine country i might add, > at all.
>
> Lets see: Passport=Canadian
> Money=Canadian
> Last Referendum= Canadian
>
> Therefore, you are Canadian. You may be a Quebeccois, and I might be a Smurfing
> Squarehead (Insert apropriate swearword that started this whole thing instead of
> Smurfing if you want), but you are a Canadian-Quebeccois. If you don't like
> Canada, then I can suggest moving to East Timor, or some other entirely
> hospitable (ha!) place for a while.
>
> James Powell
James, haven't you got the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
I'm no more Canadian at heart that you are, I don't know, Martian. So even if
all the official papers say that I'm whatever you want, I'm what I want, nothing
more, nothing less.
Oh, BTW, I don't want to be Canadian, just like the Majority of people in
Québec, so that's why we're going to split in a few years. It took longer to
some to realize that, hence the 2 previous referendums, but third time's the
charm, right ;-) Anyway, '95 was a fraud, everybody knows that. The Federal
govt input so much money to make sure it could never win, yet, it was 50.6% to
49.4%... Doesn't this sound awkward to you? And Canada is still paying
billions to pay people to keep Québec in the Confed. Canada would be better off
without us. We'd be better off by ourselves. So what's your problem?
Terry
| | | | | | |
