| |
In lugnet.admin.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Joseph Greene wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> > > "Larry's condensing and rude attitudes, pompous arrogance and
> > > reasoning skills are unbecoming of an official spokes person or admin of
> > > Lugnet. "
> >
> > ROFLMAO, so what is Larry condensing? Milk?
> > If you are going to post inflamatory remarks about an individual. Get it right
> > or borrow a dictionary.
>
> May the first person that has never made a "speeling" mistake cast the first
> (tongue in cheek) inflamMatory spellcheck.
Ok, Ok, I'll stop ragging on that one.. I just thought the phrase ' condensing
and rude attitudes' was too hilarious to ignore... I'm sorry , I still can't
think it without laughing.
> snipped the rest (since it's just one post above)
>
> Hello,
>
> You brought up some interesting points, but I am a bit confused.
>
> I know both Larry, and Chris, and both of them (even when their attitudes, the
> way the "come off" or spelling/grammar doesn't show it) are extremely
> intelligent and very well read. So one can mock all they want, but IMO that
> does not solve any problems or resolve any issues.
Ok, I will acceed this point. True
> IMO, this should not be about the people involved but the issues themselves.
> When we (myself included) make it personal, by attacking or crediting the person
> instead of the issue we have lost any hope of having a productive conversation.
True, I should not have stooped to attacking Chris, but the blatantwarcry of his
'contest' triggered my mental 'nuke 'em til they glow' reaction. Which I, sadly
did not wait for the radiation levels to drop before I responded.
I will apologize for picking on his spelling, but one has to admit that
condensing versus condescending is a grandly hilarious gaffe.
> You bring up the issue of Chris using the word "forced" When caught between a
> rock and a hard place it often feels one is being "forced".
> Again it's a matter of choice of word, we can nitpick them to death, or just
> take them at face value.
Actually, this is not just a matter of choice of words, but rather goes to a
rather common mindset in the modern world of not taking direct responsibility
for one's actions by claiming they had 'No Choice', when in fact there are
always choices, even though they may not be many, they are still there, and a
failure to recognize them is a potential hazard.
> You also bring up "privileges" but this isn't yahoo, it is Lugnet. Lugnet is not
> only the centre of the fan base, but also prides itself in being different than
> many newgroups/forums. As I see it, it is the rules here, are what are in
> question.
True, but that wasn't the point. Privileges are still privileges, and LUGNet
while having become very central to the community, is still, at its base,
private property, not public. Thus assaulting the admins of a private property
is dangerous, if one wants to maintain the privilege of utilizing said property.
>
> Then we come to the "fly your kite somewhere else"
> that is quite frankly where I don't understand your point. Chris was making his
> point, and regardless of how anyone feels about it, he did not make his point
> here or comments here, until it was brought to attention of the membership here.
> It was made public in an area that Larry frequents often, so it certainly was
> not behind his back. Then at the request of Lugnet (Todd's post) he said he
> would respect his wishes, and cancelled his contest, making that both apparent
> here and there. Now after the fact, people are complaining that he should "fly
> his kite elsewhere" or that he should be "ashamed". Well fact was, he was
> flying his kite elsewhere, and fact is, he is complying for the best of Lugnet
> (re Todd's request).
<OPINION>
Posting the link to the personal assault here, constitutes flying his kite in
both places. The assault, meaning the contest, was unconscionable. Posting
reference to the assault on this system was equally so.
</OPINION>
> Attacking Chris's attempt to prove a point, to me is no
> different than him, me or anyone else "attacking" anyone. Everyone is
> frustrated, everyone wants the best for the community, and everyone has their
> ideas of how that should work. It is this "after effect" of kicking someone
> makes no sense to me.
Prove a point, since when is a direct, targetted, personal attack proving a
point? The contest had very little to do with proving a point, and everything to
do with an attack on a person. Now, if Chris had posted a contest for, say,
developing a successfully approved new ToU (Thusly changing the rules Larry
would be enforcing), now that would prove a point!
> I see it this way, lets just say, a police officer puts me in a
> compromising/conciliatory/mollifying situation, am I going to take it to a
> common ground where we are equal? Or am I going to run into the police station
> calling foul!!! ..... I, for one am for taking it to the common ground, a place
> where I have just the same rights he does. More than likely I still am going to
> lose out, after all, I am JUST a citizen, and he is the "well respected"
> officer, but common sense tells me I'm going to have more of a chance of
> winning/survival/a hope in heck, where he is not above the law, nor has a room
> full of back up.
Actually in most metro parts of the US a well worded 'Foul!' cry at the Police
station is more likely to get you somewhere. But as you yourself stated, this
isn't Yahoo, or the local constabulatory we are dealing with here. None the
less, attacking the person rather than addressing the issues of the system, when
the person is operationg within the bounds of the system, is, at best,
unethical.
>
> Look, both Chris and Larry are extremely intellectual, spend hours promoting the
> hobby, and very stubborn. (They both know I feel this, since I have told them
> that both to their faces.) Larry and Chris are also both respected members of
> the community, that often do not see eye to eye on many things. Does that make
> one of them better or more important? Not in my world. In my world, everyone
> is valid and everyone handles stress and arguments in there own way, and it is
> our choice to accept or deny that. I don't see where it helps to make this a
> card carrying love festival for either of them and I actually see harm in doing
> so.
Well , having not met Chris, I'll concede to your statement. However, I will
note that I was responding, primarily , to a targetted assault on an individual
who has proven, a number of times, to be a respectable, intellectual, and
responsible member of our community (even if he does come across like a
minefield sweeper at times).
>
> Lets mock and pick our fights against those that build with peas, toothpicks or
> straws (oops that would be me, you can make cool bridges that way) instead of
> each other.
Now why would I pick on School teachers?
>
> Janey "Oh man, is she hugging another tree? Red Brick"
I prefer Oak trees myself. What's your favorite.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 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
|
|
|
|
