Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:25:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Morton writes:
> > Come on Lar,
> > I think we can all see the difference between posting a message saying XX
> > parts now in my brinklink store, and a link to an image that shows a
> > valuable building technique which also states in the image (and not in the
> > original posting) that the parts are available at his bricklink store.
> >
> > It's just like making a posting about something, which as part of my
> > signature block has a link to my Lego website, which in turn has a link to
> > my bricklink store.
>
> Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a
> ribbing. I whould have hoped that Bram was enough of a thought leader to
> connect the dots (where his purely market relatd followup should go) without
> an explicit warning.
>
> It was the followup, which had NO .trains related content, and which should
> have been posted to ONLY the market groups, that got gentle guidance. At
> THAT point Bram mischaracterised it as "yelling" which was a signal to me
> that guidance wasn't working, so I shuffled it up, not wanting to brawl in
> .trains which is a busy group nowadays.
>
> If all of you saying that the entire thread was fine really think that, then
> perhaps any market related advertising whatever is OK as long as one can
> trace the append chain back to an on topic post.
Nope, that's not what anyone is saying. There would have been a point
reached where, had the replies continued, it should have been moved to
wherever else if it had nothing to do with trains.
It's like, hypothetically, RCX newsgroup, "Hey I'm having problems with RCX
doing such 'n such"
Reply "Here's how you fix that"
Respond "Thanks!"
The response "thanks" has *nothing* to do with RCX's but was perfectly legit
being in the same newsgroup where the original was posted. I think that
this is understandable and can clearly be seen by anyone in that newsgroup.
If the discussion went on by someone posting, "well isn't so n' so so nice
for being the great guy he is for responding to the post" and more
discussions ensue, clearly off topic for RCX's but the "thanks" is perfectly
acceptable.
>
> But that's not my understanding of intent here. The intent is that if
> something veers off topic, one should veer the place it gets posted to as
> well. I would be (on one level) delighted to see market related stuff
> welcome everywhere, I have plenty of things to advertise... But it's not and
> on many many other levels I am quite glad of that.
I do not want to see market stuff in newsgroups that don't deal with
marketing. If it happens, I'll skip over the messages but I prefer it not
happening. That said, Bram's post wasn't pure market or pure trains.
Mayhaps a new newsgroup .trains.ideas.buy.sell.trade--yeah, whatever.
> But I really don't see that as an open question. Nor should it be.
>
> No, this is fundamentally still an issue of how to give guidance and what to
> do when it is spurned. Make no mistake, it was indeed spurned.
No, indeed, it was not spurned
Quoteth Bram:
"
I knew you were gonna yell at me...but I figured the original post was
in trains, can't hurt to port one extra message there to keep everything
in the same place. Instead we now have three off-topic messages...
--Bram
"
it was a banterish reply. No where in this response do I see 'Lar, you're
full of it and I ain't listening to you', or 'Nyaah Nyaah Nyaah, lookit what
I did so there!' What I read was a legitimate response laying out why he
posted what he did where he did, and questioned the rationale of having
things continue into '3 off-topic messages'.
Further, I will reiterate that his original post was in .trains 'cause it
had to do with train portholes, and his followup message, though not
specifically referring to .trains, it had a legitimate purpose in that it
was a *follow-up* post, letting the train people who may have been planning
on getting some portholes could no longer do that. Then the topic would
have been dead, defunct and we would have all gone on our merry way. I love
going on my merry way, it makes me so happy.
Did anyone ever see Soul Man... It's a comedy movie from the '80's...
One scene, kid driving down the road, followed closely by the cops. Cops
were *waiting* for the kid to do *something* slightly out of place. Kid
swerves to avoid someone's car door opening, cops pull him over and arrest
him for he 'crossed the yellow line', the legitmate reason was irrelevant to
the cops, they just wnated to bust the kid.
This is Community Policing.
This is what I have an issue with.
This is not the "oh gosh aren't we one big happy family that can get along"
LUGNET that I would personally like to see.
This is not small "cp" community policing.
This is thin skinned people who are quick to respond, quicker to anger,
quickest to involve admins.
This is George Orwell's 1984 or THX1138 where 'big brother' scans the
entirety of LUGNET looking for, in their minds, badness and to lock it down,
first with (hopefully at least) a politely phrased warning and then
immediately blowing it up.
Who caused the ruckus? Not Bram. Nor was it looking like he was about to
cause a ruckus.
'Nother Dave scenario:
"Hmm, I've appeared to cut my finger."
"Here's a band-aid."
"Thanks, but it still hurts."
"K, let's chop off the entire arm."
Well, I've gone off enuf this time, and I'm quite confident that this issue
is now resolved to the betterment of LUGNET in general.
Dave
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) That point is the first purely market oriented post. Even if it's a direct reply or followup to a post... Bram's followup to his original post was market related, pure and simple, and nothing else. (...) I'm not. I saw a lot of whinging by you (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Hey! Same here! Sure, it's fine if somebody corrects an error, but It really gets bad when they self appoint themselves as LUGNET police. It takes all the fun out of the original discussion,and turns it into a flame war, something I don't like (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a ribbing. I whould have hoped that Bram was enough of a thought leader to connect the dots (where his purely market relatd followup should go) without an explicit warning. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
