Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:49:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1958 times
|
| |
|
|
Well said, Larry.
Build On!
John Matthews
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G2rA03.5Gt@lugnet.com...
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) LEGO (...) do (...) he (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
