Subject:
|
Re: Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:01:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5435 times
|
| |
|
|
Now I understand that ken is bullheaded and may have justly received this
timeout however I do agree that an apology is in order.
Larry’s so called bad joke was insulting to me, as well as other NILTC members.
Now I know ken could care less about an apology from Larry personally but that's
not the point. The apology needs to be aimed towards the club it's self since
Larry insulted the group as a whole.
In short, making jokes on someone else behalf is NEVER a good idea. This is
something that we all learn when we are young. Obviously someone forgot.
OnDrew
Former founding member of the NILTC.
p.s. what ever happened to freedom of speech?
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> The many personal insults and excessive crossposting by Ken Nagel in this
> thread have earned Ken a one-week timeout from posting on LUGNET, beginning
> immediately.
>
> It's unfortunate that Ken was let go from his employer. The circumstances of
> Ken's end of employment are not and cannot be exactly determined without
> further details from the LEGO Company and/or Ken. But after reviewing the
> threads in question, LUGNET administration sees no violation of the ToS on
> Larry Pieniazek's part in the original thread
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=24035>). Additionally, Ken's employment at
> LEGO was more widely known than "friends and acquaintances," as he
> wrote`[1`], and has been offered by Ken in other forums (e.g. a Yahoo
> discussion group). In fact, Ken has stated within this thread
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12148>) that the prerelease set
> information he discussed was available publicly before he discussed it,
> whether or not LEGO wanted it discussed. By his own reasoning, therefore,
> information within the thread in question can [not] be considered "private."
>
> As stated in other portions of this thread, the email sent by Ken was not
> received by most of the administrators. That's unfortunate. Even if it had
> been, however, the result would have been the same. The issues regarding
> email addresses have been addressed and shouldn't be a problem in the future.
>
> Finally, Ken's accusation that the LUGNET administration refuses to apply
> timeouts as necessary within the admin group are unfounded. We will continue
> to evaluate posts by admin members (as well as all members) and take action
> if and when appropriate. The reputations of each member of LUGNET
> administration are resting on this assertion.
>
> Despite Ken's insistence to the contrary, no punitive action is required
> against Larry in this instance. Ken may have felt attacked by Larry; but
> after evaluation, we find that Larry's reply to Ken's post was not intended
> or meant to be taken as an attack. Ken, however, has chosen to remain rude
> and intransigent in his responses to various questions; has demanded an
> apology from Larry and then demanded more
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12127>); denied that there can be
> any other interpretation of events than his
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12150>); refused polite inquiries
> by LUGNET admins to elaborate on his initial assertions
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12171>); abruptly dismissed Todd's
> attempts at helping address his concerns
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12198>); and flatly stated he
> doesn't care what other people think
> (<http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12156>). These repeated actions are
> inconsistent with the spirit and specifics of the ToS, specifically the "no
> personal attacks" section.
>
> Unless and until more facts are provided by LEGO or Ken (if and when he
> returns), this issue is concluded.
>
> {Kelly McKiernan}¬
> LUGNET Administrator
>
>
> `[1`] <http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=24082>¬
> I knew of Ken's employment with LEGO, and not through Larry or anything
> having to do with this issue. I am not an acquaintance or friend of Ken
> Nagel's, nor do I have any "inside" information.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
| -snip- Thank you for giving us the perspective of NILTC. Up until now, Ken has been speaking on behalf of a number of people (NILTC and the Library) - and I've been curious on their take on this. (...) Does this mean you are no longer a member? No (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
| (...) Are you asking as an official representative of NILTC? I'm just asking to make sure it's understood that you're speaking for NILTC in this instance. (...) Please see about a third of the way down this post, which addresses that subject: (URL) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
| (...) I have refrained from entering this "discussion" but I feel I need to insert my .02 and then back out again. Here is the deal: Ken's announcement was the joke; Larry only had the hubris to point it out. Whoever wrote the announcement, while (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | Apologies (was Re: Timeout
|
| (...) (some, but apparently not all) (...) I'm sorry that some members of NILTC took offense at my joke. In particular, Ondrew, I am sorry that you took offense. It is regrettable. I may not necessarily think it's reasonable to take offense so, but (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Timeout (was Re: "Some pigs...")
|
| The many personal insults and excessive crossposting by Ken Nagel in this thread have earned Ken a one-week timeout from posting on LUGNET, beginning immediately. It's unfortunate that Ken was let go from his employer. The circumstances of Ken's end (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
