Subject:
|
Re: Seriously...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:19:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1375 times
|
| |
|
|
I’m going to answer to some of the things that were raised by others over the
weekend...
On Todd’s banning me from Lugnet:
Todd has not contacted me privately, indeed he is unable to do so because I’m
not going to publish new contact information here unless I’m going to be able to
post again -- why take the risk with the email harvesting bots? My understanding
would be that Todd intends for this ban to be ongoing, although I really don’t
know that for certain -- he did state “until further notice.” Some people have
written to me privately and expressed sadness that I might not be allowed to
participate here in the future. Frankly, I’m of two minds about it. Obviously,
Todd will decide the issue and I bear him no ill will regardless of what he
decides. Todd was the one to invite me here in the first place, and if he is
now just as eager to show me the door I have nothing to say against him. None of
the lugnet admins have ever maltreated me in any way, to the contrary they have
been more than obliging on several occasions.
I have already stated that Todd, or whomever, may censor/edit/delete the post.
I won’t ASK that it be removed because it doesn’t bother me that much -- not the
message I expressed nor the language I used. It’s just words, folks! No big
deal. I mean, how far does this go? Don’t we call some lego elements CRAPP and
POOP http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all? Stangl is also currently using
“POOP” to describe the new brown color. So this language thing is absolutely
somewhat blurry to start with...
In fact, I think our culture is becoming far more tolerant of this kind of stuff
overall -- far more tolerant than is recognized by the TOS. I watched the Tony
Blair Simpsons episode last night and noted Marge saying the word “frigging.” Do
y’all know what that means? It’s an equivalent to the verboten word, here’s the
dictionary definition: “frig: vulgar slang. to have sexual intercourse with.”
The Simpsons is a prime time show on Sunday nights on the FOX channel! From a
culturally relevant perspective, I think my “crime” is barely worth commenting
on seeing as how it is not the way I commonly express myself on lugnet. I
normally avoid the language forbidden by the TOS, and I think everyone that
might possibly care knows that fact.
As to the specific language I used, I still like the Jean Shepherd quote: “Now,
I had heard that word at least ten times a day from my old man. My father worked
in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true
medium.” We all know the word under discussion. Hey, people say stuff like that
all the time -- it ain’t that big a thing. If Todd doesn’t like it, I already
said he could remove it. But am I wringing my hands about it, concerned about
the language I let slip? XXXX no! In real life, I say stuff like that all the
XXXXing time. So does probably 75-99% of the population at one time or another.
The hypocrites that say stuff like “Gosh darn it!” are just using replacements
for real curses. Given that, I’d say that Goll Darn Dang near 100% of us curse
quite frequently.
Fine. It’s a violation of the TOS. I should not have done it. I have said that
I would not make a habit of repeating the words. That’s all I am willing to say
on that.
I already apologized to Todd about it. Now Todd may do whatever he likes about
it. He may have already done so.
My reply to Jon:
Even though this occupies a few paragraphs, its more analysis than I normally
care to put into something of its kind. One might even call it over-analysis. I
know that there is no way that I would have considered all of these facts before
posting my reply to Jon, such a thing is untenable -- I, like most people, post
replies and comments somewhat flippantly. I mean, I don’t have an infinite
amount of time, usually I just hammer at the keyboard for a few minutes and off
it goes...
Here’s what Jon said of me:
“I wouldn’t let it get to you man. Since the dawn of time the only thing I
recall marchetti *ever* doing is gripe and post rants in .debate. This is his
role. His mouth to build ratio is off the scale. Oh wait now he’s “leaving”
too. Yawn.”
In some ways, much of the statement is sort of true. No problem. I object to the
“mouth to build ratio” part. Bottom line: I very much doubt that Jon knows me
well enough to have an informed opinion on that matter either way. Still, I
don’t think there is any doubt that he intended it as slam, just as there is no
doubt that I called him a name in my reply.
You know, if I went back and collected my many MOC postings I bet it adds up to
more than is average -- there are hundreds of brick enthusiasts here, but few
that post very many MOCs overall. Some don’t even post very much at all, and I
don’t see anyone going after them for their silence. I don’t claim to be quite
the exhibitionist that some are, but I have done my bit posting MOCs here. I
have also been instrumental in organizing contests (here’s something still
online from a Space related contest in which my MOC was intended only as an
inspiration to others -- you know what a community killer is the Ice Worm!:
http://www.ozbricks.com/blaktron/ip2002/. I just wanted to make a small
showing that Jon’s statement is not obviously a fact -- to the contrary, I think
I can prove it’s false. But you know what, I don’t have to justify anything I do
or do not do here to anyone. Jon specifically calls this freedom into question
-- as if I owed him or anybody here anything. Well, I’m sorry -- I am here to
assert that I don’t have to participate here in the Jon Palmer prescribed manner
-- I can do so or not, entirely as I see fit. Something not unlike this recently
came up with regards to Castle World (a now utterly defunct newsgroup and
organization of which I am something like the “last standing” member/curator),
so I find it interesting that it has come up again.
Nobody here owes anybody else anything!
What have I done for y’all lately?! Why would you even care? I participate
precisely at the level and frequency of my own choosing. Think of it this way:
do you really want any more of me? :)
I would assert that my participation in the main groups is adequate to the space
(I bet I have more MOCs posted here and there than does Todd Lehman anyway), the
“noise” is probably almost entirely in O-T -- which is precisely where it’s
supposed to be. So in fact, Jon’s comments are actually defamatory, libelous,
and provably false. On a certain level, I don’t care what others think -- so
what he said, what I said, was mainly between Jon and I, however public.
Consequently, I don’t claim to have been defamed or libeled, but I do claim the
right to reply in the manner of my choosing.
The name calling? Frankly, I just thought it was funny. I *SO* overdid it that I
assumed it would be understood as at least partly in jest. Don’t get me wrong
-- I meant what I said to the last word. But Eric correctly identified the
hyperbole involved. If I were to recant the name calling, that would be to leave
Jon’s assertion unchallenged. If he had called me every dirty word in existence
I would have minded that less than his pretended claim to criticizing what I do
or do not do. I mean, I don’t even let my parents, relatives, lovers, or friends
make that kind of claim on me -- if they tried, I’d send them straight to the
devil too!
But why the name calling? Because I don’t know or care enough about Jon to have
anything else to level against him. He’s probably normally a very decent person.
He wasn’t particularly nice to me on this occasion, but I don’t know that he is
some kind of villain or anything. More pointedly, I don’t care even if he is
one! I have nothing against this guy -- not before his attack on me, and not
really since that occasion either. So blank blank you blanking blank! I was
laughing as I did it. I realize that some of you think it’s bigger than that
for whatever reason, but I don’t share that view. Frankly, all this worrying
over language is a little tedious from my perspective. But it’s not my site and
ultimately not my worry.
If I was actually as tightly wound as some of you seem to think I am, I wouldn’t
be able to even type with my fists clenched so hard -- what with the white
knuckles, and the blood dripping from my palms where my fingernails enter the
flesh. I mean, maybe I could just barely pound out something on the keyboard,
eh?
Popping bolts? Hardly. Lugnet is just something akin to wasting time around the
water cooler, and I take it about as seriously. If I spend more time in
off-topic than posting MOCs, then you might rightly assume that my priorities
lean more towards the concerns of the real world than my interactions with a
toy.
But again, I didn’t even start this. Jon just came in from out of nowhere with
his comments. Was I truly expected to say nothing in return? I have almost zero
history with Jon, so his statements about me were a total surprise. That Jon has
an opinion on me at all, esp. a possibly negative one, comes as almost a shock.
I barely know Jon except for some postings here and there, and maybe one
slightly strange private correspondence about a year or so ago. Having bothered
to look up my past dealings with Jon on lugnet I was surprised to be reminded
that Jon is the creator of the Scumcraft. Here, then, is my previous
relationship to Jon as I understood it: my post
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=15392 his reply
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=15393 we’re talking about his design as modded
by me here: http://www.ozbricks.com/blaktron/btscum/. Does it seem from that
exchange that Jon and I are either great buddies or great enemies? Right, I
thought not. Generally, I don’t so much care what he is doing, nor do I expect
that he has much taken notice of me. On one level, that would be the reason I
disliked his comments about me -- I doubt he tracks me closely enough to know
the truth of what he stated, I doubt I interest him that much. He certainly
does not interest me that much either. If he dislikes me in any way, or that he
should have cause to do so, is news to me.
Some have argued that I owe Jon an apology. Shouldn’t any apologies start with
Jon’s to me? I’m not claiming that I need or even want such an apology, I don’t
even care. But if we’re going to discuss such things at all, first things
first...it is not the case that I went out of my way to state some harsh words
about Jon; I would never have dreamed of doing so.
Some have also argued that if I am to be banned, then something should also be
done regarding Jon’s posting status. I disagree. I think that I shouldn’t have
been banned and I further think that what transpired between Jon and I is
largely between Jon and myself and no one else. It was just a little skirmish.
For my part, I can deal with my end of it and I expect Jon is able to deal with
his end of it also.
From a regulatory standpoint, I can see that Todd may feel the need to point out
my transgression and make something of it. I imagine that he has his own reasons
for not wanting to open lugnet to more “adult” language. It’s all up to him.
On Larry P’s many suggestions:
I categorically refuse to do any of the things mentioned in Larry’s various
posts on this subject. Let me just start with the fact that I find his interest
in this situation somewhat overzealous even for him. As is usual for Larry,
everything he is saying is clouded by his disdain for me in a general way -- and
I think there are many, beyond just myself, that would simply assume this as
being true. Larry is also probably the last person I would go to for suggestions
on newsgroup moderation (see countless examples of his own less than even-handed
treatment of many persons and topics, and consider also his at least “jaded”
history of moderating BL).
I also categorically reject the view that I have a general apology that must be
made to dozens of persons that use Lugnet. At all times a person is responsible
for what they choose and do not choose to read. Anyone not liking the tone of my
reply to Jon had the option to move on to something else. I think it says a lot
about this place that my language is more important to many than the message I
was trying to convey -- basically, I think such a reaction is too stupid for
words to describe. I also think it’s funny that many think of my curse words as
“childish” and “unimaginative.” Uh, I wasn’t trying to write lyric poetry,
people -- I was trying to make some comments about a situation that arose
effecting this hobby. My choice of words, colorful metaphors, and such were just
intended to convey a sense of heightened annoyance. I wasn’t exactly applying
all of my creative powers to the subject.
*** Humorously, Larry suggests that I might be forgiven for violating the TOS if
I do a number of things including the following:
“d) a public apology, directed personally at Jon, that recants, point by point,
each and every one of the things he said in the offending post, without directly
repeating them and thus repeating profanity.”
I might take back the “offending” words -- but not my overall message to Jon.
That would be ridiculous and entirely beneath me or anyone else in my position.
So, no -- I won’t be recanting, etc.
*** Larry also makes this claim: “LUGNET does not censor.”
I’d have to pointedly disagree with that claim. By making the use of certain
language forbidden under the TOS, Lugnet is absolutely engaging in censorship --
it merely occurs from the outset. By participating in Lugnet one agrees to
censor one’s own use of language up front or face a temporary or permanent
prohibition on posting privileges. Let’s just not pretend that this is actually
freedom of speech or anything like it. When even a single word is forbidden, you
are dictating meaning at the most fundamental level at the level of the words
themselves. Lugnet doesn’t even stop there, there are many more prohibitions
that limit freedom of expression that are not justified from a purely legal
standpoint. I don’t generally go in for that kind of thing, but I have long
accepted it as a part of what the Lugnet Administrators are wanting and
expecting from the rest of us. I’d have to say that 99% of the time, I have
complied with the TOS. In the main, I would say that I could easily go back to
behaving more or less as “nicely” as I have before.
*** Lastly, Larry claims that I have violated this section of the TOS (which
really shows his overly intense interest in banning me):
“3. (do not) Post anonymously or post any message in which the ?From:? header is
not an e-mail address under your control. (Spamblocks are OK, however, so
long as it is possible for a reasonably intelligent human to reconstruct
your e-mail
address using clearly documented instructions, which you must include in each
such message.)”
There’s no mystery here. The email address was perfectly valid until a few
months ago. I tried to change the email address but the lugnet tool for that
purpose wouldn’t work for me. I wonder if there are any server logs noting my
numerous attempts to correct that issue. Then again, I must say that I have been
blissfully free from spam at my new email addresses and I am not that eager to
see it end. Given the annoyances of spam, I bet more than a few are posting from
addresses that they either rarely read or are just flat out fake. Even so, I
never made a point of giving misleading information in that category. I guess I
could claim that the fact that accurate contact information is available on me
via Bricklink is a show of proof of the foregoing. I’m not hiding my email
address. Changing my email address on Lugnet became a pain in the ass.
On John N:
Neal makes much of my having abused him in off-topic.debate. What he doesn’t
mention is how he often voices opinions that are bigoted and provably false, and
that in the main my replies to him are in the way of pointing out these faults.
Just last week or so he made the umpteenth ridiculous comment about a military
issue that had already been debunked by the pentagon itself (I guess they are
just not privy to John’s secret cache of “true” information). I mean, really...!
I stand behind my earlier assessment of him (and yes, proof of a statement is a
defense against libel): http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22290
“You routinely show yourself to be both a bigot and a complete ignoramus. Those
could be taken as baseless insults by almost any other person, but in your case
I think I can mount sufficient evidence from your own statements in this very
forum to show that my claim is demonstrably true.”
I’m almost sorry to have repeated that bit, but John seemed to think my
interactions with him were somehow relevant to the current issue of my reply to
Jon Palmer. I’m not really seeing it, but YMMV. Do I really think John Neal is a
bigot and ignoramus? I will allow that I cannot really and truly finally know
anything about John Neal in real life. All available evidence online suggests
that he is a person I might well prefer to keep far away from me -- personally,
politically, and intellectually.
In a way, I actually hope that what I know as John Neal is just a provocative
“troll” persona adopted by someone to stimulate conversation and point up
certain issues. The alternative to that theory is something I actually find
quite scary.
“Brick enthusiast” vs. AFOL / bashers vs. cheerleaders:
Someone over the weekend raised the issue of the phrase “brick enthusiast.”
Since we are talking about language, I think that it’s entirely possible that I
came up with this phrase to get away from the “fan” connotation of the acronym
“AFOL.” If someone else used it first, I am at least an early adopter of the
phrase (see: http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2574). The origins of this
phrase are almost surely here on lugnet somewhere...where else would anyone have
cared?
I only mention it because I think there is a really sore, but largely unspoken,
tension on lugnet -- that between the AFOL and the Brick Enthusiast. No
discussion, however brief, would be complete without mention of the meaning of
“LUGNET” itself: Lego Users Group Network (LUG + Net).
I have never been here to cheerlead for TLC. I am no AFOL, not when I really
think about it. FWIW, I am not a paid employee of MB either. I just come here to
have some fun with the bricks and to have some O-T.D fun too. This website and
an old newsgroup are pretty much the closest things I could find to what I’d
really liked to have had had I created such a website myself. It’s so close,
it’s almost exactly what I was looking for! My problem is that I use all kinds
of clone stuff and Lego only means a certain kind of quality and utility to me,
and that’s precisely where my brand loyalty ends. I know that I’m not alone in
my Brick Enthusiasm. Sure, there are plenty of AFOLs -- I used to think of
myself as one; but there are plenty of mere Brick Enthusiasts too. There are
probably many more Brick Enthusiasts than many imagine -- it has to be true
because clones represent a significant portion of the brick market. TLC
certainly knows this to be a fact even when many of the rest of you refuse to
see the reality of it. As far as I can see, TLC now gets many of its best ideas
from the clone makers.
I stopped caring about brands a long time ago, and I don’t mind telling others
that I consider them fools for caring about such a stupid issue. But some of
you are absolutely here to cheerlead for Lego in spite of the silliness of it
all. What’s more is that it is not enough for you expound on your fondness for
the lego brand -- you get angry at people that even mention, much less actually
use, something else and want to share that with you. In other words, there is
intolerance surrounding and much emphasis placed on that “L” in lugnet. I expect
many of you think that lugnet is some kind of inviting place, where in reality
it isn’t that inviting to anyone that isn’t specifically a TLC cheerleader. In
fact, I’d say that it has been downright unfriendly in many respects. Note the
venom spewed at Dave! for his tiny defense of MB quality in the new colors
thread. Frankly, such treatment is far more outrageous than any curse words I
might have chosen to commit to this board.
You cheerleaders are not unlike my natural enemies here. I pretty much abhor
everything that cheerleading for an international corporation might mean. As
many have pointed out over the weekend, Lego is a corporation out to make money
-- they are not your “old buddy.” Further, Jake is not some volunteer liaison;
if I understand it correctly -- the guy works for TLC. You talk for free, he
responds on company time for a wage. At least he has the smarts to be paid for
his efforts...
So do I have a chip on my shoulder about the “anti-clone” sentiment that exists
here on lugnet? Yes, and you TLC cheerleaders placed it there. And I stand ready
to smack y’all over the head with it any time y’all want to go toe to toe.
I don’t know that I have anything else to say on any of this. I guess Todd
recognizes that what Jon said wasn’t nice. My response was just less nice and I
did violate the TOS. I won’t hedge -- I did it knowingly. I don’t think it’s
anything worth the yanking my posting privileges. Todd may disagree and has the
de facto right to do whatever he wants to do about it.
If I am going to be allowed to post again, I will at such time attempt to
correct my email information so as to be understood by a human reader.
Anyway, I hope this makes some sense -- I don’t really want to spend any more
time on it than is absolutely essential. It’s probably fantastically overdone as
is...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
