Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:15:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4636 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > I'm not sure what Ken means here, some elaboration might be helpful.
> > What is it that I've been picky about, exactly?
>
> I think Ken means that your correcting the word "Legos" was being picky.
No, he was talking about past postings to off-topic.debate, near as I can tell,
so I don't think so.
> > And how does my being "picky" correlate to the assertion that this was
> > an "obvious attack"?
>
> I'm not precisely sure, but I think Ken felt that the pickiness slighted
> the NILTC announcement.
>
> > Up until this incident, I had no idea Ken bore me any animosity whatever.
> > [...] It remains unobvious to me even now that I know that Ken doesn't
> > like me, something that I had no idea was the case prior to yesterday.
>
> Do you mean that you think Ken bears you animosity now?
I think so, yes. Not at all justified, but yes.
> Ken, do you bear animosity toward Larry?
>
> > > Larry, was it your intention to attack Ken or Ken's sensibilities when you
> > > used the words "messing up"?
> > No. It was to have a little fun with the notion that the mundanes almost
> > always mess this wording up. (...)
>
> Do you think that the person who wrote the announcement was a mundane?
Certainly. It's written all over it, in the word choices used.
> > Further I was certain it wasn't Ken that wrote the text, as I said in the
> > post, but rather that someone else wrote it.
>
> You said you couldn't imagine Ken messing up "this spectacularly." Did
> you mean to imply that you could imagine Ken messing up less spectacularly?
No.
> If not, do you think it's possible for someone to imagine such a subtext?
Perhaps. It's possible. I don't think a reasonable person would so imagine but
people come in all shapes and sizes.
> > > Larry, did you have any idea that Ken wanted his association with LEGO
> > > kept confidential when you posted your reply to his NILTC invitation?
> > None whatever.
> > He has stated his affiliation with LEGO Brand Retail in the past, on what
> > I consider a public group (chicago-lego@groups.yahoo.com), many times.
> > [...]
>
> Ken, can you forgive Larry (on this one point) for accidentally divulging
> this information under the belief that it was common knowledge?
>
> > > What do you think about Ken's feeling that his privacy was violated
> > > by this?
> > I'm not sure I agree that it's a valid feeling [...]
>
> Well, but feelings aren't beliefs or theorems. Feelings are neither valid
> nor invalid. Feelings just are...or aren't.
That's one view. Another view is that feelings that are based on
counterfactuality, are not useful, or are "invalid".
> I'm not trying to pick nits on wording here, I'm getting at something
> deeper. What you posted in reply to Ken's NILTC announcement caused him
> to feel wronged. I'm asking you what you think about his feeling wronged
> by what you said.
I think he's drawing invalid conclusions.
No one has the right to not be offended by anything said by others, and this is
one of those times where what was said would be viewed as quite innocuous by any
reasonable person. If, on the other hand it had been something that was very
offensive, that would be different.
His assertion that his LEGO employment was some big secret that shouldn't be
revealed is also not reasonable. As I said before, it's common knowledge.
Further, I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO actually required that people disclose
it when posting about LEGO related topics (as pretty much everything here is) as
a condition of employment... that's speculation, but it's common practice. My
employer so requires it when I post about Enterprise Application Integration,
EDI, or Data Warehouse related topics on third party boards.
> > because the circumstances, in my view, don't support the notion that
> > there was a privacy violation.
>
> I think I tend to agree, but regardless, Ken did still feel wronged; any
> amount of debating the validity of whether or not he ought to have felt
> wronged won't change the simple fact that he did. And I'm asking, where
> can we go from there? My sense is that Ken would appreciate your
> acknowledging that he felt wronged by what you said.
OK, sure!
I acknowledge that he feels wronged.
I don't think that a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, would feel
wronged, but I acknowledge that he does.
> > Further I'm not sure it's appropriate that he should *want* to keep his
> > affiliation a secret.
>
> Well, that is a personal decision, right?
I'm not sure it necessarily is. Interesting research question.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) Refresh my memory on what a mundane is? (...) Well, I *think* that Ken read that meaning in what you wrote. The reason I think this is because he quoted that passage back to you on another node in this thread, and it's also what first came to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) Funny I've found quite a few "reasonable" people who found it offensive. Some of whom have posted it this thread. (...) It doesn't really matter what your view is because the TOU is very clear. Personal information will not be divulged with (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) I think Ken means that your correcting the word "Legos" was being picky. (...) I'm not precisely sure, but I think Ken felt that the pickiness slighted the NILTC announcement. (...) Do you mean that you think Ken bears you animosity now? Ken, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
71 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
|
|
|
|
