Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:12:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2006 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > > [...]
> > > First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> > > it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about • LEGO
> > > all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what • do
> > > we need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although • he
> > > can correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about
> > > it.
> >
> > The first way is closer to what happened. In November 1997, an announcement
> > was made to RTL of this: <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/> and then
> > construction began. There was some controversy and some disbelief but mostly
> > it either got ignored or people said "good luck." I think the fundamental
> > important thing is simply commitment to a cause -- just keep plowing forward.
>
> Ah. Well, my point stands (as does yours)- you weren't greeted with showers
> of roses and gold just because you stated your intentions for the site
Well, yes and no. :-) Todd's manifesto was so well written, so thoughtful, so
detailed, and so ahead of its time that when *I* read it, I begged Todd to
come to Cambridge Technology Partners (1) as a consultant for a project we
were involved in that had to do with how to build online communities.
So *I* certainly wanted to shower him with gold, but he blew us off. :-)
I wasn't sure Todd could pull it off, but the reasons behind it were so well
thought out that I knew I *wanted* it to happen.
Further, when Todd presented it, I don't recall a huge flame war ensuing in
which Todd insulted all and sundry readers who initially tried to offer
constructive criticism, as well as everyone who had a current site that was
meeting some needs of the community, culminating with Todd basically deciding
everyone else was an idiot who needed to be taught a lesson and telling us all
that we would get our comeuppance soon.
That may not be completely factual but I am not going to read that whole
cesspool again, that's the way I remember it. What I found particularly
galling was his lambasting of Horst Lehner, about the kindest, gentlest, most
helpful person you'd ever care to meet, after Horst very positively and gently
made some thoughtful suggestions.
RTL is part of usenet, true. But it is *NOT* AUK. Not even close. I remember
when RTL was much nicer. It was once called one of the nicest parts of usenet.
Mad Hatter's big flamewar may have been after some of the bloom was off the
RTL rose but it certainly didn't help.
I have not heard anything yet to lead me to believe that MH/MM is truly
repentant. To be repentant you have to admit you're wrong. To work a
gratuitous example... When I drag my suitcase over the toes of someone who is
dawdling in the airplane aisle because they didn't have their act together, I
say "sorry" as I go by, it's the polite thing to do, but you can bet I am not
repentant about it, because I don't think I'm wrong to shoulder the unprepared
tourists who paid 1/10 of what I did aside in my desire to get the heck off
that airplane and be first to the rental counter.
MM has apologised but I am not convinced it was sincere.
...
Having said all that, I fear I am judging intent. I actually don't want to do
that. I just want to judge outcomes. Trying to decide if someone is sincere is
a no win. But we have outcomes to judge, we don't need to judge intent.
I think MM did enough to warrant permanent ToSsing. Not because of his beliefs
or opinions or the profanity or even what he said on his own site. Just
because of the way that he comported himself here on Lugnet, with numerous
vicious attacks on individuals. Hey, I like a good argument too, but I just
don't think I've ever come even close to that vitriol level in my prose, even
when dealing with the most clueless and rude members.
It's not something I want my kids to read (and my kids read .space) and that's
why we have community standards here, because this isn't usenet and the paying
members are paying for these standards to be upheld.
...
Having said THAT, I'm willing to give MM another chance but it would have to
be probationary. Any sign that he was going back to his usenet ways and that's
it.
1 - remember them? Former high flying company, now the victims of a grevious
fall and trading in the fours...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| Well said, Larry. Build On! John Matthews Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G2rA03.5Gt@lugnet.com... (...) site, (...) about (...) what (...) although (...) about (...) announcement (...) mostly (...) fundamental (...) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) Gee, Lar--why do I have the feeling that this isn't an entirely hypothetical example? 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) Ah. Well, my point stands (as does yours)- you weren't greeted with showers of roses and gold just because you stated your intentions for the site. You went ahead and built in anyway, and now you're King of the World (well, as soon as we bump (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 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
|
|
|
|
