Subject:
|
Re: New feature: Article rating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:58:58 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2667 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:10:17 GMT, "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net>
> wrote:
> LUGNET is a user-based community. Right now it is a user-based
> community with an anti-user password system.
A password system that, I remind you, controls your access to *two* things-
neither one of which even approaches being essential to normal use.
> > Throwing around words like that really waters down your argument.
>
> Insomuchas Larry and I are promoting the _right_ side of this issue,
> there really isn't much of an argument.
I think that Todd's reasoning, posted elsewhere in this thread, is
well-thought-out. Trying to deny there's another side to the issue doesn't do
much to refute it.
> You want to carry your
> password around on a card?
No, and I don't.
> You want to log yourself in
> permanently at a machine that anyone can use?
No, and I don't.
> I don't,
> and I shouldn't be made to do so.
Does someone have a gun to your head? You'll just have to accept that from
certain machines, for now, you can't access all the features. That's a choice
you're making. It's also a choice that I'm making. It's really no big deal.
I promise.
> > > So while I might joke about Larry and I being important enough to
> > > suggest that _our_ opinion on this issue is the _right_ one (we are
> > > and it is)
> >
> > Uh-huh. Pardon me if I fail to crumble before your almighty wisdom.
>
> Well, you're the only one who has stepped into the personal attack
> realm
Huh?
> (referring to Larry's cookie problem as user error
.... is not a "personal attack". It simply insinuates that his browser wasn't
designed to lose cookies (is there some browser that is that I don't know
about?) and that fixing his browser falls into his (ie, the Lugnet user's)
territory, and Lugnet didn't need to be designed around that.
> and now
> this).
So, you're allowed to make tongue in cheek comments about your perfect wisdom,
and I'm not?
> If I were concerned about YOUR opinion, I'd worry about it.
> But you're wrong, so I'm not.
Yes. You are right because you say you are, so you must be.
As I said, that kind of recursive logic really doesn't win any points in
debate. If this really is the best you can do, I'm done discussing it.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New feature: Article rating
|
| (...) Well, there you go. I didn't even know there was something else that required you to sign in to access it. So that is two features right now that I cannot access (as a paid member) unless I choose to compromise the same security these silly (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New feature: Article rating
|
| (...) Can you name a major website with the sort of long-term goals that LUGNET has that sides with your "setting your own password isn't important" opinion? (...) Well, did you read the rest of that paragraph? eCircles isn't a retailer - it is a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
309 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
|
|
|
|
