 | | Re: Can we help?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| 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?
|
| (...) -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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| 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)
| |
