 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [ snip ] (...) Not really - I think I understand pretty well your argument about language, and have no problem with it. (...) It's difficult to judge things like this accurately when the entire sequence of events isn't presented fully. Willy's (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The admins are in the business of issuing value judgments, so I contend that any decision that they make can spark shouts of favoritism which is why this should be, at the very least, marginalized as a factor in a judgment if not disregarded (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: When speaking as an official representative of LUGNET, please make it clear by using the special symbol that Todd and others use. You presume we all know who you are and that is an invalid assumption. (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Fair point. Kelly is having some tech problems though, so please forgive if he just signs at the bottom till we get that fixed. (not speaking officially here, I haven't yet in this thread.) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) (URL) I do>. The post you replied to wasn't necessarily me speaking as an admin, although I can see how you might make that mistake. Your point is taken that admins need to be crystal clear when they are speaking "for" LUGNET. (...) I don't (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| |
