Subject:
|
Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:10:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Geoffrey Hyde <[gDOThyde@]stopspammers[bigpondDOTnetDOTau]>
|
Viewed:
|
10501 times
|
| |
|
|
"Chris Phillips" <drvegetable@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JDqEKz.JzF@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Phillips wrote:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Phillips wrote:
> > > > > Ross, you seen bothered that some members have
> > > > > "shadow" admin ability without being explicitly named on the admin
> > > > > page.
> > > > > Does this bother you because you expect accountability from these
> > > > > people?
> > > > No, it bothers me because (as happened in this case) an email to the
> > > > Lugnet
> > > > admins does not reach ALL Lugnet admins, and one of the admins that was
> > > > "out of the loop" reverted my changes.
> > > It seems that NONE of the admins received your e-mail, because the
> > > implication I've been reading is that NONE of them would have told you
> > > to go
> > > ahead.
> > Well, that's even worse, and should be fixed.
> >
> > > But the
> > > point is, you shouldn't need the admins to tell you when you are
> > > crossing
> > > that line, and if you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be a
> > > curator.
> >
> > No, that's a different point entirely.
>
> A point which is still apparently lost on you?
Chris ... I think you are trying to do little more than argue an argument
to it's unarguable end. That is why Ross Crawford redirected it to .debate
when he did. What problem are you having with the solution that the Site
Administrator Rene Hoffmeister decided to implement in this case? Perhaps
it is Rene you should be arguing with, not Ross, and since Rene rarely
changes his mind once he makes his administrative decision, I doubt there is
much point in further useless debate cluttering up the .admin.general
newsgroup on this server.
Kindly realize that you are not the only person reading LUGNET, and while
some may find it interesting I find that you are getting extremely boring
nitpicking Ross to the last nit on the planet in this case of an
administrative action that went slightly wrong. I'm hereby calling for Rene
to either lock/delete further replies to this thread - if that can even be
done - or move them to .debate where they belong.
As far as I can see no overall harm has actually been done, it just created
some confusion which has since been sorted out. Please, everyone, give the
debating in .admin.general a rest.
I'm a subscriber to LUGNET newsgroups through their NNTP server and I do
hang out on LUGNET at the moment, and I'm really shocked to see that people
will continue to argue to the death of the argument - that almost killed
LUGNET once, I don't want it being done again.
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
| (...) Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. (...) I don't know his motives any better than I assume you do, but it seems to me that he moved it to .debate in order to marginalize my attempts to steer this discussion back toward the central issue (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
| (...) A point which is still apparently lost on you? (...) So you sent e-mail to the admins, and then in the absence of a response you assumed that you had administrative approval to alter somebody else's content? No problem. Sure. (...) Under the (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
