Subject:
|
Re: Please help keep Tony K on LUGNET...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 04:04:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3454 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <37a8e604.287243072@lugnet.com>...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> > Tony Kilaras wrote:
> > > You chose the wrong tactic for this one buddy. If you e-mailed me about
> > > it, even though I disagree about censorhsip, I would have gladly done
> > > you the favor since this is your place.
>
> Tony,
>
> I don't understand. Could you explain to me why you should have been
> e-mailed about it? Do you mean to say that you weren't aware that you
> weren't supposed to talk with a potty mouth here?
No.
> Or do you not consider
> "holy sh**" to be potty language?
I suppose it could be construed as such by most people, yes.
> If it's the latter case, then I apologize for coming on so strong. I came
> on strong because I assumed that you were either trying to see how much you
> could get away with,
No. Why would I do that?
> or that you hadn't actually read and understood the
> Terms of Use when you'd stated that you had. (But if either of those
> assumptions is correct, then I certainly can't offer any apology.)
No I read them, but I remember them vaguely.
> The reason I always stood to up help defend your right to use obsceneties • in
> RTL years ago is because RTL doesn't have conditions on its use. But for
> better or for worse, this place is a little different. If we lose you
> because you can't stand the thought of posting messages here without the • use
> of obsceneties, then I'm sorry to see you leave, but I'd rather that you
> leave and we keep the no-obsceneties rule here than amending the no-
> obsceneties rule just to keep you happy. (Does that make any sense?)
I don't have any sort of problem with the no-obscenities rule. in fact, if
you dig through the early LUGNET archives, there was a discussion on whether
the rec.toys.lego should be carried on LUGNET. In that thread i advocated
carrying it here, but moderating it so the spam posts (and obscenities)
could be filtered out. Quite simply I would rather have been e-mailed about
this than had a pointed post made on the group. I post as I think (stream of
consciousness I suppose) and I sometimes I don't realize that I wrote what
you call "potty" words. If you think that I do it on purpose to piss you off
then you're sniffing too much ABS.
Anyhow, you read most if not all the messages posted here yes. If a "potty"
word gets posted why not edit it out. Can't speak for others, but I don't do
it on purpose.
> It's
> one of those "good of the many outweighs the good of the one" things. Of
> course, I'd *most* rather see you stop using obsceneties and *stay*, but
> that's your decision.
Chill holmes.
> Anyway, if you could re-read the Terms of Use to refresh your memory, that
> would be great.
> As far as public vs. private messages, please read below...
>
>
> > You've got a point there. Public praise, private criticism. (some good
> > advice that I ought to take myself sometimes (hi Mike P)....)
>
> Larry,
>
> Wouldn't you agree that while the public praise, private criticism formula
> is a workable approach for small teams of like-minded individuals and FTF
> groups, it's not really a workable approach for online forums with • archives?
>
> That is, while private criticism may work to put an end to transgressions
> (for lack of a better word) in particular cases, how does private criticism
> help clean up the messes after the fact? -- for example an auction update • to
> a non-auction group? In the past, only a very small percentage of private
> criticisms have resulted in someone voluntarily posting a follow-up to • their
> own message pointing out their transgression.
Now you KNOW I would have done that if you wanted. Cmon already.
> And note that simply
> cancelling an article doesn't work -- because the article may already have
> found its way into someone's newsreader.
>
> So (for example) an auction update posted to a non-auction group *can't* be
> left as-is. It *must* be followed-up with a message of some sort pointing
> out that auction announcements/updates belong only in the .market.auction
> group. If that isn't pointed out swiftly in each case, then people will
> gradually conclude that it's OK, will they not?
Posting a message about it is one thing. Ripping me is another.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Please help keep Tony K on LUGNET...
|
| (...) Tony, I don't understand. Could you explain to me why you should have been e-mailed about it? Do you mean to say that you weren't aware that you weren't supposed to talk with a potty mouth here? Or do you not consider "holy sh**" to be potty (...) (27 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
