| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I'm ashamed of all the Larry-bashing that's been taking place.
> >
> > If you've only interacted with the man online (which I believe is the case with
> > some of his harshest critics), you have no perspective on who he really is.
> > Hence, you're really not qualified to judge him. May be qualified to
> > CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize his online interactions, perhaps, but not to judge the
> > person. Period.
>
> Tim,
> With respect, you are being obsequious. Can people not draw any conclusion from
> the fact that Larry has probably had more spats with more people than anyone
> else on LUGNET? Can they not make a judgment based on his willingness to flout
> the rules? What about all the trouble he has caused in Bricklink in the past?
>
> Do people have to look him in the eye to confirm he is his own worst enemy?
Look at it from the realistic side. The more exposure you have, the more
chances something you wrote will upset someone else. Ever since I joined the
community, Larry has consistantly been the most active participant here on
Lugnet. This and his propensity for "brutal honesty" can has rubbed more that a
few people the wrong way.
Print is an unforgiving medium as it does not have the vocal inflections and
facial expressions of face-to-face communication. This loss of these key
communication tools can lead to the wrong interpretation of the message. Case
in point, most everyone who has met Larry in real life thinks he's a great
individual and some who know him only from online dealings think he's a ox.
Does this make Lary a bad person? Absolutely not. Does this make him unfit for
leadership? I don't think so. Do the people who are offended or enraged by
Larry bluntness wrong? Again, no. I do think that Larry needs to learn to be a
little more gentle with his words. This may be very hard to Larry to do but I
think with help and contructive critcism he can change.
I also think that people need to be a little more quick to forgive past
transgressions. I realize that this may be an unobtainable ideal. Those of us
who are the Lugent regulars need to mentor the Lugnet "newbies" in this regard.
This doesn't mean we need to sit around the fire eating S'mores and singing
Kumbaya however.
A good lesson to learn from the past few days is just as a carpenter measures
twice and cuts once, if you write a message in the heat of the moment with
passions enflamed, sit on it for a while and once you have calmed re-read what
you wrote before posting. I know this is extremely hard in practice and I'm
guilty of not following my own advice in this regard but I think we have all
learned a lesson on why this is a good practice to follow.
-Orion
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: In support of Larry
|
| (...) Tim, With respect, you are being obsequious. Can people not draw any conclusion from the fact that Larry has probably had more spats with more people than anyone else on LUGNET? Can they not make a judgment based on his willingness to flout (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
