 | | Re: Can we help? —Marc Nelson, Jr.
|
| | | (...) The force-FUT power of admins was a really bad idea. LUGNET is about posting what you want where you want (within reason). If I wanted a place where a bunch of admins told me where I could post and what was "on-topic", I would post at (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No, I believe that if you review the ToS you will find that it is not at all about "posting what you want when you want". One of the great virtues of LUGNET, in at least this reader's view, is the compartmentalization it fosters. (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with Larry here. Especially since a majority of Lugnet posters don't actually consider where their post is going, they just hit "reply" and then go. (on a personal, non-official perspective:) I personally think we should be able to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | | Hello! (...) That's actually true, and that's what I did now, too. (...) Funny that you picked this example. It's in particular due to the colour change issue that I dislike the practice of forcefully resetted FUT. Whenever somebody only marginally (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi! (...) Exactly why getting the FUT right is very helpful to the goal of keeping things well compartmentalized. (...) That's certainly not the intent, nor is it my perception. However if you could provide a few cites where you feel that's (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Marc Nelson, Jr.
|
| | | | (...) From the Terms of Use: 12. (do not) Stray hopelessly off-topic without moving the discussion to a more appropriate location. (There is a fair amount of leeway here, since it is natural for discussions to drift, and moving a discussion can (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) It is my view (and that of other admins) that discussion of whether it is appropriate to mock someone is OFF topic for .general. Hopelessly off topic. Do you agree? If not, why not? It is my view (and that of other admins) that discussion of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Marc Nelson, Jr.
|
| | | | | (...) It seems like the definition of what is on-topic for .general is very elastic. If a post shows up in .general which could conceivably show up in a more specific newsgroup, does that mean it's off-topic for general? If so, than the last 25 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Can we help? — Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) We are in the process of discussing use of .general. It is my opinion that .general should be used for things that no other better group exists for. If a particular topic is blossoming in .general, it may be time for a new group to be created. (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Open source and admin.suggestions —Mark Riley
|
| | | | | (...) Is Lugnet going to become open source? If so, I think the answer to this and many other technical issues lies there. If not, then it would be interesting to know the reasons. On a personal note, I would most likely contribute in some manner (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) You see it as a mock of someone. I see it as a mock of an outrageous claim. (...) Mocks of some people are acceptable, though perhaps not appropriate, outside the administrative area. (...) And yet, Larry, you mocked me... -snip- (...) One (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | What follows are my personal views, not official statements of position but I'm willing to wager that they are close enough as not to make much of a difference. (...) This post by you: (URL) was not, in my view, "mocking someone", nor did I say it (...) (20 years ago, 5-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) -snip- (...) But you said in (URL) that sarcasm didn't really have a place. (...) Noted. (...) Do you consider the part where I used almost your exact words in response to your post the part which is mocking? If so, how was your post not a (...) (20 years ago, 7-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) It is part of the mocking in that post, yes. (...) I don't view it that way. Not all sarcasm is mocking. (...) I don't feel the original FUT was wrong. Admonitions (which my post was, although poorly structured) belong in the original group (...) (20 years ago, 7-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) Then why did you not comment on it (or any other part of the post which was, in your view mocking) in your response? Why didn’t you point out that *that* post was mocking and that I should not do it? And if that was only ‘part of the mocking’ (...) (20 years ago, 9-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can we help? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Richie Dulin wrote: (snip) I am not going to play second-guessing games with you, Richie. The points that needed to be made have been made. You can heed them or not, as you like, but you can no longer plead ignorance if you (...) (20 years ago, 9-Nov-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
